Evolution - Rescuing out-of-place Fossils

[PsychoSarah]

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

The hips, you know? Those birdlike hips.

 

[PhantomGaze]

The hips, you know? Those birdlike hips.

Those hips don't lie.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Those hips don't lie.

Shakira!

But yeah, the skeletal similarities are a bit extensive to pawn off on convergent evolution.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Shakira!

But yeah, the skeletal similarities are a bit extensive to pawn off on convergent evolution.

Don't get me wrong I have no doubt a lot of similarities come from descent to, I just think it would be more mixed than we might expect. I also think the homology of certain features might go deeper than we expect.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Don't get me wrong I have no doubt a lot of similarities come from descent to, I just think it would be more mixed than we might expect. I also think the homology of certain features might go deeper than we expect as well.

Perhaps, but you know it is hard to say without DNA how closely related fossils with similar features truly are. I mean, convergent evolution has its limits as to how much that separately evolved similarity with show in bones, but I am sure there are a few that have been misplaced.

 

[lifepsyop]

The "ambiguous" dates in the abstract is a reference to the anomaly of having bird tracks in rocks dated to 200 MYA. =

No. You made this up. The ambiguity is a result of different geologic data believed to be pointing to both Triassic/Jurassic, and Eocene. It's stated plainly in the abstract.

 

[lifepsyop]

I mean, convergent evolution has its limits as to how much that separately evolved similarity with show in bones.

Sarah, I won't embarrass you by asking you what those "limits" are to convergent evolution.

 

[lifepsyop]

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.

That a remote formation could be mismapped is no surprise.

Do you think a formation could be mismapped based on opinions of what time period its fossils should come from?

I note again that the decision that the formation was erroneously dated came before the geological reinvestigation was performed.

 

[biggles53]

Do you think a formation could be mismapped based on opinions of what time period its fossils should come from?

I note again that the decision that the formation was erroneously dated came before the geological reinvestigation was performed.

Because, when you find anomalies in your results, a smart person would go back and re-check the data upon which those results were obtained. As I stated earlier, my maths students are encouraged to go back through their working, if the result they obtain in their calculations appears to be incongruent with previous attempts......presumably, you would consider that they were behaving unethically...!

 

[USincognito]

I'm editing lifespsyop's tags out so I can emphasize my own points.

Read again the 2009 paper's conclusions. They were 'certain' that the rocks must be younger than Triassic based on the presence of relatively modern looking bird tracks. Thus, before researchers even tried to figure out how the rocks could be younger, they had already made up their minds that the rocks *must* be younger, based not on evidence but on making the data fit evolution theory.

"The recognition of traces of flight (Volichnia), probing marks, and tracks showing morphology similar to modern shorebirds (G. dominguensis), strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the fossil tracks and, in consequence, the Santo Domingo track site would be younger than supposed"​

Wow. You just can't win with Creationists and their false equivocation. Don't you love how "strongly suggests" is translated into "the rocks *must* be younger".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah, I won't embarrass you by asking you what those "limits" are to convergent evolution.

No, I mean that statistically the chances of convergent evolution resulting in so many bone similarities that we can't tell it was convergent evolution are reasonably small enough that it isn't likely to be a constant problem.

 

[lifepsyop]

"The recognition of traces of flight (Volichnia), probing marks, and tracks showing morphology similar to modern shorebirds (G. dominguensis), strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the fossil tracks and, in consequence, the Santo Domingo track site would be younger than supposed"

Wow. You just can't win with Creationists and their false equivocation. Don't you love how "strongly suggests" is translated into "the rocks *must* be younger".

Yes, "strongly suggests" bird tracks. And if they are bird tracks then the formation "would be younger". They are making an absolute statement that birds can not have existed at the time of Triassic layer deposition.

This is what happens to evolutionarily anachronistic fossils. They are rationalized away with rescue devices. One of those being that that rocks have living dates that can potentially change by hundreds of millions of years if needed.

 

[USincognito]

Yes, "strongly suggests" bird tracks. And if they are bird tracks then the formation "would be younger". They are making an absolute statement that birds can not have existed at the time of Triassic layer deposition.

I think I'm going to twist their words differently than you have. I assert that when they say "strongly suggest" they are actually saying, "we're not sure about the dating on the layer now, and further evaluation, analysis and radiometric dating will give us a better idea of the date of the layer".

Neat, just like Creationists say applies to fossils or mountains - You can "interpret" what they wrote to mean something, and I can "interpret" it, and those interpretations are equally valid because we have the same evidence.

 

[USincognito]

Uh, yea, that is whole point of the OP.

Then why not quote from the linked Nature pages contained in the original paper?

If you had bothered to read it, you would see that nearly the whole OP concerns the challenged dating.

No it doesn't. It's more of your "look what they did" and "see I told you so". Did you look at the analyses provided in the brief communication?

A 12-cm-thick crystal-rich ash-fall tuff within the thrust sheet with the bird-like footprints was sampled for this study for U–Pb zircon geochronology (supported by US National Science Foundation grant EAR 0931839 and ANPCyT PICT 13286 from Argentina). This tuff lies 38 m below the first layer with definite G. dominguensis and 124 m below the main horizon with hundreds of G. dominguensis6. There is no stratigraphic discontinuity between the tuff bed and the footprint-bearing levels.​

Tell us why this tuff should not be used for dating? Tell us what is wrong with the results of that dating.

*note to all* Please take the time to read instead of walking into the room flailing your arms and throwing things. There's already been a couple comments berating me for not knowing the tracks were made by Theropod dinosaurs, even though I already explained in the OP that the researchers themselves have rejected that hypothesis.

If you're going to make a snotty, condescending comment like this, please post it as a separate message rather than attaching it to one of mine. TYIA.

 

[lifepsyop]

Then why not quote from the linked Nature pages contained in the original paper?

Okay, look at the "brief communication" and "retraction" articles linked from the original Nature article. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6892/full/nature00818.html#B11

See that 2013 paper that Melchor is referencing for the new dates? That's right it's the Vizan paper that I already referenced in the OP, and have been referencing throughout the thread.

Are you done with these red herrings yet? Can you possibly just argue the content and stop acting like I'm hiding something? Your routine is getting old.

No it doesn't. It's more of your "look what they did" and "see I told you so". Did you look at the analyses provided in the brief communication?

A 12-cm-thick crystal-rich ash-fall tuff within the thrust sheet with the bird-like footprints was sampled for this study for U–Pb zircon geochronology (supported by US National Science Foundation grant EAR 0931839 and ANPCyT PICT 13286 from Argentina). This tuff lies 38 m below the first layer with definite G. dominguensis and 124 m below the main horizon with hundreds of G. dominguensis6. There is no stratigraphic discontinuity between the tuff bed and the footprint-bearing levels.

Tell us why this tuff should not be used for dating? Tell us what is wrong with the results of that dating.
​

I've been referencing the new U-Pb dating throughout the whole thread, and where exactly did I say "the tuff should not be used for dating"?

What I said was that since researchers can potentially pull different dates out of rock formations using different dating methods, then anachronistic fossils can potentially be moved forward and backward in time by many millions of years. If the date supports evolution then it can be claimed as accurate, if not, then it can be blamed on nature. These are implications about how evolution theory, or major conventions of the theory, can insulate itself from falsification.​

 

[Atheos canadensis]

What I said was that since researchers can potentially pull different dates out of rock formations using different dating methods, then anachronistic fossils can potentially be moved forward and backward in time by many millions of years. If the date supports evolution then it can be claimed as accurate, if not, then it can be blamed on nature. These are implications about how evolution theory, or major conventions of the theory, can insulate itself from falsification.

Indeed they are implications, but no more than that. As others have pointed out, there's a big difference between accusing the scientists involved of twisting the data to prop up a theory and actually giving evidence that their methods were unsound. Spend a few minutes on google scholar and you will find many examples of geologists revising the age of rock formations. Do you have a problem with all age revisions? Do you think they're all being dishonest? Or are they making improvements on previous work? Sure it was the footprints that tipped them off to the possibility that mistakes had been made, but that doesn't make the revised dates invalid. Despite your implication, geologists don't just try a bunch of different dating techniques and use the one whose results they like the best; they use the one that makes the most sense in the context of all the available data.

 

[lifepsyop]

Indeed they are implications, but no more than that. As others have pointed out, there's a big difference between accusing the scientists involved of twisting the data to prop up a theory and actually giving evidence that their methods were unsound. Spend a few minutes on google scholar and you will find many examples of geologists revising the age of rock formations. Do you have a problem with all age revisions? Do you think they're all being dishonest? Or are they making improvements on previous work? Sure it was the footprints that tipped them off to the possibility that mistakes had been made, but that doesn't make the revised dates invalid. Despite your implication, geologists don't just try a bunch of different dating techniques and use the one whose results they like the best; they use the one that makes the most sense in the context of all the available data.

I don't think they're dishonestly twisting the data. I think they honestly believe they are resolving problems by selecting data that brings something into acceptable accordance with evolution theory. Whether or not something is in accord with the rest of the theory takes priority over the data.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes, "strongly suggests" bird tracks. And if they are bird tracks then the formation "would be younger". They are making an absolute statement that birds can not have existed at the time of Triassic layer deposition.

Show us the bird fossils and then we can talk. Same with the tetrapod fossils you mentioned earlier. Tracks can be misleading and we know nothing in either case about what actually made them.

This is what happens to evolutionarily anachronistic fossils. They are rationalized away with rescue devices. One of those being that that rocks have living dates that can potentially change by hundreds of millions of years if needed.

There are errors associated with any dating method.

What we do not see is what we expect to see if everything was created all at the same time six thousand years ago and there was a global flood responsible for the vast majority of sedimentary layers. Show us how the creation model better explains the geological column. I don't think you can, so all you can do is point out anomalies here and there that are not understood yet. There are always a few anomalies, because our understanding is never perfect.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't think they're dishonestly twisting the data. I think they honestly believe they are resolving problems by selecting data that brings something into acceptable accordance with evolution theory. Whether or not something is in accord with the rest of the theory takes priority over the data.

No, it is the fact that the preponderance of the data supports the theory, therefore it is more likely an issue with this particular fossil either being misidentified or misdated.

 

[DerelictJunction]

No. You made this up. The ambiguity is a result of different geologic data believed to be pointing to both Triassic/Jurassic, and Eocene. It's stated plainly in the abstract.

You are confusing me.

Your whole point in this thread was that geologists, in cahoots with the evolutionist geo-conspiracy, scrambled about for any possible means to redate the stratum that the fossil footprints were in so that the theory of evolution would not suffer a falsification event and, in that scramble, they cobbled together a poorly supported set of "evidence" so that they could use the dating of a different stratum as support of a younger date for the fossil stratum.

Now you're saying that is not what they did?

In the paper's highlights section, it appears they were listing some of the conflicting evidence that resulted in different age determination and concluded that ....Ambiguous interpretations arise, only resolved after precisely dating the rocks.
So you believe that the ambiguous evidence of age was the impetus for their further investigation rather than the apparent out-of-place fossils.

However, you stated in post 52, after you posted your response to me:

Yes, "strongly suggests" bird tracks. And if they are bird tracks then the formation "would be younger". They are making an absolute statement that birds can not have existed at the time of Triassic layer deposition.

This is what happens to evolutionarily anachronistic fossils. They are rationalized away with rescue devices. One of those being that that rocks have living dates that can potentially change by hundreds of millions of years if needed.

If this is not saying that you believe the investigation was started because of the discovery of the fossils, then what point are you trying to make here?

For what it's worth, the first two sentences of the Abstract indicate to me that the fossil discovery did spur the subsequent investigation into the age of the rocks, as shown below.

The red bed succession cropping out in the Quebrada Santo Domingo in northwestern Argentina had been for long considered as Upper Triassic–Lower Jurassic in age based on weak radiometric and paleontological evidence. Preliminary paleomagnetic data confirmed the age and opened questions about the nature of fossil footprints with avian features discovered in the section.

Regardless, we can agree to disagree about what started the re-examination.

The real question is...Is your accusation of impropriety a correct assessment of the situation? You're the accuser...make your case that they used a poorly supported process to purposely apply a false new date to the bird track stratum.

My recommendation is that you first show their methodology to be flawed. That would make them incompetent at best, and deceitful at worst.

Then you would have to show intent to deceive, in order to support your contention that they would do anything to save their theory.

Until you can do those two things, your accusation is just basically uncomposted natural fertilizer.

Good luck.