Ancient bacteria with modern DNA, problem for evolution?

Hi Randman,I'm not sure whether it is best to reply as Admin or Percy, but I'll try Admin and hope for the best. This tells me that you're again trying to turn the topic to evolutionist misbehavior instead of discussing the topic. Lately, it would seem, no one can discuss anything with you without your rushing to judgment about evolutionist misbehavior. Given that nothing I've ever said has affected your behavior in the past, I will no longer try to persuade you to change. But if you don't change you will not be able to be here on a consistent basis. If you're already firm in this conclusion and are only interested from this point on in repeating this charge, then please stop participating in this thread. This thread is for discussion of the topic and not for accusing people of nonobjective thinking. Walking people through a logical analysis of why you think their thinking is non-objective is fine, but just stating it as a conclusion is not. You are confusing typical scientific reticence with dismissal. Awaiting replication is not dismissal. And the people you're discussing with are not the topic of this thread, so accusations of bias are off base. Not to involve myself in discussion of this topic as Admin, but I believe you are mistaken. Hasn't only Vreeland's group produced studies on this? A research group cannot do its own replication, you know. I explained this before. If you disagree with my analysis then you are free to present your own as rebuttal, but to just continue restating your initial misunderstanding over and over and over again seems willfully unconstructive.As I said earlier, Quetzal was only explaining that in science accepting unreplicated results would be like taking someone's word on just their say-so. He definitely did not state "...that peer-review articles are the equivalent of taking Vreeland's word..."I've spent enough time on this, you never listen anyway and I don't know why I bother, so here's the bottom line. Start spending your time discussing the topic and stop berating people or I will suspend you again.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

With all due respect and hear me out on this please, there is some confusion as to what I am saying here. I am not attacking or demeaning motives here as you surmise when saying there is a paradox or conflict between molecular dating and the find, but pointing out what public, scientific criticism of the find actually is. It's not me coming up with this analysis, but what critics of the find have come up. If you are saying we cannot acknowledge the molecular criticism of the find, then how are we suppossed to discuss the OP since that is the topic of this thread? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1375505.stmThis isn't belligerency on my part. The criticism of the find, such as in the study above, largely consists of it's disagreement with molecular dating techniques. That's what the OP was about, and that's what I have tried to stick to discussing.My frustration has been that things like the quotes above are being treated as if this is just my slur or my opinion on the matter, and it's hard to have a discussion about the meaning of a scientific debate if there isn't even an acknowledgement of what that debate is, and this isn't my opinion. The terms "paradox" are from the scientists themselves.As a sidenote: Vreeland does then offer a study to show that the microbes could not be from contamination. He is not saying the paradox is solved, however.Honestly percy, if you read the OP, it lays out this paradox as the topic of this thread, and so discussing the topic of the thread would seem to be on-topic, but if you want me to abandon the thread, I will. If you note, however, in bringing this back up, I have been the one providing links and studies to more recent studies and nerws on this, and I would think that is commendable, and what one is suppossed to do here.I realize things have been cantankerous, but that works both ways. If you had provided links, quotes, and studies showing that molecular dating was indeed the remaining primary criticism, I think you would be frustrated if someone said, without providing any substantiation, that you were just misreading the debate. it's hard to discuss facts when one side doesn't acknowledge their existence, and the facts here are the basis of scientific criticism in published peer-reviewed journals concerning the find.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

As Admin I am avoiding discussion of the topic and focusing on the Forum Guidelines. I will not be making decisions about who is right and wrong in the discussion. There is more than one way to handle frustration. In this particular case, you can continue to take your frustration out on those you're discussing with and face periodic involuntary absences, or you can follow the Forum Guidelines. Another possibility is to showcase you so that you are no longer subject to the Forum Guidelines. I actually think this latter possibility would be a good option for you. What do you think?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Since you asked what I think, I will respond. I am not asking to be showcased (you enjoy creating new verbs) though have asked to be able to start a thread there, and was rejected.But in all fairness, you are misreading my request. I am not asking you to decide who is right. The thread is suppossed to be about the contradiction of this find with molecular dating. So threatening me saying to stay off the thread if I want to discuss that point was bizarre. I mean what the heck, percy. We are suppossed to be talking about molecular criticism of the find. That's the doggone thread topic!This is the topic of this thread from the OP. ?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I have no idea where you got the idea I was asking you to avoid the topic of molecular dating. In this exchange I have hammered on how you have to follow the Forum Guidelines, stop berating people, and focus your attention on the topic.I seem unable to get my points across, and I don't want to expend more time moderating you, so I'm showcasing you. I'll move this thread there.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Randman has been showcased, meaning that among the debate forums he only has access to the [forum=-37] forum.Anyone desiring to discuss topics with Randman and who doesn't already have showcase access can apply at Showcase Forum Issues and Requests.I'm moving this thread to the Showcase forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread moved here from the Dates and Dating forum.

Really? Geesh, man. What about this? I said the truth is scientists are questioning the find based on molecular studies. I provided actual quotes of this. You said if I was convinced of this, stay off the thread.I assumed you misunderstood me, and so said, hey percy, I am not trying to demean evos here, but actually am talking about the scientific controversy. In other words, the comment referred to the public criticism of the find, not what evos here at EvC think.Then, you slam me, ban me from the QM thread as well, etc,....stating you have no idea where I got the idea you were forbidding me to discuss the molecular data.Well, let me remind you. What the heck am I suppossed to think when you post? The charge you consider so off-topic is the topic itself, the molecular dating conflicting with the find.You need to grow up some, man. This is absurd. You banned me for actually talking about the thread topic.What the heck?Edit to add: what you didn't seem to appreciate percy is my refusal to discuss the ToE as a whole, which Quetzal demanded, and instead tried to stick to discussing the molecular data was due to your requests the thread stay on topic.Quetzal, of course, was allowed by you to continually demand I state how this affects ToE as a whole and conceded that the molecular clock idea was flawed (which essentially meant he had little to offer this discussion on some points, except for the idea of questi0ning the data), and of course, I could only answer within the scope of the OP that it addresses the molecular dating issue, that this is what the thread is suppossed to be about. So while you berate me, coincidentally whenever pointing out factual flaws with evo models, it seems that free reign is given to others to demand I offer creationist models or whatever, and to freely demean me and any other critic while simultaneously demanding off-topic material, and of course, to expand the discussion to the treatment of other areas of data, such as whale fossils, just results in my banning.It's your forum. So do what you want, but always insisting it's the critic of evolution that is the bad guy is wearing thin.You may want to notice on the QM thread, that your claims in other threads that no credible scientists think QM violates causality, has been refuted, and yet at the time, you near banned me or maybe did for trying to bring that point up. One wonders had PaulK, Crash, or some of the usual bunch jumped on me on the current QM thread, would you have commended my post, as you did, or berated and banned me for upsetting the apple-cart?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Hi Randman,Your skill at finding unintended meanings is way more powerful than my ability to overcome, so I won't attempt any further clarifications. You're here now, you can do what you want without fear of moderation.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

To Everyone,It occurred to me later that it would be a good idea to reply to Randman's last message, not for Randman's sake, because he will continue to make whatever misinterpretations are necessary for maintaining his own image of himself, but for everyone else. If I don't do so then Randman's message will be the last on the subject, perhaps leading some to conclude his misinterpretation is correct.This is the most important part that Randman doesn't seem to understand: Randman's reply indicates that he thinks I was saying that if he's convinced of his conclusions to stay off the thread. What I actually said (and I'll say it in slightly different words this time) was that if he's already firm in the conclusion to the point where he's only interested in repeating the charge and not in discussion that he should stop participating. I said this because he was engaging in a pattern of berating respondents, primarily Quetzal, with charges of inappropriate dismissal, ignoring research and dodging issues, and he would do it without actually addressing anything that was actually said. They would take this type of form (knowing Randman's proclivities, in case he replies let me state even more clearly that this is not intended as a direct quote. It's intended as an illustration of the style of his replies): Now, the person Randman is replying to probably provided some detailed explanation, but Randman rarely addresses them in any direct way, believing in his mind that everything he said previously was correct, and that therefore any rebuttal can be safely ignored, leaving him with only the task of pointing out that he has "already proven this." (again, not intended as a direct quote)And we see the same pattern, expressed variously, of course, over and over and over again. If this is the way Randman chooses to participate, then he will be restricted to Showcase. I could have instead left his permissions intact and continued following him around the threads issuing suspensions every so often, but this is very time consuming, especially if you're trying to be fair every time he's suspended by providing both documentation and explanation.Randman seems to be one of those people who believe that if he did it, it's right, and he's willing to defend his actions, no matter how indefensible, ad infinitum. So now he's here and he can do whatever he wants without fear of moderation. Anyone wishing to continue discussion with Randman can apply at Showcase Forum Issues and Requests.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi, randman.The puzzle for me, and I think for others, is why you consider this a problem for evolution or evolutionists.The history of science is a succession of changes. Investigators are often finding data that appears to conflict with accepted theory. It is these apparent conflicts that drive much of the scientific discovery process.

I hadn't intended on posting today because I think it could be prudent to take some time to address admin's comments about me, and other comments. Nevertheless, upon reflection, rather than consider being showcased (what a juvenile expression taken in context) as some sort of shame, etc,....it might actually be an opportunity to maintain greater civility. I realize that the evos here think somehow I am the problem, or other creationists, but a large part of the reason many threads go awry is that evos refuse to engage the points raised by their critics, imo, and are allowed to engage in rules-breaking, slurs, etc,....and when critics respond in-kind, the creationist, IDer, or evo-critic is blamed.Perhaps here without the advantage of selective moderation, just my opinion mind you, the debate can advance in a more civil and responsible manner.Sorry to post that in a response to you nwr, but I thought that needed to be said up-front for everyone.In response to your question, I think perhaps the best way to approach this would be first to ask you what areas of evo models do you think could be affected by this find, assuming it and other ancient bacteria do indeed resemble modern bacteria?What sort of implications and conclusions would you draw from that?If I know where we perhaps already agree or disagree, I think the discussion can be more fruitful.

It might require revision and refinement of assumptions about the molecular clock (as already suggested by Quetzal).If an organism should happen to be well adapted to a fairly constant environment, there isn't any particular reason it has to change. My own expectation would be that mutations would contribute to an increase in variability. But if particular bacteria are already carrying a maximal amount of variability, there isn't anything that could increase.Keep in mind that I'm not a biologist.

Paradox of the Ancient Bacterium Which Contains Modern Protein-Coding Genes | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford AcademicIf the bacteria is truly ancient, then the first consequence is probably not just a revision of the molecular clock concept, but perhaps an abandonment of molecular dating as valid altogether. Abandonment of molecular dating would affect every study and paper which bases some of it's reasoning on molecular dating.This could affect phylogenies and concepts related to the vaunted nested heirarchies too. For example, if this strain is more closely related genetically to a modern strain but at the same time is separated by 250 million years, then as you suggest above the evo argument would be that the bacteria need not have evolved as it was particularly suited for it's environment.But that is basically a guess. There is no evidence yet this is the case. What if the case is that there is no reason for the bacteria not to have evolved further. Stating as you do that the bacteria carries a maximal amount of variability, btw, sounds like a creationist argument since the evo position is there is no maximal amount of variability since mutations can always occur.The evo stance is that environmental conditions would dictate stasis due to a lack of pressures to select for mutations.So let's consider that we have evidence of bacteria evolving very little for 250 million years, and we cannot justify that is better suited in it's niche. Then, part of the justification for nested heirarchies as evidence for common descent falls apart. You can build a tree based on genetic similarities and say, hey, this is a nested heirarchy, but all you are doing is showing similarity patterns. If there is closer similarity for relatives that are more distant time-wise, and further similarity for near "relatives" time-wise, then maybe assuming genetic similarity is the result of common descent is just that, an assumption, and all nested heirarchies show is similarity, and that being the case, so what?

I don't see that. The worst I could see would be to change an equality to an inequality. That is, a measurement of age based on the amount of mutation might set a lower bound for the age instead a providing a reasonable age estimate.But you are jumping the gun. As others have indicated, there might merely be a problem of contamination, resulting in bad data. Until you have eliminated that possibility, you cannot conclude anything. And even if that possibility is eliminated, further experimentation would be needed to better understand what is happening. Science theories aren't just invented on a whim, they come out of careful studies that attempt to understand the processes involved. As indicated before, I'm not a biologist. My knowledge of bacteria is particularly limited. For sexually reproducing creatures, one must distinguish between phenotype and genotype. My own view is that we should expect to see gradual evolution of the genotype, but punctuated equilibrium (periods of stasis and bursts of change) in the phenotype. During a period of phenotype stasis, the genome could be building up variation with mainly unexpressed genes (or rarely expressed genes), and at a later time and under selection pressures, some combination of the new genes could lead to relatively rapid change in phenotype. The change would involve some reorganization, in that rarely expressed genes would now be more commonly expressed. Only if that can be seen to happen for all organisms. That one particular group did not evolve, would just show an interesting peculiarity about that group.I think it best to wait till all of the evidence is in.