Science Daily: Ancient Penguin DNA Raises Doubts About Accuracy of Genetic Dating Techniques.
ScienceDaily (Nov. 15, 2009) — Penguins that died 44,000 years ago in Antarctica [Atlantis] 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.
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.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
18 comments:
OIM,
The article talks about the clock - the evolutionary clock. But, you believed everything was created by that hot rock throwing, fair maiden chasing wimp may be 5500 years ago. These guys are talkingabout may be 600,000 years ago...
KV,
You obviously don't know what I believe.
And you obviously don't understand the article.
What this article says is that the fair maidens you think magically and miraculously appeared for no reason 200,000 years ago, actually existed over a million years ago.
OIM,
Yea a reminder to the proclamist: the fair maidens did exist in the minds of wimps in alpha centuri! Otherwise, why would they waste their time to travel so far? Somehow, they had no technology to figure out how to make their own kind of fair maidens!
On your profile The Bible is the first. That book is not unforgiving like most of us engaged in reason, they used to nail people on pieces of wood, and holocausted women who believed in something else, like the magic circle.
The article says "may be" and science always listen to propositions, and even the preposterous proclamations you make.
OIM,
The article says penguins may be older than biologists thought...
It does not apply to everything as you proclaim.
KV- No, you are right in that it does not specifically mention everything, but it DOES raise questions and implications as to the accuracy of dating ancient organisms and other things. In fact, if we are indeed incorrect about the age of penguins then there's a chance we may have been incorrect about other things as well. It challenges conventional wisdom.
This observation could lend more power to some of the theories in this book, which is an intriguing read.
http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Before-Our-Brad-Steiger/dp/193366519X
Regarding reinterpreting the Bible... a better understanding of the world today makes a better understanding of the Torah, and/or Christian Gospel possible. The "Manna Machine" chapter in "World's Before Our Own" is a perfect example of this.
------
http://www.hope-of-israel.org/lifeadam.htm
I came across this interesting read. The clear difference between "traditional creationists" (Deists/believers who utilize science in conjunction with religious views), and "neo-creationists"(Deists/believers who think science is "a trick" to sway them from their belief in a deity)...
There are also parts devoted to the Darwinist religion.
A part of the article which reminds me of a lot of people, including even myself at times.
"Infatuation with a false belief or theory can hurt just as bad as romantic infatuation. After the honeymoon, the young couple have to deal with reality. If they were hasty, and rushed into marriage with the wrong person, the trauma and life long pain and regret can be considerable. Even so, if you have clung to out-moded beliefs, or concepts which are not really in the Scriptures, unlearning that false "knowledge" can be difficult and painful at times. It is much more difficult to unlearn false beliefs than to learn something right the first time!"
Hebrew is the language the "Tanakh" (Old Testament) was written. When translating from Hebrew many things reveal themselves which would otherwise be lost in translation... such as the "Manna Machine" mentioned above... "The Zohar" is another example of studying the word of G0d in Hebrew.
Ari,
Shalom.
I've quoted Steiger's Worlds Before Our Own on the sidebar of the blog at left...=)
Arie
There are also parts devoted to the Darwinist religion.
There is no such thing. Only a self-correcting, dynamic set of facts.
A sure sign of denialism is the invocation of Darwinism as a faith or religion.
This article, about the possible correction of the molecular clock, is a fine proof of the notion that it is not a religion, but a living, evolving science.
There is no dogma. Evolution is accepted as fact, but the workings of the mechanism are hotly debated; sexual selection, natural selection, exogenetic factors and other mechanisms that affect development.
By comparision, religion involves appeals to authority (God or the Pope or a Holy Book), unshifting dogma, various punishments for transgression and possible death for leaving the faith.
There's also a lot of killing heretics and infidels.
Oh, and Oils,
Nothing magically appears in evolution. We've been over this. You are too buried in your Vedic Creationism to get a clue about it. I do wish you'd actually understand it, instead of repeating the same tired bullshit.
"Poofing into existance" only happens in Creationism.
Raptor Lewis wrote: ...it DOES raise questions and implications as to the accuracy of dating ancient organisms and other things.
It raises question regarding DNA clock technique used...
And, also wrote:...In fact, if we are indeed incorrect about the age of penguins then there's a chance we may have been incorrect about other things as well.
I don't know how to interpret "in fact, if..." conditional leading to probability of incorrectness in "other things" as well...
Ari Sheyn quoted from referenced article: ...if you have clung to out-moded beliefs, or concepts which are not really in the Scriptures...
May be the scriptures are outmoded... and therefore, you, OIM have hard time unlearning the false beliefs they have taught...
Jeffery- No ONE IS in denial, you ignorant fool! You've missed the point of OiM's posts yet again! I agree that it's science and NOT religion, but you have crossed the line with your confrontational attitude! :(
KV- Oh, sorry about that last statement. ;P I was merely referring to everyone on the blog. And, what I meant was that there is the chance that we have been wrong about many aspects of science, more specifically Biological sciences. ;P Does that make a little more sense? ;P
OiM- I'm sorry for my anger, but I am tired of Jeffery's incessant whining and beligerent attitude! :( He is not making this blog fun for me as I am TIRED of this. He has proven time and time again of his ignorance and I feel that unless he changes his attitude, he should leave. Again, I'm truly sorry, man and I hope you can forgive me.
Thanks!
Oh! And Jeffery? OilIsMastery is playing MIND games with you, you fool! You're TOO Blinded by anger to THINK straight...or even think at all for that matter! :(
Raptor,
OiM- I'm sorry for my anger, but I am tired of Jeffery's incessant whining and beligerent attitude! :( He is not making this blog fun for me as I am TIRED of this. He has proven time and time again of his ignorance and I feel that unless he changes his attitude, he should leave. Again, I'm truly sorry, man and I hope you can forgive me.
I'm not here to insure that you have fun, Raptor. I call things the way I see them.
You'd rather I encourage folks like Oils to continue lying about science? Sorry. Not gonna happen.
What will happen is that I'll leave forever if Oils asks me to. Its his blog, and I'll be gone in a heartbeat if he wills it.
Until then, I will come down on the side of evidence and rationality every time. Oils has some good posts, but most often, he's just some denialist wackaloon. I do not think such folks should be ignored. But I will, if he but asks.
RL - I am reproducing a comment I made previously about JK.
RL - you wrote to JK: You are CHILDISH and you need to GROW UP!!!!!!!!
Why don't you appply this to yourself. If you have an axe to grind with JK, do so, but be specific, and please do not be a horse's ass!
I repeated it because your comments are way excessive... After all, it is a blog. If OIM were to avoid pressing his agenda, and avoild self-evident proclamations about wimps and the old book and other broad generalization of highly specific scientific study or observation, he would be alright. For me, his primary contribution is in supporting a dialog in hydrocarbon formation mechanisms. The rest is total bs, why? He has not written an original post deliniating his beliefs and how he arrived at...
KV- That's true about "JK" in that he never posts anything on his own blog indicating his own beliefs.
BTW- Kv, do you think I'm a little too harsh and in what ways am I "excessive?" Just curious.
Raptor,
...please do not be a horse's ass!
Above is self-explanatory.
By your profile, you are only 17, so being ill-tempered is mostly due to your youth. Slow down, reflect on your thoughts, and compose your post in a word processor so you have chance to see what you have spit out...
You're right, KV. I'm sorry. I will take that into consideration, believe me. :P
Post a Comment