Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 406 of 503 (680580)
11-20-2012 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Dr Adequate
11-20-2012 5:56 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-20-2012 5:56 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2012 3:23 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 407 of 503 (680581)
11-20-2012 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by Dr Adequate
11-20-2012 6:04 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-20-2012 6:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by NoNukes, posted 11-20-2012 9:59 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 416 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-20-2012 3:43 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 417 by Boof, posted 11-20-2012 7:02 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 408 of 503 (680583)
11-20-2012 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Percy
11-19-2012 10:04 PM


Re: dating accuracy issues
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Percy, posted 11-19-2012 10:04 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 409 of 503 (680584)
11-20-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 1:24 AM


Re: dating accuracy issues
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:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 1:24 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by mindspawn, posted 11-21-2012 3:01 AM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 410 of 503 (680588)
11-20-2012 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Coyote
11-19-2012 8:17 PM


Re: dating accuracy issues
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:
3. Geological comparison. This approach entails multichronometric dating of a rock and cross-calibration of different radioisotopic age systems by adjusting the decay constant of one system so as to force agreement with the age obtained via another dating system. In essence, because the half-life of 238U is the most accurately known of all relevant radionuclides, this amounts to expressing ages in units of the half-life of 238U.
This procedure is less than ideal, however.The different radioisotopic dating systems were developed, and as a rule are being utilized, because different parent/daughter element pairs are affected in different ways by different geological processes. Thus, employing a variety of element pairs often allows to distinguish chemical, thermal, mechanical, or other processes capable of fractionating or homogenizing the chemical signature of its minerals during a rock’s history. It is the sequence of such events that one wants to learn about.This, in turn, implies that there is the practical problem of selecting a sample where the initial event starting the radioisotopic clock was so short and simple as to be truly point-like in time, and whose subsequent perturbations were totally nonexistent.
As illustrated by the case of early comparisons between Rb-Sr and K-Ar ages, or K-Ar and U-Pb ages, on non-retentive materials like micas, feldspars, and uraninites in plutonic rocks, simple concepts about ideal samples that were considered valid a quarter of a century ago have not withstood the test of time. Our present perception of isotopic closure has been changed as a result of improved understanding of mineralogy and isotope systematics; consequently, now the definition of a point-like event is more restrictive than that implicitly assumed by the studies that influenced Steiger and Jager (1977). The obvious requirements are that the two isotopic systems being compared are exactly coherent due to simple thermal, chemical, and mechanical histories. In addition to selecting a sample which was rapidly quenched from a magmatic stage, it is of vital importance to ascertain that the sample escaped any retrogressive change of mineralogy and especially any exchange with fluids, and was spared any later disturbance, chemical and/or thermal. This can be investigated by detailed microchemistry of major and trace elements. Vagaries and problems potentially encountered with the standard Pb-Pband U-Pb ages used for this kind of calibration have most recently been discussed by Tera and Carlson (1999).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2012 8:17 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 411 of 503 (680590)
11-20-2012 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 1:24 AM


turns out there is no correction to age measurements
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:
... the North American Cordillera. The Cordillera is a continuous sequence of mountain ranges that includes the Rocky Mountains. It stretches from Alaska to Mexico and continues into South America.
For the past decade, geologists have collected information from Mexico’s Acatln Complex, a rock outcropping the size of Massachusetts. As they uncovered each new piece of data from the complex, evidence contradicting earlier assumptions about the origins of that part of Mexico emerged.
Evidence collected by Nance and his colleagues from rocks in the Acatln Complex shows that its collision with Laurussia actually occurred about 120 million years later. The rocks once existed on an ancient ocean floor, but this ocean has proven to be the Rheic, not Iapetus as previously thought.
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 1:24 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by foreveryoung, posted 11-21-2012 12:11 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 423 by mindspawn, posted 11-21-2012 3:08 AM RAZD has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 412 of 503 (680592)
11-20-2012 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 7:41 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
mindspawn writes:
Yeah the first one looks a lot like Dr A's monkey. clearly a mammal!
Are you retracting your "...have live young, not conforming to biological classification of reptiles at all" statement?
If you like, we can move on the the 'warm-blooded' aspect of your claim after this.
mindspawn writes:
Panda if you reading this - its a joke
I would have preferred it if you had not ducked the issue.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 7:41 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 413 of 503 (680593)
11-20-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 2:59 AM


understanding age measurements
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 2:59 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by mindspawn, posted 11-21-2012 3:17 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 414 of 503 (680594)
11-20-2012 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 7:54 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 7:54 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 415 of 503 (680644)
11-20-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 2:43 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 2:43 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by mindspawn, posted 11-21-2012 4:14 AM JonF has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 416 of 503 (680680)
11-20-2012 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 7:54 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 7:54 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(2)
Message 417 of 503 (680699)
11-20-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 7:54 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
midspawn writes:
DA writes:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 7:54 AM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-20-2012 10:31 PM Boof has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 418 of 503 (680724)
11-20-2012 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Boof
11-20-2012 7:02 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Boof, posted 11-20-2012 7:02 PM Boof has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Boof, posted 11-20-2012 10:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


Message 419 of 503 (680726)
11-20-2012 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by Dr Adequate
11-20-2012 10:31 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-20-2012 10:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 420 of 503 (680729)
11-21-2012 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by RAZD
11-20-2012 9:37 AM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2012 9:37 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 1:43 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied
 Message 433 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2012 2:16 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024