Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution: Clocks vs. rocks – if clocks win, what does it mean for plants?

arroba Email

Molecular clocks vs. fossils, that is. In his commentary, “Timescales and timetrees” (New Phytologist, September 2, 2011), Paul Kendrick explains,

Results are controversial, indicating substantially earlier origins of land plants and flowering plants than is supported by direct fossil evidence.

One of the most interesting and controversial nodes to calibrate is the origin of land plants. Clarke et al. give a mean estimate for land plants of 670 Ma (Cryogenian) (CI 815–568 Ma: Cryogenian through early Cambrian). Previous molecular calibrations reviewed in Magallón & Hilu (2009) present two contrasting views. One set of studies indicates that land plants originated during the late Neoproterozoic, with values typically falling within a range of c. 850–542 Ma (Cryogenian to Ediacaran). Others are indicative of an early Palaeozoic radiation during the late Cambrian through Silurian Periods. Clarke et al. therefore favour an early origin of land plants, and the divergence of basal plant lineages (i.e. major clades of bryophytes) spans a much greater interval of time than in previous studies (Ediacaran through Ordovician, some 236 Ma).

Dear bornagain77, I was hoping I wouldn't have to ever post here, as this is not really the forum to discuss YEC against OEC, if you know of any place we can talk about this more please post a site. However I do have to say that one of the reasons I am a YEC"ist" is because the so called dating methods used to date everything are based on circular reasoning along with many unconfirmed assumstions and the provable unreliabilty of the methods in question. As for your comment that universal constants have not changed, you are completely wrong! The speed of light has been shown to have decayed over time, and Planck’s constant has been measured as changing. These are just two examples. I didn't want to engage in this forum and I really like your comments bornagain77, except when you overwhelm everyone with your links lol. However I can't stand by anymore and watch you state incorrect things. Again if you want to discuss these things more please feel free to post a suitable forum for us, as I would enjoy it very much. I don't bother usually in discussing scriptual or scientific matters with people who already believe in a God and Jesus as I know you do, I prefer talking to Atheists and Evolutionists about how wrong they are lol. Kind Regards, Logically_speaking logically_speaking
The problem for you Robert Byers is that you have to prove your YEC view scientifically instead of just declare it from authority of your own particular YEC interpretation of scripture. The science indicates overwhelmingly that the universal constants have not changed one iota from the universe's creation: bornagain77
nature doesn't look old. It only looks beaten up! This from serious problems like the biblical flood. I know nothing about cosmology but theres no reason to see the universe as old. One is forcing a God to have to take it slow when he can do anything. People just don't figure out how these things work. Nothing was witnessed. ID people do presume geology is proven. in fact its like biology. Unobserved processes and events. In fact I never understand how one can falsify biological conclusions when they are founded on geological conclusions. The Cambrian stuff case in point. The flaw in the logic of evolution having evidence will in retrospect be traced to the fundamental unrelated but essential presumptions of geology. Thread authors here should address about geology presumptions. More important then math stuff. Robert Byers
Robert Byers you state:
ID folk sin with geology presumptions just like the old (and still around ) evolutionists.
Quite strong words for someone who has to posit God changing the universal constants of nature so as to, deceptively, give a appearance of extremely old age to the universe. As far as sins go, both theologically and scientifically, it would be well for you to check closely your own unsubstantiated beliefs before condemning OEC's of 'sinning'!
Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? GREG MOORE The RATE conclusions are based on a compounded set of assumptions. These assumptions are not derived from empirical data, but from the young-earth view of Earth history. Until the RATE team can demonstrate the validity of these assumptions, the study findings do little to prove the accelerated decay hypothesis. http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/DotheRATEFindingsNegateMainstreamScience ,,, 'And if your curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236
Should geology or dating methodology have anything to do with biological theories where those theories grand claims need grand biological evidence. ID folk sin with geology presumptions just like the old (and still around ) evolutionists. Robert Byers
What a funny article. You get through two pages of caveats that explain why timetrees involve a lot of just plain guesswork. Not stuff that there is currently not evidence for, but discussion of why no such evidence is likely to ever be found. Does the author hope for a day when the methods of timetrees provides the truth. No. What he looks for is a day when all the scientists have agreed upon the correct amount of guess work so that...
I look forward to a time, hopefully not too far away, when timetrees have developed to the extent that they are converging on an answer.
Not, the answer, but an answer. Not coming to the truth, but coming through agreement with the best guesses to the same most probably wrong answer. Now I do not read enough of the scientific literature to let this example speak for all of evolutionary biology, but I have a feeling this type of "convergence to an answer" is way to prevalent in modern biology. Thoughts anyone? JDH

Leave a Reply