Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
66 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,178 Year: 4,290/6,534 Month: 504/900 Week: 28/182 Day: 16/12 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ancient bacteria with modern DNA, problem for evolution?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 77 (340179)
08-15-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
08-15-2006 12:56 AM


people are people
People are people and have been creating myths for thousands of years. You just don't recognize the process when it comes to evolutionism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-15-2006 12:56 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 77 (340180)
08-15-2006 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RickJB
08-15-2006 1:11 AM


unsubstantiated garbage
Find one post where I use the Bible to argue against the Theory of Evolution, please, and if you cannot substantiate your argument, please retract it.

You won't find any because it's not my approach. Heck, there are even some parts of the Bible that sound like evolution: "let the waters bring forth...", but the issue with evolutionism is selective acceptance of data and logic, as we see here on this topic.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RickJB, posted 08-15-2006 1:11 AM RickJB has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Jazzns, posted 08-15-2006 9:29 AM randman has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3146 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 18 of 77 (340189)
08-15-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
08-15-2006 9:11 AM


Why do you debate?
Hey randman,

Please don't take this as an attack. Lately I have noticed that you don't seem to take a firm stance on any particular ground regarding the debate. You don't care about young vs old earth. You seem to even be okay with evolution if it is prescribed by an Intelligent Designer.

Is your main beef then just that you think that science rejects God? Are you offended by the methodological naturalism currently built into science?

I guess, I just don't understand anymore what your beef is? If your are interested, maybe we could take it to a new thread?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 08-15-2006 9:11 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 08-15-2006 9:41 AM Jazzns has taken no action

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5107 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 77 (340191)
08-15-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
08-14-2006 9:14 PM


Re: selective acceptance of data
Rand,

This appears to be another instance where you need to explain to me in words of one syllable or less ('cause after all, I'm an ignorant evilutionist) exactly why you think this bacterium poses any problem to the ToE. Ideally, I'd appreciate it if you could (for once) dispense with random insults, allusions to conspiracy, or claims of sheer scientific fraud/dogmatism/etc. Just plainly explain why you think this has any bearing on the ToE.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 08-14-2006 9:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 08-15-2006 9:46 AM Quetzal has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 77 (340194)
08-15-2006 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jazzns
08-15-2006 9:29 AM


Re: Why do you debate?
I have stated throughout my time here that I think the reasoning process of mainstream evolutionism is severely flawed and ignores data and reasoning, and is a believe first, understand later process that makes correcting errors and assessing data objectively very difficult. I could go on, but let's don't get off-topic.

Suffice to say, I have echoed the same refrain since I've been here, and have often pointed out that my reasons for rejecting ToE are not because of the Bible, etc,....but that I think mainstream evo theories are not fact-based.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jazzns, posted 08-15-2006 9:29 AM Jazzns has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 21 of 77 (340195)
08-15-2006 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Quetzal
08-15-2006 9:34 AM


Re: selective acceptance of data
Modulous lays out the details in the OP. The lack of change suggests that the molecular clock concept, often used in evo models, is incorrect. I will add that the immense amount of time for the bacteria to survive is a problem unless the time periods are off.

The discovery definitely poses a problem for some aspects of mainstream evo models.

As far as falsifying ToE, since the ToE is an inherently non-falsifiable theory, it probably is not possible to come up with any data that can do that, but that just shows the inherent flaw within ToE as a scientific theory, imo. It's considered true by definition, and so the data doesn't form the theory, but the theory the data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2006 9:34 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Admin, posted 08-15-2006 10:23 AM randman has taken no action
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2006 10:30 AM randman has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 22 of 77 (340208)
08-15-2006 10:04 AM


Temporarily Closing This Topic
I'm just doing a quick review, I'll reopen it soon.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 23 of 77 (340221)
08-15-2006 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
08-15-2006 9:46 AM


Re: selective acceptance of data
Hi Randman,

This thread is not about how "the evo solution is basically just to deny the evidence."

This thread is not about how you think "the reasoning process of mainstream evolutionism is severely flawed and ignores data and reasoning."

This thread is not about how "the ToE is an inherently non-falsifiable theory..."

This thread is about ancient bacteria with modern DNA.

By and large general observations and expressions of opinion are fine, but you are using threads as a vehicle not so much for discussion, though you do engage in some discussion, but more as opportunities to repeat your general observations and opinions. You are more than welcome to propose threads on any of these topics, and I will approve them as quickly as I can.

In the future please confine yourself to addressing the topic. From here on I will be suspending your posting privileges for 24 hours each time you fail to do so.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 08-15-2006 9:46 AM randman has taken no action

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5107 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 77 (340223)
08-15-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
08-15-2006 9:46 AM


Re: selective acceptance of data
I dunno, rand. There have been a lot of studies calling into question the assumptions (dating from Kimura's neutral evolution paper and continuing to the present) of the molecular clock either in toto or in part. Many of the more recent studies focus on the wide variance in mutation/substitution rate (remember: Kimura based his idea on a straight Poisson distribution, which doesn't appear to be the case generally, the devil being in the details). See, for example, Thomas JA, Welch JJ, Woolfit M, Bromham L, 2006, There is no universal molecular clock for invertebrates, but rate variation does not scale with body size, PNAS 103:7366-7371. There's an on-going research effort to figure out a way to "predict" and quantify the rate variances to permit the "molecular clock" idea to be useful. IOW, it's recognized that Kimura didn't have all the facts and figures right. Doesn't effect the ToE at all, as far as I can see. Additionally, in some cases Kimura's idea has been substantiated (see, for instance, Fitch WM, Ayala FJ 1995, "The Superoxide Dismutase Molecular Clock Revisited", in Fitch and Ayala, eds, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, National Academy Press, pg 235-250).

On the other hand, I'm still not clear why you think this bacteria poses a problem to evolution. In the first place, nothing cited thus far in this thread indicates that Vreeland's original hypothesis concerning the critter being that old has been substantiated. The article you cited simply asserts that the objections have been met, but without much in the way of evidence. Secondly, even if it were shown that everything Vreeland et al claimed was correct, I don't get why it would be a problem. You STATE that it's a problem, but still haven't explained why.

As far as falsifying ToE, since the ToE is an inherently non-falsifiable theory, it probably is not possible to come up with any data that can do that, but that just shows the inherent flaw within ToE as a scientific theory, imo. It's considered true by definition, and so the data doesn't form the theory, but the theory the data.

Couldn't make a single post without something like this, could you? Ah well, what did I expect?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 08-15-2006 9:46 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 08-15-2006 10:38 AM Quetzal has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 77 (340227)
08-15-2006 10:33 AM


OK
OK, here is the reason given that the discovery must be due to contanimation. There is nothing I can see about the procedures that suggests they were flawed. What the criticism is based on is that molecular studies indicate the bacteria must be young. Since the molecular clock angle is considered to be a fact, then any fact such as this that challenges that is considered to be erroneous, and so a circular reasoning is in effect.

Find something that demonstrates ancient bacteria were not so different than a current strain today, and this is dismissed because everyone knows ancient bacteria MUST BE different because ToE says so.

The other criticisms have been duly answered with published studies, but you cannot answer the last one as effectively because by it's very nature, it is a circular argument. The conclusion is taken as fact, the molecular clock angle, and so any data that disagrees with that conclusion must be contanimation even if the best measures were taken to prevent it.


Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 08-15-2006 10:57 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 77 (340228)
08-15-2006 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Quetzal
08-15-2006 10:30 AM


Re: selective acceptance of data
In the first place, nothing cited thus far in this thread indicates that Vreeland's original hypothesis concerning the critter being that old has been substantiated.

Did you read the links? There certainly has been published studies backing Vreeland up.

On the issue of the molecular clock, it may well be there are plenty that call that into question but that doesn't stop the chief and only remaining basis for criticism of Vreeland's find being molecular studies based on the molecular clock.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2006 10:30 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2006 11:31 AM randman has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 702 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 77 (340239)
08-15-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by randman
08-15-2006 10:33 AM


Re: OK
Find something that demonstrates ancient bacteria were not so different than a current strain today, and this is dismissed because everyone knows ancient bacteria MUST BE different because ToE says so.

When you've accrued such a weight of evidence for a theory that you have to be ignorant, or ideologically motivated, to reject it, then yes. You get to use the parts of the theory you've so substantiated as essentially fact.

Doesn't seem fair? By all means, I invite you to establish a similar weight of evidence for creationism.

The conclusion is taken as fact, the molecular clock angle, and so any data that disagrees with that conclusion must be contanimation even if the best measures were taken to prevent it.

Yes. That is because there is a million times as much confirming evidence for the molecular clock models as there is disconfirming evidence. And we do know that, despite our best human efforts, contamination does occur sometimes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by randman, posted 08-15-2006 10:33 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 08-15-2006 11:01 AM crashfrog has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 77 (340240)
08-15-2006 10:57 AM


btw, "problem for evolution"
The phrase "problem for evolution" is in Modulous' OP. So quetzal and others, I suggest you reread the OP and think about it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2006 11:25 AM randman has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 77 (340243)
08-15-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
08-15-2006 10:57 AM


Re: OK
That is because there is a million times as much confirming evidence for the molecular clock models as there is disconfirming evidence.

No, there is not, and merely saying there is evidence does not mean there is evidence.

qs By all means, I invite you to establish a similar weight of evidence for creationism.[/qs]

Your post is off-topic, and I won't be baited to getting banned. So don't expect me to do anything but ignore your posts, crash.

If you want to discuss the topic, please explain why the data should be ignored, crash, and if you cannot discuss the topic, then please don't foul up the thread with more off-topic posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 08-15-2006 10:57 AM crashfrog has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 08-15-2006 12:25 PM randman has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5107 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 77 (340253)
08-15-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
08-15-2006 10:57 AM


Re: btw, "problem for evolution"
Actually, Modulus carefully placed a question mark at the end of that phrase. Indeed, he has accepted Mammuthus's discussion of why the Vreeland discovery may not be valid. Irreproducible results in biology aren't uncommon - especially concerning "ancient" DNA studies which are subject to contamination, among many other problems. After that point in this discussion, you appear to be the only one who is still hanging on the "problem" issue - the concensus among the other participants (including me), appears to be that the jury is still out.

Since you're the one still insisting on the bacterium being a "problem" for the ToE, I guess I still need an explanation from you why this would be the case. I'm not even saying you're wrong - I'm saying I don't understand your argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 08-15-2006 10:57 AM randman has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022