The Lazarus Bacteria

[mark kennedy]

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.

The extremophiles have a unique genome, there is no way you get that kind of divergence from mutations:

M. jannaschii The organism has 1,738 genes. Methanococcus jannaschii was like nothing scientists had ever seen before—more than half its genes were completely new. Only 44 percent of the genes matched DNA sequences of known genes. For instance, only 11 percent of the genes in H. influenzae and 17 percent of those in M. genitalium matched a sequence from M. jannaschii. By comparison the two bacteria were very similar: 83 percent of M. genitalium genes had a counterpart in H. influenzae. (The First Sequenced Extremophile, Genome News Network)​

Some molecular mechanism would have to facilitate adaptive evolution on the scale.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In other words, you have no deffinition [sic] which supports your claims. But as the deffinition [sic] given does support my claims.......

I love it when people say things like this. It shows that they don't listen and aren't interested in the truth, only in their preconceived ideas. Let's see how the rest of your post fails to support your position....

The biological species concept is the most widely accepted species concept.

You mean it's not the only one? So you are cherry picking definitions in an attempt to make a point?

Talk about ignoring what doesn’t fit ones [sic] model.

Indeed. Others can tell you again and again and again but it just gets ignored and handwaved away.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I love it when people say things like this. It shows that they don't listen and aren't interested in the truth, only in their preconceived ideas. Let's see how the rest of your post fails to support your position....

You mean how yours fails.

You mean it's not the only one? So you are cherry picking definitions in an attempt to make a point?

And yet was the ONLY deffinition given in this post, which you apparently subscribed to since you referenced it being posted and have provided no other... despite my specifically asking, you referenced back to the deffinition given, which you now seek to avoid following, imagine that. All I hear is double-talk in your attempt to avoid truth.

Indeed. Others can tell you again and again and again but it just gets ignored and handwaved away.

Indeed, because those others ignore what is right in front of their eyes and the definitions, just like you. They handwave it away just as you have attempted to do....

Before you complain of hand waving you should first stop the repeated shaking of your entire body because of your incessant hand waving....

It’s called the Ostrich maneuver, evolutionists have it down pat.

 

[Larniavc]

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

Is it though?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And yet was the ONLY deffinition [sic] given in this post,

I'm not sure which part of "it's not the only definition" you struggle to comprehend. Perhaps you should take more time to understand what is actually said rather than what you think has been said.

despite my specifically asking, you referenced back to the deffinition [sic] given, which you now seek to avoid following, imagine that.

Refence post please. Or admit your dishonesty.

Indeed, because those others ignore what is right in front of their eyes and the definitions, just like you. They handwave it away just as you have attempted to do....

Funny.

It’s called the Ostrich maneuver, evolutionists have it down pat.
View attachment 216984

And that's one of the funniest projections I've seen. Thanks for the Christmas mirth .

 

[46AND2]

No, the error in your radioactive decay rates is because you refuse to apply time dilation corrections.

As objects increase in acceleration, decay rates slow. The opposite of this is that as one calculates further back in time, decay rates increase. Since you do not adjust for the increased decay rates the further back in time one goes, but continue to use the slower decay rate we observe today, you of course come to the wrong conclusion based upon using those uncorrected decay rates.

Just apply Relativity, which is required to be applied to all objects in motion. Correct for the time dilation that has occurred since the beginning of the universe. Once this is done, and you correct for those increased decay rates the further back one goes, you’ll find your claims of age are invalid. In order for time to slow, it must have once been faster, yes? This is a basic principle of relativity. Apply it....

Quit misapplying it.

 

[46AND2]

Sorry, meant to get to this more thoroughly sooner, but got distracted by the holiday weekend...

Not true. There are things that science can demonstrate e.g a spherical earth and a heliocentric solar system. And there are things that science cannot demonstrate like evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang for instance.

The fact that empirical science does not work in proofs is a basic tenet of the scientific method. Until you learn this, your arguments will remain little more than strawmen.

There are serious discussions about the constancy of decay rates in the scientific community. So this sounds like a bald faced lie.

Minute changes in SOME radioactive elements hardly constitutes a controversy concerning the constancy of radioactive decay in general. There are MANY examples of how we know that many decay rates have indeed been constant for a very long time.

I mentioned the existence of Uranium halos. The diameter of a radioactive element halo is directly related to the decay energy of said element. The decay energy is, in turn, related to the decay rate. In short, if the decay rate of an element is changed, then the size of the halo is different.

Since each decay event produces one atom sized mark of damage in the surrounding rock, it takes a VERY large amount of decay events to produce a halo. Particularly since it is really a sphere of damage, as the halo is merely a cross section of the overall damage.

So how do you explain the observed fact that Uranium halos are the size we would expect from our current observation concerning its decay rate, when it would take many millions of years worth of decay events to produce that damage?

I'd be more than happy for you to show me how I am wrong, if that is so, but do not call me a liar again.

For instance solar neutrino emissions may effect this.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

How does this effect radiometric dating?

Over thousands of years or indeed unique catastrophic conditions these and other variables make a joke out of the uniformitarian assumtion.

What about that unique catastrophic event? HOW did it change the decay rate? Why is there no research going into this by Christian Scientists? How is the vast amount of heat and radiation that would have been produced accounted for? Can you EXPLAIN...like....anything about how any of that occurred? Cause until you do, the only joke here is the flood "explanation." It's like saying magic did it.

No you can read impurities in samples or stuff that does not fit with the other stuff. As to whether this was a single, multiple, a contamination that wiped evidence of previous contaminations, or no contamination at all is pure guessing.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. This is word salad. "stuff?" Do you even know what constitutes contamination in one of these samples? Apparently not, since if you did, you would know that your statement doesn't even make sense.

Who's the one guessing here? C'mon, be honest.

It is not a proper audit trail however you paint. The facts are rock layers and fossils and a creationist supernatural catastrophist is a better explanation of how these came about.

What would constitute a proper audit trail? Cause everything you have described about an audit trail so far, we have the technology for when it comes to radiometric dating. All the objections you raise were already thought of, and solved, decades ago by scientists.