IF this new research holds up, there may be some tweaking of the molecular clock technique.
At the ScienceDaily website we read Ancient Penguin DNA Raises Doubts About Accuracy Of Genetic Dating Techniques. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:
Penguins that died 44,000 years ago in Antarctica 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.
Here’s the abstract: High mitogenomic evolutionary rates and time dependency. Let’s read more from ScienceDaily:
The findings raise doubts about the accuracy of many evolutionary rates based on conventional types of genetic analysis.
[...]
“The observations in this report appear to be fundamental and should extend to most animal species,” [said Dee Denver, an evolutionary biologist with the Center for Genome Research and Biocomputing at Oregon State University]. “We believe that traditional DNA dating techniques are fundamentally flawed, and that the rates of evolution are in fact much faster than conventional technologies have led us to believe.”
Faster? If a specimen is older than previously thought, then wouldn’t the changes have occurred over more time? This could be a journalism problem, or maybe we’re not reading this right. Anyway …
You know what the creationists will do with this. It doesn’t matter that scientists are improving their methods. Creationists will be shouting from the rooftops that “Darwinism” is collapsing. But what does this research really mean?
The findings, researchers say, are primarily a challenge to the techniques used to determine the age of a sample by genetic analysis alone, rather than by other observations about fossils. In particular, they may force a widespread re-examination of determinations about when one species split off from another, if that determination was based largely on genetic evidence.
So it’s possible that the Tree of Life will require some adjustments regarding the lengths of the branches and twigs. Fine. The more accuracy we can achieve, the better we like it.
There’s lots more information in the article. Check it out if this research concerns you. We’ll give you one last excerpt:
Aside from raising doubts about the accuracy of many specimens dated with conventional approaches, the study may give researchers tools to improve their future dating estimates, Denver said.
The techniques of science keep improving, and the creationists keep getting crazier. That’s how it goes.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
1 response so far ↓
RogerE // 13-November-2009 at 3:25 pm
Oh no! Another proof that evolution is wrong.
“The findings, researchers say, are primarily a challenge to the techniques used to determine the age of a sample by genetic analysis alone, rather than by other observations about fossils.”
I see…so, instead of relying on a single source (say, the bible), we ought to look at other factors? It’s like in a court case. A lot of people would be wrongly convicted if we based decisions only on eye-witness testimony (notoriously unreliable) and required additional evidence like fingerprints, GPR, DNA, etc.