Evolution - Rescuing out-of-place Fossils

[Styx87]

This is the exact reason why scientists are required to record everything they do. That way other scientists can redo the tests in search for error or bias. That's apparently what happened here. That's how the scientific method works. Another WIN for science in my book. The word of a scientists is never taken as inerrant.

How is anyone supposed to make a positive contribution to the growth of knowledge if they're unwilling to readjust their position when that position is shown to be flawed, or even outright wrong? (reflect on that)

 

[lifepsyop]

You say that the process used to get new (more accurate?) dates for the strata was contrived and faulty. That's all well and good but it is just your opinion. Perhaps it would be better if you showed how it is faulty. What particular geologic processes were invoked by those geologists and what evidence shows the invoking of that process to be in error?

A deformation event was invoked, where an Eocene block was able to rework itself into a Triassic formation.

The researchers themselves admit that their geologic re-interpretations are "ambiguous", and that the matter was settled based on a U-Pb date.

 

[lifepsyop]

This is the exact reason why scientists are required to record everything they do. That way other scientists can redo the tests in search for error or bias. That's apparently what happened here. That's how the scientific method works. Another WIN for science in my book. The word of a scientists is never taken as inerrant.

I think you're missing the point. And this may be an uncomfortable idea to come to grips with.

The only definitive "error" here was that the fossils contradicted evolution theory, followed by a dubious amount of rationalization and reinterpretation to change the temporal position of the fossils by hundreds of millions of years. There was no "error-check", but since the fossils were changed to a status comfortable with evolution theory, they are now assumed to be resolved.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Couple of problems.

1. The researchers were using imaginary data to draw conclusions before researching the supposed 'error'. They let evolution theory dictate that the rocks they were investigating could not possibly be as old as they had been dated.

I am not a geologist so I don't know what imaginary data you are referring to. Could you point that out in the original or challenge papers?

2. There was no "error-checking" process. They threw a different dating method at the rocks and got a different date. Is that one 'correct'? Who knows? It is not uncommon to get substantially different dates with different dating methods. (blamed on interference of natural processes) How many different dates could be pulled out of the ground all over the world right now if evolutionists needed to push a rock forward or backward in time?

Again, I am not a geologist so I didn't fully understand the challenge paper. However, from my reading, it was not merely a "different dating method" but a reassessment of the stratography of the area. After that reassessment, the rocks dated were considered to be closer to the strata ("...no stratigraphic discontinuity between the tuff bed and the footprint-bearing levels.").
Maybe you can show me where the geologists who did the reassessment were incorrectly applying their knowledge of the geologic processes that occurred in the stratography of that location.

 

[lifepsyop]

Maybe you can show me where the geologists who did the reassessment were incorrectly applying their knowledge of the geologic processes that occurred in the stratography of that location.

Better yet, why don't I just quote from the researchers themselves from the article highlights?

....Ambiguous interpretations arise, only resolved after precisely dating the rocks.
Geological setting and paleomagnetism of the Eocene red beds of Laguna Brava Formation (Quebrada Santo Domingo, northwestern Argentina)

This basically comes down to relying on the new U-Pb date.

They even had to reject a concordance of data (prior radiometric dating, and paleomagnetic pole data pointing to a Triassic date), rationalized as being a "fortuitous" coincidence.

 

[DerelictJunction]

A deformation event was invoked, where an Eocene block was able to rework itself into a Triassic formation.

What makes you believe that this invoking of a deformation event is contrived or incorrect? Do you have information on the area's stratography that was not presented in any of the papers you referred us to?

The researchers themselves admit that their geologic re-interpretations are "ambiguous", and that the matter was settled based on a U-Pb date.

I didn't see the word "ambiguous" in the paper that re-interpreted the date. What part of that paper leads you to believe that the geologists "...admit that their geologic re-interpretations..." could be in error by an order of magnitude?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Better yet, why don't I just quote from the researchers themselves from the article highlights?

....Ambiguous interpretations arise, only resolved after precisely dating the rocks.

This basically comes down to relying on the new U-Pb date.

They even had to reject a concordance of data (prior radiometric dating, and paleomagnetic pole data pointing to a Triassic date), rationalized as being a "fortuitous" coincidence.

You are addressing the conclusion drawn ("...only resolved after...) without providing why you think the conclusion is incorrect. Shouldn't you critique the body of the paper and show why you believe their reliance on the new U-Pb date is in error?
The paper states that they reassessed the stratigraphy.
What part of the analysis of the stratigraphy did they get wrong?
What evidence/expertise are you bringing to the table to show that they were wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And since they were dating tuff they probably used the K/Ar method of dating, not the U/Pb.

 

[lifepsyop]

What makes you believe that this invoking of a deformation event is contrived or incorrect?

I don't know if it's incorrect, and neither do the researchers. I'm simply pointing out the potential of changing interpretations of data to move a fossil's position by hundreds of millions of years in order to rescue conventions of evolution theory. It raises some serious questions about falsifiability.

I didn't see the word "ambiguous" in the paper that re-interpreted the date. What part of that paper leads you to believe that the geologists "...admit that their geologic re-interpretations..." could be in error by an order of magnitude?

Read the article highlights at the bottom where they state it is "ambiguous". They explain why in the abstract.

 

[lifepsyop]

I am not a geologist so I don't know what imaginary data you are referring to. Could you point that out in the original or challenge papers?

The imaginary data point is what's indicating that the bird tracks must be younger then what they're currently dated at. At that point, there was no real data indicating that, but the researchers assumed it must be true because relatively modern birds shouldn't be in the Triassic as dictated by evolution theory.

This is why creationists accuse evolutionists of dating rocks by the fossils, because evolutionists are known for doing it. They already *know* what dates they're looking for before they even start analyzing the date data, and then opens up the world of subjective rationalizations in their analysis...

 

[Picky Picky]

but ... but ... but ... lifepsyop says that if we do find fossil rabbits in the Precambrian evolutionists will just say "well, they can't be rabbits" or "well, it can't be Precambrian", and he produces a case where this seems to have happened. Yes, evolution is true, and science proceeds partly by finding explanations for anomalies, but you have to admit lifepsyop has made a pretty point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know if it's incorrect, and neither do the researchers. I'm simply pointing out the potential of changing interpretations of data to move a fossil's position by hundreds of millions of years in order to rescue conventions of evolution theory. It raises some serious questions about falsifiability.



Read the article highlights at the bottom where they state it is "ambiguous". They explain why in the abstract.

The fact is that scientists can make mistakes. I am not familiar with the formation in question, but it is fairly obvious that the date was not firmly set. If they were simply "making things up" other scientists would be raising a stink about the supposed bogus change. It is clear that the date of that formation was not clear. The discovery of bird footprints ran alarm bells. There was some sort of mistake somewhere. Either those weren't bird footprints, or there was a mistake in the dating, or something was wrong with the theory of evolution. I can guarantee you that all of these were considered. They found a better associated source to date. If gave a more reasonable date. Why are you complaining about scientists solving a mystery?

Scientists are correcting each other's errors all of the time. That is all that has happened here. The beds were improperly dated. It was obviously in an area that is mountainous. Mountainous areas can be hard to map. The strata can twisted, turned and even overridden.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but ... but ... but ... lifepsyop says that if we do find fossil rabbits in the Precambrian evolutionists will just say "well, they can't be rabbits" or "well, it can't be Precambrian", and he produces a case where this seems to have happened. Yes, evolution is true, and science proceeds partly by finding explanations for anomalies, but you have to admit lifepsyop has made a pretty point.

He found an area where the beds were misdated. It was the fossils that indicated that error.

He had a point in that he found an error. The error was resolved. Not by assuming that evolution was right, but by finding a better source for dating and looking more closely at the beds in question.

What he should be looking at is not that there was a mistake, but in how that mistake was resolved.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I don't know if it's incorrect, and neither do the researchers. I'm simply pointing out the potential of changing interpretations of data to move a fossil's position by hundreds of millions of years in order to rescue conventions of evolution theory. It raises some serious questions about falsifiability.

You don't think the geologists know if their process for re-evaluating the age of the fossil footprints is correct or not? I doubt your assessment of their knowledge has any chance of being accurate.

The paper you referred to has a detailed description of the process and reasoning behind their decision to rely on the new dating of the fossils. The amount of detail in the report lends itself quite well to falsifiability by other geologists.
So, I don't understand how you can claim it supports your contention that geologic age determination is unfalsifiable using the current geologic methods for measuring those ages.

Read the article highlights at the bottom where they state it is "ambiguous". They explain why in the abstract.

The "ambiguous" dates in the abstract is a reference to the anomaly of having bird tracks in rocks dated to 200 MYA. I admit that the anomaly is probably what started the investigation. With that admission, I refer you to an example I used earlier to explain why they even thought they should investigate.

Let's say you watch your friend run her automobile until it stopped from lack of fuel. Then she fills the fuel tank from a hose connected to the water spigot at her house. You both get in the car, she starts it up and drives you 100 miles without stopping at any fuel station.
Would you then decide that all your knowledge about the workings of internal combustion engines was entirely false...OR...would you investigate this anomaly further?

What's your take on this? Should they have just said that this was a clear indication that evolution is false and then applied for their Nobel Prize...or... should they investigate further to make sure the initial conclusion (birds in the Triassic) wasn't in error?

It seems the prudent course of action was to investigate further. Maybe you think differently and would fill your gas tank from your water hose.

Since they did further investigation and came to a conclusion that you disagree with, perhaps you should focus on falsifying the process/methods they used to come to that conclusion.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The imaginary data point is what's indicating that the bird tracks must be younger then what they're currently dated at. At that point, there was no real data indicating that, but the researchers assumed it must be true because relatively modern birds shouldn't be in the Triassic as dictated by evolution theory.

Finding an anomaly is a good reason to investigate further (See my water-in-the-gas-tank example). Despite your misgivings, most scientists agree with the current mapping of how life diversified into its present forms. Therefore, this was a rather isolated anomaly. Acceptance of the anomaly demanded further investigation.

This is why creationists accuse evolutionists of dating rocks by the fossils, because evolutionists are known for doing it. They already *know* what dates they're looking for before they even start analyzing the date data, and then opens up the world of subjective rationalizations in their analysis...

Would you measure the size of a plot of land with a micrometer?
How about using your odometer to determine the diameter of an apple?

Radiometric Dating costs money. Index fossils help provide a range of ages so a proper method is used the first time and money is not wasted. The age ranges of index fossils has been determined by extensive testing requiring large amounts of money.
Why shouldn't paleontologists and geologists use the knowledge already obtained in order to save a few bucks?

You've been around on these boards for a while so I am relatively sure this has been explained to you before. Please don't downgrade your level of discourse by tossing in these old canards.

 

[PsychoSarah]

but ... but ... but ... lifepsyop says that if we do find fossil rabbits in the Precambrian evolutionists will just say "well, they can't be rabbits" or "well, it can't be Precambrian", and he produces a case where this seems to have happened. Yes, evolution is true, and science proceeds partly by finding explanations for anomalies, but you have to admit lifepsyop has made a pretty point.

Not exactly. Originally, people thought that Neanderthals were a human ancestor, but some really well preserved Neanderthal DNA proved otherwise. Originally, people thought that intelligence then bipedal walking appeared in that order, but fossils proved it was the opposite. Scientists have admitted to being wrong, and thanks to the general skepticism that comes with dealing in the sciences, those mistakes are caught. Falsified information is a great way to lose any chance of being in the scientific community again; faking things to suit theories is one of the worst crimes a scientist can commit in the context of their occupation. Covering up information that disproves a theory would likewise be viewed with extreme disdain.

If information is found that proves a theory wrong, scientists may cry about it if they were extremely invested into the theory, but once that data is verified, they have to live with the truth. Denial just isn't something a real scientist can do and be productive.

 

[keith99]

Seriously it looks like they may have had an errant date for that formation. I am totally unfamiliar with the geology of Argentina, but if one is in a poorly mapped mountainous region it it understandable how an error could have been made in the dating of one particular stratum. Where I went to school we did very little work with the local geology since it was very boring, very easy to read flat, unfolded beds. We had a field geology class that was worth nine credits. It was a very intense class we took in Colorado, close to a thousand miles away from our school. There we could work on some real geology. And even that area was not well mapped in the U.S.. In a section that I was mapping we came across a thrust fault that had not been mapped before. And that was in the U.S. where one would have thought everything had been mapped to death.

Could an error have been made in the prior dating of the straum? Yes, that is always a possibility. You only have grounds for complaint if they were certain of the date.

You need to do better than this.

My Geophysics prof. published a paper regarding a major formation here in Southern California, He demonstrated a formation that had been thought to be later than another was in fact earlier. Folding can be tricky stuff.

The Paleontology prof. showed that the musculature of some dinosaurs was quite different than had been thought. It had been assumed it was comparable to similar modern reptiles, that the muscles attached to the bones in the same places. He went one step mare basic, it looked for the marks left by the attachments and found that they were in fact in somewhat different locations.

That a remote formation could be mismapped is no surprise.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Except that many dinosaurs had birdlike feet -_- which makes sense because modern birds are descendants of dinosaurs.

Kind of interesting then isn't it that several birds like Archaeopteryx and Protavis appear in the fossil record a good deal of time before the theropod dinosaurs thought to be their ancestors.

I think it's more likely birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Kind of interesting then isn't it that several birds like Archaeopteryx and Protavis appear in the fossil record a good deal of time before the theropod dinosaurs thought to be their ancestors.

I think it's more likely birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor.

Sure, why not? Would probably still be a very dinosaurian like reptile.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Sure, why not? Would probably still be a very dinosaurian like reptile.

I'd imagine there might be some level of convergence in play as well, but sure.