Hans Blaster
Hood was a loser.
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,569
- 16,268
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I'll just take that dodge as an admission that you are a YEC.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What paleontologists need to do is turn their fossils over and read the expiration date. If it says fresh if packaged after 75,000,000BC, then they know it's ok to find soft tissue on their fossils.
I've never done any scientific studies on the age of the earth.
Sorry Alan, but I answered that numerous times. It's not possible to put billions of years of evolution into a lab. If you believe that our inability to do what can not be done is reason to deny the phenomenal amount of evidence for macroevolution then that is your problem not mine.You post a link and I ask you to tell us what you think is the best observational evidence of macroevolution and you post another link. Take what you think is the best one of your 29+ evidences and write it in your next post.
As I always tell macroevolutionists, I've never done a scientific study on the age of the earth. I put my scientific study effort into understanding biological evolution. Biologists and anyone else interested in understanding this physical and mathematical process should do likewise. And I'm not so gullible to start that scientific study by believing the claim that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals as a scientific fact. I started that study with the observation of actual examples of biological evolution and computer simulations of the process. I looked for patterns in these observations and tried to understand what physical laws were at work in these patterns. I studied what biologists and geneticists were saying about these same things that I was observing and tried to understand what makes sense or not. What exactly were people like Darwin, Haldane, Kimura, and others were saying in their attempts to make a theoretical explanation of this phenomenon. What were people like Kishony and Lenski measuring and what were the patterns they were demonstrating in their experiments of biological evolution. I then looked for the correct mathematics to describe these patterns, whether that math was already published in the literature or my own efforts to derive the correct math necessary to define the different components of biological evolution.I'll just take that dodge as an admission that you are a YEC.
I'm actually aware of the carbon dating of soft tissue from a dinosaur fossil and if I recall, it dated to 24,000 years.
You deny existing evidence and you claim evidence that doesn't exist. Produce the evidence of freshly packed DNA older than 1.7 million years. As I pointed out before the study you quoted from is not what you think it is.What paleontologists need to do is turn their fossils over and read the expiration date. If it says fresh if packaged after 75,000,000BC, then they know it's ok to find soft tissue on their fossils.
I've never done any scientific studies on the age of the earth.
For example, if I were to do a scientific study on the age of soft tissue found on a fossil, I would do carbon dating of that soft tissue.
You certainly can apply carbon dating to soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils:Carbon dating is only reliable to about 50,000 years. You can't use it to date things millions of years old. We have other radiometric dating techniques for that.
(I added the boldfacing in that quote.) These researchers made no attempt to determine what fraction of carbon came from the collagen from the dinosaur and what fraction came from any possible modern contamination, although they say that "although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex".Given that the mosasaur humerus was housed in the collections at IRSNB for many years, the possibility existed that the collagenous matter identified herein was non-authentic, and instead originated from fungal growth or gelatin-based bone glue. However, histological sections of untreated bone revealed that the fibrous microstructures were deeply embedded in hydroxyapatite prior to demineralization (Figure 1M). Moreover, TOF MS and DNA analyses failed to detect any ergosterol or nucleic acids attributable to fungi, and we were unable to identify any substances that could be related to bone glue (for instance, the vessel lumina were draped by iron oxide crystals, not organic matter; Figure 4). Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex). Two short DNA sequences of possible lagomorph origin were amplified by PCR (together with three human sequences), and consequently it is possible that the outer surface of the bone has been painted with animal glue at some point. Nonetheless, based on the extremely weak PCR products obtained from the DNA analysis (8–26 ng/μl after two rounds of PCR and doubling up of the PCR reaction volume, suggesting very few copies of template DNA prior to PCR), the amount of lagomorph contamination is exceedingly small and cannot account for the relatively large quantities of fibrous matter located in between the vessel-like forms (i.e., in the area of the osteoid). Additionally, some fiber bundles are partially mineralized (Figure 8), providing convincing evidence for their antiquity. Accordingly, we find it reasonable to conclude that the collagenous biomolecules recovered from the fibrous tissues of IRSNB 1624 are primary.
And I'm not so gullible to start that scientific study by believing the claim that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals as a scientific fact.
Well, there is some modern experimental evidence of microevolution that has appeared since biologists came to their "rough" conclusion. That kind of thing happens in science. Perhaps they should work through the evidence again. They may actually learn something about the physics and mathematics of biological evolution this time through the evidence.Biology didn't start there either. They worked through the evidence and that is the (rough) conclusion they came to. It's not really our problem (on this board) that they came to those conclusions before you got involved in your evolutionary studies.
You certainly can apply carbon dating to soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils:
Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins
You said the following:That doesn't affect what I said at all.
So you think that the 24,600BP date obtain in the study I presented wasn't measuring the carbon date of that dinosaur collagen? What actually were they measuring the carbon date of? Do you think that carbon dating should be done on the soft tissue specimens found in other dinosaur fossils? If no, why not?Carbon dating is only reliable to about 50,000 years. You can't use it to date things millions of years old. We have other radiometric dating techniques for that.
You said the following:
So you think that the 24,600BP date obtain in the study I presented wasn't measuring the carbon date of that dinosaur collagen? What actually were they measuring the carbon date of? Do you think that carbon dating should be done on the soft tissue specimens found in other dinosaur fossils? If no, why not?
Why did these researchers waste time and money doing carbon dating on this specimen? What were they trying to date?There's nothing wrong in analyzing the C-14 levels of organisms that old, when we can. It can provide some useful data. It's not useful for dating purposes, though.
Why did these researchers waste time and money doing carbon dating on this specimen? What were they trying to date?
So they did carbon dating to verify microbial contamination? Read carefully where they found the contamination:Microbial contamination.
Where is the diaphyseal cortex? Why didn't they say they found bacterial contamination on the collagen fibers? They did electron microscopy, if bacteria was on the collagen fibers, that method should have revealed it. They don't need to do carbon dating of their collagen fiber specimens to determine bacterial contamination if they can see the bacteria with electron microscopy on the specimen they are carbon dating.although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex
There's a lot of denial going on with people that believe in macroevolution, abiogenesis, junk DNA, and multi-million-year-old soft tissue.
Whatever you say Pita. Why won't you discuss Joe Felsenstein's text THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS? You keep saying I should study a modern evolutionary biology text. Here's one with lot's of mathematics. Which equation(s) pertain to the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments? Where's the mathematical model of macroevolution?You have that the other way 'round. The denial is among contemporary creationists of said science.
Of course given that creationists have yet to proffer anything to replace that which they deny, it seems like a dead end for them.
I think you are just trying to turn the tables on Frank but I may be giving myself too much credit.Whatever you say Pita.
Perhaps you can how and where Felsenstein agrees with you.Why won't you discuss Joe Felsenstein's text THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?