Evolution - Rescuing out-of-place Fossils

[DerelictJunction]

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.

Then bring something to the table that shows that particular data (37 Ma age)having no more supporting evidence than the data (200 Ma age) not selected.

Whether or not something is in accord with the rest of the theory takes priority over the data.

What part of the Nature articles or the Geological setting and paleomagnetism paper can you quote to show us that this was the overriding priority in the reassessment of the ages for the strata in that location?

Do you have any other sources that show this to be their priority?...emails...secret letters...recorded conversations from smoke-filled rooms....testimony from a shadowy figure in a parking garage...anything?

 

[lifepsyop]

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.

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.

Yes, the fossil discovery clearly spurred the investigation. The investigation resulted in ambiguous results on the formation's date. The researchers finally concluded it was resolved by the new U-Pb date.

However, in the re-dating paper, the ambiguous date results are not related to the anachronistic fossils, as you previously claimed, but are referring to the other date data pointing to Triassic/Jurassic age of the rocks. That's where you were confused.

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.

I'm not claiming any intentional deception, or any technical error in methodology.

What I am claiming is the implications to the overall theory, that anachronisms can potentially be rescued by discarding old dates and re-dating the regions they're found in. This has implications for potential falsifiability and flies in the face of the familiar cry of evolutionists that their theory could be disproven by "discovering a single out of place fossil." Things clearly are not that black and white.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yes, the fossil discovery clearly spurred the investigation. The investigation resulted in ambiguous results on the formation's date. The researchers finally concluded it was resolved by the new U-Pb date.

I don't read it that way. The ambiguous data regarding the age, including the fossil discovery, lead to the further investigation. The result of the re-examination, detailed in the redating paper, was that the U-Pb dating of a stratum related closely to the fossil stratum was a more accurate indication of the age of the fossils

However, in the re-dating paper, the ambiguous date results are not related to the anachronistic fossils, as you previously claimed, but are referring to the other date data pointing to Triassic/Jurassic age of the rocks. That's where you were confused.

The ambiguous data is not the result of the investigation detailed in the paper (from my reading), but one of the causes for the investigation.

I'm not claiming any intentional deception, or any technical error in methodology.

What I am claiming is the implications to the overall theory, that anachronisms can potentially be rescued by discarding old dates and re-dating the regions they're found in. This has implications for potential falsifiability and flies in the face of the familiar cry of evolutionists that their theory could be disproven by "discovering a single out of place fossil." Things clearly are not that black and white.

So you think they shouldn't have investigated this anomaly but, instead, merely stated, "Evolution is dead!!!" as they applied for their Nobel?

Don't you see? This potential falsification of the theory was taken seriously. That's why the re-examination was conducted...to find out if the fossils were really out of place.

You say there was no deception and no technical error, yet you speak of discarding old dates as if they had no more evidence to support re-dating than they had for the old dates.
That is a conflict in your reasoning.
Either they screwed up in their decision to re-date the fossil find (technical error or deception) or they were correct in their determination that the evidence supported re-dating. You can't have it both ways.

 

[lifepsyop]

Either they screwed up in their decision to re-date the fossil find (technical error or deception) or they were correct in their determination that the evidence supported re-dating. You can't have it both ways.

And I'm not arguing either of those.

I've stated my claim repeatedly about the larger implications of potential falsifiability of the theory. It's not my problem if you can't follow that. I won't keep repeating myself to you or waste my time correcting your strawmen.

 

[Split Rock]

What I am claiming is the implications to the overall theory, that anachronisms can potentially be rescued by discarding old dates and re-dating the regions they're found in. This has implications for potential falsifiability and flies in the face of the familiar cry of evolutionists that their theory could be disproven by "discovering a single out of place fossil." Things clearly are not that black and white.

It is most certainly a gross oversimplification to say that any single find can potentially falsify any theory. There I agree with you. That does not mean that the theory of evolution is not potentially falsifiable, however.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And once again:

What U/Pb date? I did not see a mention of that in any of the articles.

 

[DerelictJunction]

And I'm not arguing either of those.

I've stated my claim repeatedly about the larger implications of potential falsifiability of the theory. It's not my problem if you can't follow that. I won't keep repeating myself to you or waste my time correcting your strawmen.

???
Let's see if I can comprehend your logic.
1. The scientists involved noted an anomaly and decided to investigate it further.
2. You believe their methodology for conducting the investigation was technically sound.
3. You also believe that their conclusion to use the dating of a different stratum than the one used in the original dating, was supported with enough evidence to warrant that conclusion. IOW...you agree that the new date is correct within the radiometric dating methodology used by geologists today.

You now are stating, that scientists using the proper methodology in a warranted investigation of an anomaly, from which they drew a correct conclusion regarding the date of the fossils, has larger implications regarding the potential falsifiability of the theory of evolution.

Short version: Scientists conducting investigations properly and competently indicate that the theory is unfalsifiable. (Perhaps this is a misinterpretation of your conclusion)

You need to explain this logic more clearly for me to understand how your conclusion stems from the evidence you provided. Maybe linking each step in your reasoning would help me see what you're getting at.

BTW: I didn't think I was building a strawman. Can you show me where I was doing so?

 

[PsychoSarah]

And I'm not arguing either of those.

I've stated my claim repeatedly about the larger implications of potential falsifiability of the theory. It's not my problem if you can't follow that. I won't keep repeating myself to you or waste my time correcting your strawmen.

Evolution does have the potential to be falsified, leave no doubts about that.

 

[DerelictJunction]

And once again:

What U/Pb date? I did not see a mention of that in any of the articles.

From: Geological setting and paleomagnetism of the Eocene red beds of Laguna Brava Formation (Quebrada Santo Domingo, northwestern Argentina) I can't include links yet but it is in the OP about 2/3 of the way down.

In Section 2.2:

The analysis of 7 single zircon grains yielded a weighted-mean 206Pb/238U date of 37.313 ± 0.017/0.040/0.057 Ma (internal uncertainties/with tracer calibration uncertainties/with decay constant uncertainties; MSWD = 1.2). As the analyzed zircon grains (which are abundant in the sample) are exactly the same age, the possibility of a detrital contamination is unlikely.
In consequence, the maximum age for the bird tracks of the Laguna Brava Formation of northwest Argentina (including G. dominguensis) is Late Eocene.

Maybe you could see problems with the investigation. As I said, I am not a geologist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From: Geological setting and paleomagnetism of the Eocene red beds of Laguna Brava Formation (Quebrada Santo Domingo, northwestern Argentina) I can't include links yet but it is in the OP about 2/3 of the way down.

In Section 2.2:



Maybe you could see problems with the investigation. As I said, I am not a geologist.

Yes, there is a huge problem with using that as a date.

Zircons are not formed in sedimentary rock. Zircons are an igneous mineral. So at best they could have dated the source of the sediments, not the sediments themselves.

For example C14 dating can only be used to date when a tree was living. Some houses today use relcaimed lumber, old lumber from old building which is reused since much of that old lumber was made from old growth forests. It has a different grain pattern than secondary or later growth in a forest. Many of those old buildings are two hundred years old. So if you did a C14 date on parts of a house built with reclaimed lumber you could get a date of 200 years instead of its actual age of 5 or 10 years.

The improved date relied on dating an associated tuff deposit. The tuff deposit is also igneous, and if I remember was just on top of the bed in question. That gives a maximum age for it and that was where the eocene age came from. Tuff is usually dated with K/Ar if I remember correctly.

Different methods of radiometric dating can give different dates. Dating zircons tells us how old the material that made the sediments was. It does not tell us how old the sediments are themselves. That is a date that can be misleading and is a very fuzzy upper limit on age.

The Tuff on top of the deposit gives another date and gives us a minimum date. But since the tuff seemed to be in direct contact with that layer it should also be a very good date for that stratum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I was always looking at the tuff for a date and did not see a indicator that it was dated with U/Pb.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yes, there is a huge problem with using that as a date.

Zircons are not formed in sedimentary rock. Zircons are an igneous mineral. So at best they could have dated the source of the sediments, not the sediments themselves.

Agreed. But it does address the problem of the sediments being from the Triassic, which was the impetus for the investigation.

The Tuff on top of the deposit gives another date and gives us a minimum date. But since the tuff seemed to be in direct contact with that layer it should also be a very good date for that stratum.

Using both dates to bracket the sediment stratum with the younger age being when the sediment for that layer stopped being deposited. Ok

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed. But it does address the problem of the sediments being from the Triassic, which was the impetus for the investigation.



Using both dates to bracket the sediment stratum with the younger age being when the sediment for that layer stopped being deposited. Ok

Except that the zircon dating only gives us an age when the igneous rock that formed the zircons was solidified. That is hardly a useful date. The actual date could be over a billion years after that event. That is why dating zircons is of very little value in a sedimentary rock.

ETA: I hope that the dating of the zircons was not used as a factor for the original date. It seems to me it was more likely that they made an error in stratigraphy. That is very possible in a mountainous area.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Except that the zircon dating only gives us an age when the igneous rock that formed the zircons was solidified. That is hardly a useful date. The actual date could be over a billion years after that event. That is why dating zircons is of very little value in a sedimentary rock.

ETA: I hope that the dating of the zircons was not used as a factor for the original date. It seems to me it was more likely that they made an error in stratigraphy. That is very possible in a mountainous area.

I don't see how the zircons could have been the original problem since they set the maximum age of the sediment at 37 Ma, which places the footprint formation after the date that birds were known to exist. Or did I misread the report?

BTW: Over a billion years after the zircon formation would mean the sediments settled out sometime in our future. That is, unless I don't understand the report.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see how the zircons could have been the original problem since they set the maximum age of the sediment at 37 Ma, which places the footprint formation after the date that birds were known to exist. Or did I misread the report?

BTW: Over a billion years after the zircon formation would mean the sediments settled out sometime in our future. That is, unless I don't understand the report.

One of us is not understanding. Weren't the zircons used as a partial basis of the incorrect initial date? I will go back and try to read this in context. I thought the zircons were used to get the original Triassic date.

I think you have the dates backwards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My mistake. I thought they were dating zircons in the sedimentary bed, not in the tuff itself.

And now I see that they misdated beds by relying on the tuff. It is a complex mountainous region where I thought the tuff was what was dated at a younger age.


From the retraction:

"Further geological studies2 suggest that the region suffered a complex deformation during the Andean orogeny, including block rotation. In consequence, our previous inferences about the possible implications of this finding for the fossil record of Aves are no longer supported. "

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7466/full/nature12497.html

 

[lifepsyop]

The revised Eocene date is based on U/Pb

The original Triassic dates for Santo Domingo formation were based on Ar/Ar dating among other fossil data. (p.4 of link below)

A REVIEW OF TRIASSIC TETRAPOD TRACKASSEMBLAGES FROM ARGENTINA
Melchor, Valais 2006

 

[PhantomGaze]

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.

I kinda doubt that multiple genera just happen to conveniently have all of their fossils misplaced.

Also, some of the similarities we thought were evidence of homology really aren't similar at all.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I kinda doubt that multiple genera just happen to conveniently have all of their fossils misplaced.

Also, some of the similarities we thought were evidence of homology really aren't similar at all.

I never said there were a bunch of misplaced genra, I meant specific species fossils, and I don't think many are misplaced.

And yes, well aware of the homology issues. I need to learn to communicate better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The revised Eocene date is based on U/Pb

The original Triassic dates for Santo Domingo formation were based on Ar/Ar dating among other fossil data. (p.4 of link below)

A REVIEW OF TRIASSIC TETRAPOD TRACKASSEMBLAGES FROM ARGENTINA
Melchor, Valais 2006

Yup, I had it backwards.

One prediction that I did make that was correct is that it came from a geologically complex area. Orogenies can twist, rotate, and even flip strata. A thrust fault can place younger material above older material. These problems are sorted out by more accurate field mapping.

It is understandable that an incorrect date can be obtained in an area where mountain building has been going on. That is what happened here. It seems that most of the people behind calling the bed in question Triassic have changed their minds and now agree with the younger date.

Think about it, that sample indicated a large population of birds. Do you think that site was the only one where ancient birds hung out? Usually an anomaly tells us that someone somewhere made a mistake. Occasionally an anomaly is just that, a mistakes. But we can't assume it is a mistake the reason for the difference has to b found or it is just story telling,