McBell
Unbound
Only because it is a bold faced lie.
How about you give the names of a couple scientists and then we will ask them?
There is no such thing as creation science.
None.
It does not exist outside the minds of your choir.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution 'controversy'.
- Thread starter PennyKay
- Start date
None.
It does not exist outside the minds of your choir.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Although your reply didn't address my question, I do agree with your assessment. Were a scientist to abandon the scientific method in order to validate the creationist model (s)he would not be taken seriously, and rightfully so. But this isn't the reason scientists hang onto the scientific method; they hang onto it because it works, time after time after time. Using the creationist approach---either employing faith or taking a conclusion and then picking and choosing only the evidence that supports it---is not only a very poor way to arrive at the truth, but a stupid one.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
If anyone needs evidence of this being true, consider what you are looking at.
newhope101
Active Member
Evolutionists will only accept the research that suits them...which is not a valid scientific method either. There is much genomic dating that does not support the fossil records dates and one is ignorant to not be aware of it. Below is just one example of inaccuraracies in genomic dating and there are plenty more of same and in relation to radiometric dating.
Ancient Penguin DNA Raises Doubts About Accuracy of Genetic Dating Techniques
ScienceDaily (Nov. 15, 2009) Penguins that died 44,000 years ago in Antarctica have provided extraordinary frozen DNA samples that challenge the accuracy of traditional genetic aging measurements, and suggest those approaches have been routinely underestimating the age of many specimens by 200 to 600 percent.
http://www.religiousforums.com/news/fossils_ruins/evolution/
In other words, a biological specimen determined by traditional DNA testing to be 100,000 years old may actually be 200,000 to 600,000 years old, researchers suggest in a new report in Trends in Genetics, a professional journal.
The findings raise doubts about the accuracy of many evolutionary rates based on conventional types of genetic analysis.
"Some earlier work based on small amounts of DNA indicated this same problem, but now we have more conclusive evidence based on the study of almost an entire mitochondrial genome," said Dee Denver, an evolutionary biologist with the Center for Genome Research and Biocomputing at Oregon State University.
"The observations in this report appear to be fundamental and should extend to most animal species," he added. "We believe that traditional DNA dating techniques are fundamentally flawed, and that the rates of evolution are in fact much faster than conventional technologies have led us to believe."
The findings, researchers say, are primarily a challenge to the techniques used to determine the age of a sample by genetic analysis alone, rather than by other observations about fossils. In particular, they may force a widespread re-examination of determinations about when one species split off from another, if that determination was based largely on genetic evidence.
For years, researchers have been using their understanding of the rates of genetic mutations in cells to help date ancient biological samples, and in what's called "phylogenetic comparison," used that information along with fossil evidence to determine the dates of fossils and the history of evolution. The rates of molecular evolution "underpin much of modern evolutionary biology," the researchers noted in their report.
"For the genetic analysis to be accurate, however, you must have the right molecular clock rate," Denver said. "We now think that many genetic changes were happening that conventional DNA analysis did not capture. They were fairly easy to use and apply but also too indirect, and inaccurate as a result."
This conclusion, researchers said, was forced by the study of many penguin bones that were well preserved by sub-freezing temperatures in Antarctica. These penguins live in massive rookeries, have inhabited the same areas for thousands of years, and it was comparatively simple to identify bones of different ages just by digging deeper in areas where they died and their bones piled up.
For their study, the scientists used a range of mitochondrial DNA found in bones ranging from 250 years to about 44,000 years old.
"In a temperate zone when an animal dies and falls to the ground, their DNA might degrade within a year," Denver said. "In Antarctica the same remains are well-preserved for tens of thousands of years. It's a remarkable scientific resource."
A precise study of this ancient DNA was compared to the known ages of the bones, and produced results that were far different than conventional analysis would have suggested. Researchers also determined that different types of DNA sequences changed at different rates.
Aside from raising doubts about the accuracy of many specimens dated with conventional approaches, the study may give researchers tools to improve their future dating estimates, Denver said.
Collaborators on the research included scientists from OSU, Griffith University in Australia, the University of Auckland in New Zealand, Massey University in New Zealand, University of North Carolina in Wilmington, the Scripps Research Institute, and Universita' di Pisa in Italy.
The studies were supported by the National Science Foundation, National Geographic Society, and other agencies.
That is quite the gratuitous accusation, and one that fails to address the obvious appeal of the opportunity for attaining fame by presenting evidence against the established ideas.
For instance, this article that you just presented will obviously need to be validated. If there is anything to it, no doubt someone will be glad to say so and receive the due attention.
But really, inaccuracies in DNA dating, even if genuine, are hardly a threat to the ToE at this point. If anything, they are something that, once found, will in all likelyhood lead to more accurate testing - and therefore, to better and more convincing evidence.
In practical terms, the "controversy" is akin to "doubt" on whether the TV schedule for today will be - except that the schedule is somewhat likely to actually change and surprise us.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Incidentally, the analogous claim creationism tries to back up is that the TV schedule doesn't exist at all.
Skwim
Veteran Member
As should be abundantly apparent, no evidence need support everything. Evidence for sea floor spreading is hardly relevant to the theory of molecular bonds. But I assume you meant to say something like, "Evolutionists will not accept the research that goes against their theories."newhope101 said:
I doubt if "there is much" is accurate, but I will grant that no doubt there is some evidence that "Raises Doubts About Accuracy of Genetic Dating Techniques," as well as other aspects of scientific inquiry. It's all part of doing science: not all evidence points in the same direction, and never will, which is obvious. Is it not?
However, what is interesting here is that the very thing you accuse science of not doing---(to paraphrase you) accepting evidence that goes against their theories---is demonstrated to be false by your very post.
Ancient Penguin DNA Raises Doubts About Accuracy of Genetic Dating Techniques
The only way DNA could raise such doubts is if science had gone to the trouble of establishing such a thing. It's science doing what it's suppose to be doing, looking into and reporting all its findings, whether they help or hinder some aspect of investigation. It's the continual ongoing process of checking itself for errors, which exemplifies its willingness to be be wrong and make whatever changes are necessary. And theories involving evolution are not handled any differently. But, just because there is evidence suggesting some aspect of a theory is incorrect does not mean there will be an immediate knee-jerk reaction to accept it and toss out the baby with the bath water. Such evidence is welcomed, and put in with all the other evidence where it will be weighed and considered. Should it prove to be useful its effect will be reflected in an adjustment of the theory. If not, it will be ignored.
This is how all science works, including the evolutionary sciences: it looks at all the evidence, the troublesome along with the reaffirming, and then offers its best conclusions. However, no conclusion is writ in stone. All are subject to Ancient Penguin DNA. Now, whether the Ancient Penguin DNA of this issue proves relevant remains to be seen, but until it does it's simply one of many such pieces up for consideration.
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The creation myth does a wonderful job at what it's supposed to do: Give us a theological understanding of the universe. It does a really crappy job of giving us scientific details. This is a real good example of reading "Peter Rabbit" instead of Chilton's when trying to fix a car...
Skwim
Veteran Member
Curious as to what value this theological understanding of the universe might be.
"Naturalism" is simply anything found in the universe-- anything that can occur in nature. If God exists, he would be an integral aspect of nature. Hence, there is nothing in science that predisposes them against finding God in nature. Science simply hasn't found any evidence of God.
I mean, if it were apparent that God exists, then science would certainly take God into account when developing theories.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
This issue isn't whether God exists or is behind evolution, but whether people can alter or stunt scientific learning to make it more palatable with their religious beliefs. There are a great many people who acknowledge the reality of evolution and also believe that some god or other is behind the process.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
Cool. Here's a cookie.
Actually, never mind. That cookie looks delicious. I'm gonna keep it and eat it.
Actually, never mind. That cookie looks delicious. I'm gonna keep it and eat it.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Seemed appropriate.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Which is why you were able to find a paper discussing the issue in a main stream science publication... :slap:
That's a lot of nonacceptance right there...
wa:do
<clipped badly explained Science Daily article>
Heres the actual paper: PLoS Genetics: Mutation and Evolutionary Rates in Adélie Penguins from the Antarctic
PW (as usual
) pretty much wrapped this thread up a week ago and I probably shouldnt resurrect it but
meh. The disparities between the molecular clock and archaeological information have long been known and studied- its not like this penguin study shattered the foundations of genetic testing (see Ho and Larson for an excellent analysis). Anyway, scientific discoveries are always being revised in light of new evidence, evidence confirmed by experimental repetition. Rather than a glaring indictment of how science works the ancient penguin DNA is confirmation that science is not dogma, it changes based on new discoveries that fine tune and hone the accuracy of future studies while further validating previous ones. You insinuate that the Daily News article is an example of scientists being close mined and only embracing that which they assume when just the opposite is actually illustrated here. Also, I dont assume a creationist (even an "old earth" one) will have bothered to read the original paper but it would help matters if they did before using it as an example of scientific hubris or invalidity of genetic dating. Of course genomic and fossil dates have subtle differences by the simple fact that fossil dates are referenced as a minimal age for divergences (see Wray's "Dating Branches on the Tree of Life Using DNA").
The paper states that the rates of evolution of the mitochondrial genome are two to six times greater than those estimated from phylogenetic comparisons. Fair enough, the mt clock runs faster than the phylogenetic indicators and since weve been using the mt DNA changes to date specimens we may have to reevaluate previous assumed dates since they might under estimate their age. So the phylogenetic clock runs anywhere from 200 to 600% slower than we thought (See YECs? Youre stupider than previously thought!). The main issue is that scientists thought the rates of mtDNA and phylogenetic indicators were comparable, when the actual length of time (phylogenetic) is longer than the mtDNA conclusions. Scientists simply didnt have a sufficient quantity of ancient DNA to do a comparable study previously. So Evolution is still chugging along just fine and is going to be constantly refined as new scientific discoveries fine tune our understanding. That's how science works, that's how this penguin study furtehr confirms science's non-dogmatic nature and further confirms just how deep genetic time remains.