The Lazarus Bacteria

[Jimmy D]

Your own source uses mules which are incapable of interbreeding as their one and only source for separate species.

Actually it was your source Justa and as I noted previously:

Normally when two species start to develop independently, they reach a point where there are so many genetic differences that animals from the different lineages no longer mate, or their hybrid offspring are sterile - as is the case when a horse and a donkey produce a mule.

Firstly, doesn't that paragraph make sense to you? Isn't that what we'd expect to see if speciation was a thing?

Secondly, that was written by a journalist, not a member of the group who carried out this study.

I told you I would meet you half way in your own beliefs, to which you never responded. If interbreeding does not necessarily mean same species, then lack of interbreeding does not necessarily mean separate species.

I don't why you say "my beliefs", everything I've said comes from the papers and articles we've been looking at, I'm happy to defer to experts who actually study these finches first hand. I don't see much wrong with what you're saying although I'm not sure how important a criteria interbreeding is when new species is classified, I'm sure that there are many more factors that are considered.

As the article above says, it's a "messy business", especially at the earlier stages of speciation.

Name one?????

Mating dances, the songs of males to attract females or the mutual grooming of pairs, are all examples of typical courtship behavior that allows both recognition and reproductive isolation.

See above, name one I have ignored? Certainly if I do it all the time it should be easy to actually name one instead of make bald faced claims. At least I showed you your own definition of subspecies. As well as your own definition of Allopatric Speciation. Neither of which you or them follow. I don’t think you can without it contradicting other well established definitions. I think you are all talk and no show.

Again, it is people who studied the finches first hand, thoroughly and for many years like the Grants or the team who sequenced their genomes who have produced evidence for allopatric speciation, not me.

However....

Reproductive Isolation

The mechanisms of reproductive isolation are a collection of evolutionary mechanisms, behaviors and physiological processes critical for speciation. They prevent members of different species from producing offspring, or ensure that any offspring are sterile. These barriers maintain the integrity of a species by reducing gene flow between related species.[1][2][3][4]

The mechanisms of reproductive isolation have been classified in a number of ways. Zoologist Ernst Mayr classified the mechanisms of reproductive isolation in two broad categories: pre-zygotic for those that act before fertilization (or before mating in the case of animals) and post-zygotic for those that act after it.[5] The mechanisms are genetically controlled and can appear in species whose geographic distributions overlap (sympatric speciation) or are separate (allopatric speciation).

Mating dances, the songs of males to attract females or the mutual grooming of pairs, are all examples of typical courtship behavior that allows both recognition and reproductive isolation. This is because each of the stages of courtship depend on the behavior of the partner. The male will only move onto the second stage of the exhibition if the female shows certain responses in her behavior. He will only pass onto the third stage when she displays a second key behavior. The behaviors of both interlink, are synchronized in time and lead finally to copulation or the liberation of gametes into the environment. No animal that is not physiologically suitable for fertilization can complete this demanding chain of behavior. In fact, the smallest difference in the courting patterns of two species is enough to prevent mating (for example, a specific song pattern acts as an isolation mechanism in distinct species of grasshopper of the genus Chorthippus[11]). Even where there are minimal morphological differences between species, differences in behavior can be enough to prevent mating. For example, Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans which are considered twin species due to their morphological similarity, do not mate even if they are kept together in a laboratory.

...................................

I really find it hard to accept that after reading all these studies on the Galapagos finches that you can't believe what the researchers are telling you, based on solid evidence. It's not opinion, the birds all came from a single population of the same finches and diversified into the various "types" we see today.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Your own source uses mules which are incapable of interbreeding as their one and only source for separate species.

Just as a minor point, many descriptions of evolution are over-simplified when they talk about speciation. They assume just one species concept (a species concept is a definition of what defines a species, particularly in terms of saying that two populations are different species or not), the biological species concept where two creatures cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Species that are now that different that they cannot hybridise are quite separate, and recently spectated species are unlikely to be this separated. Speciation can also be reversed. E.g. when Lake Victoria became turgid due to water outflow from agriculture (and other things), then fish couldn't see each other properly, females didn't choose the right mates, and some species collapsed back into one. It appears that this happened between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthals.

This is what we would expect from the theory of evolution. Small difference in (e.g.) colours combined with sexual selection can separate species. However, if you put recently speciated females together with the wrong species of males, frequently they will mate and produce fertile offspring. E.g. fish in tanks managed by idiot aquarists.

It doesn't make any sense in terms of 'kinds', because no definition of 'kind' that I've ever seen would separate the fish that can interbreed from the fish that can't interbreed.

 

[sfs]

It is a liquid inclusion. That is why I said if the salt recrystallized, the bacterial would die. Because the bacteria would be separated from the fluid. And I think it would be rare for a million-year-old salt crystal to avoid recrystallization.

It's a liquid inclusion in a crystal. If the crystal dissolved and then reformed, the bacteria would be in liquid the whole time regardless.

 

[Ophiolite]

@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.

And that's because the ideas of scientific colleagues need to be taken seriously since they are properly based on evidence and reasoned argument, whereas young earther ideas should really just be laughed at, and would be, were they not so corrupting.

 

[juvenissun]

It's a liquid inclusion in a crystal. If the crystal dissolved and then reformed, the bacteria would be in liquid the whole time regardless.

I am not sure. If the liquid diffused out of the crystal, would the bacteria go with the diffusion?

 

[sfs]

I am not sure. If the liquid diffused out of the crystal, would the bacteria go with the diffusion?

I don't know what you're talking about. Bacteria are in highly salty water, to which they are well-adapted. Salt crystals form around a small pocket of this water, trapping some of the bacteria. Maybe the crystals dissolves at some point, still leaving bacteria in salty water, and then recrystalizes, again trapping some bacteria in salt water inclusions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1. they don't hybridize frequently enough for the populations to merge, and the hybrids have extremely reduced reproductive success. For this reason, they are not considered the same species, and even the 1 source you have that suggests that there is a lot of hybridization comes from a guy that thinks there are even MORE distinct species among the finches. You don't have a leg to stand on.

This is one of the most inaccurate and completely nonsensical answers I’ve ever seen made.

Not oten enough? You are deluding yourself Sarah and I am going to assume just misinformed instead of trying to deliberately mislead others.

The DNA data completely nullifies your claims.

“Here we report the results of whole-genome re-sequencing of 120 individuals representing all of the Darwin’s finch species and two close relatives. Phylogenetic analysis reveals important discrepancies with the phenotype-based taxonomy. We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry.”

We agree your biologists ignore the dna data and the scientific definitions, as are you.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs”

Because you all want to ignore the dna data and scientific definitions, don’t expect others to.

Now on to your next false claim of hybrids being less fit with reduced reproductively.

“hybrids survived as well as, and in some cases better than, the parental species during dry seasons of potential food limitation. They also backcrossed to two of the parental species.”

I’ll get to the rest of your false claims later as I’m on my phone tonight not computer and don’t have time to waste on the rest of your nonsense. But be assured I’ll show that nonsense for the nonsense it is as soon as I get WiFi access tomorrow.

Stop making spurious claims. And who cares that some idiot wants to add three more species, even when that’s the same idiot that called the trees based on the dna data “decidedly fuzzy”. I mean please. So fuzzy you can’t even distinguish between the ones you got....

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know what you're talking about. Bacteria are in highly salty water, to which they are well-adapted. Salt crystals form around a small pocket of this water, trapping some of the bacteria. Maybe the crystals dissolves at some point, still leaving bacteria in salty water, and then recrystalizes, again trapping some bacteria in salt water inclusions.

When ice crystal recrystallized in a glacier (it has inclusions too), it goes though a diffusion process. My question is if the bacteria could survive this process. During and after the process, the bacteria may not be immersed in liquid any more.

 

[Jimmy D]

We agree your biologists ignore the dna data and the scientific definitions, as are you.

Utter rubbish, here's the actual paper, rather than the headline, it takes a strange leap of the imagination to suggest that they are "ignoring dna data".


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272168238_Evolution_of_Darwin's_finches_and_their_beaks_revealed_by_genome_sequencing

You both might find this interesting as it has some detailed information regarding hybridization.

Fission and fusion of Darwin's finches populations

I'd suggest that you are both overstating your cases a bit.

Stop making spurious claims. And who cares that some idiot wants to add three more species, even when that’s the same idiot that called the trees based on the dna data “decidedly fuzzy”.

In the very article you cited in attempt to back up your arguments. That is a little bit hypocritical.

FYI Just for the record...

The other reason is they have had a long time to diverge through natural selection and random drift. The pattern is illustrated by the four oldest living species at the base of the Darwin's finch radiation; warbler finch (Certhidea), Pinaroloxias (Cocos Island finch), the sharp-beaked ground finch (G. difficilis) and vegetarian finch (Platyspiza). They are so distinct from each other that they span the entire morphological space of the present day radiation (Grant & Grant 2008). Unlike the more recently derived species they are not known to hybridize (Grant 1999).

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

That's like asking for a source on theory of relativity that doesn't appeal to the science of physics.

Sorry to inform you, but biologists are rather settled on the evolution issue.
Valid sources for the backbone theory of biology, would be biologists - who are "evolution supporters".

Much like physicists are "atomic theory supporters".
Or geographers are "round earth supporters".
Or medical researchers are "germ theory supporters".

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

No, that's what YOU do. As PsychoSarah so elegantly demonstrated.

People who do not do that, look to scientific sources when the subject is science.

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.

Dude.... the page itself literally states that their biggest objection to evolution, is that the bible disagrees. That's all you need to know. Based on that, you can reject their nonsense at face value.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

2. No one has ever denied hybridization happens, you just can't comprehend that in the wild, different species sometimes hybridize. So sorry the high school definition of species is but a shadow of the actual application and you can't get over it.

No, you all just can’t accept the dna data and the scientific definition of subspecies.... I understand, if you accepted the dna data and your own scientific definitions, you couldn’t claim they were separate species.

Lol, why would these finches all being the same species disprove evolution?

Because then you wouldn’t have speciation.

Lol, so why weren't creationist fossil hunters the first to find it? You're implying that YECs should have been looking for it, so why didn't they find it first?

They did, but when he reported it he got fired from his position, for simply challenging the claimed dates before it was found. That’s what happens when you go against the established religion of evolution.

University settles lawsuit with scientist fired after he found soft tissue in dinosaur bones | God Reports

Source? Also, are you forgetting what one of the functions of bone marrow is? The production of red blood cells. What's in red blood cells? Iron.

According to the testers “The vessels soaked in the hemoglobin solution, produced by lysing red blood cells, “remained intact for more than 2 years at room temperature with virtually no change. This represented a 200-fold increase in stability in the presence of hemoglobin, Schweitzer reports, confirming hemoglobin’s tissue fixation properties and supporting the possibility that iron could thus, under the right conditions, protect biomaterials (tissues, cells, and molecules) from degradation over deep time.“

But can iron chelation preserve soft tissue and even keep it soft for millions of years? While a 200-fold delay in the decay of ostrich blood vessels is certainly impressive, even that level of preservation can’t hold a candle to the 99,800,000-fold increase in chemical stability needed in the millions-of-years evolutionary scenario. Schweitzer quite reasonably makes a comparison to the fixation properties of formaldehyde. Many variables influence the degree and duration of the decay-delaying properties of formaldehyde. But specimens preserved in formaldehyde are not preserved perfectly or permanently. While burial conditions likely influence the efficacy of iron as a preservative in any given bone, there is certainly no reason to propose that iron could preserve the molecular structure of soft tissue for millions of years any more than formaldehyde could.

Your 200 fold increase is well short of the 99,800,000 fold increase needed.

-_- the T. rex tissue was found because those steps caused the tissue to fall out of the fossil, so... your point? It's not like all fossils have this tissue in them.

The common thread running through “many exceptionally preserved fossils,” Schweitzer notes, is the presence of iron, which is found in hemoglobin.

The tissue could have been protected within the bones, you know. And bones consist largely of minerals to begin with.

And a 200 fold increase would put them around 20,000 to 40,000 years, far short of your 99,800,000 fold increase needed.

I think there are maybe 5 finds of soft tissue found within the bones?

And collegen, and pigments. And I believe it is much more than 5 now, but papers are scarce until they make up their minds if it’s fact or fiction. Half are arguing its contamination because they still don’t accept that a 200 fold increase can explain the 99,800,000 fold increase actually required.

Why should I have an excuse?
Pigments are proteins, and I find this article to be interesting Twisted structure preserved dinosaur proteins : Nature News

Interesting, but lab tests so far only show a possible 200 fold increase in preservation. Again, far short of the 99,800,000 fold increase actually required. One can speculate all one wishes.

-_- all scientific sources should use words like that, because science doesn't do absolutes. It's always possible for a scientific conclusions to be wrong, no matter how much evidence supports it.

So evolution is only one possibility and not certain?

No, I was just saying that our understanding of the preservation and fossilization of tissues is rather incomplete, and finds like this suggest that trying to rely on that limited understanding to date a fossil would be erroneous.

Or that your assumption of age may be incorrect? After all, there are no absolutes, right?

I sincerely wish that DNA had been preserved in these, that would be so cool. One of the worst things about fossils is that only relatively young ones have it.

I guess if you consider 195 million years relatively young. But I agree since they are around 40,000 years old, relatively young.

Sorry dude, hard to keep track of the various details between different positions sometimes. Also, time dilation as it relates to the plant compared with the universe at large is so tiny as to be practically irrelevant, and even if the planet was, say, 10,000 years old from the perspective of some point within the universe, from our perspective, 4.5 billion years have passed regardless.

That’s the same mindset of the twin in motion who could not get one single observation correct. He also believed more time passed for him, when less time actually did.

4.5 billion years because you don’t adjust your clocks for the time dilation that occurred. Instead using the slower clocks and slower decay rates of today to calculate what occurred faster and faster the further back you go. You assume it was constant, as the twin assumed time remained constant for him, and again, was wrong in every single observation he made.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why should I? It's your claim. I even questioned whether you thought it is possible. Notice how you didn't answer the question but instead asked me to show how it is possible?

Sure. Taking things out of context is standard practice for creationists.

Says the person trying to relate fossils found in sediments to salt precipitating into cracks in rocks.....

So since we both agree fossils would not precipitate into rocks, then there is no valid reason to use other rock to date fossils, rock they are not even found in.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'll be back to follow up some of the threads that I haven't had time to continue in the last few days.

In the meantime I'll point out that while sedimentary rock itself cannot be used for dating, igneous rock (such as volcanic as deposits) that brackets sedimentary rock can be dated. As you say. Put the two together, and we get dates for the sedimentary rocks that the fossils and footprints are found in.

So, what is it that you are trying to say. Because to me it looks as if you are saying that sedimentary rocks cannot be dated. They can be, just not directly.

So an eruption happens 100 years ago, let’s say. Tomorrow a flood happens and surrounds the lava flow. 10 years from now we date the bones in the sediment as 100 years old?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's like asking for a source on theory of relativity that doesn't appeal to the science of physics.

Sorry to inform you, but biologists are rather settled on the evolution issue.
Valid sources for the backbone theory of biology, would be biologists - who are "evolution supporters".

Much like physicists are "atomic theory supporters".
Or geographers are "round earth supporters".
Or medical researchers are "germ theory supporters".

Except Relativity doesn’t apply anywhere but within the solar system to non ionized matter, .1% of the universe.

That’s why a theory tested to a 99.9% accuracy here in the planetary system, suddenly needs 96% ad hoc theory added to it when one tries to apply it to a universe 99% plasma, ionized matter.

The same with biology. Your taking known changes caused by interbreeding, Wolf to chiwahwah, ignoring they always remain the same species, then having to add 96% ad hoc theory once you leave the realm of actual biology and enter the past where somehow everything happened differently than we observe today.

No, that's what YOU do. As PsychoSarah so elegantly demonstrated.

People who do not do that, look to scientific sources when the subject is science.

I can’t tell, the dna data says those finches are of mixed ancestory, have always been interbreeding. They ignore the science.

Dude.... the page itself literally states that their biggest objection to evolution, is that the bible disagrees. That's all you need to know. Based on that, you can reject their nonsense at face value.

The biggest objection is that every single fossil remains the same for that type of fossil. That every time you come to the end of the line you insert mythical non-existent common ancestors. That you ignore how variation actually happens, wolf to chiwahwah through interbreeding and that they remain the same species.

The only thing evolution has going for it is for people to ignore how variation in the species actually occurs, and to ignore their own deffinition of subspecies. And to postulate imaginary ancestors for ever link between separate species. Your entire theory is built on error and mythical creatures....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Says the person trying to relate fossils found in sediments to salt precipitating into cracks in rocks.....

That was you in post #35

So since we both agree fossils would not precipitate into rocks, then there is no valid reason to use other rock to date fossils, rock they are not even found in.

Do you think that is a logical argument? It isn't as has been explained multiple times before, and in this thread in post #60. But you just handwaved it away with a misrepresentation of how the dating process works.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually it was your source Justa and as I noted previously:

Normally when two species start to develop independently, they reach a point where there are so many genetic differences that animals from the different lineages no longer mate, or their hybrid offspring are sterile - as is the case when a horse and a donkey produce a mule.

Firstly, doesn't that paragraph make sense to you? Isn't that what we'd expect to see if speciation was a thing?

Then the opposite makes sense. That if they are mating and producing fertile offspring, then they have not reached this point, and therefore no speciation has occurred.

Secondly, that was written by a journalist, not a member of the group who carried out this study.

As quoted by the biologists to him....

I don't why you say "my beliefs", everything I've said comes from the papers and articles we've been looking at, I'm happy to defer to experts who actually study these finches first hand. I don't see much wrong with what you're saying although I'm not sure how important a criteria interbreeding is when new species is classified, I'm sure that there are many more factors that are considered.

But if non mating leads to speciation, which you agreed made sense, then while they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring they are the same species. I would agree you could classify them as subspecies, but maybe not even that being they are of mixed ancestory and as the biologist put it have decidedly fuzzy dna.

As the article above says, it's a "messy business", especially at the earlier stages of speciation.

What earlier stage? They are still interbreeding and producing fertile offspring which are just as fit as the parent stock. It’s only “messy” because they don’t want to have to admit Darwin was wrong.

Mating dances, the songs of males to attract females or the mutual grooming of pairs, are all examples of typical courtship behavior that allows both recognition and reproductive isolation.

And song and courtship is a learned behavior, not a biological one. Like that finch that flew over from the mainland' and then taught his offspring his song. Are you suggesting that birds that imprint on neighboring birds song patterns, or eggs left in the nest and imprint to new parents, suddenly change species because of song pattern and new choice of mates?


Before technology, are you suggesting that Asians which tended to mate only with Those who spoke Asian should be classified separate from Africans, due to language or song pattern?

Again, it is people who studied the finches first hand, thoroughly and for many years like the Grants or the team who sequenced their genomes who have produced evidence for allopatric speciation, not me.

So you can’t think for yourself, understood.

However....

Reproductive Isolation

The mechanisms of reproductive isolation are a collection of evolutionary mechanisms, behaviors and physiological processes critical for speciation. They prevent members of different species from producing offspring, or ensure that any offspring are sterile. These barriers maintain the integrity of a species by reducing gene flow between related species.[1][2][3][4]

And what part of extensive interchange of genomes, leading to mixed ancestory to the point the lines were decidedly fuzzy, interbreeding right in front of their eyes. Did you find to match with prevent members of different species from producing offspring, or ensure any offspring are sterile? What did you find in that extensive interchange of genomes that led you to conclude their was a reduction in gene flow between them?

The mechanisms of reproductive isolation have been classified in a number of ways. Zoologist Ernst Mayr classified the mechanisms of reproductive isolation in two broad categories: pre-zygotic for those that act before fertilization (or before mating in the case of animals) and post-zygotic for those that act after it.[5] The mechanisms are genetically controlled and can appear in species whose geographic distributions overlap (sympatric speciation) or are separate (allopatric speciation).

Mating dances, the songs of males to attract females or the mutual grooming of pairs, are all examples of typical courtship behavior that allows both recognition and reproductive isolation. This is because each of the stages of courtship depend on the behavior of the partner. The male will only move onto the second stage of the exhibition if the female shows certain responses in her behavior. He will only pass onto the third stage when she displays a second key behavior. The behaviors of both interlink, are synchronized in time and lead finally to copulation or the liberation of gametes into the environment. No animal that is not physiologically suitable for fertilization can complete this demanding chain of behavior. In fact, the smallest difference in the courting patterns of two species is enough to prevent mating (for example, a specific song pattern acts as an isolation mechanism in distinct species of grasshopper of the genus Chorthippus[11]). Even where there are minimal morphological differences between species, differences in behavior can be enough to prevent mating. For example, Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans which are considered twin species due to their morphological similarity, do not mate even if they are kept together in a laboratory.

...................................

I really find it hard to accept that after reading all these studies on the Galapagos finches that you can't believe what the researchers are telling you, based on solid evidence. It's not opinion, the birds all came from a single population of the same finches and diversified into the various "types" we see today.

Except it hasn’t prevented anything. Again, what part of extensive interchange of genomes leading to mixed ancestory and lines that were decidedly fuzzy, led you to believe their has ever been a point in time when their was any barrier to interbreeding?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That was you in post #35

Oh no, in post 35 I objected to your objection that rock “surrounding” a sample was not valid confirmation of sample age. Therefore how much more so to using rocks that don’t even “surround” the sample?

Context, my man, it’s all context. Your argument was that surrounding rock could not be used, so even more valid would be rock not even surrounding it.

Do you think that is a logical argument? It isn't as has been explained multiple times before, and in this thread in post #60. But you just handwaved it away with a misrepresentation of how the dating process works.

Answered in post #73.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh no, in post 35 I objected to your objection that rock “surrounding” a sample was not valid confirmation of sample age. Therefore how much more so to using rocks that don’t even “surround” the sample?

My first post in this thread was in response to post 35. Seriously, just stop with the deflection.

Context, my man, it’s all context. Your argument was that surrounding rock could not be used, so even more valid would be rock not even surrounding it.

Again, 100% your argument, not mine.

 

[sfs]

When ice crystal recrystallized in a glacier (it has inclusions too), it goes though a diffusion process. My question is if the bacteria could survive this process. During and after the process, the bacteria may not be immersed in liquid any more.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. What diffusion process? What diffuses when salt crystalizes out of a solution? Why does it matter whether it's recrystallization or just initial crystallization?

 

[juvenissun]

I still have no idea what you're talking about. What diffusion process? What diffuses when salt crystalizes out of a solution? Why does it matter whether it's recrystallization or just initial crystallization?

Salt crystals in solid rock salt formation kilometers in the ground will move molecule by molecule. During the process, the bacteria kept in the salt crystal will also be moved molecule by molecule, i.e. killed.