LiveScience just recently reported an amazing find. In Death Valley, scientists have recovered salt crystals that are supposedly 34,000 years old. They were surprised to find bacteria trapped inside and still living. Brian Schubert, who discovered the “ancient” bacteria said, “It was actually a very big surprise to me.” It would be a very big surprise indeed.
One argument often advanced in support of evolution is that there is some supposed harmony or agreement across various lines of evidence. However, it seems to me that the alleged harmony is more often forced upon the data rather than derived from it. I've blogged about this before (here and here). This most recent find could be yet another example.
The bacteria in question had apparently fallen into some type of suspended animation where it was able to survive starvation. But even in such a state, scientists are puzzled over how the bacteria could resist DNA degradation. DNA is a complex molecule and even under the most ideal circumstances, it degrades quickly over time. Scientists once estimated that DNA could not survive more than around 10,000 but recent findings have forced them to push that back even further. Even so, for living organisms to be suspended for 34,000 years with no degradation is a stumper. Professor Tim Lowenstein is quoted in the article as saying, “We're not sure what's going on.”
Here's a possible solution for Prof. Lowenstein: maybe the bacteria really aren't 34,000 years old. Maybe it's only a few thousand years old and it's the estimate of the age of the salt crystals that wrong. Isn't living bacteria in the crystals evidence that the crystals may not have been as old as once considered? Of course, scientists won't open that Pandora's box. The old dates assumed by secular scientists are ensconced and any new evidence that might contradict them is viewed in light of the old-earth assumption. The bacteria living inside the rock example will not be considered as evidence that the rock may not be 34,000 years old. Instead, the date assigned to the rock is ironclad evidence that the bacteria has survived longer than ever thought possible.
Once again the theory is saved. The data continues in perfect harmony. What could be seen as evidence for a young earth is dismissed with the wave of a hand. There's no controversy here, folks. Move along.
5 comments:
You have not reported this correctly, forcing your own conclusion. The article does not claim that these prokaryotes were in suspended animation, miraculously avoiding DNA degradation. You've even used scientific estimates (which by definition are not accurate) to plant the idea that scientists just make things up. The article, however, shows that science follows the evidence.
The bacteria were part of a micro-ecosystem where conditions could be seen as stressful. They maintained their DNA with a readily available food source and did not reproduce. Nothing in the evidence contradicts our knowledge of the age of the Earth. This is nothing but creationism yet again clutching at straws. There really is no controversy here.
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/21/1/article/i1052-5173-21-1-4.htm
PB,
Thanks for visiting. I haven't heard from you in a while.
You said, “You have not reported this correctly, forcing your own conclusion. The article does not claim that these prokaryotes were in suspended animation, miraculously avoiding DNA degradation.”
I described it as “some type of suspended animation.” The article actually said they were, “suspended in a kind of hibernation state.” It also said they were “suspended in a starvation-survival mode” and later said it was a “survival state,” Do you think my paraphrase is substantially different than the actual quotes?
And I certainly didn't say they “miraculously” avoided DNA degradation. I emphasized the researcher's surprise that there was no degradation. Again quoting the article, Lowenstein said, "We're not sure what's going on.... They need to be able to repair DNA, because DNA degrades with time."
You said, “ You've even used scientific estimates (which by definition are not accurate) to plant the idea that scientists just make things up. The article, however, shows that science follows the evidence.”
I never suggested they were making things up. I said, and I repeat, they are not flexible concerning the age of the rock and immediately imposed that age on the bacteria. They did not consider the possibility (at least the article didn't discuss any consideration given) that the living bacteria could be evidence that the crystal was younger than their estimates.
You said, “The bacteria were part of a micro-ecosystem where conditions could be seen as stressful. They maintained their DNA with a readily available food source and did not reproduce.”
Now I think you're misrepresenting the article. It didn't say they “maintained their DNA with a readily available food source.” It suggested that Dunaliella cells could be a possible food source but they were still not sure how the DNA did not degrade over so long a period of time.
You said, “Nothing in the evidence contradicts our knowledge of the age of the Earth. This is nothing but creationism yet again clutching at straws. There really is no controversy here.”
Why am I not surprised you feel that way? Your attitude is the same as the researchers. The age of the earth is settled in your mind. No evidence can rebut that. Living bacteria in supposedly 34,000 crystal certainly wouldn't do it. The article cites a less credible find of 250-million-year-old bacteria. If that were substantiated, do you think you might then reconsider the age of the rock? Nah, I didn't think so.
God bless!
RKBentley
You're welcome, I've been too busy lately to even maintain my own blog sadly.
Yes, I do believe your descriptions were different to the article, providing a slant on it which was not supported by the data. That's why I linked to the original paper.
The purpose of consumption is to provide energy and to take on proteins which can be used for repair. That they had a food source tells us how they maintained their DNA.
I see no reason for this to make us reassess the age of the rocks and I'll tell you why. On one hand we have tried and tested methods of dating which are constantly being refined (there can be a lot of money in getting the dates right as oil companies rely on this data). On the other hand we have something we are still unsure about - DNA degradation and how long life can last in suspended states. Why would we throw out the more solid data for surprises in an area we know little about?
If you want to find something to make us rethink the age of the Earth you will need something huge. All lines of evidence within geology converge on the same dates (and that is not hyperbole). For me personally you would need to provide evidence which would make us radically reinterpret the whole fossil record.
Lots of fantastic reading here, thank you! I was browsing on yahoo when I found your submit, I’m going to add your feed to Google Reader, I look forward to far more from you.
Thanks for visiting. I'm glad to hear you'll be coming back. Help me get the word out and share my blog with your friends as well. You're welcome to copy and use anything you find here.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment