Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

[reggieM]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Here’s an interesting photo of modern bird track fossils found in rocks dated at the Late Triassic era (before the appearance of dinosaur birds).

I ran this data by some evolutionists and the response was that this was “irrelevant” and also invalid and meaningless and says nothing about evolution. Plus, the dates might be wrong - so what? That doesn’t mean anything either. Plus, the tracks only “look modern” – they might actually be older than dinosaur birds and that also would be a meaningless thing. Most importantly, this says nothing about evolutionary theory which is more certain than gravity. Even if the rocks were misdated by 50 million years or so, that is not a big deal and I was instructed to not be concerned about such a silly matter. It may also be true that birds evolved more quickly than we thought, so that’s not a major issue. They evolved, and that’s a fact – as I’m told. Rock dating is very accurate, except sometimes when its mistaken by 50 to 80 million years – but again, I am assured that such mistakes are rare. These were responses from evolutionists – none of which actually studied the report or certainly did any first-hand research. By faith alone (sola fide), they rejected something that goes against their pre-conceived notions, even though it looks bad on all sides. Either the rocks were radically mistaken for Late Triassic Era – or, modern birds existed before dinosaur birds (which supposedly evolved into modern birds 50 million years later).
Evolution, it is claimed, would be falsified when a modern organism is found in primative rocks. Except, when that actually happens evolution can explain it away.

The purpose of this study is to apply neoichnological observations to the behavioural and taphonomic interpretation of a Late Triassic-Early Jurassic track surface from the Santo Domingo Formation (Argentina) containing hundreds of bird-like tracks and trackways. . . .] Field observations allowed to distinguish twenty one behaviours that produced distinct traces and four **modern footprint types **(1 to 4) related to specific substrate conditions. In particular, the preferential formation of bird tracks parallel to the waterline, also confirmed by studies on droppings and invertebrate fauna of the pond, and other associated sedimentary features (ripple marks, wrinkle marks, mud drape thickness) and trace fossils were important for recognition of the shoreline in the fossil example.

Reference: Application of neoichnological studies to behavioural and taphonomic interpretation of fossil bird-like tracks from lacustrine settings: The Late Triassic- Early Jurassic Santo Domingo Formation, Argentina
Jorge F. Genise, Ricardo N. Melchor, Miguel Archangelsky, Luis O. Bala, Roberto Straneck and Silvina de Valais
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 272(3-4), 15 February 2009, 143-161 | doi 10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.08.014

 

[Alethios]

A link to the source please…

The Triceratops femur was at 47 degrees 6 minutes & 18 seconds North by 104 degrees, 39 minutes & 22 seconds West.
The Hadrosaur location was just North of Glendive in the NW ¼, NE ¼ of Sec. 32, T16N, R56 E, Dawson County, Montana

Now, where are the DATA, not claims, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

Find a set of kitchen scales that weight up to 25 lbs…

Please don’t change the subject…

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

1. … Which tests are being run depend on a scientist coming up with the idea to test it, designing a test, and getting funding to test it.

2 …the theory isn’t about trying to disprove design.

1. This has already been tested. Look at Richard Lenski’s tests on E.coli…

1. A prior post has examined what motivates scientific funding: power - prestige - $.
   What tests are NOT run is of equal importance… consider the refusal to radiocarbon date any dinosaur fossils, because the scientific elite KNOW [by intuition- no testing necessary?] that the dates are too old.
   They also knew that the tissues of a dino 68,000,000 years old would be totally desiccated… Until Mary Scweitzer found soft cells , flexible tissue, blood and veins - and DNA - in the bone marrow of a T Rex.
2. There are only two theories of life: creation/design and evolution. (Panspermia is a transparent diversion - where did the alien life forms come from?)
   A proof of evolution is a disproof of creation.
3. As noted before, bacteria are all the same kind of being(species?). The Lenski tests didn’t demonstrate the evolution of microbe to mouse, but micro-evolution of a food appetite.

Only a few base mutations were found in the study. The citrate adaptation could not have been due to the mutation of a new gene, which involves many bases, but must have occurred with the mutation of an epigene( a single switch in the genome that controls a functional gene). A single base mutation in the epigene could activate a latent functional gene that had not been expressed before.

The test data favors gene activation by control switch mutation, not the construction of a new protein-forming gene

To demonstrate the latter requires genome mapping each bacteria generation until a new ‘species’ of non-bacteria is produced by mutations whose classification depends on the new functions produced.
BTW: Transfer of genes between bacteria must be prevented.

Even the terms used in the report describe latent epigene activation :
*The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation.
…we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations.
…we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection. *

The sudden presence of the citrate ability is indicative of a binary event(switch operation).

AMDG

 

[Michaelo]

1. There are only two theories of life: creation/design and evolution. (Panspermia is a transparent diversion - where did the alien life forms come from?)
   A proof of evolution is a disproof of creation.

I see logical fallacies have pervaded this debate as well–in your case false dichotomy. Please demonstrate why only two explanations can possibly exist.

 

[edwest2]

http://www.geotimes.org/june02/birdfeet2.jpg

Here’s an interesting photo of modern bird track fossils found in rocks dated at the Late Triassic era (before the appearance of dinosaur birds).

I ran this data by some evolutionists and the response was that this was “irrelevant” and also invalid and meaningless and says nothing about evolution. Plus, the dates might be wrong - so what? That doesn’t mean anything either. Plus, the tracks only “look modern” – they might actually be older than dinosaur birds and that also would be a meaningless thing. Most importantly, this says nothing about evolutionary theory which is more certain than gravity. Even if the rocks were misdated by 50 million years or so, that is not a big deal and I was instructed to not be concerned about such a silly matter. It may also be true that birds evolved more quickly than we thought, so that’s not a major issue. They evolved, and that’s a fact – as I’m told. Rock dating is very accurate, except sometimes when its mistaken by 50 to 80 million years – but again, I am assured that such mistakes are rare. These were responses from evolutionists – none of which actually studied the report or certainly did any first-hand research. By faith alone (sola fide), they rejected something that goes against their pre-conceived notions, even though it looks bad on all sides. Either the rocks were radically mistaken for Late Triassic Era – or, modern birds existed before dinosaur birds (which supposedly evolved into modern birds 50 million years later).
Evolution, it is claimed, would be falsified when a modern organism is found in primative rocks. Except, when that actually happens evolution can explain it away.

The purpose of this study is to apply neoichnological observations to the behavioural and taphonomic interpretation of a Late Triassic-Early Jurassic track surface from the Santo Domingo Formation (Argentina) containing hundreds of bird-like tracks and trackways. . . .] Field observations allowed to distinguish twenty one behaviours that produced distinct traces and four **modern footprint types **(1 to 4) related to specific substrate conditions. In particular, the preferential formation of bird tracks parallel to the waterline, also confirmed by studies on droppings and invertebrate fauna of the pond, and other associated sedimentary features (ripple marks, wrinkle marks, mud drape thickness) and trace fossils were important for recognition of the shoreline in the fossil example.

Reference: Application of neoichnological studies to behavioural and taphonomic interpretation of fossil bird-like tracks from lacustrine settings: The Late Triassic- Early Jurassic Santo Domingo Formation, Argentina
Jorge F. Genise, Ricardo N. Melchor, Miguel Archangelsky, Luis O. Bala, Roberto Straneck and Silvina de Valais
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 272(3-4), 15 February 2009, 143-161 | doi 10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.08.014

Thank you, reggieM, for taking the time to post this. In all the time I’ve been here, one thing is certain: evolution is a type of gospel that must be spread and accepted by the people. And the chosen way to the heart is through the head. This paper clearly shows and describes modern footprint types. It will be interesting to see what, if any, response comes from the scientific community. I suspect it will be brushed aside just like fossilized trees that pass through many rock strata and even coal seams.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

I see logical fallacies have pervaded this debate as well–in your case false dichotomy. Please demonstrate why only two explanations can possibly exist.

As a non-scientist evolutionist, I am extremely interested in the logical fallacies.

Regarding “A proof of evolution is a disproof of creation.” I only got as far as evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive but rather both/and. I will wait for the demonstration.

 

[rossum]

The Triceratops femur was at 47 degrees 6 minutes & 18 seconds North by 104 degrees, 39 minutes & 22 seconds West.
The Hadrosaur location was just North of Glendive in the NW ¼, NE ¼ of Sec. 32, T16N, R56 E, Dawson County, Montana

My apologies for not making myself clearer. I was asking for the source of the article from which your data was taken, not the source of the fossils. The name of the author, the title of the article, the date it was published and the journal/website it was published in. A web link would also be useful if available.

Please don’t change the subject.

I was not. I was using the example of the kitchen scale to show in simple terms why using the C14 method to try to measure the age of anything much older than about 50,000 years is useless.

If you want a more technical explanation then have a look at Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

The results of tests on an old object can be affected by contamination of the sample, improper preparation, residual carbon in the equipment and other things. A number will come out, but that number may be useless. That was the point of my example with the kitchen scales. The kitchen scales give you a number but that number bears no relation to your real weight. C14 will give you a number on an old dinosaur fossil, but that number will bear no relation to the actual age of the fossil.

1. There are only two theories of life: creation/design and evolution. (Panspermia is a transparent diversion - where did the alien life forms come from?)
   A proof of evolution is a disproof of creation.

So, since you do not believe in creation by Vishnu, and there are only two theories, you must believe in evolution. Hmmm. I think you have made a logical error in there somewhere.

1. As noted before, bacteria are all the same kind of being(species?). The Lenski tests didn’t demonstrate the evolution of microbe to mouse, but micro-evolution of a food appetite.

Excellent. Then there are only four “kinds” in existence: bacteria, archaea, eukaryotes and viruses. Since all primates are contained within the eukaryote kind then there is no problem with humans evolving from other primates, because that is just evolution within the eukaryote kind. Remember that “bacteria” is a very large classification very close to the root of the Tree of Life which contains millions of different species.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

Regarding “A proof of evolution is a disproof of creation.”

Yes – that’ just a simple misunderstanding of what “creation” means.

 

[grannymh]

My apologies for not making myself clearer. I was asking for the source of the article from which your data was taken, not the source of the fossils. The name of the author, the title of the article, the date it was published and the journal/website it was published in. A web link would also be useful if available.

I was not. I was using the example of the kitchen scale to show in simple terms why using the C14 method to try to measure the age of anything much older than about 50,000 years is useless.

If you want a more technical explanation then have a look at Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.

The results of tests on an old object can be affected by contamination of the sample, improper preparation, residual carbon in the equipment and other things. A number will come out, but that number may be useless. That was the point of my example with the kitchen scales. The kitchen scales give you a number but that number bears no relation to your real weight. C14 will give you a number on an old dinosaur fossil, but that number will bear no relation to the actual age of the fossil.

So, since you do not believe in creation by Vishnu, and there are only two theories, you must believe in evolution. Hmmm. I think you have made a logical error in there somewhere.

Excellent. Then there are only four “kinds” in existence: bacteria, archaea, eukaryotes and viruses. Since all primates are contained within the eukaryote kind then there is no problem with humans evolving from other primates, because that is just evolution within the eukaryote kind. Remember that “bacteria” is a very large classification very close to the root of the Tree of Life which contains millions of different species.

rossum

With my major project over, I can return to research. I have been to Tree of Life and the Understanding Evolution, Berkeley web sites, both of which I can understand most of the content. However, I will continue to have questions. Are there other comparative quality web sites? I want to go back to “eukaryote” and hominids but I think I am mixing that term with something else. Then my dictionary has hominoids and the family of hominoidea

According to my dictionary, hominid is a primate of the family hominidae of which Homo sapiens is the only extant species. Since I am primarily interested in the lineage of current humans, the idea of the only extant species fascinates me.

This is probably just me. When I go to Wikipedia for precise science, the tab at the top of the page which says “edit this page” makes me a wee bit nervous.

 

[StAnastasia]

With my major project over, I can return to research. I have been to Tree of Life and the Understanding Evolution, Berkeley web sites, both of which I can understand most of the content. However, I will continue to have questions. Are there other comparative quality web sites? I want to go back to “eukaryote” and hominids but I think I am mixing that term with something else. Then my dictionary has hominoids and the family of hominoidea

Granny, how did your eucharistic theology project go?

For science education, two other sites are

http://ncseweb.org/evolution

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

I see logical fallacies have pervaded this debate as well–in your case false dichotomy. Please demonstrate why only two explanations can possibly exist.

Alethios is able to see only two options and has arbitrarily declared them to be incompatible. She/he doesn’t understand why there is no contradiction between these two terms.

 

[rossum]

I have been to Tree of Life and the Understanding Evolution, Berkeley web sites, both of which I can understand most of the content. However, I will continue to have questions. Are there other comparative quality web sites?

St Anastasia has given you a couple more websites. I would also suggest the book “What Evolution is” by Ernst Mayr. Check if your library has a copy.

I want to go back to “eukaryote” and hominids but I think I am mixing that term with something else. Then my dictionary has hominoids and the family of hominoidea

The naming in the hominid area is a bit fuzzy because it has changed over time. ToLWeb is usually reasonably current.

According to my dictionary, hominid is a primate of the family hominidae of which Homo sapiens is the only extant species.

From my information (ToLWeb) the Hominidae include chimps, gorillas and orangutans as well as humans and various extinct species. Homo sapiens is the only extant member of genus Homo. Extinct members include H. neanderthalensis, H. ergaster, H. habilis and others.

This is probably just me. When I go to Wikipedia for precise science, the tab at the top of the page which says “edit this page” makes me a wee bit nervous.

Wikipedia is usually reasonably good, I know because I wrote some of it myself. The best use of Wikipedia is for general introduction/background and the lists of links to other websites and publications. Real science is found in the scientific journals, not in the summaries in Wikipedia or the popular media.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Granny, how did your eucharistic theology project go?
StAnastasia

The Eucharistic project Open House was amazing. I am now a firm believer in the action of the Holy Spirit. You certainly would appreciate our Pastor. When I showed him the fact sheet on Catholic Transubstantiation and miracles, he made sure that it was clear that miracles were not opposed to science.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Eucharistic project Open House was amazing. I am now a firm believer in the action of the Holy Spirit. You certainly would appreciate our Pastor. When I showed him the fact sheet on Catholic Transubstantiation and miracles, he made sure that it was clear that miracles were not opposed to science.

Marvellous!

 

[hugh_miller]

To Hugh Miller,

I would be interested in seeing photographs of human and dinosaur footprints together. Can you point me to a reference?

Thank you,
Ed

Be glad to:

*** ***

---

http://www.zillmer.com/index2.htm

---

**www.omniology.com **

---

There are also four books, the last being by Aaron Judkins in the spring of 2009 entitled, "

---

The Global Phenomenon of Human Fossil Footprints in Rock by …
The Global Phenomenon of Human Fossil Footprints in Rock by Aaron Judkins $29.95 . This content requires Adobe Flash Player version 8.0.0 or greater. …

Moses does indeed sizzle while Darwin fizzles

 

[Michaelo]

edwest2

I recommend reading this.

 

[hecd2]

Okay, so axis doesn’t necessarily mean rotation (can’t they come up with another word?), but we’re not just talking about one axis here but several, and they’re bunched together. So what other reasonable explanation could there be for that? Don’t answer that.

But the question is not whether they are bunched together (and they are less “bunched” than you imply), but whether they represent any sort of evidence for the diurnal rotation of the universe on a rotational axis coincident with the celestial poles. And the answer is that they do not. Such a rotation of the universe is *not *a “reasonable” explanation for the observations, because it is not a reason for them at all. (there are some hypotheses to explain the very slight departures from isotropy and homogeneity that these observations imply, but they do not include - in fact they positively exclude - the possibility of a diurnal rotation of the universe about the earth)

First let’s look at this:

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/…710.5321v1.pdf

Yukio Tomozawa

INTRODUCTION
In the Friedman universe, one possible interpretation of the coordinates is that the whole
space is on the surface of an expanding balloon and has no center…
Thus, there has to be a center for the expansion of the universe, since a cmb
dipole has been observed for the solar systemIs it me, or did that simple fact take a ridiculously long time for mainstream science to figure out?

It’s not a simple fact because it’s wrong; this paper was never published as far as I know, and it hasn’t been referenced, for the simple reason that it contains a fallacy which is a confusion between special relativistic co-ordinates and cosmological co-ordinates in which a co-moving moving radial distance to an object can be changing at greater than the speed of light. He defines his distances in cosmological co-ordinates and then does his calculations in special relativistic ones, which leads to erroneous conclusions. This fallacy is confirmed by the fact that the CMB dipole is different for two frames in the locality of the sun with different peculiar velocities. For example, WMAP calibrates its radiometers by measurements of the modulation of the dipole by the earth’s orbit. The standard interpretation of the dipole as arising from the motion of the earth with respect to the rest frame of the CMBR is correct.

(By the way, if I am wrong and Tomozawa is right, that is no comfort for you, because his argument is that the measured dipole arises from the earth being distant from the centre by 75 million light years).

And what does he mean by “a cmb dipole has been observed for the solar system”?

He means the dipole measured in the solar system with the variation in the measurement caused by the earth’s annual orbit removed.

Our solar system has its own cmb dipole? No, there’s only one universal (cosmological) cmb dipole. So what is the cosmological cmb dipole doing in our solar system? What in the world is the universe’s cmb dipole doing in our solar system?!

Now, you are making no sense at all. There is no such thing as a “universal” dipole of the CMBA (which you would realise of you actually understoood what the CMB is). The measured dipole depends on the peculiar velocity of the observer with respect to the rest frame of the CMB.

Oh, I see you guys have an “explanation” for that; and that Dr. Bennett has responded:

Bennett and Sungenis talk the most ridiculous nonsense throughout GWW, and no more so than here which is just pure claptrap. “The dipole … points to the source of the Cosmic Microwave Background energy” is nonsense which anyone who knows anything about the CMB will see - Sungenis obviously doesn’t even know what the CMB is - the CMB arises from all points of the sky almost uniformly with a black body radiation of 2.76K - the dipole amplitude is about 1/1000th of that or about 3mK, so how can it point to the source of the CMB, or “ether sources”, whatever they are. Junk. And this “The solar motion implies the presence of a kinematically induced Doppler quadrupole. This is an artifact of the antigeocentric premise: if the multipole hot spots indicate the ether source(s) in the cosmos then the multipoles have nothing to do with the kinematics of matter.” is meaningless pseudoscience, because he doesn’t (and can’t) explain how “ether sources” give rise to the CMB or an anisotropy with a first peak in the anisotropy power spectrum at l=220, nor how solar motion implies a kinematically induced quadrupole (it doesn’t).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

How do you explain the existence of the massive electro(?)-magnetic fields that envelope whole galaxies and clusters of galaxies?

AGNs

And then there are those quantized redshifts which seem to indicate we are at or near the center of the universe:

Except that you ignore what the actual hypothesis is. I quote:
“But because redshift only gives us one dimensional information the conclusion could be drawn that if the galaxies in the Universe are evenly distributed throughout then
redshift periodicity is indicative of oscillations in the expansion at past epochs. All observers would see the same shell structure in redshift space regardless of their location.” (My emphasis).
And that is what they are looking for. Nothing to do with a centre. But it is also agreed that almost all of the structure arises from the Cosmic Web which is explained by the evolution of primordial density fluctuations into filaments by the action of gravity.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

Wikipedia is usually reasonably good, I know because I wrote some of it myself.
rossum

:blush: Thanks.

 

[hecd2]

The Big Bang is another inconsistent theory of modern Big Sci:The expansion began from a single point, yet the BB has no center!
The universe is expanding into non-existence, yet it has no edge!

Correct - there is no inconsistency in either of these things - if you think there is inconsistency that is because you fail to understand the science. Here is a little thing I wrote earlier:
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

Geocentrism predicts the cosmos rotates around the geographic North-South pole axis, exactly as we observe every sidereal day. The axis around which the galactic spins are correlated passes through the Earth and participates in this polar rotation - the galactic spin axis is not the geocentric axis of rotation.

…Geocentrism requires the entire universe to be rotating around the earth in the equatorial plane once per day. .
Any cosmological effects should therefore be aligned to the celestial poles with cylindrical symmetry. They aren’t.

Correction:
Geocentrism requires the entire universe to be rotating around the Earth’s polar axis (as extended) once per day.
Any cosmic object motions should therefore be referenced to this polar axis. They are.

Might I suggest you read up on the subject before you make mistakes like these. The “Earth’s polar axis (as extended)” *is *the celestial polar axis. What I said was precisely correct. There are no cosmic effects that support rotation of the universe once per day, and no cosmic effects aligned with the celestial poles (or the earth’s polar axis - same thing).

In the aforementioned Copernican challenge thread, relativity - both flavors - was shown to be logically inconsistent. Any evidence from relativity can't be accepted, unless its logical contradictions are resolved.
The RW model of GR is thus worthless as evidence on this thread.

Don’t be silly. Both SR and GR have yet to fail an observational test.

Relativity is completely absurd, but discussing it is like beating your head against a wall… it feels so good when you stop.

Fine - then let’s see you try to explain the Coriolis and centrifugal forces on a static earth.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm

 

[hecd2]

(RE: Hitchhiker’s Guide)

Avoid the film. The TV seeries wasn’t bad. The books are the real thing.

rossum

Actually the real thing was originally a radio series, and Adams wrote the books afterwards. I agree with you about the film, but unfortunately he wasn’t alive to oversee it…

And since we can’t mention Hitchhiker’s guide without quoting something or two:

“Humans are not proud of their ancestors, and rarely invite them round to dinner.”

“It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.”

Alec
evolutionpages.com