Posted on 03/10/2009 12:44:06 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Evolutionary scientists often use results derived from molecular biology dating methods (based on DNA sequence similarities) to bolster their assumptions that some related organisms may have diverged millions of years ago. But like so many other assumption-laden, naturalistic dating techniques, the data is massaged to fit the paradigm instead of having the model adjusted to fit the observed facts.
For example, a recent University of Florida press release stated, “A new University of Florida study based on DNA analysis from living flowering plants shows that the ancestors of most modern trees diversified extremely rapidly 90 million years ago.”1 However, the actual data does not confirm this age, but rather the belief in this age was used to interpret the data.
Increasingly, both creation and evolutionary geneticists are finding that changes to genomes do not occur reliably enough to justify accurate extrapolations to past dates. Mutations seem to occur in hot spots, and their rates vary dramatically depending on the organism, the purposes of particular segments of DNA, and global and cellular environments. In addition to these problems, creation geneticists are recognizing that not all genetic differences arose through mutation—many could have been designed into the first created creatures of each kind.
In cladistic studies, confusion over which group evolved from which is the rule, not the exception.2 In the report cited in the UF press release, a team of researchers tracked a set of specific DNA sequences among “rosids,” which comprise one fourth of all flowering plants. They found that “some rosid clades…do not fall into either [of the families] Fabidae or Malvidae, and their relationships remain unclear.”3 So, how did they overcome the “lack of resolution” of evolutionary relationships to establish a date of divergence based on the DNA similarities? “Rosid fossils selected by co-author Steven Manchester, the museum’s curator of paleobotany, were used to help calibrate that clock by setting minimum ages for member species.”1
This is one more example of the circular nature of evolutionary “dating.” The molecular “clocks” had to be calibrated to fossils. Likewise, radiometric dating is calibrated to accepted ages of fossils, setting up a situation in which each is considered to “prove” the other without reliable outside corroboration. It seems that there is less objective science to back up evolutionary dates than there is sheer belief that those dates must be true.
References
There’s a guy in India who has a tree growing out of his ear.
Oh Puhleeeease
LOL!
The biotechnology guy is using press releases for references now.
I see press releases mentioned or cited in popular Evo science mags like New Scientist, etc. So what’s your point?
That you still think popular magazines are the best sources for detailed discussions of science.
It’s like reading Reader’s Digest to determine the authority of Scripture.
I’m not surprised though. Mr. Thomas does this quite a bit in his articles.
they don’t support his position so they are not relevant. Whe they do support his position they they are the ultimate in proven fact. Evolutionary scientist do not lie or miss use facts to support their claim! You know, like global warming.
Actually, I recently read in a secular science newsletter that the sheer number of just the abstracts from each scientific discipline could fill up many phone books per year. Scientists were quoted saying that the sheer volume of these mostly inconsequential scientific papers are impossible to keep up with, and that many scientists learn about the latest discoveries in publications such as the New York Times!
This guy makes it up as he goes along. He doesn’t even cross reference his own output. In the ‘article’ were he claimed that fish could handle the salinity (or lack of it) of The Flood, he ignored another piece he’d written where he claimed the waters would have been moving at over 80m per second to account for the geological reformation of the earth. Hardy beasts those flood fishes.
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
So any time a science mag references a press release, the article is to be discounted. Got it.
I love this guy! I'm starting to picture him as the Billy Mays of anti-evolutionists. "Hi, Brian Thomas here to show you an easy way to dismiss scientific findings outright with just a wave of your hand!"
At any rate, it should be possible, for example, to look at the variation in the human genome, the human mutation rate (ala Dr. Sanford's work on genomic entropy) and derive an estimate for the date of Eve. The data I've seen to date has supported the biblical timeframe, though some of the methodology on the studies done back in the 90's is in question (which is why we haven't heard more about it yet). It will be interested to see what the GENE project and similar endeavors turn up.
Not true. Radiometric dating is based on calculations from physical constants (decay rates of radioisotopes), and is not dependent on fossil evidence. However, radiometric dating can be used to determine absolute ages of strata in which fossils appear. There are different methods of radiometric dating using various isotopes, so ages from one method can sometimes be confirmed by using other methods. The evidence for the great antiquity of the earth (and of life on earth) is simply overwhelming.
“You Evos dismiss scientific integrity outright with just a wave of your hand!”
There, fixed it for ya.
He should have his ears cleaned more often.
Maybe the M.S. refers to this job:
“Molecular Scientist
JOB SUMMARY:
Ikonysis has an immediate opening for an outstanding individual with proven ability in molecular biology and molecular genetics. The laboratory will expand the capabilities of its automated microscope to process a number of clinically relevant cytogenetic samples; the laboratory will expand the platforms growing diagnostic molecular biology and FISH components. Responsibilities of the position will include conceptualizing and undertaking research activities related to the development of new products, establishing and monitoring quality-control/quality-assurance activities, implementing new technologies, and troubleshooting problems encountered in the day-to-day activities of the laboratory. The preferred candidate should have at least 2 years of relevant experience at the postdoctoral level in a relevant field. Salary will be commensurate with experience.”
For a great summary of the problems with radiometric dating (to include circular calibration methods), please see the following:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html
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.