|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2687 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
But how do you deal with the difficulty of this supposed "sudden appearance"? Only it seems to be graver for your ideas than ours. We would expect the land-bound protoichthyosaurs to be confined to one place, since they were not yet fully marine (as turned out to be the case with whales when paleontologists finally found the fossils) and perhaps we haven't found the place yet. But according to you, all the ichthyosaurs, though perfectly capable of roaming the oceans, must instead have been concealed in an undiscovered location or locations until they came out to play in the Triassic --- which they did in order of how adapted they were to marine life, with the most poorly adapted coming out of hiding first. Are we meant to find your idea more plausible? Why? Because its a logical progression of what would most likely have occurred. The oceans before the PT boundary were cold, the oceans after the PT boundary were warm. Evolution is one way to explain the sudden appearance of new types of marine life after the PT boundary, but the time frames seem too constricted to explain the new forms. A large inland sea in a warm region would explain how this marine life suddenly appeared in the sea and dominated subsequent to the transgression and regression at the PT boundary. These were essentially warm water creatures, not suited to the mainly cold carboniferous oceans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2687 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Except that biologists, when they're classifying ichthyosaurs, biologically classify them as reptiles. For what reason?Do you think their classification could have been affected by currently accepted thinking that there were no dolphins in the early Triassic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
HI Percy
There has been no correction in the age of the Appalachians. MindSpawn got this misimpression from a lay-press science article he cited in Message 294, Geologists Find New Origins Of Appalachian Mountains. Thanks, I had wondered if his claim was true, but didn't have the time to check. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
mindspawn writes: There was no mis-impression at all. The Appalachian Mountains of the eastern US are 480 million years old. That age has not been revised. A younger range around 300 million years old in southern Mexico has recently been discovered to be an extension of the Appalachians.
The article itself is pretty clear as are the quotes from Damian Nance... Yes, and this is one of the quotes from Nance:
Damian Nance writes: This will change the way geologists look at Mexico. Notice he said Mexico, not the US. The dating of the US portion of the Appalachian Mountains has not changed. The title of the relevant paper is Vestige of the Rheic Ocean in North America: The Acatln Complex of southern Mxico, it begins on page 437, but most of the article is not available for free online. AbE: Meant to address this and forgot:
The article you quoted is from 1991: http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...nt/103/6/817.abstract Yes, it's from 1991, and I cited it because of how clear it was that even way back in 1991 they knew the age of the Atcatlan complex. The article you cited has pretty much the same age, though your article has less detail and doesn't mention the several stages of mountain building down there. One of the biggest complaints we have is how bad science articles in the popular press can be. In the case of your cited article it gave you the misimpression that the Appalachian Mountains had been redated. They hadn't. All that happened was that a mountain range in southern Mexico was discovered to be a younger extension of the Appalachians. --Percy Edited by Percy, : AbE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Some dating methods are calibrated based on assumed dates of other dating methods and therefore will correlate due to the rate being established like that. It's most likely that you are describing "time stratigraphic markers." His message was a little incoherent, but seemed to be focusing on the determination of radioactive decay rates. I interpreted that sentence as a reference to calibrating one isotope's decay rate by another's (238U), from a rock dated by both isotopes. It's tempting to do that since the decay constant for 238U is known to significantly better precision than others (bombs and reactors tend to generate lots of research). I considered the possibility that he just made it up, as he makes so much stuff up, and just happened to stumble on something that is done occasionally. Be that as it may, in Call for an improved set of decay constants for geochronological use Bergman et al include a very good introduction to the methods of measuring decay constants, including:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi again mindspawn,
There was no mis-impression at all. The article itself is pretty clear as are the quotes from Damian Nance , professor of Geological Science at Ohio University. University publications from 2006 agree with that article I quoted: http://www.ohio.edu/...ommunications/appalachian_origins.cfm The article is very clear that they are talking about dates for a rock outcropping in southern Mexico and that they are NOT redating the Appalachian Mountains in the US -- as your posts have implied. The article is also very clear in stating that the difference is due to new information regarding this particular outcropping of rock in Mexico, making it a later addition to the Appalachian system, rather than a part of the NA Cordillera, as previously assumed:
quote: Also note that this in no way changes the ages of the rocks in the US Appalachian system, rather what changes is the understanding of when the plate tectonics caused mountain formation. This is NOT a correction of age measurements at all. When rocks form and when mountains form are two distinctly different things. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
mindspawn writes:
Are you retracting your "...have live young, not conforming to biological classification of reptiles at all" statement? Yeah the first one looks a lot like Dr A's monkey. clearly a mammal! If you like, we can move on the the 'warm-blooded' aspect of your claim after this.
mindspawn writes:
I would have preferred it if you had not ducked the issue. Panda if you reading this - its a joke"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi again mindspawn,
My guess is frequent. But I really don't know. ... So your guess is completely uninformed and based on your biased opinions rather than on any review of empirical objective data. It's a WAG (wild-ass guess). As we see in Message 411 there was no error in the rock dating measurements at all, nor any correction of date measurements in your source, rather the change is in the understanding of when tectonic forces were in action in the formation of mountains, specifically in southern Mexico.
... I get the impression that a lot of conclusions about the past are based on flimsy evidence , but that's just an impression I am getting. Curiously, science is based on evaluation of the best information we have available. Sometimes that information is incomplete due to gaps in the evidence available, and when any new information becomes available to fill those gaps -- as we see here in southern Mexico -- then there is either the possibility of confirming previous thought or of changing previous thought -- as we see here on the timing of the movement of tectonic plates in this area. It is fine to be skeptical, but you then need to investigate, to research the information, to see if your cursory impressions match fact.. So again, perhaps it is time for you to actually investigate this, and you can start by reading Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
Fair enough, I guess I am getting more ready to tackle that thread as this one is drawing to a close (getting a bit repetitive here at the moment) This thread is also over 400 posts long and should be put into summary and conclusion mode soon. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
For what reason? Do you think their classification could have been affected by currently accepted thinking that there were no dolphins in the early Triassic? What is the essential characteristic of mammals? Do ichthyosaurs have that characterisitic? Is that lack influenced by currently accepted thinking, or is it real?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
No, don't. Because a lot of the genome isn't genes, it's non-coding DNA. You can't start off with figuring from 3 billion base pairs, which includes all the DNA, and then divide by the number of genes. But even so each gene has between 40000 and 120000 base pairs, depending on what source you look at for number of base pairs per gene. The 22000 genes would then most likely still have more than half of those 3 billion base pairs. So this would still mean that you would expect each gene to have mutated about once in the last 4500 years. And as I said, point mutations in certain regions are far more rapid than other areas of the genome. And point mutations are also far less rapid in some areas than in others. So your crude calculation shows that zero to one mutations, on average and based on 100% fixation which we know is high (but I don't know a better number) would be expected in 4500 years. High-mutation-rate areas might have more than one, low-mutation rate areas would rarely have even one. It's pretty obvious that the average number of alleles per gene per species on the alleged ark would be less than 14. Even if Noye had 21st century sequencing equipment and the electricity it to run it and the chemical supplier to provision it I bet he couldn't find seven pairs of any species that had different alleles in every gene. And the pigs would have a maximum of four alleles and their average over all their genes would be less. Lets look at pigs. From Genetic diversity and allelic richness in Spanish wild and domestic pig population estimated from microsatellite markers we see lots of instances of well over four alleles in Spain, not even counting the rest of the world:
From Patterns of genetic diversity of local pig populations in the State of Pernambuco, Brazil we see up to 20 alleles:
So there's no possibility that all those alleles arose in such geographically limited area in 4500 years. No fludde, nope, no how, no way. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : Corrected link to second paper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
For what reason? Because they're morphologically reptiles. Look at its jaw, its ear, its sclerotic ring, its gastralia. A mammal? You'd have an easier time persuading an anatomist that it was a primitive bird.
Do you think their classification could have been affected by currently accepted thinking that there were no dolphins in the early Triassic? No. No-one who'd ever actually looked at a dolphin could take an ichthyosaur for a dolphin even at a great distance, because an ichthyosaur's tail flukes are vertical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boof Member (Idle past 273 days) Posts: 99 From: Australia Joined:
|
midspawn writes:
As far as I'm aware ichthyosaurs were recognised as being reptiles way back in around 1700 when the first fragments were identified. So one can assume that biologists 300 years ago were better at classifiying animals than amateurs are now. Go figure.
DA writes:
For what reason? Except that biologists, when they're classifying ichthyosaurs, biologically classify them as reptiles. Do you think their classification could have been affected by currently accepted thinking that there were no dolphins in the early Triassic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Not that early, the finds back in the 1700s were fragmentary.
But certainly before 1820 Ichthyosaurus had received its name. And what does it mean? "Fish-lizard". It must have been named by one of those time-traveling evolutionists we hear so little about, because any creationist anatomist would have immediately recognized it as a dolphin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boof Member (Idle past 273 days) Posts: 99 From: Australia Joined: |
Quite correct - thanks for the correction Dr A. What is fascinating is that biologists can tell if an animal is a mammal or reptile just by looking at the teeth (and jaw?) alone. Body shape - not so much.
Edited by Boof, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 610 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
RAZD writes: When rocks form and when mountains form are two distinctly different things. When mountains form, they can change one kind of a rock into another. They can take flat layered rocks and turn them into folded layers or they can fault them. The rocks that are in mountains are generally not in the same condition that they were before the mountain building event.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024