New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear John,

​

I was under the impression that YOU were a skeptic. Apperently, you are only selectively skeptic.

​

Sorry, but I am not like that. I am a real skeptic (as mentioned before), and I only believe what can be scientifically proven AND my own experiences.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

That is just about the funniest thing I have heard in weeks.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

dear John,I am glad to have made you laugh.It's better to laugh than to cry. best wishes and Seeye,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
Not quite as simple :-).

---

It is due to the bonding properties of the chemicals involved. Yeah, it kinda is that simple.

quote:

---

True, the bases snap together, but if the wrong bases snap together, this causes all sorts of problems.

---

The wrong bases can't snap together due to the bonding properties of the chemicals involved. Maybe you are talking about REPLICATION? Copying errors can and do occur during replication. This is not a base pairing problem. It involves much more complicated sequences of reactions.

quote:

---

But RNA is complex as well.

---

Yes, but is less complicated.

quote:

---

But, RNA, is transcribed from DNA, which means that DNA had to come first.

---

Quite a few researchers think otherwise. RNA is quite capable of performing the requisite functions. You may also note that RNA is the molecule that does the work. DNA is something of a storage medium.

quote:

---

But where did the chemicals come from to form molecules.

---

Exploding stars for the most part. Fusion reactions synthesize the heavier elements from lighter elements.

quote:

---

And wouldn't any molecules that did start to form in the "early earth" be destroyed by the harsh conditions?

---

The whole planet is made of molecules, but you mean organic molecules, yes? The snippy answer is "obviously those molecules were not destroyed as we are here talking about it." The more detailed answer is that we don't know what the conditions were nor do we know what the first molecules were, so making a pronouncement of what they could or could not endure is impossible.

quote:

---

Which means that we probably never will know.

---

Maybe, life sucks like that sometimes.

quote:

---

I don't believe that things were the same 4 billion years ago, as I don't believe in the 4 billion years. I believe that things were the same 6000 years ago at Creation.

---

Stick around. There are more holes in that theory than you can imagine.

quote:

---

I want to have scientific evidence for most things. Some things I have to accept by faith, like Creation, which cannot be proven by science. But neither can evolution be proven by science.

---

As I suspected. Don't you feel a sinking feeling in your gut when you demand other people provide evidence but accept your own ideas uncritically?

quote:

---

To clear up any missunderstanding, I have outlined by objections to the endosymbinot theory.

​

I: How did the first prokaryotic cellular life form to swallow other cellular life?

---

Don't know, but we've been through this.How did a lump of dirt manage to grow internal organs?

quote:

---

II: How did the DNA in the first prokaryote form?

---

The jury is still out. Answer this and you'll be famous.

quote:

---

III: If a prokaryote ate another prokaryote, how could the internal prokaryote develop into mitochondria etc.?

---

Well.... how may be a tricky question, but it has been observed to actually happen.

quote:

---

IV: The theory states that genomes from the captured prokaryote traveled to the nucleus which was formed by the captured prokaryote. How could they enter the nucleus, when only RNA can travel out through the nucleus and DNA cannot travel in?

---

Viruses manage this all the time. You, in fact, carry viral and bacterial genes that have been passed along parent to child for who knows how long.

quote:

---

V: The host cell would destroy any DNA which would be passed to it from the host cell. Bacteria contain enzymes which destroy DNA.

---

But such transfers of DNA happen quite frequently. This has been documented. Viruses manage it. Bacteria trade genes all the time even between species and genera. You may object, but it happens nontheless.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Okay, now I see what Behe is saying. You've misunderstood him. He's not objecting to symbiosis at all. He's saying that symbiosis, one explanation offered for the origin of eukaryotes, is not an answer to "the origin of complex biochemical systems", by which he evidently means here the origin of life. And he's right, but symbiosis is not an answer any informed person would offer to the puzzle of the origin of life. It's a possible answer for the origin of eukaryaotes.But I originally responded because I was skeptical that Behe rejects symbiosis, since he accepts almost all of mainstream biology, especially, as I've said a couple times now, strongly supported positions. The statement in the article you were quoting (http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/145/luckie/margulis.html) was accurate when it said, "Everyone takes endosymbiosis seriously".You might also have been reading more into this statement than intended. It isn't saying that everyone fully accepts endosymbiosis as promoted by Dr. Margulis, and the preceding phrase that you chose not to quote makes that clear (Full quote: "Although many biologists continue to disagree with some of her ideas, everyone takes endosymbiosis seriously."). First, the argument from personal skepticism has no standing.Second, about the evidence, I've already said in message #17: And third, we know that the same laws governing the universe today governed it billions of years ago because we can look out into the ancient universe and observe that this was so. Since these laws were operative unchanged they therefore governed all long ago events, including the origin of life. What is your evidence for unnatural or supernatural processes leading to the orign of life?--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-15-2003]

quote:

---

But I originally responded because I was skeptical that Behe rejects symbiosis, since he accepts almost all of mainstream biology, especially, as I've said a couple times now, strongly supported positions.

---

Percy, how do you know this? Behe's comments seem like a regular IDist's, and I haven't found any info of his differing views from those of Philip Johnson & others, apart from Ken Miller's account of Behe admitting human evolution. Do you have some info about it?Behe is one of the major fence-sitters in EvC debates. Among the creationists, his strong theistic evolutionary stance is the closest to the evolutionists.

====================
The wrong bases can't snap together due to the bonding properties of the chemicals involved. Maybe you are talking about REPLICATION? Copying errors can and do occur during replication. This is not a base pairing problem. It involves much more complicated sequences of reactions.================Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember from Biology that they said that a mutation was caused by the incorrect bases matching up during replication.=========================
Exploding stars for the most part. Fusion reactions synthesize the heavier elements from lighter elements.
=========================Where did the matter come from to form the stars?============================
The whole planet is made of molecules, but you mean organic molecules, yes? The snippy answer is "obviously those molecules were not destroyed as we are here talking about it." The more detailed answer is that we don't know what the conditions were nor do we know what the first molecules were, so making a pronouncement of what they could or could not endure is impossible.
==============================
Yea, organic molecules. It's easy to say that "we're here, so molecules were not destroyed. But consider that we're here because of Special Creation?=============================
Stick around. There are more holes in that theory than you can imagine.
============================Hmm. What holes?===============================
As I suspected. Don't you feel a sinking feeling in your gut when you demand other people provide evidence but accept your own ideas uncritically?
===============================I knew this was coming ;-) But a lot of evidence points to a young earth and creation. Much more then the "evidence" that points to evolution. But evolution is passed off as science. Science is testable, and has evidence pointing to it. Evolution has neither. Evolution is unproven scientifically. Both creation and evolution have to be accepted by faith, as nobody was there to see the first organic molecules form or to see God create. I can be sure of creation, as that's what God's word the Bible says.=====================
How did a lump of dirt manage to grow internal organs?
=====================Easy. It didn't. ;-)====================
Viruses manage this all the time. You, in fact, carry viral and bacterial genes that have been passed along parent to child for who knows how long.But such transfers of DNA happen quite frequently. This has been documented. Viruses manage it. Bacteria trade genes all the time even between species and genera. You may object, but it happens nontheless.
=========================No, I don't object that viruses and bacteria exchange DNA. But viruses have special ID tags that fool the cell into accepting them. Once inside, they reprogram the cells internal structure. And bacteria do swap nuclear material in a form of sexual reproducation. But the DNA is from both bacteria of the same kind, and so is not destroyed. Anyway, that's my two cents.

Behe shares almost none of Philip Johnson's views. For one thing, Johnson is a YEC, thereby rejecting much of modern geology, physics, astronomy and cosmology, while Behe accepts the positions of all these sciences. Behe accepts most of evolution, but he believes he's found evidence of intelligent design in the form of irreducibly complex microbiological structures. In other words, though he believes that evolution played a significant role in life's history, he believes that intelligent design played an even more signficant role by helping life over certain humps that were otherwise insurmountable. Behe's website used to include Creationist material, but I don't see it there now, other than the picture with him holding up his book, Darwin's Black Box. But you might want to visit and take a closer look than I did.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember from Biology that they said that a mutation was caused by the incorrect bases matching up during replication.

---

Like I said, it is the order of the bases not the pairing.

quote:

---

Where did the matter come from to form the stars?

---

From energy. e=mc² Where did the energy come from? I don't really know.

quote:

---

Yea, organic molecules. It's easy to say that "we're here, so molecules were not destroyed. But consider that we're here because of Special Creation?

---

Which myth? There are thousands.

quote:

---

Hmm. What holes?

---

What is wrong with a 6000 year old Earth?1) There are tree ring sequences reaching back 9000 years
2) Radiometric dating gives 4.5 or so billion years
3) There is a varve sequence in Japan dating back 40,000 years.
4) Bits and pieces of the continents show signs of having been in contact. Given the rates of movement we can estimate when they were connected. This points to millions of years of movement, not thousands of years.
5) 6000 years ago there were millions of humans, not two.
6) There is ample evicence of human habitation globally well before 6000 years ago.
7) 5000 years ago we see the rise of civilization in Sumer. They didn't notice the flood.
8) Mitochondrial DNA mutation rates point to greater than 6000 years.Really, there is too much to list.

quote:

---

I knew this was coming ;-)

---

You should have known. It is a dead obvious observation.

quote:

---

But a lot of evidence points to a young earth and creation.

---

Such as? I have yet to see anything remotely convincing.

quote:

---

Much more then the "evidence" that points to evolution.

---

You mean better than observed speciation many times over?

quote:

---

Science is testable, and has evidence pointing to it. Evolution has neither.

---

There is a reason most biologists accept evolution. That reason is that there is overwhelming evidence for the theory.

quote:

---

I can be sure of creation, as that's what God's word the Bible says.

---

Interesting. Did anyone see God write the Bible? Did anyone see creation?

quote:

---

Easy. It didn't. ;-)

---

You need to read your Bible.

quote:

---

No, I don't object that viruses and bacteria exchange DNA. But viruses have special ID tags that fool the cell into accepting them. Once inside, they reprogram the cells internal structure.

---

So you accept that it can happen now, but do not accept that it could happen in the past? This makes no sense.

quote:

---

But the DNA is from both bacteria of the same kind, and so is not destroyed.

---

Bacteria swap genes cross species. And what is this about DNA being destroyed?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

==============
Like I said, it is the order of the bases not the pairing.
=============But they have to pair up in the correct order. ;-)==================
From energy. e=mc Where did the energy come from? I don't really know.
==================
I don't think that anybody really knows. That's what the superstring theory is working on I think.=================
Which myth? There are thousands.
=================For one thing, the only "myth" is evolution. I believe the Biblical account of Creation.
a: God created in 6 ordinary 24 hour days
b: Noah's flood was an actual global event.====================
There are tree ring sequences reaching back 9000 years
==================
Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis ===============
Radiometric dating gives 4.5 or so billion years
===============
Radiometric dating is flawed! We have no way of knowing how much of an iosotope was in a mineral to begin with. That's just a guess, which can easily be wrong.
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? | Answers in Genesis
After Mt. St. Helens erruption, they did some tests on a block of volcanic rock and guess what? The results were that the rock was about 1,000,000 years old! The erruption only occured 23 ago.==================
There is a varve sequence in Japan dating back 40,000 years.
==================Again, if dating is wrong, then the dates are wrong!===============
Bits and pieces of the continents show signs of having been in contact. Given the rates of movement we can estimate when they were connected. This points to millions of years of movement, not thousands of years.
===============During the flood, rapid subduction carried the continents apart.RUNAWAY SUBDUCTION AS THE DRIVING MECHANISM FOR THE GENESIS FLOOD | The Institute for Creation Research (technical) Missing Link | Answers in Genesis ==================
6000 years ago there were millions of humans, not two.
==================Evidence?================
5000 years ago we see the rise of civilization in Sumer. They didn't notice the flood.
================Ancient chronologies are often out, sometimes by 1000 years.=================
Such as? I have yet to see anything remotely convincing.
=================There's plenty, if you look for it. Evidence for a Young World | Answers in Genesis ===================
You mean better than observed speciation many times over?
===================Rapid speciation is part of the Creationist model as well! No Creationist denies speciation. It is not evolution.===================
There is a reason most biologists accept evolution. That reason is that there is overwhelming evidence for the theory.
===================You can't see evidence for a young world. I really can't see evidence for evolution.===================
Interesting. Did anyone see God write the Bible? Did anyone see creation?
==================God wrote the Bible by inspiring great and holy men of old, who wrote as they were directed by Him. Neither Creation or evolution can be proven scientifically, though evolution can be disproven scientifically. Please note however, that science can prove a young earth.==============
You need to read your Bible.
===============I do. Every day. The dirt had no power in itself to become life. Life was created when God breathed into man, which he had created, and "man became a living soul".===============
So you accept that it can happen now, but do not accept that it could happen in the past? This makes no sense.
===============No please. What I am pointing out is that viruses can inject DNA into other cells, as they have ID tags to fool the cell into taking them. The first prokaryote did not have these.Also, a group of protists, the Archezoa, have no mitochondria. But they have genes that code for mitochondrial proteins. The diversity of mitochondrial genes among the eukaryotes, would imply that endosymbiosis occured more then once, making it even more improbable.==========================
And what is this about DNA being destroyed?
==========================Forign DNA in an organism is destroyed.

My guess this "destruction" is NOT in the DNA. I would have tried to model the "space" dielectrically first. The explaination is too involved and no one has taken me up on the preverted twist so I will not say any more than that i think genetic inversions are twistless spring creators... but this only gets me to page 6 in Gould's book.We may have to think of "beneficial viruses" as we already do bacteria. My argument for this involves use of Cantor's number classes so this is much even more too involved than what I wanted to write in the first paragraph above.Thanks for brining this up a second time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
But they have to pair up in the correct order. ;-)

---

I only brought this up to save you from future humiliation. You sound like you might be getting it but you also sound like a smart-assed kid with chip on your shoulder.Write your name. >> THOUSANDS
Associate each letter with the another one like so:ABCDEFGHIJKLM
NOPQRSTUVWXYZand combineTHOUSANDS
GUBHFNAQFNow think about it. Is the information in the sequence or in the pairing?

quote:

---

I don't think that anybody really knows. That's what the superstring theory is working on I think.

---

Superstring theory is an attempt to rectify the incompatibilities between quantum theory and relativity.

quote:

---

For one thing, the only "myth" is evolution.

---

So the Vedas do not contain myths? Or the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Or the Epic of Gilgamesh? Wow.....

quote:

---

I believe the Biblical account of Creation.

---

quote:

---

a: God created in 6 ordinary 24 hour days

---

quote:

---

b: Noah's flood was an actual global event.

---

And it left no evidence at all. You can't be serious.

quote:

---

====================
There are tree ring sequences reaching back 9000 years
==================
Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis

---

Why do you think I care about AIGs statement of faith? It tells me they are apologists not scientists. Why does this help your case?I am sure that AIG has some article somewhere criticising dendrochronology but I don't feel like sloshing through the garbage in search of it. Maybe you could bother to learn how the method works and construct your own argument?

quote:

---

Radiometric dating is flawed!

---

Yes, in a lot of ways, and those problems are documented and are compensated for when tests are done.

quote:

---

We have no way of knowing how much of an iosotope was in a mineral to begin with. That's just a guess, which can easily be wrong.

---

You must mean that you are guessing about how the process works. Yes, that could easily be wrong.Here, learn something. Radiometric Dating

quote:

---

After Mt. St. Helens erruption, they did some tests on a block of volcanic rock and guess what? The results were that the rock was about 1,000,000 years old! The erruption only occured 23 ago.

---

Yes, of course it gave a weird date. This also is touched upon in the article I gave you.

quote:

---

Again, if dating is wrong, then the dates are wrong!

---

Do you know what a varve is? It is a predictable layering of sediment. You count the layers and you get years. What dating throws off the dates?

quote:

---

During the flood, rapid subduction carried the continents apart.

---

BS.1) There is no known mechanism that could generate this much power
2) The enormous energy released to do this would bake the planet many times over.

quote:

---

Evidence?

---

Egypt. Sumer. China. The Olmec. The evidence that there were millions of us is that there are massive civilizations and near civilizations all over the globe around 6000 years ago. It isn't hard to figure out.

quote:

---

================
5000 years ago we see the rise of civilization in Sumer. They didn't notice the flood.
================

​

Ancient chronologies are often out, sometimes by 1000 years.

---

Meaning what? The Sumerians were around 5000 years ago. What was out by a thousand years?

quote:

---

There's plenty, if you look for it.

​

Evidence for a Young World | Answers in Genesis

---

And it is all non-sense. Do you think I am unaware of AIG?

quote:

---

Rapid speciation is part of the Creationist model as well! No Creationist denies speciation. It is not evolution.

---

So one species can 'speciate' into several but this isn't evolution? LOL.....

quote:

---

You can't see evidence for a young world. I really can't see evidence for evolution.

---

That's nice, but you avoided the issue.

quote:

---

God wrote the Bible by inspiring great and holy men of old, who wrote as they were directed by Him.

---

Right. Or so the great and holy men said.... I seem to recall that when people do that today they are labeled quacks.

quote:

---

Neither Creation or evolution can be proven scientifically, though evolution can be disproven scientifically.

---

Yes, it could be disproven but it hasn't been in over 150 years. Why do you think that is?

quote:

---

Please note however, that science can prove a young earth.

---

No it can't or we wouldn't have this problem. We'd all be young earthers.

quote:

---

I do. Every day. The dirt had no power in itself to become life. Life was created when God breathed into man, which he had created, and "man became a living soul".

---

So magic is an OK explaination? What happened to:

quote:

---

No please. What I am pointing out is that viruses can inject DNA into other cells, as they have ID tags to fool the cell into taking them. The first prokaryote did not have these.

---

And you know what these prokaryotes had? Maybe you could share with us? Basically, you've just made this up. Fess up.

quote:

---

Also, a group of protists, the Archezoa, have no mitochondria.

---

Whatdayaknow? A transitional form.

quote:

---

But they have genes that code for mitochondrial proteins.

---

Your source? It would be a lot easier if you would cite some sources. [quote]The diversity of mitochondrial genes among the eukaryotes, would imply that endosymbiosis occured more then once, making it even more improbable.[/b][/quote]Numerous organelles were aquired this way.

quote:

---

Forign DNA in an organism is destroyed.

---

You've been shown that this is not always true.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

The website does not say much about creationism. Just a link to the Access Res.Network. Maybe we should anticipate Behe's acceptance of evolution in the near future? Michael Denton turned from creationist to evolutionist after he looked at the facts. Seems that the creationists have forgotten about him.

Behe *is* an evolutionist.He's a professor at Lehigh University. He publishes in the mainstream journals, where, by the way, he never mentions irreducible complexity or intelligent desgn. Where he differs from mainstream biology is in believing evidence exists that at least some evolutionary steps must have required some form of intelligent guidance or intervention. I have never heard this before, it seems doubtful.--Percy

Dear John.First. I would like to clear up any ill feelings that might have been created. This is my first debate, and I am liable to make mistakes. But everybody does while learning. If you think that I am coming across from a arrogant position, please inform me of this, and I will try and correct this. Please accept my apologies if this is the case. I don't know everything about creation/evolution, but I am learning. That is why I signed up to these forums.=====================
Superstring theory is an attempt to rectify the incompatibilities between quantum theory and relativity.
=====================Right mate. It is. But the string theory is used to try and explain the big bang isn't it? Please correct me if I am wrong.===============
So the Vedas do not contain myths? Or the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Or the Epic of Gilgamesh? Wow.....
===============I should have been more specific. I was not talking about the old pagan legands. I was talking about the creation/evolution issue. The only myth there is evolution. Of course, I believe that the Book of the Dead, and Gilgamesh are myths. ==================
Until this can be answered scientifically, I cannot accept this theory.
==================True. I did say that. But let me explain. First, Neither Creation or Evolution can be proved by science, as no body was there to see it happen. I believe that the evidence points towards a young earth, suggesting the Biblical account of Creation. But I cannot prove that Creation occured scientifically. Some things have to be accepted by faith. Evolution is classed as "science". For my scientific knowledge, I like to have evidence. Both of us accept some things by faith. In fact, everybody does.=======================
And it left no evidence at all. You can't be serious.
=======================I am serious. Features like coal beds, and the Grand Canyon are evidence of a world wide Flood. Also, reading secular geological texts gives me the impression that they say that many landforms were formed by water. They offer other explanations, but couldn't it have been water from Noah's flood?====================
Why do you think I care about AIGs statement of faith? It tells me they are apologists not scientists. Why does this help your case?
====================I'm so sorry John. I posted the wrong link Forgive me. Here's the link
Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis But that brings up apologists. Why can't a scientist be an apologist and a scientist? Newton was both.======================
You must mean that you are guessing about how the process works. Yes, that could easily be wrong.Here, learn something.
======================Interesting article. I'll read it all. But here are some articles that might help to answer some questions Radiometric Dating | Answers in Genesis ====================
Do you know what a varve is? It is a predictable layering of sediment. You count the layers and you get years.
====================Yes. They say that the Green River valves take one year each to form, and there are thousands of valves there, so that disproves young earth. But in the Flood, millions of tons of sediment was scraped and layed down all over the earth. This can explain the layers.=========================
There is no known mechanism that could generate this much power
=========================The Flood====================
2) The enormous energy released to do this would bake the planet many times over.
====================Intense volcanic activity could provide the mechanism for propelling the continents.===================
Egypt. Sumer. China. The Olmec. The evidence that there were millions of us is that there are massive civilizations and near civilizations all over the globe around 6000 years ago. It isn't hard to figure out.
===================Sure these cultures existed. But as I said, ancient dates are often way out, sometimes by thousands of years.===================
Meaning what? The Sumerians were around 5000 years ago. What was out by a thousand years?
===================The 5000 years. Maybe the dates were out by more then thousands of years.================
And it is all non-sense. Do you think I am unaware of AIG?
===============Not for a moment did I think that. AiG is well known. But in what way is it nonsense?=================
So one species can 'speciate' into several but this isn't evolution? LOL.....
=================No, this is not evolution. New species can, and do, arise. But what we need is evidence of one species evolving through millions of years into a new, advanced organism. Like a dinosaur evoluting into a bird.=====================
Yes, it could be disproven but it hasn't been in over 150 years. Why do you think that is?
=====================In my opinion, it has been disproved many times.=====================
So magic is an OK explaination? What happened to:
=====================Like I said. Science cannot explain origins. Creationists themselves say that you cannot prove Creation, but you can see great evidence pointing to it. I can't run a test and say. "Look, that proves Creation" but I can look at the world and say "Look, this proves a young earth and that implies Creation".=====================
And you know what these prokaryotes had? Maybe you could share with us? Basically, you've just made this up. Fess up.
=====================Well. The prokaryotes did not have ID tags. This is just logical reasoning. I did make this up, but it makes sense. Viruses infect by fooling the cell into taking them in. But if the prokaryotes did not have the ID tags, then the cell would reject them.==================
Your source? It would be a lot easier if you would cite some sources.
==================Private email from Dr. Jay Wile.================
Numerous organelles were aquired this way.
================But if it is hard to accept it happening once, which it is, then it is much harder accepting it happening dozens of times.====================
You have been shown that this is not always true
====================Perhaps you were refering to what you said earlier================
Are not modern symbionts and parasites successful at avoiding the immune systems of the hosts?
================They are, as they ID tags confuse the cell.Anyway John, I hope that this thread will not create any hard feeling between us. I am here to learn and to take advice. ------------------
Now Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen.

=================
Yes, of course it gave a weird date. This also is touched upon in the article I gave you.
=================Mount Saint Helens is not the only example of potassium argon dating errors. Here are a few more.a: Basalt Lava Flow in Hawaii formed back around 1800 dated at 1.6 plus or minus 0.16 million years old.b: Mt. Etna basalt. Formed in 1792. Dated at 0.25 plus or minus 0.08 million years old.c: Mt. Lassen plagioclase. Formed in 1915. Dated at 0.11 plus or minus 0.3 million years old.d: Sunset Crater basalt. Formed 1064 to 1065. Dated at 0.27 plus or minus 0.9 million years.