Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ancient bacteria with modern DNA, problem for evolution?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 61 of 67 (340834)
08-17-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by randman
08-16-2006 10:08 PM


Re: selective acceptance of data
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.
I think you know they would not. These are the points, imo, being consistently ignored.
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.
The simple fact of the matter is this find is being dismissed because it doesn't fit evo molecular assumptions.
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.
Keep in mind the argument here has been that the find is probably suspect, which is way too strong a description. If you want to caution that until we find more ancient bacteria, we may need to be cautious, that's one thing, but dismissing the find outright when the pattern so often is to embrace initial finds that support ToE indicates to me a bias.
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.
Also, before I got on the thread, the talk suggested no follow-up studies had confirmed the original finding, and that was bogus. There have been follow-up studies, and imo I was the one on this thread bringing the facts to light.
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 don't see the issues being addressed. Stating that peer-review articles are the equivalent of taking Vreeland's word for it is a bogus argument...So when someone posts these studies represent nothing more than someone's say-so, I have to wonder if a creationist took that approach, what the reaction would be? The peer-reviewed papers are not merely someone's say-so.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 08-16-2006 10:08 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 08-17-2006 1:39 PM Admin has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 62 of 67 (340841)
08-17-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Admin
08-17-2006 1:21 PM


Re: selective acceptance of data
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.
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?
To reach their conclusion, Professor Graur and Dr Pupko downloaded the genetic information about strain 2-9-3, sometimes called B. permians, from the GenBank directory on the internet. They then compared 2-9-3's genes with those of modern bacteria to see how different they were.
According to the molecular clock model, the more they differed, the greater the time difference between the two strains of bacteria. That is, the longer that 2-9-3 has existed, the greater would be the number of mutations it would have accumulated when compared with a bacteria alive today.
If strain 2-9-3 was very similar to modern bacteria it could not be all that old, the Israeli scientists believed.
They found that 2-9-3 was genetically almost identical to a "modern" species of common bacteria, S. marismortui.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1375505.stm
This 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:
In a paper published online August 30, 2005 in the journal Extremophiles, Vreeland presented evidence that four strains of Permian microbes (2-9-3 and three others that were found later) are different enough from modern relatives in a number of categories that they could not arise from contamination.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Admin, posted 08-17-2006 1:21 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 08-17-2006 1:51 PM randman has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 63 of 67 (340845)
08-17-2006 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by randman
08-17-2006 1:39 PM


Re: selective acceptance of data
randman writes:
Honestly percy, if you read the OP...
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.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 08-17-2006 1:39 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 08-17-2006 2:08 PM Admin has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 64 of 67 (340851)
08-17-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Admin
08-17-2006 1:51 PM


Re: selective acceptance of data
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.
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?
?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 08-17-2006 1:51 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Admin, posted 08-17-2006 3:05 PM randman has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 65 of 67 (340859)
08-17-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by randman
08-17-2006 2:08 PM


Re: selective acceptance of data
randman writes:
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 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 08-17-2006 2:08 PM randman has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 66 of 67 (340860)
08-17-2006 3:11 PM


Randman Has Been Showcased
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

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 67 of 67 (340863)
08-17-2006 3:11 PM


Thread copied to the Ancient bacteria with modern DNA, problem for evolution? thread in the Showcase forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024