Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Doveaman]

Clearly, I didn't say anything about using an actual fossil as a sample to be dated in a lab.

I said fossils are interpreted as indicators representing geologic ages (i.e. evolutionary stages). Anyone attempting to resolve a deep-time dating scheme around, say, the transition from dinosaur fossils to 'higher' mammal fossils, is totally committed in their faith that the biostratigraphical sequence represents a transition of millions of years of evolutionary progression.

Geochronologists do not ever consider whether it is possible that there may be no significant time difference between dinosaur and 'higher' mammal fossil assemblages. This would be a blasphemy as it would negate evolutionary time. The fossils *have* to represent respective "ages" and any data indicating otherwise would automatically be interpreted as error. They approach the problem fully committed to the evolutionary faith, and their mission to resolve the 'millions of years' dating schemes.

Nice thread lifepsyop. Hats off for standing firm against the religious mob. I think you shook their faith a bit.

I enjoyed your posts, but this was my favorite:

Looks like she's been yakking about science for a LONG time.

Look at the audience behind her.

LOL

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clearly, I didn't say anything about using an actual fossil as a sample to be dated in a lab.

I said fossils are interpreted as indicators representing geologic ages (i.e. evolutionary stages). Anyone attempting to resolve a deep-time dating scheme around, say, the transition from dinosaur fossils to 'higher' mammal fossils, is totally committed in their faith that the biostratigraphical sequence represents a transition of millions of years of evolutionary progression.

Geochronologists do not ever consider whether it is possible that there may be no significant time difference between dinosaur and 'higher' mammal fossil assemblages. This would be a blasphemy as it would negate evolutionary time. The fossils *have* to represent respective "ages" and any data indicating otherwise would automatically be interpreted as error. They approach the problem fully committed to the evolutionary faith, and their mission to resolve the 'millions of years' dating schemes.

No, there are many sources of evidence that tell us that the age of the dinosaurs was many millions of years ago. Your ignorance of that evidence cannot be used by you to argue against that fact. The reason that geochronologists know better than to date a dinosaur fossil with C-14 is because they have an education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice thread lifepsyop. Hats off for standing firm against the religious mob. I think you shook their faith a bit.

All lifepsyop has dones is to make evident his ignorance of science. I suppose if you are a creationist that is a "good thing".

 

[Atheos canadensis]

All lifepsyop has dones is to make evident his ignorance of science. I suppose if you are a creationist that is a "good thing".

I know it's irritating when creationists congratulate other creationists for their flawed arguments, but let's not head down this road. That's how you get a thread closed.

 

[The Cadet]

Clearly, I didn't say anything about using an actual fossil as a sample to be dated in a lab.

I said fossils are interpreted as indicators representing geologic ages (i.e. evolutionary stages). Anyone attempting to resolve a deep-time dating scheme around, say, the transition from dinosaur fossils to 'higher' mammal fossils, is totally committed in their faith that the biostratigraphical sequence represents a transition of millions of years of evolutionary progression.

Geochronologists do not ever consider whether it is possible that there may be no significant time difference between dinosaur and 'higher' mammal fossil assemblages. This would be a blasphemy as it would negate evolutionary time. The fossils *have* to represent respective "ages" and any data indicating otherwise would automatically be interpreted as error. They approach the problem fully committed to the evolutionary faith, and their mission to resolve the 'millions of years' dating schemes.

Space rocks. Date them. How?

 

[bhsmte]

Space rocks. Date them. How?

Clearly, he isn't touching this one.

 

[lifepsyop]

The previous understanding of how long soft tissue could survive was based on samples sitting in a fridge. But how does mineralization affect this? When soft tissue is impregnated and surrounded by a crystal lattice, it's possible that the structure it provides locks in place and preserves the tissue structure. This hasn't been tested, though I've talked with paleontologists about designing an experiment. It is much more reasonable to investigate the phenomenon further instead of throwing up our hands and declaring all geochronogical methods are invalid.

Additionally, as has already been pointed out, no soft tissue has ever been found as such. It must first be demineralized, which lends credence to the idea that the crystal structure preserves the tissue structure.

Two things Jseeker.
1. There was no soft tissue in the T-Rex bone Dr. Schweitzer had. It was solid fossilized rock. The soft tissue is a result of placing a piece of the bone in a cleaning solution to remove to remove dirt and debris. In doing this the minerals were dissolved leaving the soft collagen tissue. Was this a surprise and never before seen? Yes. Does this make the dinosaur bone less than 6,000 years in age? No! It's still 95 million years old. All it means is that we still have a lot to lean about the fossilization process. Nothing more.

These sample were not placed in cleaning solutions, only examination under microscope. And the samples are not argued to be well-preserved at all.


Fibres and cellular structures preserved in 75-million–year-old dinosaur specimens -2015
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150609/ncomms8352/full/ncomms8352.html

"We examined samples from eight Cretaceous dinosaur bones using nano-analytical techniques; the bones are not exceptionally preserved and show no external indication of soft tissue. In one sample, we observe structures consistent with endogenous collagen fibre remains displaying ~67nm banding, indicating the possible preservation of the original quaternary structure. Using ToF-SIMS, we identify amino-acid fragments typical of collagen fibrils. Furthermore, we observe structures consistent with putative erythrocyte remains that exhibit mass spectra similar to emu whole blood.

Models proposed to account for such preservation indicate that it should be the exception rather than the rule. In particular, it has long been accepted that protein molecules decay in relatively short periods of time and cannot be preserved for longer than 4 million years. Therefore, even in cases where organic material is preserved, it is generally accepted that only parts of original proteins are preserved, and that the full tertiary or quaternary structure has been lost.

If collagen is completely degraded, this banding is no longer seen, due to loss of the quaternary structure of the protein. Therefore, the observation of a ~67-nm banding in the fibrous structures of fossilized samples here is very exciting, as it is consistent with a preservation of the ultrastructure of putative collagen fibres over a time period of 75 million years. Before this finding, the oldest undegraded collagen recorded (based on mass spectrometry sequencing and peptide fingerprinting) was about 4 million years old.

Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly suggests that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted."

It is much more reasonable to investigate the phenomenon further instead of throwing up our hands and declaring all geochronogical methods are invalid.

Nobody says you have to throw up your hands and declare all other dating methods invalid. But surely, if you were approaching the issue scientifically, you would now stop to at least question whether or not these dinosaur remains are really 75 million years old, due to the admittedly incredible level of organic preservation.

But you cannot do that. Such a blasphemy cannot be even whispered about, much less openly discussed. The evolutionary faith of millions of years cannot be questioned under any circumstances.

This is why I know that any dating/time-keeping methods that appear to run counter to deep-time will always be dismissed as some quirky thing nature is doing to cover up the immaculate revealed truth of evolutionary creation.

 

[crjmurray]

These sample were not placed in cleaning solutions, only examination under microscope. And the samples are not argued to be well-preserved at all.


Fibres and cellular structures preserved in 75-million–year-old dinosaur specimens -2015
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150609/ncomms8352/full/ncomms8352.html

"We examined samples from eight Cretaceous dinosaur bones using nano-analytical techniques; the bones are not exceptionally preserved and show no external indication of soft tissue. In one sample, we observe structures consistent with endogenous collagen fibre remains displaying ~67nm banding, indicating the possible preservation of the original quaternary structure. Using ToF-SIMS, we identify amino-acid fragments typical of collagen fibrils. Furthermore, we observe structures consistent with putative erythrocyte remains that exhibit mass spectra similar to emu whole blood.

Models proposed to account for such preservation indicate that it should be the exception rather than the rule. In particular, it has long been accepted that protein molecules decay in relatively short periods of time and cannot be preserved for longer than 4 million years. Therefore, even in cases where organic material is preserved, it is generally accepted that only parts of original proteins are preserved, and that the full tertiary or quaternary structure has been lost.

If collagen is completely degraded, this banding is no longer seen, due to loss of the quaternary structure of the protein. Therefore, the observation of a ~67-nm banding in the fibrous structures of fossilized samples here is very exciting, as it is consistent with a preservation of the ultrastructure of putative collagen fibres over a time period of 75 million years. Before this finding, the oldest undegraded collagen recorded (based on mass spectrometry sequencing and peptide fingerprinting) was about 4 million years old.

Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly suggests that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted."

Nobody says you have to throw up your hands and declare all other dating methods invalid. But surely, if you were approaching the issue scientifically, you would now stop to at least question whether or not these dinosaur remains are really 75 million years old, due to the admittedly incredible level of organic preservation.

But you cannot do that. Such a blasphemy cannot be even whispered about, much less openly discussed. The evolutionary faith of millions of years cannot be questioned under any circumstances.

This is why I know that any dating/time-keeping methods that appear to run counter to deep-time will always be dismissed as some quirky thing nature is doing to cover up the immaculate revealed truth of evolutionary creation.

Do you think the miniscule number of explainable dating errors or the discovery of preserved dinosaur tissue constitutes a reasonable doubt about deep time?

 

[Doveaman]

All lifepsyop has dones is to make evident his ignorance of science. I suppose if you are a creationist that is a "good thing".

You are not making an argument here. You are just hand-waiving as usual.

I always knew the Big Bang model was junk science. I always felt the so-called “evidence” used to support evolution theory was ridiculous and often silly. And now I’m more aware that the dating methods are often just an illusion -- that dates calculated do not always match the ages you expect and are routinely discarded when they don’t.

It just seems like one great, big magic show to me, a circus routine, and anyone who doesn't join the circus are labeled as ignorant or cranks, or removed from their position like RickG is trying to do here.

 

[Doveaman]

Data is only disregarded when it is known to be unreliable, not because it doesn't meet the results of what the researchers are looking for. I am getting very tired of you making unsupported baseless claims concerning research methods you know nothing about. As a person who has had actual experience with what you are debasing, I have had enough and will get moderators involved if it continues.

You are going to report someone simply for disagreeing with you? Really?

And even if you did report him, how will the moderators know who is right and who is wrong? Are they experts in that field of study. This is CF, not Peer-Review.

 

[Goonie]

Interesting when young earth creationists lose the argument to science, change the terms of the debate and declare science to be a religion. Pardon me whislt I laugh.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

and show no external indication of soft tissue. In one sample, we observe structures consistent with endogenous collagen fibre rsingle exampm displaying ~67nm banding, indicating the possible preservation of the original stocke. Using T, we identify amino-acid fragments typical of collagen fibrils. Furthermore, we observe structures consistent with putative erythrocyte remains that exhibit mass spectra similar to emu whole blood.

Models proposed to account for such prepared ndicate that it should be the exception rather Than the rule. In particular, it has long been accepted that protein molecules decay in relatively short periods of time and cannot be preserved for lonhan 4 million years. Therefore, even in cases where organic material is preserved, it is generally accepted that only parts of original proteins are preserved, and that the full tertiary or quaternary structure has been lost.

If collagen is completely degraded, this banding is no longer seen, due to loss of the quaternary structure of the protein. Therefore, the observation of a ~67-nm banding in the fibrous structures of fossilized samples here is very exciting, as it is consistent with a preservation of the ultrastructure of putative collagen fibres over a time period of 75 million years. Before this finding, the oldest undegraded collagen recorded (based on mass spectrometry sequencing and peptide fingerprinting) was about 4 million years old.

Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly suggests that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted.

Good on you for proving the link to the paper. I think you're reading what you want to see though. I could be wrong, but based on the following quotes it seems like soft tissue is still mineralized and not pliable like Schweitzer's demineralized samples:


"First, with a scanning electron microscope (SEM), we observed, in four different samples, structures resembling calcified collagen fibres from modern bone


(b) Erythrocyte-like structures composed of carbon surrounded by cement"

Nobody says you have to throw up your hands and declare all other dating methods invalid. But surely, if you were approaching the issue scientifically, you would now stop to at least question whether or not these dinosaur remains are really 75 million years old, due to the admittedly incredible level of organic preservation.

But you cannot do that. Such a blasphemy cannot be even whispered about, much less openly discussed. The evolutionary faith of millions of years cannot be questioned under any circumstances.

This is why I know that any dating/time-keeping methods that appear to run counter to deep-time will always be dismissed as some quirky thing nature is doing to cover up the immaculate revealed truth of evolutionary creation.

Scientifically it makes sense to start with the most parsimonious idea i.e. our understanding of tissue preservation is flawed rather than the less parsimonious one, i.e. that all dating methods that show an old earth are wrong. Let's use an analogy from my home town to explain. According to official understanding of wildlife distribution, there are no cougars anywhere near the area. But people kept seeing large cat tracks, large cat-like spoor and even large, tawny cats. By your logic we should have given priority to the consideration that the official stance was correct and that all these indications that there were cougars present should be rejected. But it makes much more logical sense to conclude that the old understanding of cougar distribution was flawed.

Similarly, it makes more sense to start with the hypothesis that our understanding of tissue preservation was flawed rather than that all the indications of an old earth are wrong.

You are simply asserting that all data that don't support an old earth will be suppressed regardless of validity. You have not given even a single instance of valid data being rejected. This is presumably because you don't know of any. This is also presumably why you not only declined RickG's challenge but also refuse to even acknowledge that it was issued.

Edited for formatting

 

[AV1611VET]

There goes my lunch.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why don't you accept that soft tissue can be preserved for that long?

Because we have an entire branch of forensic science dedicated to determining time of death based upon bodily decay rates. We know how fast organic matter decays and it's lifetime - just as you claim we can determine the age of rocks by the half-life of compounds.

You just don't want to accept the conclusions of the science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Two things Jseeker.

1. There was no soft tissue in the T-Rex bone Dr. Schweitzer had. It was solid fossilized rock. The soft tissue is a result of placing a piece of the bone in a cleaning solution to remove to remove dirt and debris. In doing this the minerals were dissolved leaving the soft collagen tissue. Was this a surprise and never before seen? Yes. Does this make the dinosaur bone less than 6,000 years in age? No! It's still 95 million years old. All it means is that we still have a lot to lean about the fossilization process. Nothing more.

2. There is no pretending in 14C in fossils where it should not be. There can be 14C in rocks and fossils of millions of years old. What is different is that this 14C is "in situ" 14C, not the cosmogenic 14C used to date late Pleistocene and Holocene fossils or objects. Furthermore, this in situ 14C can be easily separated and quantified from the cosmogenic 14C. I have described this process several times already in the CF and most likely early in this thread as well.

Please do not continue to make those false accusations.

1. As long as you ignore the Triceratops fossil horn bone we found soft tissue in, right????? You know the one where the scientists was fired for proposing it was of a more recent age. Oh, you ignored that one.

Who said it made it less than 6,000 years besides your strawman???? It's about 45,000 years old - at least get it consistent with those carbon 14 tests which show the same age range for every single fossil tested. When will you people stop with that strawman of 6,000 years when the Bible clearly told you "and the earth became desolate and waste"? The dinosaurs were destroyed in that cataclysm long before man arrived on the scene. Is strawmen all you have to deflect the science? No, all it means is that you refuse to accept the obvious.

2. You have described fantasies.

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

You are the only one bringing in strawmen and false accusations.

And now you want me to believe that soft tissue - carbon material - can survive 95 million years, but the carbon molecules in the bone all flew away to Fairie Dust land. Lol - defeated by your own claims that carbon material can somehow survive that long - and didn't even know it - as long as we ignore it in the fossils themselves. Right? Right??

 

[RickG]

These sample were not placed in cleaning solutions, only examination under microscope. And the samples are not argued to be well-preserved at all.

Perhaps you need to actually read the paper published by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, where she describes the bone being "demineralized" in a demineralizing solution. You also need to see where on top of page 1952 where it says, "although some bones are slightly deformed or crushed, preservation is excellent.

http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/~natsirt/stuff/Schweitzer Science 2005.pdf

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Perhaps you need to actually read the paper published by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, where she describes the bone being "demineralized" in a demineralizing solution. You also need to see where on top of page 1952 where it says, "although some bones are slightly deformed or crushed, preservation is excellent.

http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/~natsirt/stuff/Schweitzer Science 2005.pdf

Strawman. Demineralizing solutions are used to clean silkworm silk from cocoons. Doesn't affect the biological matter at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demineralizing_(silk_worm_cocoon)

Oh I agree the preservation is excellent - which is why we can discount claims of billions of years and quit pretending luck of the draw did it.

 

[lifepsyop]

Perhaps you need to actually read the paper published by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, where she describes the bone being "demineralized" in a demineralizing solution. You also need to see where on top of page 1952 where it says, "although some bones are slightly deformed or crushed, preservation is excellent.

http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/~natsirt/stuff/Schweitzer Science 2005.pdf

I wasn't referring to Schweitzer's work. There has been more than one discovery you know.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I wasn't referring to Schweitzer's work. There has been more than one discovery you know.

Yes there have, there have been many of them - which should give them an indication that this rare preservation isn't that rare - and the fossils are not the age they believe them to be. Instead they want miracle after miracle after miracle to occur against all the odds of that soft tissue being preserved just once, let alone countless times, and call it science.

Sorry - originally was quoting Rick and then changed to yours but forgot to delete the part to him

 

[lifepsyop]

"First, with a scanning electron microscope (SEM), we observed, in four different samples, structures resembling calcified collagen fibres from modern bone

I'm pretty sure that is referring to normal calcification of bone, and not related to fossil mineralization. Elsewhere in the study we read:

"In addition to the erythocyte-like structures, in four other specimens the SEM analysis also showed fibrous structures similar to calcified collagen fibres found in modern bone. "

[and here they reference studies like these which are studies on bone development]
Organization of apatite crystals in human woven bone.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12633787?dopt=Abstract&holding=npg
"The organization of collagen fibrils differs in woven bone and lamellar bone, and it reflects certain aspects of the nature of the mineral crystals associated with them..."

And they go on to describe the discovery of internal structure entirely consistent with the original organic material.

Scientifically it makes sense to start with the most parsimonious idea i.e. our understanding of tissue preservation is flawed rather than the less parsimonious one, i.e. that all dating methods that show an old earth are wrong. Let's use an analogy from my home town to explain. According to official understanding of wildlife distribution, there are no cougars anywhere near the area. But people kept seeing large cat tracks, large cat-like spoor and even large, tawny cats. By your logic we should have given priority to the consideration that the official stance was correct and that all these indications that there were cougars present should be rejected. But it makes much more logical sense to conclude that the old understanding of cougar distribution was flawed.

Similarly, it makes more sense to start with the hypothesis that our understanding of tissue preservation was flawed rather than that all the indications of an old earth are wrong.

I think there's some ambiguity there between parsimony and just protecting a theory. Evolutionary deep-time has been assumed as unquestionable truth since its inception. One question is how many time indicators have been filtered through this dogmatic confirmation bias and absorbed ad-hoc since then. It's hard to get a good picture because evolutionists characteristically sweep things under the rug and only present sanitized pictures to the public. From now on, students will be taught that it has been 'proven' that endogenous organic material can survive intact for upwards of 100 million years because the discovery has been swallowed up by the belief in evolution. The belief is imposed on our conception of how reality works. I have to wonder how many times that has happened in the past.

You are simply asserting that all data that don't support an old earth will be suppressed regardless of validity. You have not given even a single instance of valid data being rejected. This is presumably because you don't know of any. This is also presumably why you not only declined RickG's challenge but also refuse to even acknowledge that it was issued.

I believe if a date is totally inconsistent with a preferred model then it will be assumed to be contaminated or otherwise anomalous and likely be discarded. It's hard for me prove the existence of something that is not publicized, though I think I've presented quotes from the literature that at least seem to suggest it is probably happening to some extent. And I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest in general. There is only so much time in the day and a researcher can either spend his time on what he believes is a productive working towards establishing a consistent geologic time scale, or by chasing down every "outlier" that happens to appear.