The Lazarus Bacteria

[Justatruthseeker]

Who did? Citation required.

I know you claimed Darwin said it but I don’t believe he did and you still haven’t shown he did.

I suspect that this is a figment of your over active imagination, but so what, the most extensive studies show that they can’t all hybridise.

The rest of your post is just a repetition of your vague generalities, all of which have been addressed.

See above post, your sources are clear liars who will say anything to support their theory, even if having already observed them interbreeding 10 years earlier.

Face it, they are liars......

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You do realize you haven’t either, so since you provide none at all, the dictionary trumps your nothing.

You have been given definitions (not by me, by others) which include acknowledgement of limitations. The definitions accept that there are no strict, easily defined barriers between species because (as has been pointed out numerous times for you to ignore) speciation is an on-going process.

Your own evolutionist quoted the biological species concept definition, which backs me 100% and shows all of you ignore it.

As i said, you choose to ignore the parts that don't fit with your model.

All you people can do is make claims others are wrong and can’t produce a definition that agrees with your claims....

Projection.

 

[Jimmy D]

It’s funny you should point out the clear inconsistency of the Grants.

Considering they knew 10 years earlier the bolded above were hybridizing. In their own words: “On Genovesa G. conirostris hybridizes both with the larger species G. magnitrostris and the smaller species G. difficilis. (Grant and Grant 1989)

So 10 years prior to making this false statement to support evolution, they had already written about G. difficilis hybridizing with other finches.

These clear liars is who you use as your source. They already knew those birds interbred, but chose to lie about it 10 years later, because they had P.R. to preach instead of the true facts.

Error after uncorrected error, lie after lie is the ToE.

I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse, or your cognitive bias is so strong it's addled your brain.

Your quote states that various members of Geospiza genus hybridize. No one is disputing that.

Do the finches I mentioned hybridize with each other?

warbler finch (Certhidea),
Pinaroloxias (Cocos Island finch),
the sharp-beaked ground finch (G. difficilis)
vegetarian finch (Platyspiza).

No they don't.

So where is the lie?

Please don't pretend that you don't understand the point being made, you've embarrassed yourself enough already.

NOT ALL THE FINCHES INTERBREED WITH EACH OTHER.

 

[Jimmy D]

See above post, your sources are clear liars who will say anything to support their theory, even if having already observed them interbreeding 10 years earlier.

Face it, they are liars......

Stop obfuscating, you said that...

" they are of mixed ancestory, they all hybridize. See above, they said the same thing of all the others for 200+ years."

Who said none of them hybridize? Who said it 200 years ago? Because it wasn't Darwin as you claim and the Grants don't say it.

So let's see a citation, or admission that you are wrong.

Your quote showed that the Grants observed member of the Geospiza family hybridizing, is that all of them? No, it isn't.

It's clear someone is lying to support their "theory" but it isn't the Grants.

 

[Jimmy D]

That very definition separates Kinds. Kind after Kind. If they can reproduce they are of the same Kind. The only question that remains for similar creatures, such as finches, is if they can reproduce.

Since they are reproducing right in front of their noses, it’s a foregone conclusion.

And please inform me what finches that interbred extensively, leading to mixed ancestory, with lines that are decidedly fuzzy, leads you to believe they are separate species? What is occurring fits the deffinition of subspecies to a T.

Since all other evolutionists wish to avoid answering, are you claiming mutations to the ALX1 gene is sufficient reason to designate them as separate species? They sure don’t fit your own view of the deffinition of the biological species concept.

Wrong.... again.

Have you got any evidence of Geospiza magnirostris hybridizing with Certhidea olivacea or Pinaroloxias inornata hybridizing with Camarhynchus pallidus?

It's easy for you to spout vague generalities but research shows you to be woefully incorrect.

Are the birds mentioned above the same "kind"? They can't interbreed, yet they descended from the same population. In your desperation you can only latch on to ambiguous and conversational terms like "decidedly fuzzy" and avoid the actual data which shows you to be wrong, yet again.

 

[Jimmy D]

Since all other evolutionists wish to avoid answering, are you claiming mutations to the ALX1 gene is sufficient reason to designate them as separate species? They sure don’t fit your own view of the deffinition of the biological species concept.

What is this nonsense? Do you think that Gould's classification in the 1830s took the ALX1 gene into consideration? How did he manage that then?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don’t fool yourself, less than a few centimeters per day.

That is just false.

Ptolomey and his bunch thought they were correct too.

And then new evidence came up and the models changed to accomodate for it. It's called progress.

And you just keep arguing that majority means right

No, not at all.
Scientific consensus, is not the same as "majority vote".

I'm sorry that you don't have enough grasp of how science is done to understand that, but it is what it is.

, when everyone once thought the earth was the center of the solar system. One person disagreed.

Everyone once thought colevanth was a transitory species. They were all wrong.

Everyone once thought the Milky Way was the entire universe. They were all wrong.

Your argument that because everybody says so it must be right is a logical fallacy.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The difference is that when scientists are shown wrong, they accept it and move on and change their models to accomodate for the new data.

While fundamentalist religious people simply continue believing their demonstrably false tales.

And once again, scientific concensus is not the same as "popularity" or "majority vote".

It rather is something like the vast majority of experts in a given field agreeing and being able to demonstrate that all the evidence supports a specific model and that that model is currently the best explanation available for the available data.

You can easily break such consensus by coming up with new data that breaks said model. Which is why we no longer accept Ptolomey's model.

What's a typical YEC's reason to still accept nonsense like a literal genesis, a 6000 yo earth, an impossible global flood, etc?

 

[46AND2]

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"

I'm sorry, but these arguments of an apparent lack of change in particular organisms are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to either evolution or old earth age. They do NOTHING to refute the vast majority of instances in which we see exactly what we expect to see. Outliers do not refute the preponderance of evidence. It simply means that there are unique and intriguing conditions.

Nor does it have any bearing on how we know the earth is billions of years old. If you want to show that the earth is 6000 or so years old, then explain why radiometric dating, dendrochronology, speleothem dating, ice core dating, coral band dating and many others are wrong. AND, explain why they are all wrong in just the right fashion such that they just happen, by chance, to agree with each other when tested against each other. And THEN come up with your own method to show the real age. Until you do that, stories like this are nothing more than interesting anecdotes.

 

[mindlight]

I'm sorry, but these arguments of an apparent lack of change in particular organisms are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to either evolution or old earth age. They do NOTHING to refute the vast majority of instances in which we see exactly what we expect to see. Outliers do not refute the preponderance of evidence. It simply means that there are unique and intriguing conditions.

Nor does it have any bearing on how we know the earth is billions of years old. If you want to show that the earth is 6000 or so years old, then explain why radiometric dating, dendrochronology, speleothem dating, ice core dating, coral band dating and many others are wrong. AND, explain why they are all wrong in just the right fashion such that they just happen, by chance, to agree with each other when tested against each other. And THEN come up with your own method to show the real age. Until you do that, stories like this are nothing more than interesting anecdotes.

The consistent affirmation of a uniformitarian assumption across multiple types of tests is not a proof. It just shows they are testing the same things. Since noone can validate the audit trail, or prove the consistency of variables measured today these tests just describe a consistent way of approaching the evidence.

Outliers are important in that they demonstrate the explanatory value of naturalistic uniformitarianism cannot be taken for granted even within its framework of assumptions.

Catastrophist or supernatural critiques of the theory of evolution or an old earth are unaffected either way.

 

[46AND2]

The consistent affirmation of a uniformitarian assumption across multiple types of tests is not a proof.

First of all, it isn't an assumption. In fact, early geologists held the exact opposite assumption, until they CONCLUDED that there was a better explanation. Secondly, I never said it was proof. But it IS the explanation which best fits the data we observe.

It just shows they are testing the same things.

This is nonsense. First of all, they are testing MANY different things. Secondly, if they are testing the same things, and it continually passes said tests, would that make the conclusion more likely to be true?

Since noone can validate the audit trail, or prove the consistency of variables measured today these tests just describe a consistent way of approaching the evidence.

This doesn't even make sense. Is not "consistency of variables" an oxymoron?

Outliers are important in that they demonstrate the explanatory value of naturalistic uniformitarianism cannot be taken for granted even within its framework of assumptions.

No, outliers are important because it leads to new information concerning the complexity of nature. Because we don't just say, "oh, well that doesn't fit our assumptions, so let's just ignore it." We look for explanations for why these outliers exist. EVERY SINGLE outlier a creationist claims is evidence against evolution or an old earth, is rooted from a scientific paper explaining the reason for the outlier. Or at least a potential reason.

Catastrophist or supernatural critiques of the theory of evolution or an old earth are unaffected either way.

Yes, they remain as vapid as ever.

 

[mindlight]

First of all, it isn't an assumption. In fact, early geologists held the exact opposite assumption, until they CONCLUDED that there was a better explanation. Secondly, I never said it was proof. But it IS the explanation which best fits the data we observe.

Despite the neat wordplay there it is still a theory held for reasons of explanatory power rather than a proven and auditable trail of empiricably verifiable facts. Its explanatory power evaporates with the assumption of naturalistic uniformitarianism if there was any variability in key factors like for example decay rates. Since a large number of examples of misdatings can be attributed to radiation sources and contamination uniformitarianism is shaky ground.

First of all, they are testing MANY different things. Secondly, if they are testing the same things, and it continually passes said tests, would that make the conclusion more likely to be true?

Outliers like this demonstrate that this is not a universal truth. The reasons applied by evolutionists to debunking such outliers could equally be used to question supposedly normal safe evidence.

Is not "consistency of variables" an oxymoron?

Yes it is and since uniformitarianism asserts this it is unsafe ground. Decay rates are demonstrably variable in various conditions. Since no accounting can be made for inputs and outputs, varying levels of radiation there is no safe audit trail here.

No, outliers are important because it leads to new information concerning the complexity of nature. Because we don't just say, "oh, well that doesn't fit our assumptions, so let's just ignore it." We look for explanations for why these outliers exist. EVERY SINGLE outlier a creationist claims is evidence against evolution or an old earth, is rooted from a scientific paper explaining the reason for the outlier. Or at least a potential reason.

The critiques read more like an attempt to explain away. The half hearted attempts by scientists to defend their finds are explained by the fear of rocking the consensus and challenging the established viewpoint. There was no deeper result in this case. The only reasons given cast doubt on the explanatory power of the evolutionist assumptions and theories per see. Also there was no real followip on the recommendations.

Yes, they remain as vapid as ever.

For one who does not know the scriptures or the power of God maybe. But this is not an excuse for unbelief as many Christians share your viewpoint.

 

[46AND2]

Despite the neat wordplay there it is still a theory held for reasons of explanatory power rather than a proven and auditable trail of empiricably verifiable facts. Its explanatory power evaporates with the assumption of naturalistic uniformitarianism if there was any variability in key factors like for example decay rates. Since a large number of examples of misdatings can be attributed to radiation sources and contamination uniformitarianism is shaky ground.

Science doesn't do proof. Never has, never will. Now you're getting it.

Decay rates are demonstrably constant. More on that later.

Contamination is not a problem, since we CAN DETECT IT.

Outliers like this demonstrate that this is not a universal truth. The reasons applied by evolutionists to debunking such outliers could equally be used to question supposedly normal safe evidence.

Wrong. Do you even know what an outlier is? It's an event which goes against the vast majority of information. You should be looking for explanations for why the vast majority of information is inconsistent with the YEC model, rather than clinging to outliers. Outliers are statistically insignificant.

You are, as they say, missing the forest for the trees.

Yes it is and since uniformitarianism asserts this it is unsafe ground. Decay rates are demonstrably variable in various conditions. Since no accounting can be made for inputs and outputs, varying levels of radiation there is no safe audit trail here.

All of this is wrong. Decay rates which are used in radiometric dating have been shown to have been constant. For example, the decay rate of Uranium must have been constant for many millions of years, or Uranium halos would not exist. I've got a ton more examples. We don't just assume they have been constant, we know they have been.

Inputs and outputs are accounted for using isochrons, age spectrums, and concordia/discordia graphs.

The audit trail is there if you bothered to learn how it is accomplished.

The critiques read more like an attempt to explain away. The half hearted attempts by scientists to defend their finds are explained by the fear of rocking the consensus and challenging the established viewpoint. There was no deeper result in this case. The only reasons given cast doubt on the explanatory power of the evolutionist assumptions and theories per see. Also there was no real followip on the recommendations.

Accusations of academic fraud. How surprising. Well, I guess if that's all you've got...

For one who does not know the scriptures or the power of God maybe. But this is not an excuse for unbelief as many Christians share your viewpoint.

Nah, I realized they were vapid arguments when I was still a believer.

And my lack of belief has nothing to do with evolution and/or earth age.

 

[Ophiolite]

The half hearted attempts by scientists to defend their finds are explained by the fear of rocking the consensus and challenging the established viewpoint.

You get Nobel prizes by rocking the consensus.
You are lauded by your peers for challenging the established viewpoint. (Granted that's after they've done their level best to rip your argument to pieces.)
You don't seem to know the first (or last) thing about how science works.

Just for our mutual amusement, what is half hearted about this paper, published this week in PNAS. If you cannot convincingly demonstrate that "defending their finds" in this paper is "half hearted", then that part of your argument falls apart. I look forward to your detailed, well argued, evidentially supported response.

 

[Job 33:6]

The critiques read more like an attempt to explain away. The half hearted attempts by scientists to defend their finds are explained by the fear of rocking the consensus and challenging the established viewpoint. There was no deeper result in this case. The only reasons given cast doubt on the explanatory power of the evolutionist assumptions and theories per see. Also there was no real followip on the recommendations.

What is half hearted about my old earth geology posts? We talked about the grand canyon, and through a young earth perspective, we see that we ran into a good number of unanswered complications with the world view. I like to think my posts are pretty honest and arent half hearted.

 

[mindlight]

Science doesn't do proof. Never has, never will. Now you're getting it.

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.

Decay rates are demonstrably constant. More on that later.

There are serious discussions about the constancy of decay rates in the scientific community. So this sounds like a bald faced lie. For instance solar neutrino emissions may effect this.

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

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

Contamination is not a problem, since we CAN DETECT 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.

Wrong. Do you even know what an outlier is? It's an event which goes against the vast majority of information. You should be looking for explanations for why the vast majority of information is inconsistent with the YEC model, rather than clinging to outliers. Outliers are statistically insignificant.

You are, as they say, missing the forest for the trees.

All of this is wrong. Decay rates which are used in radiometric dating have been shown to have been constant. For example, the decay rate of Uranium must have been constant for many millions of years, or Uranium halos would not exist. I've got a ton more examples. We don't just assume they have been constant, we know they have been.

Inputs and outputs are accounted for using isochrons, age spectrums, and concordia/discordia graphs.

The audit trail is there if you bothered to learn how it is accomplished.

Accusations of academic fraud. How surprising. Well, I guess if that's all you've got...

Nah, I realized they were vapid arguments when I was still a believer.

And my lack of belief has nothing to do with evolution and/or earth age.

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.

 

[mindlight]

What is half hearted about my old earth geology posts? We talked about the grand canyon, and through a young earth perspective, we see that we ran into a good number of unanswered complications with the world view. I like to think my posts are pretty honest and arent half hearted.

There is nothing half hearted about your defence of mainstream geology. Nor do I doubt your professionalism on this. It is only when people believe they are going to be discredited, have their reputations ruined and be marginalised by their peers in the scientific world that they become half hearted in their defence of unconventional ideas. Basically some kinds of unconventional are ideologically approved and some kinds are not.

 

[Speedwell]

There is nothing half hearted about your defence of mainstream geology. Nor do I doubt your professionalism on this. It is only when people believe they are going to be discredited, have their reputations ruined and be marginalised by their peers in the scientific world that they become half hearted in their defence of unconventional ideas. Basically some kinds of unconventional are ideologically approved and some kinds are not.

What's the ideology?

 

[46AND2]

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.



There are serious discussions about the constancy of decay rates in the scientific community. So this sounds like a bald faced lie. For instance solar neutrino emissions may effect this.

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

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



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.



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.

I'll reply more completely after work, but there are myriad catastrophic failures with the idea that the flood somehow made things look the way they are. In short, it isn't a better explanation, it's a preposterous explanation.

Heck, it doesn't even explain anything...it just hopes that the flood did SOMETHING weird, with no hypothesis as to what, to make things look like they really have billions of years of accumulated radioactive byproduct.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'll reply more completely after work, but there are myriad catastrophic failures with the idea that the flood somehow made things look the way they are. In short, it isn't a better explanation, it's a preposterous explanation.

Heck, it doesn't even explain anything...it just hopes that the flood did SOMETHING weird, with no hypothesis as to what, to make things look like they really have billions of years of accumulated radioactive byproduct.

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....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have been given definitions (not by me, by others) which include acknowledgement of limitations. The definitions accept that there are no strict, easily defined barriers between species because (as has been pointed out numerous times for you to ignore) speciation is an on-going process.

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

As i said, you choose to ignore the parts that don't fit with your model.


Projection.

Says the person ignoring finches mating right in front of his eyes, and his own scientific definitions.......

The biological species concept is the most widely accepted species concept. It defines species in terms of interbreeding. For instance, Ernst Mayr defined a species as follows: "species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

Talk about ignoring what doesn’t fit ones model.