Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 27 May 2017, 16:10:18 PM *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 ... 116 117 [118] 119 120 ... 136
  Print  
Author Topic: Science Disproves Evolution  (Read 378745 times)
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 980


View Profile
« Reply #1755 on: 01 January 2016, 0:18:05 AM »

Quote
Billion-Fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Demonstrated in Laboratory 

The text does not back up the headline


Quote
  More recently, bb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the rhenium-osmium (187Re-187Os) system. (The Re-Os method is one of the isotopic ‘clocks’ used by uniformitarian geologists5 to supposedly date rocks.) The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of only 33 years.6 This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga = giga-annum = a billion (109) years).
 


Please quote the source of this this claim.
Logged


oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 980


View Profile
« Reply #1756 on: 01 January 2016, 4:53:40 AM »

Quote
  More recently, bb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the rhenium-osmium (187Re-187Os) system.   

What's happened in the lab is not exactly "accelerated nuclear decay". They look at a bare nucleus, rather than a nucleus in an atom. The 163Dy atom is stable, because it's energetically unfavorable for it to produce a free electron, becoming a 163Ho nucleus as it does so. However, if I completely strip the nucleus of its electrons, a process that takes several MeV of energy, then the 163Dy nucleus can decay into a 163Ho+66 ion - i.e. it would have one bound electron. This electron is bound quite deeply - the binding energy is about one-eighths of an electron mass. The point isn't that rates of nuclear processes can't be changed. They can. The point is that it takes energies comparable to these nuclear processes to do it. Except in certain unusual environments, like exploding stars, these energies aren't available.   

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/beta-decay-question.333491/
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 980


View Profile
« Reply #1757 on: 01 January 2016, 16:50:59 PM »

Quote
   But all this is irrelevant.

It is relevant showing that evolution is wrong.
 

This is the truth about modern caelocanths.

COELACANTHS ARE NOT LIVING FOSSILS
August 24, 2013   · by Sam Hardman   · in Evolution.   ·
ResearchBlogging.org
The term ‘living fossil’ is often misleadingly used in the popular press to describe species which have, supposedly, stopped evolving. Commonly cited examples include horseshoe crabs, Ginkgo trees, hagfish and, perhaps the most famous of all, the coelacanths, a group of lobe finned fish with a very long evolutionary history of which two species still survive in the deep waters of the West Indian Ocean.
Coelacanths have long been known from the fossil record with the oldest specimen dating back to the Devonian period, some 400 million years ago. They were however thought to have gone extinct, along with many other animals, in the end Cretaceous mass extinction event. That all changed one day in 1938 when a South African museum curator named Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer discovered a coelacanth amongst the catch of a local fisherman. The discovery was a sensation, a fish that had been thought to have been extinct had been rediscovered 65 million years later, it was not extinct! It was alive! It was amazing!
That’s how the story goes at least, and ever since it’s discovery journalists have talked about the fish that has been “left behind by evolution”. But is this really true? Can a species really exist for a span of time so great that it will have seen ice ages come and go, mountain ranges form and the great super-continent of Gondwana break apart, and through all this not change at all? Over recent years a mountain of evidence has been steadily growing showing that this is in fact not the case, coelacanths, like any other species, are constantly evolving to adapt to changing conditions.
It is sometimes claimed that there is a low rate of change in coelacanth DNA and that this leads slow evolution. However, this idea is now being challenged by systematic studies of the coelacanth genome which do not detect slow rates of genetic change. In one study forty-four genes were analysed and no dramatic decrease in the rate of change compared to other species was detected. Furthermore, there is no known reason why coelacanths should have slowly evolving genomes. Their environment in the deep ocean, while relatively stable, is not particularly unusual and is inhabited by other species which are not considered living fossils. Another factor that may lead to a slow rate of evolution is a slow generation time, however, the reproductive rates of coelacanths are not thought to be particularly long. Finally, coelacanth populations are small, and small population size is known to increase the rate of genetic change within a species. We might therefore expect these species to be evolving rapidly, not standing still.
Probably the most widely held belief about coelacanths is that, even if they are genetically different, they look exactly the same now as they did millions of years ago. This belief is mistaken. No fossils are known for either species of surviving coelacanth or even for members of its genus, Latimeria. This suggests that the scientists responsible for classifying the fossil and living species consider the morphological differences so great that  they should be placed in widely separated groups. In fact, there are significant differences in the body shape and structure of modern and extinct coelacanth species. These include changes in the number of vertebral arches and substantial differences in skull morphology. The swim bladder of coelacanths has also changed from being filled with oil in the extinct genus Macropoma, to being ossified in modern species, suggesting that the two groups lived in very different environments. Lastly, there are substantial differences in size, with modern coelacanths being three and a half times larger than their closest extinct relative (one and a half vs half a metre). .
The view that coelacanths are ancient prehistoric fish which have stopped evolving has been around for a very long time. However, the evidence is now in and it shows that it is time to put this mistaken idea to bed.

                                                                         
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123



View Profile
« Reply #1758 on: 07 January 2016, 0:04:53 AM »

Index Fossils 4


J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs” and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all (e). Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours (f).

Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution (g). If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.

e. “The brain of a 90-pound coelacanth weighs less than 50 grains [0.11 ounces] —that is, no more than one 15,000th of the body weight. No present-day vertebrate that we know of has so small a brain in relation to its size.”   Millot, p. 39.

f. “I confess I’m sorry we never saw a coelacanth walk on its fins.” Hans Fricke, “Coelacanths: The Fish That Time Forgot,” National Geographic, Vol. 173, June 1988, p. 838.

“...we never saw any of them walk, and it appears the fish is unable to do so.”  Ibid., p. 837.

g. “Few creatures have endured such an immense span of time with so little change as coelacanths. The cutaway drawing of a present-day specimen seems almost identical with the 140-million-year-old fossil found in a quarry in southern West Germany....Why have coelacanths remained virtually unchanged for eons...30 million generations?” Fricke, p. 833. [Answer: They were fossilized a few thousand years ago, at the time of the flood.]

“Throughout the hundreds of millions of years the coelacanths have kept the same form and structure. Here is one of the great mysteries of evolution—that of the unequal plasticity of living things.”   Millot, p. 37.

“The coelacanths have changed very little since their first known appearance in the Upper Devonian.” A. Smith Woodward, as quoted by Thomson, Living Fossil, p. 70.

“What is even more remarkable is that in spite of drastic changes in the world environment, the coelacanths are still much the same organically as their ancestors. ... In the meantime, research is continuing ... and will try to penetrate the secret of the adaptability which has enabled them to live through many geological eras under widely differing conditions without modifying their constitution.”  Millot, p. 39.

“... the coelacanths have undergone little change in 300 million years...”   Ommanney, p. 74.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 980


View Profile
« Reply #1759 on: 07 January 2016, 3:35:06 AM »

Quote
the coelacanths have undergone little change in 300 million years...”   Ommanney, p. 74. 

This is a typical creationist ploy. They quote out of date data while ignoring more recent and more accurate findings.
VIZ.
I have posted this before, but here it is again:

[size=12
pt]COELACANTHS ARE NOT LIVING FOSSILS
August 24, 2013   · by Sam Hardman   · in Evolution.   ·
ResearchBlogging.org
The term ‘living fossil’ is often misleadingly used in the popular press to describe species which have, supposedly, stopped evolving. Commonly cited examples include horseshoe crabs, Ginkgo trees, hagfish and, perhaps the most famous of all, the coelacanths, a group of lobe finned fish with a very long evolutionary history of which two species still survive in the deep waters of the West Indian Ocean.
Coelacanths have long been known from the fossil record with the oldest specimen dating back to the Devonian period, some 400 million years ago. They were however thought to have gone extinct, along with many other animals, in the end Cretaceous mass extinction event. That all changed one day in 1938 when a South African museum curator named Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer discovered a coelacanth amongst the catch of a local fisherman. The discovery was a sensation, a fish that had been thought to have been extinct had been rediscovered 65 million years later, it was not extinct! It was alive! It was amazing!
That’s how the story goes at least, and ever since it’s discovery journalists have talked about the fish that has been “left behind by evolution”. But is this really true? Can a species really exist for a span of time so great that it will have seen ice ages come and go, mountain ranges form and the great super-continent of Gondwana break apart, and through all this not change at all? Over recent years a mountain of evidence has been steadily growing showing that this is in fact not the case, coelacanths, like any other species, are constantly evolving to adapt to changing conditions.
A comparison of the living coelacanths (genus Latimeria) with some of its extinct relatives. The morphological differences are striking .It is sometimes claimed that there is a low rate of change in coelacanth DNA and that this leads slow evolution. However, this idea is now being challenged by systematic studies of the coelacanth genome which do not detect slow rates of genetic change. In one study forty-four genes were analysed and no dramatic decrease in the rate of change compared to other species was detected. Furthermore, there is no known reason why coelacanths should have slowly evolving genomes. Their environment in the deep ocean, while relatively stable, is not particularly unusual and is inhabited by other species which are not considered living fossils. Another factor that may lead to a slow rate of evolution is a slow generation time, however, the reproductive rates of coelacanths are not thought to be particularly long. Finally, coelacanth populations are small, and small population size is known to increase the rate of genetic change within a species. We might therefore expect these species to be evolving rapidly, not standing still.
Probably the most widely held belief about coelacanths is that, even if they are genetically different, they look exactly the same now as they did millions of years ago. This belief is mistaken. No fossils are known for either species of surviving coelacanth or even for members of its genus, Latimeria. This suggests that the scientists responsible for classifying the fossil and living species consider the morphological differences so great the they should be placed in widely separated groups. In fact, there are significant differences in the body shape and structure of modern and extinct coelacanth species. These include changes in the number of vertebral arches and substantial differences in skull morphology. The swim bladder of coelacanths has also changed from being filled with oil in the extinct genus Macropoma, to being ossified in modern species, suggesting that the two groups lived in very different environments. Lastly, there are substantial differences in size, with modern coelacanths being three and a half times larger than their closest extinct relative (one and a half vs half a metre).
The view that coelacanths are ancient prehistoric fish which have stopped evolving has been around for a very long time. However, the evidence is now in and it shows that it is time to put this mistaken idea to bed.     
For a comprehensive review of the evidence showing that coelacanths are not living fossils see: –

Casane D, & Laurenti P (2013). Why coelacanths are not ‘living fossils’: a review of molecular and morphological data. BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology, 35 (4), 332-8 PMID: 23382020
For the study analysing forty-four coelacanth genes see: –
Takezaki N, Figueroa F, Zaleska-Rutczynska Z, Takahata N, & Klein J (2004). The phylogenetic relationship of tetrapod, coelacanth, and lungfish revealed by the sequences of forty-four nuclear genes. Molecular biology and evolution, 21 (Cool, 1512-24 PMID: 15128875
For a contrasting study claiming slow molecular evolution in these species see: –
Amemiya CT, Powers TP, Prohaska SJ, Grimwood J, Schmutz J, Dickson M, Miyake T, Schoenborn MA, Myers RM, Ruddle FH, & Stadler PF (2010). Complete HOX cluster characterization of the coelacanth provides further evidence for slow evolution of its genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107 (Cool, 3622-7 PMID: 20139301

[/size]

Try harder
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123



View Profile
« Reply #1760 on: 13 January 2016, 23:47:46 PM »

Humanlike Footprints


Humanlike footprints, supposedly 150–600 million years old, have been found in rock formations in Utah (a), Kentucky (b), Missouri (c), and possibly Pennsylvania (d). At Laetoli, in the east African country of Tanzania, a team headed by Mary Leakey found a sequence of humanlike footprints (e). They were dated at 3.7 million years. If human feet made any of these prints, then evolutionary chronology is drastically wrong.


Figure 30: Humanlike Footprints with Trilobite.

In 1968, 43 miles northwest of Delta, Utah, William J. Meister found apparent human shoe prints inside a 2-inch-thick slab of rock. Also in that slab were obvious trilobite fossils, one of which was squashed under the “heel.” According to evolutionists, trilobites became extinct 240 million years before humans evolved. Others have since made similar discoveries at this location, although this is the only fossil where a trilobite was inside an apparent shoe print.

a. Melvin A. Cook, “William J. Meister Discovery of Human Footprints with Trilobites in a Cambrian Formation of Western Utah,” Why Not Creation? editor Walter E. Lammerts (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 185–193.

Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden Archeology (San Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institute, 1993), pp. 810–813.

b. “Geology and Ethnology Disagree about Rock Prints,” Science News Letter, 10 December 1938, p. 372.

c. Henry R. Schoolcraft and Thomas H. Benton, “Remarks on the Prints of Human Feet, Observed in the Secondary Limestone of the Mississippi Valley,” The American Journal of Science and Arts, Vol. 5, 1822, pp. 223–231.

d. “Human-Like Tracks in Stone are Riddle to Scientists,” Science News Letter, 29 October 1938, pp. 278–279.

e. “ ‘Make no mistake about it,’ says Tim [White, who is probably recognized as the leading authority on the Laetoli footprints]. ‘They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year-old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that someone had walked there. He wouldn’t be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same. There is a well-shaped modern heel with a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front of it. The big toe is straight in line. It doesn’t stick out to the side like an ape toe, or like the big toe in so many drawings you see of Australopithecines in books.’ ” Johanson and Edey, p. 250.

The big toe of Australopithecus africanus splayed out to the side, as in apes. Obviously, the Laetoli footprints were not made by Australopithecines, as most evolutionists claim.

“In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint trails at Laetoli Site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus, Homo. ... we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy’s kind, Australopithecus afarensis.” Russell H. Tuttle, “The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet,” Natural History, Vol. 99, March 1990, p. 64.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 980


View Profile
« Reply #1761 on: 14 January 2016, 0:42:21 AM »


Here we go again.

When are we going to see a public experiment showing that half lives of long lived isotopes can be shortened by factors of millions?


The "Meister Print"

An Alleged Human Sandal Print from Utah


© 1998 - 2011, Glen J. Kuban


According to Dr. Melvin Cook (1970), a local rockhound named William J. Meister was hunting for trilobite fossils along a hillside near Antelope Springs, Utah in 1968 when he broke open a slab and discovered a curious oblong marking that he took for a human sandal print. This was quite surprising, since the rock at this locality is identified as the middle Cambrian Wheeler Formation--over 500 million years old.
The supposed print measured approximately 10 1/2 inches by 3 1/2 inches, and occurred on both sides of the slab (with opposite relief). The specimen included what Meister took as a heel demarcation, as well as at least two small trilobites (extinct, superficially crab-like arthropods).

Shortly after Cook's report, other creationists (Kofahl and Segraves, 1975; Baker, 1976; Wysong, 1976; Huse, 1983; Petersen, 1987) cited the Meister find as anti-evolutionary evidence.

The specimen does contain at least two real trilobites (which are abundant in the outcrops around Antelope Springs), but the supposed sandal print does not stand up to close scrutiny. The overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to many others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane, as real prints would be. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation or foot movement at its margin. However, on one side of the print, extending to the side of the supposed toe end is a rim or lip that is typical of similar concretions from the area, but which is incompatible in position and form to be a pressure ridge. Also, of the two halves of rock, the side that has the heel indented shows raised relief at the toe end, and vice versa, whereas in a real print one should show impression or raised relief throughout each half.

The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs beyond the boundary of the supposed print. It is best seen on the far left side as one views the print in the photograph herein. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981 ; Stokes, 1986).

Similar concretionary shapes and spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982).

Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed" by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with little paleontological experience or knowledge. In his own report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority on fossils and footprints." He adds that the print seems to "speak for itself". However, upon careful inspection the evidence does not support Cook's conclusions.

In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself appears to be due solely to inorganic, geologic phenomena. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), only a few creationists continued to suggest this was a real print, while most fromer advocates of the specimen have quietly abandoned the case.

References cited

Booth, Ernest S. 1982 (Dec. 30). Personal correspondence to Glen Kuban.

Cook, Melvin A. 1970. "William J. Meister Discovery of Human Footprints with Trilobites in a Cambrian Formation of Western Utah." In Why Not Creation? ed. by Walter E. Lammerts. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. pp. 186-193.

Baker, Sylvia. 1976. Bone of Contention. Grand Rapids, MI: Evangelical Press. pp. 8-9.

Conrad, Ernest C. 1981. "Tripping Over a Trilobite," Creation/Evolution Issue VI , pp. 30-33.

Huse, Scott M. 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. p. 17.

Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L. Segraves. 1975. The Creation Explanation. Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers. p. 54.

Petersen, Dennis R. 1987. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation El Cajon, Ca.: Master Books. p. 93.

Stokes, William Lee. 1986. "Alleged Human Footprint from the Middle Cambrian Strata, Millard County, Utah." Journal of Geologic Education Vol. 34, pp. 187-90.

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. pp. 459-461.

Voss, Jr. Charles H. 1993. Did God Direct Evolution? Baton Rouge, LA: Radio Bible Course.
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123



View Profile
« Reply #1762 on: 21 January 2016, 3:07:00 AM »

Geologic Column


Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called “geologic column” (a). Most “geologic periods” are missing at most continental locations. Only 15–20% of Earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct order (b). Even within the Grand Canyon, 100 million years of this imaginary column are missing (c). Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious.

a.   “We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we have anything like a complete succession for any part of the stratigraphical column in any one place.” Ager, Stratigraphical Record, p. 48.

b.   John Woodmorappe, “The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 18, June 1981, pp. 46–71.

c. The missing geologic periods are the Ordovician and Silurian. The Great Unconformity at the base of the sedimentary layers marks an even greater time gap—over a billion years.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 980


View Profile
« Reply #1763 on: 21 January 2016, 15:48:22 PM »

Here is a detailed refutation of creationist claims by Dave E. Matson

Dr. Hovind (G1): The assumption that the geologic column is a base from which to calibrate the C-14 dates is not wise.G1. With a half-life of only 5730 years, carbon-14 dating has nothing to do with dating the geological ages! Whether by sloppiness or gross ignorance, Dr. Hovind is confusing the carbon-14 "clock" with other radiometric "clocks."The only thing in the geologic record which has anything to do with calibrating carbon-14 dating is the coal from the Carboniferous Period. Being ancient, the C-14 content has long since decayed away and that makes it useful in "zeroing" laboratory instruments. It's just one of the tricks that have been used to make the work a little more precise.
Dr. Hovind (G2): The entire geologic column is based on the assumption that evolution is true.
G2. If Dr. Hovind would take the trouble to do a little reading from something other than creationist publications he would not make such an outrageous statement. I believe he has confused the use of index fossils with evolution. One creationist editor, who is more mellow than his unfortunate statement suggests, phrased the argument thus:
Unfortunately the geologists date the rocks as the paleontologists tell them to. Then the paleontologists use the geologists' dates as evidence for the age of the fossils! That's not science. That's just a game played by dishonest scientists!
Perhaps Dr. Hovind is not aware of the fact that by 1815 the broad outlines of the geologic column from Paleozoic times onward had been worked out by people who were mostly creationist geologists. The relative order of the strata was first determined by the principles of stratification. (The principle of superposition was recognized as early as 1669 by Steno.) Reverend Benjamin Richardson and Reverend Joseph Townsend were a couple of early geologists involved in this work. By 1830 Lyell's famous textbook, Principles of Geology, came out. The captain of the H.M.S. Beagle, a very strong Bible believer, made it a point to have a copy of Lyell's book for the ship's library. Obviously, even Lyell was not pushing evolution at the time. Such was the age of the great creationist geologists!
The principle of faunal succession in the geologic record was established by direct observation as early as 1799 by William Smith. By the 1830's Adam Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison established a correlation between the various types of fossils and the rock formations in the British Isles. It was found that certain fossils, now referred to as index fossils, were restricted to a narrow zone of strata. Studies done on the European continent soon demonstrated the universal validity of index fossils. That is, an index fossil corresponded to a very specific point in the geologic column. Once the worth of index fossils had been established on the basis of stratification studies, they could logically be used to extend the correlation of rock formations to other continents. At this point in time they were simply a useful tool for correlating rock formations.
One can hardly accuse these pioneers of evolutionary prejudice. Nearly a half-century would pass before Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, was published! By then, the relative ages (order) of the geologic column had already been worked out in some detail. Radiometric dating would later confirm the relative ages of the strata and tie them to absolute dates. (Far from being a rubber stamp, radiometric dating would go on to revolutionize our understanding of the Precambrian.) Thus, it became possible to date strata directly from index fossils.
Note that evolution has nothing to do with how the index fossils are used to date strata! Any kind of object clearly restricted to a specific point in the geologic column would do just fine. If green dice were found only in the middle Ordovician strata, they would make excellent "index fossils." Evolution should be seen as an explanation of the faunal succession, a succession which was worked out long before evolution dominated the scene. Evolution, working in tandem with geologic ages, can explain why we have index fossils, but evolution is not needed to make the index fossils useful for dating strata.
While we're on this subject, you might wish to know the odds of arranging the Precambrian era, the seven geologic periods of the Paleozoic (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, Permian), the three periods of the Mesozoic (Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous), and the two periods of the Cenozoic (Paleogene, Neogene or Tertiary, Quaternary) in their proper order by pure chance. Your chances are 6.2 billion to one of getting the right order for all thirteen. And, when you consider that each period can also be divided into "upper, middle, and lower," the odds of arranging them in the correct order by pure chance become astronomical. Radiometric dating has passed that severe test! It has correctly placed the Cambrian between the Precambrian and the Ordovician, the Ordovician between the Cambrian and the Silurian, the Silurian between the Ordovician and the Devonian, and so forth. Creationists, on the other hand, must explain to us how sediment and rock laid down in a mere year can yield such fantastic, orderly differences in radiometric ages. This poses a fatal problem whether one believes in the accuracy of radiometric dating or not! One would think that the flood sediments (gathered from the four corners of the old antediluvian world) and their associated igneous rock (formed during the flood) would all register very little radiometric age. At the very least we would expect random fluctuations if the radiometric methods were totally at sea. Why should the percentage of lead to uranium in zircon crystals (the key to ordinary uranium-lead, radiometric dating) depend on which geologic period they are found in? If most of the geologic column were created during Noah's flood, would it really matter whether a zircon crystal was found in Cambrian strata or Cretaceous strata, in Jurassic strata or Tertiary strata? Noah's flood might just as easily deposit the same crystal in one place as another.
Thus, we have a mystery. Pressure has nothing to do with it, and zircon crystals all have about the same density as their total lead content is small. Just what is it that a Cambrian stratum has which a Cretaceous stratum lacks? What does the Jurassic strata have that the Tertiary strata do not? If rock type mattered then we would expect a zircon crystal's lead content to vary dramatically within the Cambrian or Cretaceous strata according to their local rock types. No, that's not what we observe. How about neutrinos or cosmic rays? Neutrinos penetrate the earth so easily that they would affect all strata more or less equally, to the extent that they affect anything at all. Cosmic rays, on the other hand, don't penetrate that far into the earth to begin with, so we can rule them out. The depth of burial, itself, has little to do with our mystery. In some parts of the world the Cretaceous is found deeper than is the Cambrian in other parts of the world. The depth at which either is found can vary dramatically. In the Grand Canyon area the Cambrian lies beneath a huge column of strata; in California's Mojave Desert portions of the Cambrian are exposed at the surface.
For the young-earth creationist, this is an unsolvable mystery, a mystery with parallels in each of the radiometric clocks used by geologists. The potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, luteium-hafnium, rhenium-osmium, thorium-lead, and the two uranium-lead dating methods all point to the same amazing fact. The ratio between tiny amounts of radioactive elements and their decay products have this uncanny ability to determine which strata a rock will appear in! What is this magic ingredient that each of the geologic periods have which affects rocks and zircon crystals so? For those who believe that each of the geologic periods were laid down in days or weeks by Noah's flood, the mystery has no intelligent answer. For the rest of us, the answer is as plain as daylight. The answer to our riddle is time. The Cambrian has simply been around a lot longer than the Cretaceous, and the radioactive uranium in its zircon crystals has had more time to decay into lead. The same radioactive elements in different geologic periods will have decayed by different amounts.
Even creationists realize that time is the only answer, but they give that answer a strange twist. They imagine that the radioactive elements decayed much faster in the past! Such claims are mere flights of fantasy with no basis in fact or theory . Problems abound. For instance, there are many boundaries (unconformities) in the geologic strata that exhibit a sharp change in radiometric age. Thus, zircons that are formed at about the same time in Noah's flood (from intruded magma close to each side of an unconformity, if such quick formation were even possible) would exhibit impossible differences in the decay of their uranium. Figure 2 explores an additional problem that pops up when one monkeys around with the radioactive decay rates.
A few calculations will rule out a fast radioactive decay rate before Noah's flood, thus firming up our intuitive feeling. Based on the present decay rate of U-238, the Cambrian period began about 570 million years ago. Since then the amount of uranium-238 has been reduced a bit (to 91.544% of itself) by radioactive decay. Had the decay rates remained high after the flood or in its later stages, the zircon crystals in the more recent strata (the last strata laid down by Noah's flood) would have "aged" considerably, which is not the case. Furthermore, the zircon crystals had to be created during Noah's flood in order to be "aged" according to the strata in which they were associated. It is too much to assume that each one just happened to be deposited in the right strata. Therefore, at the time of Noah's flood the decay rate had to be at least fast enough to reduce the amount of uranium-238 to 91.544% of itself in one year. If we generously take that minimum decay rate, with no thought of increasing it further as we look back into the past, we can calculate how much uranium-238 had to be present 1656 years before Noah's flood (when the earth was created, according to Dr. Hovind). It turns out that the amount of uranium-238 needed is 3.47 x 1063 times the amount of uranium-238 around at the start of Noah's flood! In other words, if our entire solar system were made of uranium-238 the quantity would not even begin to suffice.
There is nothing like a few calculations to bring out the absurdity in creationist thinking! We may safely rule out the idea that the radioactive decay rates (for uranium-238, and, by quantum mechanical implication, all others) dwindled to their present values from high rates at creation time. An initial U-238 decay rate high enough to do creationists any good also leads to an absurd conclusion. They must now assume that the decay rates were low before Noah's flood, that they became phenomenally high during the start of Noah's flood, and that they dropped to normal after Noah's flood. Such tailor-made assumptions will impress only idiots and fanatics, and there is yet another problem worth mentioning.
Some of the material that has been radiometrically dated, whose dates fully conform to the accepted ages of their place in the geologic column, come from large masses of once-molten rock. Those samples could not possibly have cooled down in the course of a mere year no matter what. (Try a million years!) Thus, any "aging" done on their interior zircons had to occur, by creationist thinking, after Noah's flood. Only then did the inner rock cool enough so that those crystals finally formed. By creationist reckoning, those crystals really formed after the flood and should reflect the normal decay rates! That is, their uranium-238 should show almost no decay at all. To the contrary, their radiometric age is in good agreement with the strata in which they were formed. Thus, even the tailor-made assumptions, to which a few desperate creationists might be inclined, come to naught.
In summary of these latter points, radiometric dating has passed a severe test whereas young-earth creationism flounders, in hopeless knots, on the basic facts of the geologic record.
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123



View Profile
« Reply #1764 on: 28 January 2016, 0:30:27 AM »

Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue? 1


DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing (a). Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years (b). This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly a 400,000-year-old hominin femur from Spain, (c) 17-million-year-old magnolia leaves,  (d) and 11–425-million-year-old salt crystals (e). Dozens of plants and animals have left their DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old (f). DNA fragments have been found in the scales of a “200-million-year-old” fossilized fish (g) and possibly in a “80-million-year-old” dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed (h).  Frequently, DNA is found in insects and plants encased in amber samples, assumed to be 25–120 million years old. (i).

These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit (j). They now claim that DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this claim (k).

a. This natural process is driven by the continual thermal vibrations of atoms in DNA. Just as marbles in a vibrating container always try to find lower positions, vibrating atoms tend to reorganize into arrangements with lower energies. Thus, DNA tends to form less energetic compounds such as water and carbon dioxide.

b. Bryan Sykes, “The Past Comes Alive,” Nature, Vol. 352, 1 August 1991, pp. 381–382.

“Many scientists still consider this idea [that DNA could last longer than 10,000 years] far fetched, but Poinar points out that not long ago few people believed any ancient DNA could be sequenced. ‘When we started, we were told that we were crazy,’ he says.” Kathryn Hoppe, “Brushing the Dust off Ancient DNA,” Science News, Vol. 142, 24 October 1992, p. 281.

c. Ewen Callaway, “Hominin DNA Baffles Experts,” Nature, Vol. 504, 5 December 2013. pp. 16–17.
d. Edward M. Golenberg et al., “Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species,” Nature, Vol. 344, 12 April 1990, pp. 656–658.

DNA disintegrates faster when it is in contact with water. In commenting on the remarkably old DNA in a supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leaf, Svante Pääbo remarked, “The clay [in which the leaf was found] was wet, however, and one wonders how DNA could have survived the damaging influence of water for so long.” Also see Svante Pääbo, “Ancient DNA,” Scientific American, Vol. 269, November 1993, p. 92. [Maybe those magnolia leaves are not 17 million years old.]

“That DNA could survive for such a staggering length of time was totally unexpected—almost unbelievable.” Jeremy Cherfas, “Ancient DNA: Still Busy after Death,” Science, Vol. 253, 20 September 1991, p. 1354.

e. “Fragments of 16S ribosomal RNA genes were detected by polymerase chain reaction amplification of DNA extracted from halite [salt, NaCl] samples ranging in age from 11 to 425 Myr (millions of years).” Steven A. Fish et al., “Recovery of 16S Ribosomal RNA Gene Fragments from Ancient Halite,” Nature, Vol. 417, 23 May 2002, p. 432.

f. Eske Willerslev et al., “Diverse Plant and Animal
Genetic Records from Holocene and Pleistocene Sediments,” Science, Vol. 300, 2 May 2003, pp. 791–795.

g. Hoppe, p. 281.

Virginia Morell, “30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field,” Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, p. 1862.

h. “Under physiological conditions, it would be extremely rare to find preserved DNA that was tens of thousands of years old.” Scott R. Woodward et al., “DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments,” Science, Vol. 266, 18 November 1994, p. 1229.

Some have charged that the DNA Woodward recovered from a large Cretaceous bone in Utah was contaminated with human, or perhaps mammal, DNA. Several of their arguments are based on evolutionary presuppositions. Woodward rebuts those claims in “Detecting Dinosaur DNA,” Science, Vol. 268, 26 May 1995, pp. 1191–1194.

i. Hendrick N. Poinar et al., “DNA from an Extinct Plant,” Nature, Vol. 363, 24 June 1993, p. 677.

Rob DeSalle et al., “DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications,” Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, pp. 1933–1936.

Raúl J. Cano et al., “Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120–135-Million-Year-Old Weevil,” Nature, Vol. 363, 10 June 1993, pp. 536–538.

j. Tomas Lindahl is a recognized expert on DNA and its rapid disintegration. He tried to solve this problem of “old” DNA by claiming that all such discoveries resulted from contamination and poor measurement techniques. He wrote, “The apparent observation that fully hydrated plant DNA might be retained in high-molecular mass form for 20 million years is incompatible with the known properties of the chemical structure of DNA.” [See Tomas Lindahl, “Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA,” Nature, Vol. 362, 22 April 1993, p. 714.] His claims of contamination are effectively rebutted in many of the papers listed above and by:

George O. Poinar Jr., in “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA,” Nature, Vol. 365, 21 October 1993, p. 700. (The work of George Poinar and others was a major inspiration for the book and film, Jurassic Park. )

Edward M. Golenberg, “Antediluvian DNA Research,” Nature, Vol. 367, 24 February 1994, p. 692.

The measurement procedures of Poinar and others were far better controlled than Lindahl realized. That is, modern DNA did not contaminate the fossil. However, Lindahl is probably correct in saying that DNA cannot last much longer than 10,000 years. All points of view are consistent when one concludes that these old ages are wrong.

k. “We know from chemical experiments that it [DNA] degrades and how fast it degrades. After 25 million years, there shouldn’t be any DNA left at all.”  Rebecca L. Cann, as quoted by Morell, p. 1862.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 980


View Profile
« Reply #1765 on: 28 January 2016, 14:50:52 PM »

Quote
All points of view are consistent when one concludes that these old ages are wrong. 
well, in fact, NO.
Follow this link:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/sequencing-neanderthal-dna

When are we going to see acceleration of nuclear decay rates demonstrated in the laboratory.??
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123



View Profile
« Reply #1766 on: 02 February 2016, 4:20:12 AM »

Quote
All points of view are consistent when one concludes that these old ages are wrong. 
well, in fact, NO.
Follow this link:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/sequencing-neanderthal-dna

When are we going to see acceleration of nuclear decay rates demonstrated in the laboratory.??


Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable

Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption is that simple measurements can lead to reliable ages. But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general—and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating.

In 2009, New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data showed that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the summer, and then sped up during the winter. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements.1 To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected these radioisotope decay rates, researchers laid a solar proximity plot atop the silicon decay plot, and they showed a close match.

Since that time, investigators have yet to discover a satisfying physical mechanism explaining how the sun might accelerate the decay of radioactive atomic nuclei.2 For example, although at the time of the Brookhaven and Stanford reports solar neutrinos were implicated, it appears that neutrinos are just too small and too few. The chances seem too slim for enough neutrinos to collide with enough radioactive atoms to have caused the observed fluctuations.

However, a new report on a separate isotope has again correlated radioisotope decay acceleration with nearness to the sun.3 The investigators locked radioactive radon-222 gas in a lead chamber and compared radioactive readouts taken from both inside and outside the chamber. The experiment was designed to test whether or not changes in radon decay rates are due to atmospheric effects such as gases mixing. The researchers found instead that significant changes were cyclical and corresponded to the relative positions of the earth and the sun.

They wrote, "Combining these observations implies a strong inter-connection between the seasonal and diurnal patterns. This in turn again implies a mutual connection to the rotation of earth around its axis and its rotation around the sun."3 The radon decay rates accelerated during the daylight hours and during the summer. Other rate fluctuations were irregular and remain mysterious.

Some unknown factor affects certain radioisotope decay rates. If this, or a similar factor, altered nuclear decay rates of the systems that are routinely used in rock dating, then any "age" determination provided by this method would have been compromised. And this is exactly what the Institute for Creation Research's project Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) reported in 2005.

In particular, RATE scientists found that radioisotope decay rates had been accelerated by orders of magnitude in the past and that one or more such acceleration events vastly inflated the apparent age of rocks (i.e., the age derived from the assumption that radioisotope decay has been constant through time). For example, RATE found a high accumulation of helium, a product of radioisotope decay, still trapped inside small crystals.4 If evolutionary ages are accurate, the helium should have leaked into the atmosphere millions of years ago. RATE researchers also found radiohalos and fission tracks, which are microscopic scars in minerals. Such scars could only exist if the parent isotope's decay rate had been dramatically accelerated.5

Nobody yet knows what (or who) accelerated nuclear decay in the past, just as nobody yet knows what mechanism causes the sun-related decay of silicon-32 or radon-222. But science clearly shows that radioisotope decay rates have not been constant or reliable enough to support the standard geological ages assigned to earth materials.

http://www.icr.org/article/fluctuations-show-radioisotope-decay/
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 980


View Profile
« Reply #1767 on: 02 February 2016, 14:28:58 PM »

You have posted this several times before.
The effect, if it is indeed real, is small. It applies only to beta emitting nucleides.  It does not explain how decay is accelerated by factors of millions during the "flood"
See this link
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=2694
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123



View Profile
« Reply #1768 on: 03 February 2016, 3:36:25 AM »

You have posted this several times before.
The effect, if it is indeed real, is small. It applies only to beta emitting nucleides.  It does not explain how decay is accelerated by factors of millions during the "flood"
See this link
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=2694

Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable

For about a century, radioactive decay rates have been heralded as steady and stable processes that can be reliably used to help measure how old rocks are. They helped underpin belief in vast ages and had largely gone unchallenged. But certain decay rates apparently aren’t as stable as some would hope.

Several decades ago, strange fluctuations were observed in several radioactive decay systems. These systems have unstable nuclei that emit various particles and radiation until they stabilize. It was finally established that these seasonal fluctuations corresponded to the distance between the earth and the sun. When the earth is closest to the sun, solar neutrinos evidently accelerate nuclear decay.1

Now, Italian research shows evidence that a process called “cavitation” accelerated the nuclear decay of thorium (Th228). In particular, it seems that cavitation caused radioactive thorium decay to accelerate by a factor of 10,000 times during a 90-minute experiment.2 Cavitation can occur when water flows so fast that vapor bubbles are produced. These bubbles collapse to produce shock waves—very powerful on tiny scales—that have been known to rapidly destroy boat propellers and pump parts, catastrophically erode water tunnels, and create light sparks. Cavitation may also affect the nuclei of atoms in heavily resonating solutions.

The mutability of decay rates is not a surprise to some scientists. Creation researchers had found clear evidence that radioactive decay was accelerated dramatically in the recent past. For example, some radioactive decay acceleration event must have been the cause of the profusion of helium atoms that exist in zircon crystals associated with radioactive uranium.3

Whether cavitation, neutrinos, or something else had a part in the accelerated nuclear decay of earth’s past is not yet known. What is known, however, is that the stability of radioactive decay is open to question. Likewise, the vast age assigned to the earth based on radioactive measurements is by no means set in stone.

http://www.icr.org/article/4816
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123



View Profile
« Reply #1769 on: 04 February 2016, 3:33:53 AM »

Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue? 2


Bacteria. Even living bacterial spores have been recovered, cultured, and identified in intestines of bees preserved in supposedly 25–40-million-year-old amber (l). The same bacteria, Bacillus, are found alive in rocks allegedly 250 million and 650 million years old (m). Italian scientists have recovered 78 different types of dormant, but living, bacteria in two meteorites that are presumed to be 4.5 billion years old (n). Anyone who accepts such old ages for these rocks must also accept that some bacteria are practically immortal—an obviously absurd conclusion. (Because these “old” bacteria and the various DNA specimens closely match those of today, little evolution has occurred.)

Proteins and Soft Tissue. Evolutionists face similar contradictions with proteins (o), soft tissue (p), blood compounds (q) and other complex organic matter (r) preserved in dinosaur bones (s). Researchers were shocked to find soft tissue in eight pieces of a dinosaur’s toe, rib, hip, leg, and claw (t) Even dinosaur skin (from a hadrosaur) has been recovered and tasted (u). As with DNA, it is ridiculous to believe these remains have lasted 65–150 million years (v).

l. Raúl J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki, “Revival and Identification of Bacterial Spores in 25- to 40-Million-Year-Old Dominican Amber,” Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, pp. 1060–1064.

Many tests were preformed to rule out contamination. [See also F. G. Priest, Andrew T. Beckenbach, and Raúl J. Cano, “Age of Bacteria from Amber,” Science, Vol. 270, 22 December 1995, pp. 2015–2017.]

“When you look at them they don’t look any different from the modern ones, but these bacteria are ancient [supposedly 25–40 million years ancient] and they’re alive!” Joshua Fischman, “Have 25-Million-Year-Old Bacteria Returned to Life?” Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, p. 977.

m. “There is also the question of how bacterial biopolymers can remain intact over millions of years in dormant bacteria; or, conversely, if bacteria are metabolically active enough to repair biopolymers, this raises the question of what energy source could last over such a long period.” R. John Parkes, “A Case of Bacterial Immortality?” Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 844–845.

Russell H. Vreeland et al., “Isolation of a 250 Million-Year-Old Halotolerant Bacterium from a Primary Salt Crystal,” Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 897–900.

Other tests have confirmed Vreeland’s discover described above. [See Cindy L. Satterfield et al., “New Evidence for 250 Ma Age of Halotolerant Bacterium from a Permian Salt Crystal,” Geology, Vol. 33, April 2005, pp. 265–268.]

n. See Endnote 97 .

o. Richard Monastersky, “Protein Identified in Dinosaur Fossils,” Science News, Vol. 142, 3 October 1992, p. 213.

Gerard Muyzer et al., “Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs,” Geology, Vol. 20, October 1992, pp. 871–874.

p. “‘I got goose bumps,’ recalls [Mary] Schweitzer. ‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” Virginia Morell, Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype,” Science, Vol. 261, 9 July 1993, p. 160.

Blood vessels in bone appear to have been found in supposed 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones. [See “New Signs of Dinosaur Proteins,” Science, Vol. 350, 4 December 2015, p. 1137.]

“Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels ...” Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex,” Science, Vol. 307, 25 March 2005, p. 1952.

“‘I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren’t supposed to be there, but there they are,’ said Schweitzer, lead author of the paper. ‘I was pretty shocked.’” Evelyn Boswell, “Montana T. Rex Yields Next Big Discovery in Dinosaur Paleontology,” Montana State University News Service, 24 March 2005, p. 1.

Mary H. Schweitzer made these discoveries while completing her doctor’s degree under John “Jack” R. Horner, one of the world’s leading dinosaur researchers. Horner is the Curator of Paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies, and was a technical advisor for the film Jurassic Park.

When Schweitzer reported her discovery to Horner, he replied, “Mary, the freaking creationists are just going to love you.” Schweitzer replied, “Jack, its your dinosaur.” [See Jack Horner and James Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur (New York: Penguin Group, 2009), pp. 80–81.

See the interview with Mary Schweitzer on “60 Minutes” at www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9VbDFCndMI&feature =player_embedded

“Here we report on an exceptionally complete specimen (LACM 128319) of the moderately derived genus Platecarpus that preserves soft tissues and anatomical details ... .” Johan Lindgren et al., “Convergent Evolution in Aquatic Tetrapods: Insights from an Exceptional Fossil Mosasaur,” PloS ONE, 5(8) e11998, 2010.

q. Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Heme Compounds in Dinosaur Trabecular Bone,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 94, June 1997, pp. 6291–6296.

r. “This discovery also provides the oldest evidence of in situ preservation of complex organic remains in a terrestrial vertebrate.” Robert R. Reisz et al., “Embryology of Early Jurassic Dinosaur from China with Evidence of Preserved Organic Remains,” Nature, Vol. 496, 11 April 2013, p. 210.

s. “We present multiple lines of evidence [from multiple independent institutions] that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80-million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis. ... Transparent, flexible vessels were observed; some contained spherical microstructures, whereas others contained an amorphous red substance that is superficially similar to degraded blood products in vessels recovered from extant bone.” Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequence of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis,” Science, Vol. 324, 1 May 2009, p. 626.

t. “What they found shocked them.” Robert F. Service, “Signs of Ancient Proteins Seen Inside Dinosaur Bones.” Science, Vol. 348, 12 June 2015, p. 1184.

u. “University of Regina physicist Mauricio Barbi said the hadrosaur, a duck-billed dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous period (65–100 million years ago), was found close to a river bed near Grand Prairie, Alberta. ... ‘As we excavated the fossil, I thought that we were looking at a skin impression. Then I noticed a piece came off and I realized this is not ordinary—this is real skin.’ ... this is only the third three-dimensional dinosaur skin specimen ever found worldwide. ... But perhaps the greatest question Barbi is trying to answer at CLS is how the fossil remained intact for around 70-million years.” Mark Ferguson, “Scientists Study Rare Dinosaur Skin Fossil at CLS,” Press Release, Canadian Light Source, 26 April 2013.

v. “There is still so much about ancient soft tissues that we do not understand. Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?” Mary H. Schweitzer, “Blood from Stone,” Scientific American, Vol. 303, December 2010, p. 69.

Schweitzer and the Scientific American editors cannot account for the supposed 67-million-year age of the soft tissue and blood Schweitzer found. The answer is simple; its age is only 1/10,000th of that age. She and the editors don’t understand the flood and the origin of earth’s radioactivity. [See pages 110-416].

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pages: 1 ... 116 117 [118] 119 120 ... 136
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines