Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course, 4500 years is based purely on religious beliefs not shared by my religion, rather than being based on science.The more likely explanation is that the bacterium is only 4500 years old which fits a creationist time frame very well
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.
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.
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.....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.
Because Dino soft tissue didn’t teach them anything.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.
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.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.
-_- 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.Because Dino soft tissue didn’t teach them anything.
@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.
I’m a controlled laboratory environment. Stick that ostrich inside in the mud and let’s see how well it does. Lol, you people.-_- 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.
That's not the result of science -- that's the result of being human. That's what we're stuck with.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 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?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?
Is that like finding fossils in sediments, then using the nearby rock to date them?
Lol, from your source's "about us" page: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...
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.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.
How about you use a source not from an evolutionary supporter then and also not so blatantly biased?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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?