Evolution - Rescuing out-of-place Fossils

[leftrightleftrightleft]

They rejected it because it was later discovered that the dated materials were not related to their sediments in the way they thought they were. New information came forward showing that their previous analysis was wrong.

The fact that you cling to the falsified analyses is a serious problem for your claims, not evolution or standard geology.

For a moment, pretend that lifepsyop isn't a creationist, ok? There are multiple, very heated debates throughout geology in academic circles among professional geologists.

It is not always as cut-and-dry as you make it.

The previous analysis was not falsified. They used a different dating method with a completely different sample of tuff from a different site. They used U-Pb instead of 40Ar/39Ar. When the U-Pb method indicated a two hundred million year difference, they ran with it and used it to explain away the tracks. But I don't think this new U-Pb date adequately explains why the 40Ar/39Ar method was several hundred million years wrong. Nor does it explain the paleomagnetic studies from 2005 that indicated the Santo Domingo formation to be of late Triassic-early Jurassic age. Nor does it address the fossil wood found in the area that also aligned with a late-Triassic age.

The tracks already had a perfectly good explanation: bird-like theropods that had already been discovered and analyzed at other locations in early Jurassic strata.

They are currently using one dating method to support the new hypothesis, when they previously had 3 independently verified dating methods supporting the old hypothesis. And the new hypothesis requires awkward and convoluted models to explain the paleomagnetism of the area now, when before it was much simpler. It seems like a case of Occam's Razor whereby they are complicating the hypothesis more than necessary.


Also, the fact that the retraction was signed by only two of three authors shows that this is not clear cut and "falsified". The third author did not want it retracted.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Hmm? I've stated my case. All I saw in response was basically the evolutionists' conviction that the researchers had made the right choice, as well as a bunch of strawmen that avoided what I was arguing.

I disagree that my post #67 was a strawman and you have not addressed it. The summary was:
"You [lifepsyop] 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."

You haven't shown where their methodology or conclusions were incorrect, yet you claim there is a problem. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to explain why it is a problem.

The latest highlight was a comical blunder by Subduction Zone who accidentally argued against the wrong thing, thinking he was supporting the revised radiometric date.

Trying to hide your inability to support your contentions by pointing out unrelated mistakes of others is not really working for you. How about trying to up your game a bit.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The previous analysis was not falsified. They used a different dating method with a completely different sample of tuff from a different site.

There's the rub.
The reason for the new date is that the re-examination of the site resulted in the rejection of the original samples based on the fact that the stratum from which they were taken was shown to be unrelated to the stratum with the fossils. SZ could certainly point out the particulars in the reports. I am not a geologist but my take on it is that the Andes mountain building caused significant folding of the strata resulting in a complex geologic formation that took a great deal of work to riddle out.

They used U-Pb instead of 40Ar/39Ar. When the U-Pb method indicated a two hundred million year difference, they ran with it and used it to explain away the tracks. But I don't think this new U-Pb date adequately explains why the 40Ar/39Ar method was several hundred million years wrong. Nor does it explain the paleomagnetic studies from 2005 that indicated the Santo Domingo formation to be of late Triassic-early Jurassic age. Nor does it address the fossil wood found in the area that also aligned with a late-Triassic age.

No. The use of U-Pb dating does not explain any of that. The report does in re-evaluating the relatedness of the strata.

The tracks already had a perfectly good explanation: bird-like theropods that had already been discovered and analyzed at other locations in early Jurassic strata.

Again no. Further analysis of the fossil tracks pointed rather conclusively that they were bird tracks, as was convincingly shown earlier in this thread (kudos, lifepsyop)

They are currently using one dating method to support the new hypothesis, when they previously had 3 independently verified dating methods supporting the old hypothesis. And the new hypothesis requires awkward and convoluted models to explain the paleomagnetism of the area now, when before it was much simpler. It seems like a case of Occam's Razor whereby they are complicating the hypothesis more than necessary.

If you take a sample from the wrong place 3 times, your analysis will be wrong 3 times.

Also, the fact that the retraction was signed by only two of three authors shows that this is not clear cut and "falsified". The third author did not want it retracted.

I did not see the third author's objections to the retraction. Could you show me where you read it? Did that author write a rebuttal paper?

 

[lifepsyop]

No. The use of U-Pb dating does not explain any of that. The report does in re-evaluating the relatedness of the strata.

The authors of that report admit their conclusions hinged on the U-Pb date, and that other geologic considerations were ambiguous. As has already been pointed out, the researchers arbitrarily rejected a consilience of data, simply in order to harmonize evolution theory. (i.e. now nobody has to explain why relatively modern birds were hopping around in the Triassic)

I think in light of what they did, any anachronistic fossil has a good fighting chance of being pushed around by tens to hundreds of millions of years by throwing different dating methods at it. Theory harmonization would be used as the justification that the new date is accurate.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The authors of that report admit their conclusions hinged on the U-Pb date, and that other geologic considerations were ambiguous. As has already been pointed out, the researchers arbitrarily rejected a consilience of data, simply in order to harmonize evolution theory. (i.e. now nobody has to explain why relatively modern birds were hopping around in the Triassic)

This statement implies that the researchers did something wrong in their methods or they intended to deceive. In an earlier post, you declined to point out what they had done wrong and, in fact, stated that you were not saying they did anything wrong. Now you are saying otherwise.

Please point out the evidence you have that the rejection of the previous dates was arbitrary.
What part of their methodology was faulty? Please point out the places in the re-evaluation report that evidence this faulty methodology.

I agreed with you that the anomalous dating of the fossil prints was the starting point for that investigation and subsequent re-evaluation. You claim that it was all to "save" the evolutionary paradigm. What, beyond their investigation of an anomaly, tells you that saving evolution was their main goal?

I think in light of what they did, any anachronistic fossil has a good fighting chance of being pushed around by tens to hundreds of millions of years by throwing different dating methods at it. Theory harmonization would be used as the justification that the new date is accurate.

From my reading, your contention is not supported by the reports that you provided.
Where, in any of those reports, does it say that theory harmonization was the justification for choosing the U-Pb date? I understand that they may not actually come out and say this, so you can point out in the reports, all the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.

BTW: The fact that an investigation was conducted is not significant evidence to support your contention. Your apparent belief that anomalies encountered in research should not be investigated (you never did respond to my "water"-powered-internal-combustion-engine example), does not affect the reality of the conduct in scientific endeavors.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I think in light of what they did, any anachronistic fossil has a good fighting chance of being pushed around by tens to hundreds of millions of years by throwing different dating methods at it. Theory harmonization would be used as the justification that the new date is accurate.

You're using an incredibly broad paintbrush, especially since the basic theme of this thread is this almost completely unsupported statement.

You started this thread. Don't you want to stick around and see it through?

Maybe you should retract your accusation against the world's geologists and paleontologists, since you can't show evidence of intent or poorly applied methods even in this one cherry-picked example. I'm guessing you wouldn't be a very good lawyer.

 

[Loudmouth]

As has already been pointed out, the researchers arbitrarily rejected a consilience of data, simply in order to harmonize evolution theory.

Please show how it is arbitrary.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Just keeping this thread alive for 2 reasons:
1. The vain hope that Lifepsyop will come back and provide some shred of real evidence to support his rediculous accusation against the geologists and paleontologists of the world.
2. To get my post count above 50 so I can include links and pictures in my replies (26 so far...woop-woop)

The authors of that report admit their conclusions hinged on the U-Pb date, and that other geologic considerations were ambiguous.

That's not the way I read it. However, I am still not a geologist, so please show me what in the report leads you to believe this conclusion of yours.

As has already been pointed out, the researchers arbitrarily rejected a consilience of data, simply in order to harmonize evolution theory. (i.e. now nobody has to explain why relatively modern birds were hopping around in the Triassic)

Again, my reading of it does not indicate that the decision was arbitrary. I agree with Loudmouth in that I cannot accept your assessment of their conclusion until you can show how it was arbitrary.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Just keeping the thread warm for when lifepsyop decides that running away doesn't actually support the bald assertions he left here.
Also, still counting up posts. I would write on other threads but to join with others who are doing a good job supporting science would seem like dog-piling.

The authors of that report admit their conclusions hinged on the U-Pb date, and that other geologic considerations were ambiguous.

That's not what the report says, so where did you get this information?

As has already been pointed out, the researchers arbitrarily rejected a consilience of data, simply in order to harmonize evolution theory. (i.e. now nobody has to explain why relatively modern birds were hopping around in the Triassic)

From dictionary-dot-com:
ar·bi·trar·y /ˈɑrbɪˌtrɛri/ adjective
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
Please show us, using statements from any one of the sources you presented, which one of these definitions applies to the decision by the geologists to use the U-Pb date for the fossil bird tracks.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The authors of that report admit their conclusions hinged on the U-Pb date, and that other geologic considerations were ambiguous. As has already been pointed out, the researchers arbitrarily rejected a consilience of data, simply in order to harmonize evolution theory. (i.e. now nobody has to explain why relatively modern birds were hopping around in the Triassic)

I think in light of what they did, any anachronistic fossil has a good fighting chance of being pushed around by tens to hundreds of millions of years by throwing different dating methods at it. Theory harmonization would be used as the justification that the new date is accurate.

These are still your prime examples of bare assertions that you are not supporting in this thread. I really don't know if you have run away or are just too busy getting your rear-end handed to you on your other thread. No matter...at least my post count is going up.

 

[lifepsyop]

That's not what the report says, so where did you get this information?

I'm growing tired of repeating myself to you about this. Again, the authors directly stated this in article highlights below the abstract.

Highlights

► Red beds previously thought to be Triassic are actually Eocene. ► Magnetization carried by low-Ti titanomagnetites is mainly primary. ► Clockwise rotation in the boundary of Puna–Precordillera–Sierras Pampeanas. ► The unrotated pole matches the Early Jurassic APWP. ► Ambiguous interpretations arise, only resolved after precisely dating the rocks.


The authors admit that the new Eocene date contradicts other data and hinges upon the U-Pb result. As has been shown by myself and leftrightleftright, this lead to a rejection of a consilience of Triassic date data. I know that makes you uncomfortable but there it is.

Where, in any of those reports, does it say that theory harmonization was the justification for choosing the U-Pb date? I understand that they may not actually come out and say this, so you can point out in the reports, all the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.

I posted this in the OP.

Before the dating reinvestigation was even conducted, researchers concluded that the bird trackway formation is younger than the Triassic age that was previously dated.

Here it is again.

"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." - link

They harmonized anachronistic data with evolution theory before even figuring out how they would do it.

Derelict, all I can see you doing is running in circles trying to kick up dust over the clearly outlined implications of what has been revealed here.

If you have something new to add then I will respond. But if you want to keep bumping this thread for me, that would be appreciated as well, thank you.

 

[Loudmouth]

The authors admit that the new Eocene date contradicts other data and hinges upon the U-Pb result.

False. The basalt lavas that they used for the Triassic date turned out to not be associated with their deposits. There is nothing wrong with the dating of the Triassic basalt lavas. The problem is that those Triassic basalt lavas are much older than the sediments.

What they did use was a tuff bed, a sedimentary layer produced by ashfall. This fell into the same sedimentary unit as the tracks, and is therefore a much more valid rock to use to date the sediments.

The Eocene date did not contradict other data. They just misinterpretted the geologic relationship between two geologic units.

The redbed sequence of the former Santo Domingo Formation yielded several-hundred bird-like footprints, which were assigned to Gruipeda dominguensis (the most common ichnotaxon), cf. Alaripeda isp., and another taxonomically indeterminate bird-like footprint2. The age of the stratigraphic unit was considered to be Late Triassic on the basis of known fossil wood remains and geochronological information from basalt lava flows thought to be interbedded in this unit1, 3, 4. Further geological studies revealed that the Santo Domingo Formation contains several thrust sheets of different ages, and that the trace-fossil-bearing horizons belong instead to the recently proposed Laguna Brava Formation, in a thrust sheet separate from the one that contains the dated basalt and fossil wood remains5. 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.
emphasis mine
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11931.html​

 

[DerelictJunction]

I'm growing tired of repeating myself to you about this. Again, the authors directly stated this in article highlights below the abstract.

Highlights

► Red beds previously thought to be Triassic are actually Eocene. ► Magnetization carried by low-Ti titanomagnetites is mainly primary. ► Clockwise rotation in the boundary of Puna–Precordillera–Sierras Pampeanas. ► The unrotated pole matches the Early Jurassic APWP. ► Ambiguous interpretations arise, only resolved after precisely dating the rocks.


The authors admit that the new Eocene date contradicts other data and hinges upon the U-Pb result. As has been shown by myself and leftrightleftright, this lead to a rejection of a consilience of Triassic date data. I know that makes you uncomfortable but there it is.

As I have already pointed out, I don't read the highlights to be saying that since that interpretation would contradict the abstract and the body of the report. My understanding of the abstract is that there were ambiguious interpretations with respect to the rocks around the fossil sediment and the re-evaluation of the geologic strata was conducted. That re-evaluation of the strata indicated that the rocks originally dated were not closely related to the fossil sediments, but another stratum was and that statum was used to date the fossil sediments.
Loudmouth also pointed out the same thing from the Nature article.

Before the dating reinvestigation was even conducted, researchers concluded that the bird trackway formation is younger than the Triassic age that was previously dated.

Here it is again.

"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."

They harmonized anachronistic data with evolution theory before even figuring out how they would do it.

Well...that last part is your interpretation. My interpretation is that the study of the fossil tracks led to the conclusion that they were from birds and this presented an anomaly because of the age applied to those fossil sediments.
In fact, the report on the re-evaluation, sciencedirect-dot-com/science/article/pii/S0040195112006907, actually points to this anomaly as one of the reasons for the evaluation.

The presence of flight trace fossils associated with probing marks and a similar morphology of the fossil bird-like footprints with tracks of modern shorebirds, strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the tracks (Genise et al., 2009). The close correspondence of ancient footprints with those of present-day sandpipers created a conundrum: the most primitive birds have similar behaviors to the modern ones? This evidence casts doubts about the Late Triassic–Early Jurassic age of the hosting Quebrada Santo Domingo succession, which would be probably younger if it has to match the known body fossil record of birds.

Note that Genise is the author of the other paper that you referred to.

Remember my water-powered-automobile analogy which you have studiously avoided?

These geologists saw an anomaly and decided to investigate. I agree with their choice. Based on your lack of response to my analogy and your complaint what they did, you believe that investigation was not the proper course of action.

Perhaps Dr. Genise and his buddies should have applied for their Nobel, since birds in the Triassic would have had a significant impact on the theory of Evolution.

Perhaps you would fill your car's fuel tank from your water hose.

If I am mistaken and you believe further investigation is warranted, then you are stuck with evaluating their methodology in the re-evaluation of the geologic strata in the vicinity of the fossil tracks. Then you would have to show that the decision to use the different stratum and U-Pb dating was arbitrary and not actually supported by the evidence.

So far, you have not done that.
Instead you have simply claimed that the attribution of the U-Pb date was abitrarily applied to the fossil tracks and the main reason for doing so was to prop up the evolution time line.
Showing us the same quotes, which we have shown are not good support for your accusation, won't cut it.

If you have something new to add then I will respond. But if you want to keep bumping this thread for me, that would be appreciated as well, thank you.

Your interesting use of grammar indicates sarcasm. It seems that I did have something new to add, but I will keep bumping the thread...at least until I have more than 50 posts.

 

[rjw]

Again, as a reminder, the conflicting fossil data itself was used as primary evidence for a "bad date" that had to be "corrected". I am left wondering how many times this 'methodology' has quietly occurred in the past to save the theory from equally problematic anachronistic fossil finds.

It's not unusual in all scientific fields, when anomalous discoveries are made, that researchers have to question previously held notions which had earlier given them some kind of certainty.

For example, at the moment in physics, measurements of the size of the proton are causing physicists to lose some sleep. The latest measurements are causing them to question some deeply held ideas they previously had held to.

There is nothing sinister going on here.

 

[lifepsyop]

Well...that last part is your interpretation. My interpretation is that the study of the fossil tracks led to the conclusion that they were from birds and this presented an anomaly because of the age applied to those fossil sediments.

....These geologists saw an anomaly and decided to investigate.

Read it again. They "solved" the anomaly before investigating it. (they concluded the bird track rocks were younger before searching for how they might be younger) Then they latched onto the one thing that indicated a younger date (U-Pb), while discarding a pile of consilient data that pointed to the original Triassic date.

If I am mistaken and you believe further investigation is warranted, then you are stuck with evaluating their methodology in the re-evaluation of the geologic strata in the vicinity of the fossil tracks. Then you would have to show that the decision to use the different stratum and U-Pb dating was arbitrary and not actually supported by the evidence.

You are mistaken. You keep trying to assemble this strawman. For the tenth time, I am talking about a broader context of the implications on theory falsifiability and fossil anachronisms. If you want more detail, you can read through the thread again because I'm tired of repeating myself.

 

[stevevw]

sorry wrong person.

 

[biggles53]

Lifepsyop....

There's obviously a healthy intellect at work there...

Why are you wasting it....?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Read it again. They "solved" the anomaly before investigating it. (they concluded the bird track rocks were younger before searching for how they might be younger) Then they latched onto the one thing that indicated a younger date (U-Pb), while discarding a pile of consilient data that pointed to the original Triassic date.

You haven't shown either statement to be true. Dr Genise's (et al) paper was an analysis showing the tracks to be from birds rather than dinosaurs. He points out that if they are indeed bird tracks then the fossils should be younger than the age that has been attributed to them. He is pointing out an anomaly.
The re-evaluation paper (Boy! I wish I could put in links!) is in response to his paper and some other anomalous data that was brought up. It is the investigation of the anomaly.
The anomaly wasn't "solved" by the first paper; rather, the anomaly was identified by that paper. Really, Dr Genise was saying that the identification of the tracks as dino footprints was in error.

You are mistaken. You keep trying to assemble this strawman. For the tenth time, I am talking about a broader context of the implications on theory falsifiability and fossil anachronisms. If you want more detail, you can read through the thread again because I'm tired of repeating myself.

Perhaps if you actually provided some detail, you wouldn't be repeating the same stuff that has been addressed by me already.

My characterization of what the scientists did is not a strawman and I am starting to think that you don't know what a strawman is.
I provided more information about the process that occurred than you did. How is that a strawman?

So, you believe that it was ok for Dr. Genise to further investigate some anomalies with the fossils and then write a paper throwing out the previous interpretation which had been influenced by the original age determination of the fossils.
However, it is not ok for the geologist, when faced with the anomaly pointed out in Dr. Genise's paper, to investigate that anomaly and write a paper changing the dating of the fossils.
This seems like you approve of an investigation that arrives at conclusions that you favor but disapprove of an investigation that arrives at conclusions you don't favor.
Is that how science is supposed to work?

I cannot see how you agree with Dr. Genise's decision to investigate an anomaly but disagree with the geologists' decision to investigate an anomaly. Can you clear that up for me?

You must respond cogently to this because your whole argument turns on it.

Dr. Genise is an "evolutionist". If his belief system hinges on the evolution time line then why would he provide an interpretation of the fossils that is in conflict with that timeline?
Why is Dr. Genise's interpretation not arbitrary, while the geologist's interpretation is arbitrary?

You have not even shown how the geologists' determination to use the U-Pb dating of a different stratum is arbitrary, much less made a comparison between it and the level of arbitrariousness of Dr. Genise's decisions regarding the animals that made the footprints.

If you haven't even shown how the geologists' decision was arbitrary, how can you apply it to some sinister "broader context of the implications on theory falsifiability and fossil anachronisms"?

If you claim to have addressed these questions (which I believe you have not), point out which previous posts apply to which questions. Otherwise, reply to my response rather than imply that I don't comprehend what you have written previously.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are mistaken. You keep trying to assemble this strawman. For the tenth time, I am talking about a broader context of the implications on theory falsifiability and fossil anachronisms. If you want more detail, you can read through the thread again because I'm tired of repeating myself.

There were two possible outcomes.

1. The fossils really were from Triassic birds.

2. The authors of the original article misinterpretted the geologic relationships between the rocks that were dated and the fossil bearing strata.

If it turned out to be the former, then that would be a serious problem for the theory. However, it turned out to be the latter, a bad interpretation of the geologic relationships.

How is this a problem for falsifiability?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Ah, the neglected threads fall down the list so quickly.

Read it again. They "solved" the anomaly before investigating it. (they concluded the bird track rocks were younger before searching for how they might be younger) Then they latched onto the one thing that indicated a younger date (U-Pb), while discarding a pile of consilient data that pointed to the original Triassic date.

As I have shown you, this is not correct.

You are mistaken. You keep trying to assemble this strawman. For the tenth time, I am talking about a broader context of the implications on theory falsifiability and fossil anachronisms. If you want more detail, you can read through the thread again because I'm tired of repeating myself.

If you're tired, maybe you should stop repeating yourself and pony-up some evidence to support your contentions regarding this sinister global conspiracy of scientists who distort or throw out all evidence to desperately prop up the obviously-wrong theory of evolution.