It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Throwing a Monkey Wrench into the Evolution Clock

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Well, leave it to Science.


Revolutionary thinking on evolution forces rethink on species
www.smh.com.au...
Deborah Smith Science Editor
July 29, 2006

SIMON HO grew up near the surf beach at Maroubra. Now the 25-year-old Australian is making big waves in the scientific world.

Dr Ho, a biologist and computer scientist, has uncovered flaws in the method other researchers have been using for decades to estimate when different species evolved, forcing many to reconsider their dates.

His research suggests modern humans arose much more recently than had been thought.

"Basically, any studies that look at evolution in the past million years need to be re-evaluated, so a lot of people are quite defensive about that," said Dr Ho, who has just been awarded a doctoral degree at Oxford University in Britain for his findings.

and it goes on to note....

While archaeological evidence suggested there was a sudden increase in life forms, known as the Cambrian explosion, about 560 million years ago, DNA research suggested this occurred up to 1600 million years ago.

After re-analysing the DNA studies correctly, the young student found that they matched the archaeological dates more closely.


His finds in this area are quite interesting. Especially with the Domestic Spieces. Makes more sense to me, than what Evolutionists wished us to believe.

Ciao

Shane

Edited to Correct as noted


[edit on 31-7-2006 by Shane]

[edit on 31-7-2006 by Shane]




posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
You should not have changed the figure; according to Ho, the DNA evidence shows that the various things SHOULD HAVE changed longer ago than the archaeological/paleontological/geological evidence shows.

Look at the figure at the top of the article. The Cambrian explosion DNA-based date of 1.6 Gyears ago is correct, which just goes to show that the DNA date itself is probably incorrect.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Look at the figure at the top of the article. The Cambrian explosion DNA-based date of 1.6 Gyears ago is correct, which just goes to show that the DNA date itself is probably incorrect.


As noted, that was fixed, and I thank you for your observation. Your were correct about that Graphic.

I do think we will find his DNA studies will be more accurate than current means of measures, but I guess we will see. He seems to be bringing the discrepancy between the DNA Studies, which suggest 1600 Million, and Archeaology, which suggest 530 Million for the Cambrian Explosion, closer together. (At least this is what I believe he is presenting). Likewise with the Domesticated aspect.

So yes, the Current DNA data seems to have been interpeted wrong, as you are noting as well.

I'll keep watching for further details as they become available to place in here.

Thanks again

Ciao

Shane



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I fail to see how this changes or contradicts what Evolution says?

It just aligns the archeological findings with the DNA studies more closely.

His studies in no way support or suggest that everything apeared 6000 years ago, it actualy makes evolutionary data from both fields of the study work better then ever before, conflicting data is something you can't have in science and he fixes that.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
I fail to see how this changes or contradicts what Evolution says?

It just aligns the archeological findings with the DNA studies more closely.

His studies in no way support or suggest that everything apeared 6000 years ago, it actualy makes evolutionary data from both fields of the study work better then ever before, conflicting data is something you can't have in science and he fixes that.


Well Evolution has claimed, that Domesticated Spieces have been such for 500000 Years or so, based on Science, (in general).

Yet Archeaologists, find this only occured within the last some 10000 Years, (in general).

In general, this is a large discrepancy. At least, this affords for corrected verification, and maybe, less imaginative speculation on the aspect of Dating.

Also, as an Recreationist, this is support that can be inhand and inline with both Archeaology and Science, rather than solely upon Archeaology alone.

Look, if Science proves, the Domesticated horse for exmple, arrived sometime within the last 7 or 8000 years (give or take), then that would also coincide with what Scripture outlines with the Eight Day Creation of Adam, and the Domestic Animals he named.

It is with this inmind, that MY HOPE, brings the Science of Evolution back from the brink of Speculative Assumptions, and return it to the FACTUAL Realm

This is where my impression of this comes from.

As you have suggested, "it actualy makes evolutionary data from both fields of the study work better then ever before'.

And I also agree, this stupid thought "some" may harbour that this earth is only 6 or 8 or 14 Thousand Years old, is nutty. It's Much, Much Older than this.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
shouldn't this be using a monkey wrench to tune the evolutionary clock?

the expansion of knowledge HELPS evolutionary theory so much more than it hurts



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
shouldn't this be using a monkey wrench to tune the evolutionary clock?

the expansion of knowledge HELPS evolutionary theory so much more than it hurts


You question is fair one.

I would agree with that comment.

And my question becomes what if Science and it's theory of evolution confirm what Archeaology figures for the Domesiticated Horse, being sometime during the last 10000 years, give or take.

This would align the Evolutionary clock to be according to a "Atomic Clock" I would call the Bible.

Domestic livestock for the most part, are only found in Archeology apposed to wild forms such as Elephants, or Water Buffalo or Guiena Fowl over the last 12000 Years. Cattle, Horses, Chickens (maybe?) where made for the Farmer God placed in his Garden.

Yet the Theory has it this occured Hundreds of Thousands of years ago. God made these creatures, sometime after creating Adam. Many years after the Sixth Day Man was here, and some period of time after creating Adam on the 8th Day. (God rested on the 7th Day)

Archeaology supports this View as well. And now we can bring the Skewed DNA Results back inline with the Archeaological Results.

Three things, confirming eachother. Evolution, Archeaology and the Bible. This whole Page will become MUTE.
(Origins and Creation Conspriacy Page)

That's what I expect to see when, and/or "IF", his application to the current results, are accepted and re-calibrated accordingly.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
This would align the Evolutionary clock to be according to a "Atomic Clock" I would call the Bible.

...


Yet the Theory has it this occured Hundreds of Thousands of years ago. God made these creatures, sometime after creating Adam. Many years after the Sixth Day Man was here, and some period of time after creating Adam on the 8th Day. (God rested on the 7th Day)

...

Three things, confirming eachother. Evolution, Archeaology and the Bible. This whole Page will become MUTE.
(Origins and Creation Conspriacy Page)


Just curious, but how exactly are you interpreting the dates here to coincide with the Bible? So this finding shrinks the date ranges by a few hundred-thousand years. It doesn't put it in any range that can be ripped out of Genesis, not in any way that I can see. At least the YEC crowd has a wierd sort of logic behind the 6K year mark; what are you going off of that makes this coincide more closely with the Bible than before?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1

Just curious, but how exactly are you interpreting the dates here to coincide with the Bible? So this finding shrinks the date ranges by a few hundred-thousand years. It doesn't put it in any range that can be ripped out of Genesis, not in any way that I can see. At least the YEC crowd has a wierd sort of logic behind the 6K year mark; what are you going off of that makes this coincide more closely with the Bible than before?

Kind of wondering how this fits with the bible myself. I mean on the link they stated that humans probably evolved 100k to 150k years ago. How does this fit with the bible?????


G



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Same goes for domesticated horses, 10k years != 6k years last time I counted to 10000 (and yeah, I get bored sometimes and do that as fast as i can :@)



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Shane,

From your linked source:

By taking the clock's variations into account - it ticks more slowly, the further back in time - Dr Ho and his colleagues have calculated that modern humans probably evolved between 100,000 and 150,000 years ago.

"Previous estimates were up to twice as old as that," he said.


This timeline for "previous estimates" is news to me. I'd not heard of anyone saying modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) date to 300,000 y.o.

Of course, I've not been paying much attention to DNA dating techniques either. If I'd read the dates for the Cambrian explosion that this article claims DNA analysis gives, I would have laughed my butt off.

How on Earth do you use DNA to date variation from species that no longer exist, with no hope of any genetic material from even the descendants of Cambrian species millions of years after the Cambrian? To my recollection, there was only one Chordate animal at the beginning of the Cambrian, and the cladistics of that species is up for interpretation. Chordata is a rather large family now, wouldn't you say?

Lastly, there is no Archaeological evidence for anything that predates humans. That field is known as Paleontology. There is a difference, and the fact that the article uses the term incorrectly indicates something to me. I don't know what it indicates, but it indicates something!


Anyway, excellent find, and now I can rest easy, though I was already resting easy since I had no idea of the discrepancy between DNA dating and Archaeological (sic) dating. In fact, I don't know much about regular dating either nowadays, having been married for over a decade!


Harte



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
nice thread title...

personally, I don't see why creationism and evoltion have to be mutually exclusive... surely everything is created, and everything evolves also? To believe that the Almighty created the earth, as I do, doesn't preclude new species evolving on the earth, also... just my opinion



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join