Ancient bacteria with modern DNA, problem for evolution?

I'm surprised randman hasn't done this one, its right up his alley... Source 1 (techie science stuff) Source 2 (BBC article, a way for the layperson to get the gist)A good few years ago, bacteria was discovered in crystals buried in New Mexico. It was dated at about 250 million years old. The astonishing thing was that the bacteria entombed in the crystal was still alive! Naturally bioinformaticians clamoured over the bacteria and DNA testing was carried in short time.The discovery was most unusual. Despite the bacteria predating mammals, its DNA was very modern looking. This bacteria was given the name 2-9-3: Several ideas were put forward, perhaps Salibacillus marismortui is ancient? That seems to have been countered, maybe evolution rates are slower? Unfortunately if the rates were that slow then that means life was on earth 15Billion years ago.... So, the central paradox opens up plenty of questions for the biologists here and I'll paraphrase it. We have geological data which interprets these bacteria as being ancient. We have an equal amount of molecular evidence which says they are modern. This incongruence is precisely the kind of falsification test that evolutionists have been harping on about for Lord only knows how long. So, surely this classes as strong falsification for at least one of the methods used in dating the bacteria? Has this data be reconciled, or is it still one of the thorns that remains fixed in the side of evolutionary dogma?After some consideration I think Dates and Dating might be best.

From the article I linked to it seems implied that the tests were independently verified (eg when they talk about all the sterilization controls), but close reading does not support it. I am quite content to reject their results assuming that the critique is accurate. I'll check to see if there has been any response to criticisms.The other information, such as the stability of DNA and the failure of previous attempts, lends to my incredulity about this work. Why was the conclusion that perhaps the sterilization techniques in use failed at some time or that the crystal was contaminated at some earlier time not put forward even as a possibility?Your characterization of this as cold fusion for biology would seem to be well founded.

In all fairness, I wasn't using the BBC article as the prime source for the information, but instead the paper published in 'Molecular Biology and Evolution' in 2002. It depends It is quite useful to use this data to show flaws in the methods of the hunt for ancient DNA. It could be used as verification of molecular dating methods - it could be said to have succesfully predicted that the bacteria is not ancient. A bit of a stretch I suppose, but I don't think it's in the spirit of science to regard rejected data as totally useless Oh - and by the way - welcome to EvC!

A quick correction to my earlier post, I said:

quote:

---

Why was the conclusion that perhaps the sterilization techniques in use failed at some time or that the crystal was contaminated at some earlier time not put forward even as a possibility?

---

The conclusion was paid lip service as a 'historical criticism', implying that the criticism had been overturned. A little bold perhaps.

I think the idea was that the bacteria was dormant, and not reproducing for 250million years, springing back to life in the right conditions. It also seems that might be a load of crap. Welcome to EvC!

Indeed, hence my comment that, 'It also seems that might be a load of crap'.