The Lazarus Bacteria

[mindlight]

A bacteria found in 2000 in salt crystals seems not to have been contaminated and to be in its original salt casing as the salt has not recrystalised. But contextually it can be dated at 250 million years by the commonly accepted Evolutionist consensus. Most scientists agree this should be impossible under normal circumstances. Since its DNA is not substantially different from modern bacteria it raises questions challenging the whole dating scheme used by evolutionists and indeed the process of evolution itself. If the DNA has not changed from the old time frame to the new one then maybe evolution itself is not a proper explanation.

The more likely explanation is that the bacterium is only 4500 years old which fits a creationist time frame very well


"Here we report the isolation and growth of a previously unrecognized spore-forming bacterium (Bacillus species, designated 2-9-3) from a brine inclusion within a 250 million-year-old salt crystal from the Permian Salado Formation.......Delicate crystal structures and sedimentary features indicate the salt has not recrystallized since formation. Samples were rejected if brine inclusions showed physical signs of possible contamination. Surfaces of salt crystal samples were sterilized with strong alkali and acid before extracting brines from inclusions. Sterilization procedures reduce the probability of contamination to less than 1 in 10 9."
http://www.nature.com/articles/35038060

"We find that 2-9-3 differs from a modern halophile, Salibacillus marismortui, by just 3 unambiguous bp in 16S rDNA, versus the approximately 59 bp that would be expected if these bacteria evolved at the same rate as other bacteria."
Curiously modern DNA for a "250 million-year-old" bacterium. - PubMed - NCBI

"In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old. They were shocked that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates). In addition, the scientists were surprised to find that the DNA was still intact after the supposed 250 million years. DNA normally breaks down quickly, even in ideal conditions. Even evolutionists agree that DNA in bacterial spores (a dormant state) should not last more than a million years. Their quandary is quite substantial."
#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria"

 

[essentialsaltes]

I wonder if extremophiles are under such significant environmental stress that the the mutation rate is slower.

"We find that 2-9-3 differs from a modern halophile, Salibacillus marismortui, by just 3 unambiguous bp in 16S rDNA, versus the approximately 59 bp that would be expected if these bacteria evolved at the same rate as other bacteria."

So it has 5% of the expected mutations, so that means it's only 12.5 million years old. Not really much of a help for the young earthers.

 

[mindlight]

I wonder if extremophiles are under such significant environmental stress that the the mutation rate is slower.

"We find that 2-9-3 differs from a modern halophile, Salibacillus marismortui, by just 3 unambiguous bp in 16S rDNA, versus the approximately 59 bp that would be expected if these bacteria evolved at the same rate as other bacteria."

So it has 5% of the expected mutations, so that means it's only 12.5 million years old. Not really much of a help for the young earthers.

There are between 160000 and 12.2m base pairs in a bacteria. I think Bacillus genomes generally come in at about 4m. If so 3 differences in 4 million is statistically irrelevant and you could probably observe that kind of differentiation between individual bacteria of that name today. Phylogenetic genome classification only requires about a 96.6% match. Do the math 3 divided by 4million means a better than 99.9% match.

Also the effect of stress on bacteria is only measurable if we accept their contextual placement as a way of deciding dating. So it is moot discussion that requires a person accept the dating scheme before then comparing levels of mutation in what is subjectively regarded as a stressy environment compared to what is subjectively regarded as a stress free environment. Since there is no guarantee of the audit trail it is all speculation.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There are between 160000 and 12.2m base pairs in a bacteria. I think Bacillus genomes generally come in at about 4m.

Which is irrelevant, because they were specifically looking at 16S rDNA.

 

[mindlight]

Which is irrelevant, because they were specifically looking at 16S rDNA.

Even if I accept that it was valid to single out a single gene or indeed single strand from many of 16S rDNA to compare to the genome of this find with modern examples the difference is still statistically irrelevant as the study results also stated.

There are some 1500 base pairs in 16S rDNA and so 3 unambiguous differences is only 0.2% difference. So really no difference and not necessarily anything to do with anything except a mild microevolutionary level of mutations possible in millennia rather than millions of years.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"There are some 1500 base pairs in 16S rDNA and so 3 unambiguous differences is only 0.2% difference. "

So it says in the full article you cite above.

http://geocryology.com/wp-content/u...-DNA-for-a-250-Million-Year-Old-Bacterium.pdf

The article also offers other reasons why the original claim is suspect.

 

[Job 33:6]

"There are some 1500 base pairs in 16S rDNA and so 3 unambiguous differences is only 0.2% difference. "

So it says in the full article you cite above.

http://geocryology.com/wp-content/u...-DNA-for-a-250-Million-Year-Old-Bacterium.pdf

The article also offers other reasons why the original claim is suspect.

I've also found this.

Permian Bacterium that Isn't | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

I am a fan of west chester and I know they have some smart people over there. But it looks like they could use a bit of additional supporting research to reach their conclusion of a 250 mya bacteria, as cool as it sounds...

An interesting read, none the less.

 

[Tanj]

An interesting read, none the less.

Well, maybe 17 years ago when it was published, but I guess that's about as uptodate as answersingenesis gets.

 

[mindlight]

"There are some 1500 base pairs in 16S rDNA and so 3 unambiguous differences is only 0.2% difference. "

So it says in the full article you cite above.

http://geocryology.com/wp-content/u...-DNA-for-a-250-Million-Year-Old-Bacterium.pdf

The article also offers other reasons why the original claim is suspect.

The article does 3 things:

1) It affirms that there is almost no difference between the bacteria found by Vreeland and the modern equivalent

"these ambiguous differences are likely to reflect sequence artifacts rather than actual differences"

2) While recognising the stringent anticontamination procedures taken by Vreeland it doubts that there was no contamination.

" It is not hard to imagine that water seeped into this formation (e.g., during a recent glacial maximum within the last 100,000 years), resulting in the formation of new salt crystals in an otherwise old geological formation. In contrast to their elaborate controls for contamination, they did not present any data to verify the age of the crystal from which they extracted the bacteria. Hazen and Roedder (2001) have argued that the clarity of the crystal from which they extracted strain 2-9-3 is consistent with this crystal being of a more recent origin."

3) Expresses doubts that a bacteria could last this long even inside a salt crystal.

"From Arahal et al. (1999), we know that S. marismortui can survive for 57 years in 500 ml of salt water supplemented with peptone, but this qualitative observation of survival tells us nothing about the half-life of strain 2-9-3. If long-term experiments show that the half-life of strain 2-9-3 in salt water is but a few months or years, Vreeland et al.’s claim would be severely undercut. Second, Vreeland et al. should work hard to perform carbon-14 dating (or other radioactive dating techniques) on samples from inclusion bodies in other crystals from the same location of the Salado for
Fig. 2. The maximum-likelihood tree (under an HKY + model of evolution) for strain 2-9-3 and its five close sister taxa. We would expect the branch leading to B. marismortui to be 12 to 24 times longer if that species had evolved for 250 Myr longer than strain 2-9-3. Our analysis shows that we cannot reject a molecular clock for this tree, indicating that the tree depicted here is not significantly more likely than one with all the branches ending at the same time. Assuming that Vreeland et al. are correct in their claim of antiquity, the rate homogeneity gives us the ability to date the divergences in the tree based on a rate determined by 2-9-3. This rate, for example, would predict B. subtilis and S. marismortui to have diverged from each other 5.8 billion years ago.
136
mation. If these crystals are more than a million years old, there should be essentially no 14C left in these samples. While this idea about using 14C can be criticized for requiring large samples, the ability to date these crystals independently is critical (Hazen and Roedder, 2001). Until these or comparable experiments are completed, Vreeland et al.’s claim that strain 2-9-3 is a 250 Myr-old bacterium must be viewed with serious skepticism."

The scepticism is to be expected when the find is so dangerous to the evolutionary theory and undercuts to the extent that it does the assumptions about age implicit in the geological dating scheme.

 

[mindlight]

I've also found this.

Permian Bacterium that Isn't | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

I am a fan of west chester and I know they have some smart people over there. But it looks like they could use a bit of additional supporting research to reach their conclusion of a 250 mya bacteria, as cool as it sounds...

An interesting read, none the less.

That article essentially says:

1) The bacteria is the same as the ones we see today
2) If the bacteria evolved at the current observable rate then it should not be the same

Therefore it must be wrong cause it is the same. An alternate and better conclusion would be that the whole dating scheme is wrong.

 

[mindlight]

Well, maybe 17 years ago when it was published, but I guess that's about as uptodate as answersingenesis gets.

Creationists unresolved questions about evolution date back to 1859!!! That one of our unresolved questions is only 17 years old just means that evolutionists have had that long to answer the question and have been unable to.

 

[Tanj]

Creationists unresolved questions about evolution date back to 1859!!! That one of our unresolved questions is only 17 years old just means that evolutionists have had that long to answer the question and have been unable to.

Well, no, more accurately we have been answering them over and over again and creationists cannot, or will not, understand the answer. But it's all good. My side won. Time to move on.

 

[mindlight]

Well, no, more accurately we have been answering them over and over again and creationists cannot, or will not, understand the answer. But it's all good. My side won. Time to move on.

Time will tell

 

[Job 33:6]

The article does 3 things:

1) It affirms that there is almost no difference between the bacteria found by Vreeland and the modern equivalent

"these ambiguous differences are likely to reflect sequence artifacts rather than actual differences"

2) While recognising the stringent anticontamination procedures taken by Vreeland it doubts that there was no contamination.

" It is not hard to imagine that water seeped into this formation (e.g., during a recent glacial maximum within the last 100,000 years), resulting in the formation of new salt crystals in an otherwise old geological formation. In contrast to their elaborate controls for contamination, they did not present any data to verify the age of the crystal from which they extracted the bacteria. Hazen and Roedder (2001) have argued that the clarity of the crystal from which they extracted strain 2-9-3 is consistent with this crystal being of a more recent origin."

3) Expresses doubts that a bacteria could last this long even inside a salt crystal.

"From Arahal et al. (1999), we know that S. marismortui can survive for 57 years in 500 ml of salt water supplemented with peptone, but this qualitative observation of survival tells us nothing about the half-life of strain 2-9-3. If long-term experiments show that the half-life of strain 2-9-3 in salt water is but a few months or years, Vreeland et al.’s claim would be severely undercut. Second, Vreeland et al. should work hard to perform carbon-14 dating (or other radioactive dating techniques) on samples from inclusion bodies in other crystals from the same location of the Salado for
Fig. 2. The maximum-likelihood tree (under an HKY + model of evolution) for strain 2-9-3 and its five close sister taxa. We would expect the branch leading to B. marismortui to be 12 to 24 times longer if that species had evolved for 250 Myr longer than strain 2-9-3. Our analysis shows that we cannot reject a molecular clock for this tree, indicating that the tree depicted here is not significantly more likely than one with all the branches ending at the same time. Assuming that Vreeland et al. are correct in their claim of antiquity, the rate homogeneity gives us the ability to date the divergences in the tree based on a rate determined by 2-9-3. This rate, for example, would predict B. subtilis and S. marismortui to have diverged from each other 5.8 billion years ago.
136
mation. If these crystals are more than a million years old, there should be essentially no 14C left in these samples. While this idea about using 14C can be criticized for requiring large samples, the ability to date these crystals independently is critical (Hazen and Roedder, 2001). Until these or comparable experiments are completed, Vreeland et al.’s claim that strain 2-9-3 is a 250 Myr-old bacterium must be viewed with serious skepticism."

The scepticism is to be expected when the find is so dangerous to the evolutionary theory and undercuts to the extent that it does the assumptions about age implicit in the geological dating scheme.

Perhaps you didnt actually read the links that were posted.

 

[mindlight]

Perhaps you didnt actually read the links that were posted.

Did you - those are direct quotes? Or is it the rose tinted glasses (read blindly accepted interpretative models) that are the problem here?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The article does 3 things:

A fourth thing the paper does (and the thing that was most convincing to me) is that it points out that the original claimants did not provide support for their dating of the salt crystals. Although the formation may have some known geological identity and age associated with it, salt dissolves and crystallizes readily.

 

[mindlight]

A fourth thing the paper does (and the thing that was most convincing to me) is that it points out that the original claimants did not provide support for their dating of the salt crystals. Although the formation may have some known geological identity and age associated with it, salt dissolves and crystallizes readily.

People put the effort in to debunking this cause it would damage the whole evolutionist paradigm. If contamination, crystallisation, or whatever formative events that might influence or distort the results obtained from the sample can never be ruled out then what is supporting the dating of any sample, any fossil or any rock? The very techniques used to question this example can be used to cast doubt on the validity of any evidence given enough scrutiny.

Indeed that is the easier argument for a creationist to make. Just use the same tools that are used to ridicule and degrade evidence against their idolatry against them. That you have no facts that survive this level of testing. That the false certainty that evolutionists have over an old earth can be destroyed by the very techniques they use when they find evidence against its age.

 

[essentialsaltes]

People put the effort in to debunking this cause it would damage the whole evolutionist paradigm. If contamination, crystallisation, or whatever formative events that might influence or distort the results obtained from the sample can never be ruled out then what is supporting the dating of any sample, any fossil or any rock?

Do you understand the difference between a rock and salt?

A fifth thing the paper does is to suggest that the contents of these crystals (or ones from the same location) be subjected to radiometric dating in order to help determine the actual age of the samples. This was not done.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's exactly right ^.

When dealing with impurities, inclusions and cross cutting relations, as well as precipitated minerals, you aren't dealing with the Permian rock body itself. Asking the authors to date the mineral feature is justified. It looks like another researcher discussed heterogeneaty in the underlying aquifer as well. This draws into question the source of the precipitated fluids.

@mindlight scientists realistically are more ruthless in attacking one another's ideas than I would say than we are with young earther ideas. It isn't a conspiracy, it's just how progress is made.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has been moved to the Creation & Evolution sub-forum. ​

Please note and abide by the SOP of this forum.​

MOD HAT OFF​