Ancient bacteria with modern DNA, problem for evolution?

Fine. That's your opinion. If you want to say that's your opinion, fine, but stating that it is other people's opinions when they have not stated that is what I am getting at. You claimed, for example, modulous had stated that, and that was the consensus of the people on the thread and that was incorrect.The consensus until I posted was no follow-up studies had been done. That was false, and I provided studies or articles about those studies to prove my point. Based on that, the consensus by the evos was it could be false since there were no follow-up studies (an erroneous impression), not that if it were true, it was not significant as you suggested. Until a moderator intervenes and points out that you have been answered several times, I guess I will keep pointing out the OP. Here is part of the OP once again. Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Quetzal, this thread is about dating techniques as it is in the section, Dates and Dating. You seem to agree that molecular dating techniques are flawed. Good for you. Do you agree that the principal objection to this find is that it contradicts molecular dating?Yes or no.If you disagree, do you think if the find agreed with molecular dating, that there would be such a controversy?I think if we can come to an agreement on the questions above, we can consider, perhaps on a different thread devoted to that or maybe on this thread, the significance for ToE as a whole if evo assumptions about mutational rates are wrong. For example, how would this affect molecular phylogenies?But to just insist the conversation ignore the OP is not going to work. So are you saying that molecular dating techniques are wrong anyway, and for you at least, that your only objection to this find is that it isn't yet confirmed with more finds?

Oh, so Vreeland's an expert now, eh? Vreeland has sought to find some ways the find could still be compatible with molecular dating.....Hmmm, why would he do that?Could it be that, just maybe, the fact the find disagrees with molecular dating is the real beef with the find? Couldn't be that, could it? My references to data being rejected because they disagree with the theory are clearly and unequivocally referring to the find itself, which has been rejected by some because it conflicts with theory.Got that? Amazing you could have read the thread and the articles about the controversy and not grasped this basic fact. Did you read this? | American ScientistHow about this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1375505.stmHow about this? Paradox of the Ancient Bacterium Which Contains Modern Protein-Coding Genes | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford AcademicThis last reference which is cited on this thread in the OP, is titled "The Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes." That's the topic of the OP. If no one really discounts the find based on molecular studies as you claim, then what's the fuss about? Why is the paper titled "The Paradox....", and why have subsequent studies tried to dismiss the find claiming the bacteria are too similar to modern strains to be ancient?It seems like you are just denying the basic facts of what the debate is here. That may be. If so, then I assume you have no problem in theory with the idea that ancient bacteria resemble modern strains or are nearly identical? I assume your answer is yes, and with that, can we now discuss the OP, such as the paper linked in the OP? Well, let's look at the first paragraph in Vreeland's paper again. So what happens is ancient bacteria are found, you admit that, but they always resemble modern bacteria, right? And the criticism is that the bacteria have to be contaminants since they should be different and are not.Just how many times does ancient bacteria have to be found that disagree with molecular assumptions before you guys say the finds have been replicated? So you believe all the other teams that found ancient bacteria that resembled modern bacteria are somehow the same team? Or do they all have to find the exact same strains in the exact same places? Seems like you are just moving the goalposts here. How often do scientists have to find ancient bacteria before you guys will say finding ancient bacteria has been replicated? Corroboration on what point? That the crystals really were that old? They have corroborated that. That ancient bacteria have been found that resemble modern bacteria. Other teams have corroborated that. Cold fusion was considered something extraordinary. You, on the other hand, insist that ancient bacteria looking like modern bacteria is no big deal. So the finds in your book are relatively uncontroversial, correct?And where are the studies that have failed to replicate these findings? If we are to take criticism seriously, the critics need to provide instances where they tried to duplicate these efforts and failed, right?You agree that asserting that just because the bacteria look like modern bacteria is not a valid criticism, I assume, right? What's skeptical about the find? You have stated that it's not the fact the ancient bacteria look like modern bacteria, right? Isn't the case though that the real opposition to these finds is that ancient bacteria look like modern bacteria and thus confound molecular assumptions?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Did it go right over your head why this was objectionable? If so, the paper cited in the OP might help, if you would read it. It is titled, "The Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes." The paradox is summed up nicely. Paradox of the Ancient Bacterium Which Contains Modern Protein-Coding Genes | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford AcademicThe OP also requests the participants address this question. You appear to consistently deny such a paradox exists in this debate.Why? You appear here to realize the controversy is about how the find affects molecular assumptions, but it's hard to know since you denied that above. If the differences are so great, that even with more time, revisions to the molecular clock indicate that mutations cannot be responsible for evolving from one common ancestor to the others, then ToE is greatly affected because the mechanism of natural selection acting upon random mutatons will have been shown to be insufficient a mechanism for organic macro-evolution.

Just to remind everyone what the thread is about and the basic controversy in scientific circles, this is it in a nutshell. Paradox of the Ancient Bacterium Which Contains Modern Protein-Coding Genes | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford AcademicEdited by randman, : No reason given.

nwr, does that mean within the EvC controversy, since it is a controversy, that you think all sides are reasonable and no creationist conspiracy exists too? So there is no cause for concern for the ID and creationist movements and their ideas to be taught in schools, etc,....?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Quetzal, do I have to repost all of this for you to finally acknowledge that opposition to the find is based on the fact molecular studies indicate it must be of recent origin? It's getting absurd to hear you continually deny the obvious and try to avoid the OP altogether.You also seeem to have forgotten that I pointed out already Vreeland was trying to find a way to make the ancient bacteria "fit" due to being more different to modern bacteria than other finds. However, your ludicrous assumption this nullifies the paradox is unfounded.First, the opposition to the find is still basing their opposition on molecular studies. Second, this is not the only find. As Vreeland points out, nearly all finds of ancient bacteria confound molecular dating. So the paradox remains. Vreeland does offer soms ways that perhaps molecular dating can be fooled but be a valid concept. One you mention, but another is that ancient bacteria could be rereleased to the wild, but exploring these options does not mean the opposition to the finds based on their stark incongruence with molecular dating has ended.Moreover, the fact he is able to put a little more distance between the ancient bacteria and the modern strain still doesn't solve the problem as you claim.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

nwr, you might want to take a look at this. Paradox of the Ancient Bacterium Which Contains Modern Protein-Coding Genes | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford AcademicNote the phrase above early on "phylogenetic analysis" which is based on molecular studies. Both the dating methods cannot be right. Either the molecular dating is wrong, or the dating based on the geology is wrong. So the significance is that one of these is wrong, and it's a big deal. Read through some papers, such as Woese's paper on that thread, and you can see molecular analysis play a very large role in analyzing data.Now, you and other raise the issue of contamination, but this is not the first ancient bacteria showing similarities to modern bacteria. Are we to continually assume contamination every time, even with stringent sterilzation measures?Now, it could be that demanding more evidence is reasonable, but I have noted that when a study or find comes up, such as the molecular study on a gene found in the parathyroid and the precursor to fish gills or some such or the initial find of Pakicetus or really just about every piece of data, real or imagined, that could favor ToE, evos are all over it like white on rice trumpetting the data as solid evidence for ToE.So there appears to be a double-standard in the standards evos use to accept or reject data, stricter standards for data that is problematic for evos, and looser standards for data that supports ToE, and this bias, imo, is why so many errors and overstatments and in the case of Haeckel's stuff, outright frauds, work their way into the accepted lore of so-called "facts" supporting evolution. Furthermore, as these discoveries are heralded widely in the media and school, the public gets the impression of a mountain of evidence for ToE without every realizing that most of it was subsequently shown to be erroneous.I realize this gets us to a new topic and plan to start a thread when I have time on selective use and acceptance of data, here in Showcase.