The Lazarus Bacteria

[ruthiesea]

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

Of course, 4500 years is based purely on religious beliefs not shared by my religion, rather than being based on science.

Our DNA is 96% similar to other organisms. So, why should a bacteria from 250 mya not have similar DNA to modern bacteria. This is just one of the many testable predictions made by the Theory of Evolution that have always turned out to be true.

 

[mindlight]

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.

The result of this "ruthlessness" is that you are only left with probabilities in the realm of inferential science. Nothing you say is certain, it is just that this idea or that one are still standing at the end of fight club.

The facts here are that "living" bacteria were found at a layer contextually dated at 250 million years. Since this is impossible at that distance in time the claim was debunked by claiming contamination. A contamination that was not proven in critiques but was strongly suggested because of various missing controls.

But at a distance of 250 million years noone can claim any sort of omniscience regarding the audit trail. There are a million ways that any sample could be contaminated. Even the suggested carbon 14 dating is useless cause contamination and unaccounted for radiation sources may be factors.

The result: Nothing can be said and the whole word game is a farce.

 

[mindlight]

Of course, 4500 years is based purely on religious beliefs not shared by my religion, rather than being based on science.

Our DNA is 96% similar to other organisms. So, why should a bacteria from 250 mya not have similar DNA to modern bacteria. This is just one of the many testable predictions made by the Theory of Evolution that have always turned out to be true.

With this bacteria the differences with modern bacteria were inconsequential and statistically irrelevant. That is not the evolutionary expectation. Your fellow evolutionists choose to dismiss this claim by suggesting it is contaminated rather than accepting there has been no change. If there is no change and the sample is not contaminated then the survival of this sample over 250 million years is impossible, evolution simply did not happen and the positioning of this bacteria overthrows the whole geological dating scheme.

 

[Job 33:6]

@mindlight

You reject all scientific research until you find a single unsupported publication that you think might support your position. Now you've taken that publication and ignored all others to the contrary.

Your position cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Just deadly to evolution, and not harmful to YE as you haven’t added time dilation corrections to your decay rates to account for the velocity of the earth through space.....

Instead your using slower clocks to calculate faster decay rates in the past, which makes you think more mutations happened over a longer time period, because your age calculations are flawed from the beginning.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

With this bacteria the differences with modern bacteria were inconsequential and statistically irrelevant. That is not the evolutionary expectation. Your fellow unbelievers choose to dismiss this claim by suggesting it is contaminated rather than accepting there has been no change. If there is no change and the sample is not contaminated then the survival of this sample over 250 million years is impossible, evolution simply did not happen and the positioning of this bacteria overthrows the whole geological dating scheme.

Because Dino soft tissue didn’t teach them anything.

They refuse to correct for time dilation from the velocity of the earth through space. Like the twin, faster velocity means slower decay rates. When God stretched out the heavens, the decay rate continued to slow to its present rate. So as one calculates backwards, one must correct for time dilation. Since they refuse to, they get an older age when decay actually happened faster because they use the slower rates of today’s clocks. This leads them to exponential errors in dating....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your people’s claims of radiometric dating is seriously flawed. You talk of contamination, but don’t mind using crystal that was contaminated by cosmic rays to date your finds. As a matter of fact it was that claimed contamination that they used.

Little Foot - 3.67myo homid fossil found

From that thread....

“The burial dating relies on measuring radioactive isotopes aluminum-26 and beryllium-10 in quartz within the rock. These isotopes are only created when the rock is exposed to cosmic rays. When a rock is on the surface, it builds up these isotopes. When it is buried or deposited in a cave, the isotopes decay at known rates. The ratio of the remaining aluminum-26 and beryllium-10 can be used to determine how long the rock has been underground, Granger said.””

This is not true, as how much isotopes were built up from cosmic rays while on the surface is a complete unknown. It is based simply on a number that will give the desired results. In other words the rocks being on the surface for 100,000 years versus rocks on the surface for 10 million years would give different results. It is unknown how long the rocks lay on the surface, therefore the starting isotope count is a complete unknown. By using the incorrect starting point of unknown isotopes, but simply one that gives the desired results, is why the age is being rejected by other scientists.

I mean here we have a clear case of contamination from an outside source, the beginning count of the isotopes completely unknown, and clear biased confirmation of their own beliefs. If isotopes are added while on the surface, then only by knowing the exact time spent on the surface and the starting isotope count, could one determine age by the remaining isotope count. But cosmic rays are completely random, and how long they spent on the surface is a complete unknown. Therefore one can not calculate by how many isotopes remain the age, because one can not calculate how many one started with.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2004-09-random-cosmic-rays.amp

“The method we have developed is truly random as it is from a physically random process.”

Not that the truth will matter in the final decision.

For example let’s say one decay occurs per day underground. If I start with the belief 20 isotopes existed and get 10 left so 10 days. If I start with the belief of 12 isotopes existed and get 10 left so 2 days.

The problem is that

1) how long the rocks were on the surface is a complete unknown.

2) the starting isotope count is also unknown as how long they were on the surface is unknown, combined with the fact that the isotopes are added by a completely random process, cosmic rays.

The starting isotope count is completely unknown. How many remain can not be used to determine how long it was in the cave as one can never know how many one started with.

They are assuming the fallacy. They are assuming they can tell how many they started with from a pre-conceived age of the rock to begin with. Without knowing how long they were on the surface exposed to cosmic rays. A completely random process to begin with, which makes the starting count a double unknown.

And to top it off they are using an outside random unknown rate of contamination as their supposed proof. Said unknown rate of outside contamination rejected in all other samples for dating tests for every process in the history of radiometric dating.

So don’t you all even dare talk about outside and unknown rates of contamination when you want to use those same outside and unknown rate of contamination to date things when you think it will give you the answer you want.

Now that it doesn’t, why it is outside and unknown contamination. I mean please with the evolutionary PR trash already. Enough is enough.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course, 4500 years is based purely on religious beliefs not shared by my religion, rather than being based on science.

Our DNA is 96% similar to other organisms. So, why should a bacteria from 250 mya not have similar DNA to modern bacteria. This is just one of the many testable predictions made by the Theory of Evolution that have always turned out to be true.

Yah, except now it might be 97% similar to orangutans and not chimps. Seems that along with everything else, what we are related to changes every time we test something.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm

Might as well claim mice are our direct ancestor.

Just 2.5% of DNA turns mice into men

They are closer than all of the apes.

National Geographic News and Latest Stories

Chimps are 96%, not 98.

Hey but why worry, no evolution at all proves evolution.

This Bacteria Hasn't Evolved in More Than 2 Billion Years

But let’s all forget the conditions today are not even remotely the same as was claimed they were 2 billion years ago. Different atmospheres and all.

Epicycles upon epicycles, whatever keeps the theory from falsification.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because Dino soft tissue didn’t teach them anything.

-_- so sick of hearing about the "soft dinosaur tissue" baloney. The tissue wasn't soft when it was actually in the fossil; it became pliable when exposed to some of the chemicals used to clean the fossil. And we know why that happens in some fossils: iron deposited into the tissues by the corpse preserved them better than is typical. That hypothesis has been tested with ostrich bones, and the result was that the soft tissue ended up being preserved extremely well.

 

[mindlight]

@mindlight

You reject all scientific research until you find a single unsupported publication that you think might support your position. Now you've taken that publication and ignored all others to the contrary.

Your position cannot be taken seriously.

I do not reject science. You misread me if you say that. The distinction between what can be proven and what can be inferred is crystal clear however.

The fact is a live bacteria was found where it should not be according to evolutionary theory. Strong anticontamination procedures were followed but the evidence was rejected as contaminated anyway. But strong conclusions are drawn by evolutionists on evidence just as vulnerable to the same level of critique. But those critiques are not always applied or considered applicable when the results are expected and confirm the theory. It is simply being honest to say that this is just a play with probabilities and that anybody who bases their certainty on inferential science is peddling a probability as a proof.

The facts of geology and fossils are accurate descriptions of the patterns in the rocks and the fossils we find there. They are descriptions of observable geological mechanisms we have empirical evidence for. What we infer from these facts and the analogies we draw from these mechanisms are a probabilistic guessing game that measures success by explanatory power. But as with the fight club analogy the last man standing may be just as wrong as the 5 he knocked out to get there.

 

[Job 33:6]

I do not reject science. You misread me if you say that. The distinction between what can be proven and what can be inferred is crystal clear however.

The fact is a live bacteria was found where it should not be according to evolutionary theory. Strong anticontamination procedures were followed but the evidence was rejected as contaminated anyway. But strong conclusions are drawn by evolutionists on evidence just as vulnerable to the same level of critique. But those critiques are not always applied or considered applicable when the results are expected and confirm the theory. It is simply being honest to say that this is just a play with probabilities and that anybody who bases their certainty on inferential science is peddling a probability as a proof.

The facts of geology and fossils are accurate descriptions of the patterns in the rocks and the fossils we find there. They are descriptions of observable geological mechanisms we have empirical evidence for. What we infer from these facts and the analogies we draw from these mechanisms are a probabilistic guessing game that measures success by explanatory power. But as with the fight club analogy the last man standing may be just as wrong as the 5 he knocked out to get there.

The bacteria wasnt actually found in permian rock. It was found within precipitated minerals within the rock. There is a big difference.

Its essentially the same as baking a cake, cutting that cake open and dropping chocolate chips inside, and saying "look, the chocolate chips are the same age as the cake".

Until the minerals themselves are dated, there is no argument to be made for an ancient bacteria.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- so sick of hearing about the "soft dinosaur tissue" baloney. The tissue wasn't soft when it was actually in the fossil; it became pliable when exposed to some of the chemicals used to clean the fossil. And we know why that happens in some fossils: iron deposited into the tissues by the corpse preserved them better than is typical. That hypothesis has been tested with ostrich bones, and the result was that the soft tissue ended up being preserved extremely well.

I’m a controlled laboratory environment. Stick that ostrich inside in the mud and let’s see how well it does. Lol, you people.

Best get used to it, more and more keeps popping right up every time someone looks.

Preservation of Dinosaur Soft Tissue: An Update

I think your claims of rareness are getting stale and old, extinct...

 

[sfs]

The result of this "ruthlessness" is that you are only left with probabilities in the realm of inferential science. Nothing you say is certain, it is just that this idea or that one are still standing at the end of fight club.

That's not the result of science -- that's the result of being human. That's what we're stuck with.

 

[mindlight]

The bacteria wasnt actually found in permian rock. It was found within precipitated minerals within the rock. There is a big difference.

Its essentially the same as baking a cake, cutting that cake open and dropping chocolate chips inside, and saying "look, the chocolate chips are the same age as the cake".

Until the minerals themselves are dated, there is no argument to be made for an ancient bacteria.

That is the claim made. That the salt crystal in which the bacteria was preserved "precipitated" in at a later date. But this was not the reading of the people who read the original evidence. They tested it as an integral to the geological layer it was found in without good reasons to believe it had been inserted at a later date. Also this bacteria could not have been preserved in rock alone. It fits a creationist model to suggest the rock was formed suddenly in salt water and maintained its basic integrity after that.

It has been 17 years , why wasn't this dating done? Were they afraid of the result or was it simply too late by then and the sample was contaminated by the testing process. It seems to me that there is no firm evidence of a brokenness to the rock that would have allowed this contamination / precipitation. There is the assertion however that some necessary controls had not been applied that is meant to undermine the credibility of this evidence. But there was no effort to apply these controls later - why?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The bacteria wasnt actually found in permian rock. It was found within precipitated minerals within the rock. There is a big difference.

Its essentially the same as baking a cake, cutting that cake open and dropping chocolate chips inside, and saying "look, the chocolate chips are the same age as the cake".

Until the minerals themselves are dated, there is no argument to be made for an ancient bacteria.

Is that like finding fossils in sediments, then using the nearby rock to date them?

So you agree it wouldn’t be wise to do either.

 

[Job 33:6]

That is the claim made. That the salt crystal in which the bacteria was preserved "precipitated" in at a later date. But this was not the reading of the people who read the original evidence. They tested it as an integral to the geological layer it was found in without good reasons to believe it had been inserted at a later date. Also this bacteria could not have been preserved in rock alone. It fits a creationist model to suggest the rock was formed suddenly in salt water and maintained its basic integrity after that.

It has been 17 years , why wasn't this dating done? Were they afraid of the result or was it simply too late by then and the sample was contaminated by the testing process. It seems to me that there is no firm evidence of a brokenness to the rock that would have allowed this contamination / precipitation. There is the assertion however that some necessary controls had not been applied that is meant to undermine the credibility of this evidence. But there was no effort to apply these controls later - why?

Yea, I understand the situation. We initially read a document, its a scientific document. People performed research to support their conclusion, and they proposed the conclusion of an ancient bacteria. And this is good, nothing wrong with that. Then, what we find are different groups of scientists saying, well hold on, you didnt check this, that, or the other.

And this is a common occurrence.

You said "it has been 17 years, why wasn't this dating done". Well, that is a good question. It is likely that their conclusion cannot be confirmed, hence the lack of response to their critique.

But, im just going to put this out there. The people who proposed the initial research and conclusions, they do not necessarily need to be the ones to confirm their own finds. If it is possible, anyone can go and confirm their finds, including you or I. Independent laboratories perform dating regardless of their client, as long as you can afford it. So, realistically, anyone could go out and perform more testing and research on this.

 

[Job 33:6]

Is that like finding fossils in sediments, then using the nearby rock to date them?

No its not, because precipitated minerals in the form of veins have visible pathways leading beyond the rock they're found in. There are some inclusions that do not, in which case the inclusions actually predate the rock theyre in, however this is not the case in regards to the mineral in which the bacteria was found.

Also sometimes you have things like trace fossils, foot prints and things like that, which obviously if the footprint is in the rock, then thats the age in which it is coming from.

Whereas with fossils, typically you are splitting rock in half to reach the bone contained within them.

To make another food analogy, its the difference between an icecream sandwich and a boston creme donut.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I’m a controlled laboratory environment. Stick that ostrich inside in the mud and let’s see how well it does. Lol, you people.

Best get used to it, more and more keeps popping right up every time someone looks.

Preservation of Dinosaur Soft Tissue: An Update

I think your claims of rareness are getting stale and old, extinct...

Lol, from your source's "about us" page:
"The most notable conflict is between the theory of evolution with its billions of years for the progressive development of life and the biblical account of the creation of life by God in six literal days a few thousand years ago. Does the success of science in other areas force us to conclude that scientific evidence for an evolutionary theory is irrefutable?

The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication."

How about not using sources so blatantly biased?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No its not, because precipitated minerals in the form of veins have visible pathways leading beyond the rock they're found in. There are some inclusions that do not, in which case the inclusions actually predate the rock theyre in, however this is not the case in regards to the mineral in which the bacteria was found.

Also sometimes you have things like trace fossils, foot prints and things like that, which obviously if the footprint is in the rock, then thats the age in which it is coming from.

Whereas with fossils, typically you are splitting rock in half to reach the bone contained within them.

To make another food analogy, its the difference between an icecream sandwich and a boston creme donut.

No, no, you are splitting sedimentary rock apart to get to them, not the rock used to date them. Sedimentary rock can not be used for dating.

Let’s also be clear that the rocks the footprints are found in is also sedimentary rock, again, not the rock used to date them.

Besides lava eruptions, sedimentary rock is the only rock fossils or footprints have been found. Sedimentary rock from water, just as your precipitous claims.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol, from your source's "about us" page:
"The most notable conflict is between the theory of evolution with its billions of years for the progressive development of life and the biblical account of the creation of life by God in six literal days a few thousand years ago. Does the success of science in other areas force us to conclude that scientific evidence for an evolutionary theory is irrefutable?

The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication."

How about not using sources so blatantly biased?

How about you use a source not from an evolutionary supporter then and also not so blatantly biased?

Ahh, that only applies when they don’t hold your view, right?

Are you challenging the finds they said were found, or just rejecting it out of hand? If you are challenging the data we can certainly cross verify that if you like.