This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

creationists: should creationism be taught in science classes?

#51ave1Posted 9/28/2013 9:56:52 AM(edited)
Well, so far no one I was debating with seems to want to take on the ancient dna issue. So I checked online and found this article associated with the publication Scientific American: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/08/01/jurassic-park-and-the-race-for-ancient-dna/

After reading about all that had happened in the 90s (when Jurassic Park was popular)- and the evidence of Thomas Lindahl (pertaining to the impossibility of ancient dna actually being real since it degrades at a measurable rate), I noticed that the article summed things up with this statement: “Lindahl was right. The millions of years old aDNA samples were just contaminants.“ (Andrew Balmer reached this conclusion after citing how a couple instances of ancient dna could not pass tests of repeatability.)

So the issue went away in the 90s, right?

Not so fast.

Check out this 2004 article: http://m.amjbot.org/content/91/4/615.full

Scientists have shown the ancient dna from fossils taken from Miocene strata had not been invalidated.

Why would that author at Scientific American leave out this information? Could it be that he doesn't like the implication that Miocene fossils with truly intact dna Have To be less than a couple million years old?

This is typical of Evolutionists who want to try and hide pertinent information that goes against their pet theory. So Reinbach, my statement about the typical Evolutionist response to evidence that opposes their position is quite accurate here. They always don't bring it up. I find it interesting what gets shoved under the rug.

---
If a tree falls in a forest and you hear it, but your eyes are closed, how do you know it's not just fifty porcupines sliding down a hill?
#52hunter_gohanPosted 9/28/2013 10:01:37 AM
ave1 posted...
This is typical of Evolutionists who want to try and hide pertinent information that goes against their pet theory.


Says the creationist utilizing sources that specifically say they do just this. Notice out of all these papers you keep putting up, not a single one talks about the DNA being less than 6,000 years old?

This is the main problem with creationist objection to science. They project and assume it is an irrationally held religious belief just like creationism is with them. In science, we give money and awards to people who overturn previously held theories. In reality, no one in his right mind would pass up a Nobel prize simply to keep this global evolution conspiracy going. Science is not practiced like you practice your religion.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#53ThuggernautzPosted 9/28/2013 10:05:42 AM
ave1 posted...

Well, it appears you have already answered the above questions right here. You apparently understand that it's a more refined result that nested PCR sequencing gives us (compared to the Double Primer PCR amplification method). In other words- fewer gaps in the sequence information.


No, YOU fail to understand. The reason why they had to switch to nested PCR and various incremental optimizations for PCR was because previous methods created faulty and incorrect, spurious DNA sequences, because it was unbelievably easy for the polymerised DNA to become contaminated by DNA fragments.


Invalidating, eh? How can getting better accuracy in the DNA/amino acid sequencing information "Invalidate" the results from a gappy-amino-acid-sequence result? In the older Double Primer PCR analysis (the one that has plenty of gaps), the parts that actually *are* sequenced seem to indicate that the ancient DNA matches what we'd expect from a weevil. It's not elephant, maple tree, or stork DNA- it's weevil DNA (with- I'm sure- plenty of gaps in the sequencing).

A refinement technique in analysis improves accuracy. It doesn't take a former method and throw the things it has been able to confirm and identify out the window. If you think that's what it does, I'd say you might want to look into getting a little more educated on refinement techniques in scientific analysis.


No, it was invalidated because the damn study was contaminated.

http://gnusha.org/~nmz787/instability%20and%20decay%20of%20the%20primary%20structure%20of%20DNA.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379106000199

http://www.biotechniques.com/BiotechniquesJournal/2011/June/Beyond-ancient-microbial-DNA-nonnucleotidic-biomolecules-for-paleomicrobiology/biotechniques-316674.html

Further, one of the original biologists responsible for the ancient DNA 'find' of plant DNA later repeated his experiments and concluded they were contaminated.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/333/1268/419.short


This has nothing to do with the topic of ancient DNA being found in creatures that got buried under the rocks that are radio-date-identified as being many many millions of years old. Again, you are pointing to evidence of bacteria being able to exist for extended periods of time far less than the upper limit of 1.5 million years DNA endurance. What I'm here to discuss is not that topic. I'm starting to sense that you like to obfuscate...


It has everything to do with it; it illustrates how very complex DNA reconstruction is, and that many of the finds about ancient DNA in amber, halite and rocks are actually due to a completely separate mechanism which prolongs and often changes the structure of DNA well past it's expected degradation date. It's a shame you didn't read much of the abstract, allow me to requote it here so you can understand:

Thus, the controversy of viable ancient bacteria is heightened by an absence of convincing evidence for mechanisms by which a cell can withstand damage to DNA and other unstable molecules such as ATP over geological timescales (11–14). Even though there have been speculations and some indirect evidence of respiration in ancient microbes (e.g., refs. 15–21), so far there has been no direct evidence of active DNA repair. Additionally, we find strong evidence that this long-term survival is closely tied to cellular metabolic activity and DNA repair that over time proves to be superior to dormancy as a mechanism in sustaining bacteria viability.
#54ThuggernautzPosted 9/28/2013 10:47:52 AM(edited)
The rate of DNA degradation (which is actually a scientific clock) has been tested numerous times. The only reason they have changed the upper limit is due to experiments done in extreme cold environments that slow down the rate. If the rate is going to be changed again by a better experiment, they'll be having to change the temperature to absolute zero... but that would take it far from the range of temperatures that occur here on our planet which would be pretty worthless.


And I have already shown that there are multiple methods by which the time range of DNA can be extended. I have given you multiple links invalidating the results of earlier studies, even by the scientists who conducted the original studies admitting that they were mistaken.

... but we did have enough to let us know that we had a weevil despite the gaps in genetic information back in the 90's.

By the way, did you know that magnolias with intact DNA have been found in Clarkia fossil beds (allegedly 20 million years old)? Do an online search to find out about these fossils.


Firstly, they do not have fully intact DNA. In fact, all they recovered was a couple of partial sequences from two different genes, of less than 2000 base pairs each. For comparison, a fully intact human genome contains ~3.17 BILLION base pairs. So stop lying.

http://www.amjbot.org/content/91/4/615.full

Guess why they only got partial sequences? Oh yeah, DNA degradation. Funny that.

Oh, and one last thing. Every single report you are citing here still does absolutely nothing to strengthen your position. I mean, we are talking about ages of 15-20 million years in some cases; and a huge range of finds stretching back millions of years that do absolutely nothing to support any notion of a global flood. You keep shooting yourself in the foot. The Clarkia fossil beds do nothing to support a global flood, unless you want to explain why every other fossil find in the world doesn't contain the same conditions of degradation, chemical composition of soil and rock, radiometric age differences etc etc. The list of other dating mechanisms supporting an old earth and not supporting a global flood is almost too long to even write in one post.

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of palaeobiology whereby you think that many of the finds of partial DNA sequences somehow contradicts your strawman of a fundamental limit on DNA degradation. Unfortunately for you, I think it's pretty obvious to everyone here that you keep making this mistake by constantly claiming all these finds of 'fully intact DNA', when in reality the finds are usually less than a couple of thousand base pairs of one particular gene out of the entire strand of DNA of a species, and does absolutely nothing to conflict with Lindahls earliest estimates of DNA degradation (which, BTW, has since been refined multiple times). Compounding this giant misundertanding on your behalf you have yet to link all of these studies, which claim ages in the millions of years, to your hypothesis of a global flood.
#55YouAreCrumbsPosted 9/28/2013 10:32:36 AM
ave1 posted...
Reinbach_III posted...

Even if that had been confirmed and/or the results reproduced, all it would mean is that under the right conditions DNA can survive for longer than we currently think it can. That's not a problem for evolution, so I don't know why you bothered in bringing it up.


What right conditions? Scientists determined that the DNA molecule disintegrates into basic compounds at a calculatable rate. Even in extremely cold temperatures, these rates never allow DNA to remain intact longer than 1.5 million years. If you are saying that we just haven't discovered some possible condition that accounts for this and allows it to make sense when considered alongside the Theory of Evolution, you must believe in miracles.

Intact DNA being present in something that belonged to below-dinosaur strata makes perfect sense, though, to a creationist. The Weevil was obviously not millions of years old when the flood event occurred.


But this doesn't make any sense at all, because then all of those things we tried to extract DNA from that didn't work, that made us say "hey, we can't get DNA out of stuff this old," would have DNA that could be extracted. You're using one fringe case to "prove" creationism, but the case you're making contradicts hundreds and hundreds of observed, testable things.
---
joey444
We elect Obama and all the capitalists will be executed. This is a legitimate concern of mine. - OMGWTFPIE, 2011
#56Faust_8Posted 9/29/2013 10:48:55 PM
I like how ave is all like "man nobody is refuting me so far" after a whole one day of nobody getting around to debunking his silliness.
---
I'm not against religion. I'm against all bad ideas, held for bad reasons, prompting bad behavior.
#57ryan0991Posted 9/30/2013 1:31:38 AM
ave1 posted...
This is typical of Evolutionists who want to try and hide pertinent information that goes against their pet theory.

As I said, it's absolutely fascinating that a YEC can say something like this with zero self-awareness.
---
http://www.xboxlc.com/cards/sig/newblack/BOBtheMASTER.jpg
Could care less = you care at least somewhat. Couldn't care less = you don't care at all.
#58inferiorweaselPosted 9/30/2013 6:26:40 AM
Creationism should be taught in whatever Class Evolution is taught in since they are both faith based. Until Evolution can pass the Scientific Method, IE OBSERVATION, it's a faith based belief like any other religion.
---
Forgiveness is Divine
Live and Learn
#59Heineken14Posted 9/30/2013 6:29:32 AM
inferiorweasel posted...
Creationism should be taught in whatever Class Evolution is taught in since they are both faith based. Until Evolution can pass the Scientific Method, IE OBSERVATION, it's a faith based belief like any other religion.


No.
---
Rage is a hell of an anesthetic.
#60ThuggernautzPosted 9/30/2013 6:38:43 AM
This should be the nail in the coffin, but I suspect no amount of evidence or new findings that disagree with ave's presuppositions will help.

Here's a new study, from this year, by Thomas Lindahl. The guy who you are so dogmatically clinging too's original assessment of DNA degradation. This study recounts a tale of surprise, mystery and exhaustive science. Apparently Lindahl knew there was more to the matter than simple chemical degradation, and his findings add to a plethora of similar findings on DNA repair. I'll let you read the abstract.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23453014