Posted on 11/10/2009 10:54:53 AM PST by decimon
Nun too soon ping.
but science has all sorts of built in safeguards to keep their precious dating methodologies from ever being wrong, right???
but science has all sorts of built in safeguards to keep their precious dating methodologies from ever being wrong, right???
Chinese clergywoman?
Regards,
There is a small, but very good, Arctic museum in Corvallis.
I don’t believe this crap. I bet these scientists are funded because they said that they were trying to scientifically prove global warming because of penguin turd.
"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." Exactly what we've been pointing out for years.
Excellent find Liberty1970...and you are exactly right, we have been pointing this out for years!!!
PING!!!!!!!!
And I was under the impression that man and other life forms on this earth were only 6000 years old. Can someone help me understand how a penguin can be dated at 200,000 years old. It’s a christian thing I have trouble getting past.
Some Christians.
Easy - Just decide how old you want it to be, and fudge and fidgit all data to fit. Happens every day.
I don’t understand how, if the samples are *older* than we thought, that means evolution moves *faster* than we thought. That seems contradictory.
If you find a 10% genetic change in a non genetic sequence between modern penguins and ancient penguins and you think it corresponds to 20,000 years; but find that instead it corresponds to 40,000 or 60,000 years - that means that the rate of change of that sequence is SLOWER than expected, not faster.
Somewhere between the actual science and this school publication someone got a little mixed up.
And even a doubling or tripling of the expected rate of accumulation of neutral mutations doesn't come close to the speed of evolution and speciation that Creationists would need for every species on Earth to have descended from those that could fit on a boat within the last few thousand years or so.
“I don't believe in evolution, except when it happens thousands of times faster than any evolutionary biologist ever suggested.” the ignorant Creationist maintains.
My friend, you’re missing the point entirely. This does not relate to the Bible or Creation v. Evolution, per se. It points out that much of the assumptions of evolutionists are faulty. Like the parable of the man who built his house upon the sand. A poor foundation leads to poor results. Or like the old computer-geek saying, Gargage In — Garbage Out.
I think this is meant to be the explaining sentence: "We now think that many genetic changes were happening that conventional DNA analysis did not capture."
To me this means that the longer time period includes heretofore undetected changes.
1) that DNA change is faster than expected.
2) that the amount of DNA change that you might expect from 20,000 years divergence is actually 40,000 years worth of divergence (i.e. the DNA change is slower than expected).
And in neither case is the evolution fast enough to satisfy the needs of Creationists who, although they actually believe in evolution thousands of times faster than evolutionary biology suggest is possible - usually say they don't believe in evolution at all.
I think it's saying that the DNA changes are faster than has been believed because there are more changes than has been believed. But it's hard to be sure with the condensed version.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.