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
You know that you’ve punctured their balloon when the evo-groupies jump in with their illogical adhominem attacks on the author. Particularly interesting that they never have any facts, just pure hatred of an author that deflates the evo lies.
All excellent points. And yes, you are now on the list. Welcome aboard the HMS Creation!
Good scientists read about them on FR.
They don’t read the NYTimes. ;)
But you’re right. Even a relatively tiny field like proteomics fills up several phone books a week.
If you spend several minutes searching, you’ll discover he has his MS in biotechnology.
Don’t know where from, or anything about his undergraduate work.
You would believe what the NYTimes writes about Christians?
I wouldn’t.
If someone is going to assert their authority (with an “M.S.”), then some evidence that the authority is relevant is not an “ad hominem” [that’s two words, o wise one] attack. Let’s remember, a Master’s Degree in computer science or in accounting are both commonly denoted as an M.S.
What discipline would you see as relevent?
The space bar, and the left shift key on this keyboard have "gone on to their reward."
I think these kinds of posts and debates are pointless and ends up nothing but the hijacking of religion and science and used as blunt instruments against each other in some kind of attempt to ridicule the other.
Unproductful at best. Tedious to see it over and over and over again and again and again here.
Pointless.
To each his own. I get unsolicited emails (sometimes multiple emails per day) asking to be included on what has become a quite large unofficial ping list. In case you haven’t noticed, the creation-evolution issue is very important to the Christian Right, which constitutes one of the main pillars of the Reagan Coalition. If the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism wasn’t so hell-bent on maintaining their stranglehold on the ideology of science, not to mention using the courts to enforce their religious dogma in our public schools and government funded science research establishments, this issue would go away overnight. So if you’re not interested in Creation vs. Evolution posts, feel free to steer clear of these threads. In the meantime, those of us who know what’s at stake in this battle will soldier on.
All the best—GGG
You Evos dismiss scientific integrity outright with just a wave of your hand!
There, fixed it for ya.
BINGO! Liberals project alot. It’s what they do.
Some popular science publications FORCE researchers to come up with better, more understandable graphics and photos ~ and we ALL benefit from that.
Only problem with New Scientist is they use too many "ou"s to spell words.
M.S. can mean a variety of things in different academic systems. You need to know where he went to school first.
Thanks for the ping!
==scientists holding a stranglehold over science?
Both sides are bonafide scientists who disagree over the best interpretation of the exact same evidence. And I must say, after reading many books, paper and articles on both sides, Creation and ID make a much stronger argument than the Evos. Indeed, God’s creation forces us to use the language of design to describe it...not even the Evos can escape this language (try as they might):
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
Who does ID think made the parasites and related creatures who kill so many humans each year?
Since ID does not start with the Bible, I doubt they would be able to say much more than they exist. However, Creationists would argue that they are the product of a fallen world.
==I keep seeing this “Brian Thomas, M.S.” guy on all of these articles...and since I’m assuming the M.S. doesn’t stand for multiple sclerosis, I’m curious what discipline his Master of Science is in exactly.
Not that it will matter much to most of you, but for the record:
Brian Thomas earned his Master of Science in Biotechnology from Stephen F. Austin State University, TX, in December of 1999. He taught Principles of Biology I and II, and General Chemistry I at Navarro College in Waxahachie, TX from 2003-2005. He also taught Undergraduate Biology, Chemistry, Microbiology and Anatomy Lab at Dallas Baptist University from 2005-2008. Here is his thesis paper:
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.