Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Claim that animals are 1.2 billion years old comes under fire

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
embryo from Middle Cambrian Australia/Philip Donoghue, U Bristol

From ScienceDaily:

The origin of animals was one of the most important events in the history of Earth. Beautifully preserved fossil embryos suggest that our oldest ancestors might have existed a little more than half a billion years ago.

However, using a recently developed relaxed molecular clock method called RelTime, a team of scientists at Oakland (Michigan) and Temple (Philadelphia) dated the origin of animals at approximately 1.2 billion years ago reviving the debate on the age of the animals.

Puzzled by the results of the American team, researchers from the University of Bristol and Queen Mary University of London decided to take a closer look at RelTime and found that it failed to relax the clock. Their findings are published in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution.

Professor Philip Donoghue from the University of Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences, said: “What caught our attention was that results obtained using RelTime were in strong disagreement with a diversity of different studies, from different research groups and that used different software and data, all of which broadly agreed that animals are unlikely to be older than approximately 850 million years.” Paper. open access – Jesus Lozano-Fernandez, Mario dos Reis, Philip C.J. Donoghue, Davide Pisani. RelTime Rates Collapse to a Strict Clock When Estimating the Timeline of Animal Diversification. Genome Biology and Evolution, 2017; 9 (5): 1320 DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evx079 More.

Half a billion years? 850 million years? 1.2 billion years? It’s safe to say that dating of the origin of animal life is hardly, at present, an exact science.

See also: Researchers: Human-like ways of thinking evolved much earlier than thought Of course, 1.8 mya is so long ago that one can only wonder what humans were doing in the meantime, that meant that their thought capacities didn’t evolve faster.

and

Bonobos closer to humans than common chimpanzees are? The authors don’t say so, but one possibility is that the accepted dating is off.

Comments
All those millions, billions and gazillions mean nothing at the end of the day. The whole OOL field is made up. Daydreaming fantasyland. It doesn't matter what they say, but sadly many people accept all that misinformation as valid. We should test everything and hold what is good. But that principle is not accepted. That's the condition of this world.Dionisio
May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
News @2: Exactly. Agree. My comment @1 was as ironic as it could be. My cheek hurts from the pressure of the tongue. :) That error is embarrassingly huge, far beyond unacceptable. 60%-140% Not knowing is not as bad as not admitting humbly to such ignorance and instead always coming up with all kinds of "just so" stories. Definitely I prefer Cinderella's story, where at least the possibility of a pumpkin becoming a carriage, mice turning into horses and a grasshopper working as a "cochero" makes more sense than the bizarre fantasyland those macro-evolutionists out there.Dionisio
May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
I wonder what the next discovery of a putative 'Holy Grail' of Science* will be ? Chocolate fireguards do work, as not only is heat transfer, non-local, why so is cold - and a supervening cold snap in Siberia can nullify any local heat radiated at them. I think that might be a major breakthrough, but I don't want to plagiarise the work of rvb8 or Neil. I think a new name for a new concept might be appropriate ; something like 'telecalorification', perhaps. Note the capital.Axel
May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Dionisio at 1: If the researchers work with these margins of error, they don't know nearly as much as they should know, to justify their frequent lapses into dogmatism. It's not their fault that they don't know. But what many of us object to is precisely the dogmatism, often lapsing further into fanaticism or even incoherence. See Jonathan Wells on “Universal common ancestry” with no “universal common ancestor”?News
May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Half a billion years? 850 million years? 1.2 billion years? It’s safe to say that dating of the origin of animal life is hardly, at present, an exact science.
1.2 billion - 0.5 billion = 0.7 billion That's not a significant margin of error, is it? :)Dionisio
May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply