Cocktail! Galaxies evolve in 700 million years, Horseshoe Crabs stay the same after 450 million years

_{Salvador Cordova

October 29, 2013

Genetics, Geology}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A galaxy is speculated to form in only 700 million years. By way of contrast, in a comparable stretch of time (450 million years) the Living Fossil horse shoe crab has remained unchanged. In fact the Earth supposedly took only 20 million years to form out of a nebula, and that horse shoe crab remained immutable for 450 million years (22 times longer)! In the same time frame that the horseshoe crab remained the same, fish evolve into birds. Isn’t evolution (or lack thereof in the horseshoe crab) amazing?

One test I suggest is whenever we have a living fossil plus a supposed real fossil of the same species (like a horseshoe crab), to the extent we can do a sequence divergence test (proteins or DNA), let’s do it. Will the molecular clock freeze or tick?

It is hard to tell how old the universe is, but even supposing the universe is old, it does not mean the fossil record is old, or even if the whole fossil record is old, that a given fossil is as old as the paleontologists say it is. Isn’t skepticism to be valued?

Some will say the DNA and proteins aren’t testable since the fossil is too old by now. Well, that’s the same line that said there wouldn’t be any carbon-14 in the 300 million-year-old carboniferous layers or in 70 million year old dino tissue. And we have supposedly found DNA in dinos and carbon-14 to boot. Perhaps we can extract only biotic material someday (DNA or specific proteins) and then do carbon-14 testing. That way we’ll erase the contamination complaint.

The journal Nature reported that we’ve been able to sequence 700,000-year-old horse DNA. If a fossil that is dated tens of million of years is actually younger (say tens of thousands of years), at least in principle, we should be able to get a DNA sequence if we find DNA. If that molecular clock is shown to break for living fossils, that’s bad news for evolutionism. But maybe, like the question of carbon-14 in fossils, these are questions that are taboo to ask.

Calling Mark Armitage and Kevin Anderson or anyone willing to do such research. 🙂

One does not need to be a YEC to question paleontological ages. Richard Milton is not a creationist and is an agnostic, and he too is suspicious of the establishment narrative. If the paleontological narrative if false, then Darwinism is false.

NOTES
“Cocktail” designates a speculative idea

Comments

Sorry you don’t like the reason I gave. I can’t give another because it wouldn’t be true. And, as you note, the responsibility to release the data is not mine anyway. Assuming it exists, it is Baumgardner et al.‘s. Complain to him, not to me.
Interesting. Baumgardner isn’t here defending his shoddy work but you are the one who stepped up to the plate to mount the defense. It seems that you are saying there is some question if an outside lab even analyzed these samples? That raises some troubling concerns.
I agree with you about the desirability of control samples.
Paul, you know as well as I do that with this type of analytical chemistry controls must be included in every single run otherwise your data is worthless. They (proper controls) are not a desirability they are an absolute necessity. In many cases controls samples may exceed the unknowns being analyzed simply because of the importance of characterizing the noise associated with the entire process.
When we were discussing the research, I argued for controls, some of which should be treated like Van der Borg et al. treated them, for the reason that I foresaw that the data was likely to be controversial.
That there was any discussion of the need for controls speaks loudly to the problems with this venture. Anyone who spoke against the need for controls should have been shown the door.
However, AFAICT after talking to the laboratory who reportedly stated the procedure was routine and didn’t need specific controls, Baumgardner et al. opted to go without them. This was IMO unwise, and now leaves them in the position of not having internal controls, and not being able to specifically cite the external controls (which are lying on the surface ready to be found!).
All this does is raise more questions of competency in experimental design and basic analytical chemistry procedures.
Your analysis sounds good superficially, but there are two flaws with it. The first is that it assumes that all labs are created equal.
Not an assumption I made so your off base on that point. Different labs use different methods, personnel, equipment, level of expertise of their technicians, ect. Of course all labs are not created equally.
The lab they used did have a published background of 0.077 pMC for recycled values. So your attempt to use 0.25 pMC for the additional background is not really valid.
then prove me wrong and post what the recycled values were at the time of sample analysis. You’ve admitted that that data is non-existence so you have no leg to stand on that the sample processing did not contribute less that 0.25 pMC or more than 0.25 pMC, or 0.25 pMC. I doubt the lab in question routinely runs batches of samples without using the proper controls to charaterize the noise in the procedure. Do you have a citation for the claims of the lab for their 0.077 value? I’m not inclined to take your word for it since, while it may exist, may represent a single instance rather than the norm for that lab.
The second flaw is that you have not read the Baumgardner et al. article carefully enough.
Since we haven’t arrived at a first flaw yet let’s not jump the gun and assume we are on #2.
They gave their mean as 0.247 pMC (and I double-checked their calculations–where you got your 0.29 pMC is beyond me), but noted in both the text and the figure that, in the figure’s wording, “The reported values shown in the last column are the measured values minus the laboratory’s standard background of 0.077±0.005.” So the actual mean is 0.324 pMC when you add the background back in.
Do you really think Baumgarder can justify 3 significant figures? We have no idea of what value should have been subtracted for that sample run. We don’t even know if the lab subtracted those values or did Baumgardner do it on their own. The manuscript is completely vague and unclear in this issue and there is no means for verification in place. <blockquote.This brings up a point. Should I accuse you of doing “slipshod” work for which there is “no excuse” because you didn’t report this accurately? (You also misreported the Arnold et al. data as 0.089 +/- 0.11 and 0.34 +/- 0.07, rather than 0.089 +/- 0.017 and 0.34 +/- 0.11 pMC) Or should i rather attribute it to “intellectual dishonesty”? (After all, the error was in your favor!) You are certainly free to do so but these blog post hardly meet the rigor of writing a book chapter or a manuscript for publication. The errors I made do nothing to change the fatal error in the analytical procedures used in this study and the conclusions drawn from the incomplete (inadequate) data set.
No, I should probably give you a pass. Maybe you just didn’t understand the subject quite well enough, or took someone else’s word for it, or were tired when you wrote it. And at least in my tradition, you should do unto others what you would want them to do to you if the places were reversed. It’s not a bad idea to live by.
works great for blogs and emails but fails when it comes to manuscripts and bookchapters. If this was a solicitation for my comments prior to publication another completely different story. Once placed into print and the results loudly trumpeted then not so much when they are clearly in error. <blockquote.Finally, the cure for this, of course, is not to tear someone else down. It is to recognize the limits of the data, and then to redo the experiment with the proper controls, and see what happens. I would be happy to give someone who wishes to do so, some guidance as to where the best labs are (you couldn’t go wrong with ANU) You might as well. If nobody else does it, eventually I will do it. It will get done. The question is why was there no controls in the first place. It speaks loudly as to the qualifications of the people designing and conducting these experiments. They produce crap once what’s to stop them from doing it again since they seem unaware of their own shortcomings. These people are trying to pass themselves off as experts in the field and when they make serious errors they earn the criticisms that are rightly heaped upon them and it is obvious that they aren’t to be trusted.
Now, did you wish to discuss the de novo production of carbon-14 and the problem of carbon-14 diffusion in dinosaur bones, or shall I?
Since this is a dead issue and we both agree to the fatal nature of the analytical chemistry with this report have at it. Not sure it is much of an issue given the propensity of carbonate infiltration and chemical exchange with the bone matrix. One reason why collagen extracted from the same bone give lower values since the protein is not prone to carbonate contamination.. But sure go for it! Have you suggested to Baumgardner that they retract their manuscript(s) until they can do the experiment correctly? Jguy, I hope you have followed these exchanges and now realize why I asked you the questions that I did, i.e., C14 and the RATE data. Paul has agreed that the methods used were deplorable and out of the mainstream of how these types of analytical procedures must be conducted for them to have any validity. The results presented lack any credibility.franklin_{November 5, 2013
November
11
Nov
5
05
2013
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

Franklin (#46), Sorry you don't like the reason I gave. I can't give another because it wouldn't be true. And, as you note, the responsibility to release the data is not mine anyway. Assuming it exists, it is Baumgardner et al.'s. Complain to him, not to me. I agree with you about the desirability of control samples. If we are working in an applied setting, controls are often dispensed with. When I send a serum potassium or lipase to a laboratory, I never bother to send them controls. I assume that they have already done that work. But with groundbreaking research, particularly in a contentious area, it is best to explicitly have such controls (similar to a policeman who, upon giving your speed on the radar gun, has to tell the court when it was last and next checked and what the calibrated readings were). I draw blood alcohol levels all the time, get results, and use them as treatment guides. But if someone is charged with driving under the influence (DUI), the blood sample has to be drawn without alcohol of any kind, even 2-propanol, on the sterilizing pad, witnessed as to who was drawing it, who had custody of it from then on, and when it got to the lab, and all the internal controls that were in the lab, or else the DUI charge will be overturned. When we were discussing the research, I argued for controls, some of which should be treated like Van der Borg et al. treated them, for the reason that I foresaw that the data was likely to be controversial. However, AFAICT after talking to the laboratory who reportedly stated the procedure was routine and didn't need specific controls, Baumgardner et al. opted to go without them. This was IMO unwise, and now leaves them in the position of not having internal controls, and not being able to specifically cite the external controls (which are lying on the surface ready to be found!). I was well aware of the data you cite at the time, as in my article Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon ( http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm ) I cited the articles and the data under the heading, "CONTAMINATION DURING SAMPLE PROCESSING EXPLAINS SOME, BUT PROBABLY NOT ALL, THE RESULTS" (You might be surprised if you read that section.) Your analysis sounds good superficially, but there are two flaws with it. The first is that it assumes that all labs are created equal. It is arguable that the lab of Van der Borg et al. is better than that of Arnold et al. There is an article by Byrd et al. (Bird, M. I., L. K. Ayliffe, L. K. Fifield, C. S. M. Turney, R. G. Cresswell, T. T. Barrows, and B. David, Radiocarbon dating of “old” charcoal using a wet oxidation, stepped-combustion procedure, Radiocarbon, 41(2), 127–140, 1999.) that notes that their lab can recycle (burn and reduce) Precambrian graphite and obtain ages of 0.02-0.08 pMC, with a mean of 0.04 pMC. So Van der Borg et al.'s value, let alone Arnold et al.'s data, do not necessarily apply. The lab they used did have a published background of 0.077 pMC for recycled values. So your attempt to use 0.25 pMC for the additional background is not really valid. The second flaw is that you have not read the Baumgardner et al. article carefully enough. They gave their mean as 0.247 pMC (and I double-checked their calculations--where you got your 0.29 pMC is beyond me), but noted in both the text and the figure that, in the figure's wording, "The reported values shown in the last column are the measured values minus the laboratory’s standard background of 0.077±0.005." So the actual mean is 0.324 pMC when you add the background back in. This brings up a point. Should I accuse you of doing "slipshod" work for which there is "no excuse" because you didn't report this accurately? (You also misreported the Arnold et al. data as 0.089 +/- 0.11 and 0.34 +/- 0.07, rather than 0.089 +/- 0.017 and 0.34 +/- 0.11 pMC) Or should i rather attribute it to "intellectual dishonesty"? (After all, the error was in your favor!) No, I should probably give you a pass. Maybe you just didn't understand the subject quite well enough, or took someone else's word for it, or were tired when you wrote it. And at least in my tradition, you should do unto others what you would want them to do to you if the places were reversed. It's not a bad idea to live by. Finally, the cure for this, of course, is not to tear someone else down. It is to recognize the limits of the data, and then to redo the experiment with the proper controls, and see what happens. I would be happy to give someone who wishes to do so, some guidance as to where the best labs are (you couldn't go wrong with ANU) You might as well. If nobody else does it, eventually I will do it. It will get done. Now, did you wish to discuss the de novo production of carbon-14 and the problem of carbon-14 diffusion in dinosaur bones, or shall I?Paul Giem_{November 4, 2013
November
11
Nov
4
04
2013
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

where the analysis of a graphite sample (mechanically cleaned) results in a pMC value of 0.089 +/- 0.11 but once again when this sample is processed chemically as all biological samples are for analysis the result the provides a pMC value of 0.34 +/- 0.07.
edit should read: where the analysis of a graphite sample (mechanically cleaned) results in a pMC value of 0.089 +/- 0.11 but once again when this sample is processed chemically as all biological samples are for analysis the result the provides a pMC value of 0.34 +/- 0.07 which is a C14 contribution of 0.25 pMC. given that the mean pMC value for all of Baumgardner's biological samples is 0.29 pMC this falls well within what is recognized as contamination from the sample processing procedure.franklin_{November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

I know which laboratory they used, but they had an agreement with the laboratory not to disclose it, for rational concerns on the laboratory’s part (funding drying up and all that). You can figure out from the data given if you know the field well (I knew instantly which one it was), and it turns out to be one of the two labs I recommended to them when they were planning the experiments because of the lab’s low background. So yes, I can identify the lab, but until the lab itself decides to make it public, I won’t identify
That is the lamest excuse for intellectual dishonesty I ahve ever heard....but given the source i'm not surprised. No analytical lab is responsible for what the client(s) do with the data they generate much like the paper you previously cited (https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/3674/pdf) where the authors provide a key component of the methods, i.e., who analyzed the samples. It isn't up to you or to the lab to make their identity 'public' it is up to the author of the manuscript to do so. Your excuse is hooey. Any analytical/quantitative chemistry procedure MUST include numerous controls, sample blanks, reference materials of known concnetration, as well as spikes to monitor where error creeps into the analysis. In Baumgardener paper (as pointed out by Kirk Bertsche) this isn't done. Bertsche notes (as anyone else can as well) that Baumgardner includes this reference: Van der Borg, K., C. Alderliesten, A. F. M. de Jong, A. van den Brink, A. P. de Haas, H. J. H. Kersemaekers, and J. E. M. J. Raaymakers, Precision and mass fractionation in 14C analysis with AMS, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 123, 97–101, 1997. where ( as reported in Baumgardner's Table 1) that unprocessed graphite was determined to have 0.04 +/- 0.04 pMC but when that same sample is chemically processed as all biological samples are the analysis determines a pMC of 0.18 which indicates that sample processing contributes an addition of C14 on the order of 0.14 pMC. Additionally, Baumgardner includes this reference as well: Arnold, M., E. Bard, P. Maurice, and J. C. Duplessy, 14C dating with the Gifsur- Yvette Tandetron accelerator: status report, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 29, 120–123, 1987. where the analysis of a graphite sample (mechanically cleaned) results in a pMC value of 0.089 +/- 0.11 but once again when this sample is processed chemically as all biological samples are for analysis the result the provides a pMC value of 0.34 +/- 0.07. Clearly, as it is well acknowledged and recognized, chemical processing samples for AMS C14 analysis adds C14 contamination to the sample and must be taken into account in any interpretation of the data. The graphite values post-chemical processing provide C14 pMC values that include pretty much all of Baumgradner's biological samples that they sent for analysis. Thus, it is not much of a leap to conclude (correctly) that the values Baumgardner is reporting for the biological samples are representing the coontribution of C14 from the chemical processing during sample prep. Why no chemical processing controls were not included is quite obvious as Baumgardner ignores the results of two of the references he cited because to acknowledge the data would be 9and is) fatal for his conclusions. if there were chemical processing controls conducted during the analysis is unknown based on the content of the manuscript and if they were, and not reported, than that is just intellectual dishonesty. So, Paul, my question(s) for you, since you are familiar with the research, why was this data overlooked and where is the chemical processing control data for these data sets? If I ever presented this type of incomplete (lacking proper controls) data set to my supervisors/peers they would hand it back and tell me to go back to the lab and do it right. There is no excuse for this slip shod analysis and presentation of the data.franklin_{November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

..or of course.....you two guys may just work out your own discussion & questions more organically. To prevent from being scattered. That may be better. Topic was (1)Supposed RATE errors and "slip shod" work, (2)C14 de novo production and (3)whether & how strata C14 background levels compare to fossil/bones C14 levels in the same.JGuy_{November 2, 2013
November
11
Nov
2
02
2013
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Paul, Franklin If I may... since Franklin is not interested in providing a succinct recap. I'll steal the chance to try to do so and inject my point of view. Questions of Franklins will be in bold. Sal's view will not be represented in this comment. So, read above if you would for his comments and open Franklin questions, if any. The topic at first was different. RATE was actually brought up by Franklin. From #8 above:
If you want a great example of how not to conduct C14 dating see the RATE project. An epoch example of total failure and slip-shod ‘science’ if there ever was one!
The original point did not relate to RATE. Franklin merely made a claim based on the assumption that RATE was being discussed. But going off topic, I asked Franklin for what specific RATE errors he was referring to, but he actually declined to answer my question (thus far anyway). For example, after being asked, his response was #19:
For someone who claims to understand the chemistry and procedures/methodology used for C14 dating I would think that the errors would be stand out and be obvious to someone with that knowledge. Do you really need me to tell you where they made the fatal errors? Do you think their results are reliable/credible?
Pressed further, his response was a question:
there is nothing difficult, or hard, about providing specifics. However, if you aren’t familiar with the RATE study and its methodologies (e.g., why did they choose 0.077 pmc as background and is that a correct and proper estimation of the background) than it would be a waste of both of our times in my trying to discuss the specifics which you aren’t familiar with. Our time would be better spent if you provided the citation for the data you were referencing and we can then discuss something you are familiar with.
Ok, so he didn't answer the specific error he had in mind, or a general one yet. But perhaps, that provides one unanswered question of Franklin's that he might like to know. i.e. "why did they choose 0.077 pmc as background and is that a correct and proper estimation of the background[?]" ___________ The original topic (or point) I initiated was a comment responding to something Sal wrote in the above article:
Perhaps we can extract only biotic material someday (DNA or specific proteins) and then do carbon-14 testing. That way we’ll erase the contamination complaint.
I think the contamination argument against young C14 ages for dinos, has sufficiently been undermined by the dating of sample material adjacent to the bone/fossil in the strata. The adjacent material dates far older than the bone/fossil. Why would the bone/fossil just-so-happen to contain more C14 than adjacent environment of the strata?
Points then presented were: 1. C14 has been found in dinosaur bones. 2. My thought that C14 contamination had already been discounted/resolved by testing adjacent material (outside of the bone/fossil) in the strata for C14 background levels, to compare to the bone/fossil C14 levels. This was from recalling reading this, but I didn't have the source in memory - this is why I lead the comment with "I think". If pressed, I could find it, but I'm pretty sure that would take a good while. Your comments on this point would be appreciated. Franklin asks questions in #24 above, to invoke the notion that C14 could be accounted for by denovo production of C14. I then recalled Pitman's comment/cite about this (which was ultimately your work). And my response was that it was not impossible, but doubted. Then quoting Pitman, and referencing Giem (you of course) at 28 & 29 above. So, I'm not sure which specific questions Franklin has left to be answered before he engages further. It may not be helpful for you to answer questions that are personally addressed to me. So, it seems to keep it simple and still on target, that the questions in #31, #38 and a new one at #42 are out-standing. But keeping in mind the main topics that the discussion or argument is on, are whether de novo production of C14 can account for the detected levels of C14 in fossil/bone.... And is testing adjacent material in the strata for C14 valid, and ifso does it lead to the discovery that fossil/bone is higher levels of C14 than the material adjacent to bone/fossil material in the strata. Personally, it all seems a bit fragmented in topic matter.JGuy_{November 2, 2013
November
11
Nov
2
02
2013
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Franklin, I'm not "demanding answers". I'm inviting you to put your understanding in context, the most favorable one you can. If you choose not to, it's okay. I can put my understanding in context. In that case I may answer some of your questions specifically in the course of my exposition, and more as you point them out. But if I lead in the conversation, I see no reason to organize it around your questions, and certainly no reason to commit myself to exhaustively picking them out of your comments here (and setting myself up for criticism if I miss seeing one) and answering all of them before giving the context. Now, if you want to make a nice summarized list of your questions, you may use that as your presentation. I'll then try to answer them in context. Which will it be? Your choice. BTW, I work for a living, so I cannot promise instant answers. But if you don't mind response times of hours to days, we should do fine. PS. I know which laboratory they used, but they had an agreement with the laboratory not to disclose it, for rational concerns on the laboratory's part (funding drying up and all that). You can figure out from the data given if you know the field well (I knew instantly which one it was), and it turns out to be one of the two labs I recommended to them when they were planning the experiments because of the lab's low background. So yes, I can identify the lab, but until the lab itself decides to make it public, I won't identify it. The coy way you asked the question leads me to suspect that you know the answer, and to strongly suspect that you know why it wasn't put in the RATE book. The proper response to their data is not to punish the lab that cooperated with them, but to reanalyze the specimens, or similar specimens, and see whether you come up with the same answer. That's how science without power politics should do things.Paul Giem_{November 2, 2013
November
11
Nov
2
02
2013
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Oh, one more thing Paul, could you identify the laboratory(s) that conducted the C14 analysis for the RATE project. In my clumsy and inept searches I haven't been able to find a citation for which lab(s) analyzed the samples. I'm sure it is a mistake on my part (and perhaps the RATE manuscripts for not providing that detail) but your help in this matter clearing this matter up would be appreciated. thanks!franklin_{November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

I don't have much time to respond but I am delighted to see your interest in participating in this thread.
I hear you think that most of your discussants don’t know much about carbon-14 dating
since there were only two discussants and both declined to answer some simple questions I would conclude that is an accurate assessment.
So why don’t you explain to me
instead of jumping in midstream in a conversation and demanding answers why don't you clear the table of all previous questions I posed to the other discussants that you refer too....we can move on from there as your and my time permit.franklin_{November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

Hi franklin, I hear you think that most of your discussants don't know much about carbon-14 dating. So perhaps, since they reference my work, I don't know much either. So why don't you explain to me (1) what creationist results have been found, (2) why they think the results are important, and (3) why they are really off base. Be sure to cite literature to back up your assertions, and provide baseline data and calculations to reasonably show that the processes you use to discredit such data are quantitatively able to do the work you expect from them. Perhaps I can learn something from you. I promise that I will be able to follow some difficult arguments. I made predictions http://www.grisda.org/origins/24050.htm and put my own money behind them, that have been rechecked and published in Radiocarbon. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/3674/pdf (Read the acknowledgments.) So I am not completely unfamiliar with the concepts involved. How about it? Or, if you prefer, I can take the lead and you can criticize. Except if I do it, I probably won't do as well as you can on why they are really off base.Paul Giem_{November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

The thrust is that there are established methodologies for any analytical procedure and these include detection and quantification levels. If you don’t know what the cutoff pmc is for C14 dating then how can you evaluate the veracity of the data and the methods used to generate that data.
If you don't mind. Give me a reference on pmc cutoffs as you are asking about, so that I can later familiarize myself with your concern. So far, it comes off to me that by that you would somehow argue that there is a limit to how old something can be dated. But I must be misunderstanding you on this, because you seem to accept that carbon dating can be relied on to determine the age of a cave painting, for example.
In your view it appears that you just accept all data with no distinction of the quality, or lack there of, of the data set. Slip shod lab and data analytical procedures generate erroneous data and you need the technical knowledge of a method to evaluate which data is acceptable and which is not.
You're right. I don't do a lot to distinguish the lab work. Be it cave paintings, bones/fossils or certain archaeological artifacts. I presume these labs are profession, and do what is some standard practice/method to mitigate contamination and any of it's possible effects. And then finally come to some measure of C12/C14 levels to resolve to some 'age'. On the RATE teams work. They have apparently done a lot of carbon dating experiments. So, which specific experiment you might be referring to is one question. But more importantly, from what I have gathered, they (RATE) tend to collect many samples and use more than one unaffiliated specialty lab to test samples from the subject/source. They don't do the carbon dating themselves. So. If I read that the results of two separate specialized labs has determined some 'ages'. And these two separate labs come to approx. the same values. It is what it is. How then is the RATE team 'slip shod' for the final results determined by those unaffiliated specialty labs? Naturally, I won't question that any more than a cave painting results.
For example would you think it correct to compare a C14 value from something like, say graphite, and compare it directly to values generated from a biological sample even when the samples are collect in close proximity to each other?
Since C14 doesn't 'care' about it's host, if the material are in the same strata claimed to be millions of years old, then their C14 content should be identical - the 'age' should max out by the method.JGuy_{October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

That said. What is your thrust in arguing about cut-off levels?
The thrust is that there are established methodologies for any analytical procedure and these include detection and quantification levels. If you don't know what the cutoff pmc is for C14 dating then how can you evaluate the veracity of the data and the methods used to generate that data. In your view it appears that you just accept all data with no distinction of the quality, or lack there of, of the data set. Slip shod lab and data analytical procedures generate erroneous data and you need the technical knowledge of a method to evaluate which data is acceptable and which is not. In short dating, via C14, to 40,000 is acceptable if the methods used are rigorous and make no fatal deviations from accepted procedures. I haven't read the primary paper on the rock art but on the surface it is reasonable. Not so with the RATE data because of the fatal errors they made in their study. We can't discuss the specifics because if you don't know what the pmc cutoff value for C14 dating is then if I use that point in an argument you have no reference from which to accept the criticism or reject it....it would waste both of our times if we can't discuss things from a common ground....in this case the analytical method used to generate C14 data. For example would you think it correct to compare a C14 value from something like, say graphite, and compare it directly to values generated from a biological sample even when the samples are collect in close proximity to each other?franklin_{October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Franklin. By the way. I apologize in advance, if you find anywhere above, that I misrepresented your position. I think it's possible with how convoluted the discussion seems to have went in some narrows lines of thought in the topic. For example, I wrote, "in a seeming attempt to discredit the principle of accepting/using dates that resolve within that age range." ... But that may not be true if your intention was not to discredit C14 "ages" of the values mentioned (e.g. range: 20kyo to 40kyo). ...JGuy_{October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

the link goes to a article about rock art dating to 28,000 yrs and they know the area was inhabited for 45,000 yrs and expect to find older artwork. My comment would be what relevance do you think this brings to the discussion. It’s purpose is lost on me. You also haven’t stated what you understand to be the accepted pmc cutoff value for C14 dating reliability. do you understand what the limit of detection is? do you understand what the limit of quantification is? Do you know the difference between the two and how that influences the signal:noise ratio and data analysis?
What I understand is irrelevant to the fact that I can demonstrate that C14 dating objects to this age range is acceptable - the point of linking to the dating of the cave paintings. That said. What is your thrust in arguing about cut-off levels? The values in Pitman's hypothetical scenario is generous by assuming an age of 40kyo. Meanwhile, we have dinosaur fossils dated in the 20k-30k range. So, if the painting can be accepted at 28kyo by C14 dating, then the dinosaur fossils can be. Simple as that - there's no need to talk signal to noise ratios etc... in a seeming attempt to discredit the principle of accepting/using dates that resolve within that age range.
Oh I see now. You didn’t bother going to Pitman’s article and cite that instead you cited Giem citing Pitman. Better to cite the original source instead of secondary sources.
Wrong. I cited both. And I started with quoting Pitman (who referenced Giem - not the other way around as you said). Pitman was cited to keep it simple for me commenting in a blog - this isn't meant to be an in depth science project.
No, it is not a mistake.
You wrote: "This is from your P. Giem reference. What level of C14 pmc is he referring too? He fails to mention that data point which is an important omission. " It wasn't Giem, it was Pitman. And he (Pitman) only provided an imagined scenario of some sample dated to 40kyo by C14. There is no actual data point. And that should be sufficient for his point.
I ask for primary literature references and you give me youtube. Good grief.
Huh? I didn't provide you that upon a request of yours. It was just to show examples of dinosaur fossils dated in the range mentioned in the prior brief context. I'm simply assuming the study found those levels of C14 (as indicated by the "age"). I'm not here to discuss with you about the veracity of that particular study. If you want to argue that they are wrong, that's nice. I have no reason to think you are right and they are all wrong. Personally, like I said before, the technicals are arguably not the biggest difference between our takes here.
I’m sure you realize that coal contains uranium in the ppm range….hardly a trivial amount. Also in understanding the chemistry involved you know that uranium is quite soluble in water and any groundwater intrusion into a coal bed brings uranium as well. So knowing that you understand all this I don’t where you are coming from with your question relating to presence of radioactive compounds in coal and the production of C14 and why you think radiation levels in the past were necessarily higher and at toxic levels.
Giem addresses these points. Feel free to refute him, it's not my study. I have no reason to believe you over Giem. But it doesn't matter. Common sense tells me that if one lab can date an item in the range [20kyo to 30kyo] and be accepted, then a dinosaur bone/fossil that dates to the same age range by the same methods should be accepted - refuting one versus the other is selective pleading. De novo C14 production is possible, but there's a reason that isn't the primary rebuttal by the skeptics - at least as far as I've read regarding their rebuttals.JGuy_{October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

So, why not? hmmm.. let me guess.. because the values indicated too young of ages for you, therefore they must be contaminated somehow?
I do a fair amount of analytical chemistry of a number of different analytes. I appreciate quality data and I also understand what it takes to generate that type of data. Fro some of your other question: I'm sure you realize that coal contains uranium in the ppm range....hardly a trivial amount. Also in understanding the chemistry involved you know that uranium is quite soluble in water and any groundwater intrusion into a coal bed brings uranium as well. So knowing that you understand all this I don't where you are coming from with your question relating to presence of radioactive compounds in coal and the production of C14 and why you think radiation levels in the past were necessarily higher and at toxic levels.franklin_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

jguy, I'd like to discuss this with you but we need to start on some common ground. How about we start with what your understanding is of the cutoff value of pmc for a reliable C14 date?franklin_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

Clearly. But I’d suggest it isn’t a technical familiarity that makes the biggest difference.
Well we will have to agree to disagree here. The technical aspects of analytical chemistry matter a great deal to the robustness of any data set.
On cut-offs, C14 ages are apparently accepted that are within those ranges found in the list. e.g.
the link goes to a article about rock art dating to 28,000 yrs and they know the area was inhabited for 45,000 yrs and expect to find older artwork. My comment would be what relevance do you think this brings to the discussion. It's purpose is lost on me. You also haven't stated what you understand to be the accepted pmc cutoff value for C14 dating reliability. do you understand what the limit of detection is? do you understand what the limit of quantification is? Do you know the difference between the two and how that influences the signal:noise ratio and data analysis?
Before you protest that Sean’s is merely a hypothetical data point, bear in mind that there are many examples that fit this case… so, just pick one. A starter list her
I ask for primary literature references and you give me youtube. Good grief.
That wasn’t the Giem reference (that was Pitman). If you take it in context. You’ll find that your claim of it being an omission is also a mistake
Oh I see now. You didn't bother going to Pitman's article and cite that instead you cited Giem citing Pitman. Better to cite the original source instead of secondary sources.
You seek citations on my one general claim, yet won’t cite the specific faults of the RATE project, a topic you brought up. Not a very consistent standard is it?
I explained to you why it would be a waste of time for me to try and discuss the specifics of the RATE project with you since you told me that you weren't all that familiar with the research and data. I asked you some key question that had you taken them seriously and tried to answer them would move the discussion forward in leaps and bounds. I don't think you can answer those questions so any discussion, on my part, concerning the specific errors of the project would be a waste of my and your time. With no knowledge of the answers to those questions there is no basis for you to understand anything I would have to say about the specifics.
If you take it in context. You’ll find that your claim of it being an omission is also a mistake
No, it is not a mistake.franklin_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

thus the need to provide citations for ones claims. That way everyone will understand what data a individual is referencing.
You seek citations on my one general claim, yet won't cite the specific faults of the RATE project, a topic you brought up. Not a very consistent standard is it?
This is from your P. Giem reference. What level of C14 pmc is he referring too? He fails to mention that data point which is an important omission.
That wasn't the Giem reference (that was Pitman). If you take it in context. You'll find that your claim of it being an omission is also a mistake. In the above that you quote, he (Sean) presents a generic scenario for a data "For example, lets say we have a 10 million year old specimen with enough 14C in it to give it an apparent age of 40,000 years." You should be able to calculate some pcm value with that. But it doesn't matter. Dinosaur fossils are dated much younger than that. Before you protest that Sean's is merely a hypothetical data point, bear in mind that there are many examples that fit this case... so, just pick one. A starter list here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ Also, keep in mind, these dinosair fossils date younger than Pitman's hypothetical case. So, Pitman's scenario is generous. On cut-offs, C14 ages are apparently accepted that are within those ranges found in the list. e.g. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/18/aboriginal-rock-art-shown-to-australian-scientists-dated-at-28000-years-old/
I do want to discuss this with you but it appears we are at two different levels of familiarity with these studies.
Clearly. But I'd suggest it isn't a technical familiarity that makes the biggest difference.JGuy_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

screwed up blockquote tags...
However, to explain the current rather high levels of 14C in coal, oil, and other ancient carboniferous fossils, the amount of surrounding radioactivity must have been much greater in the past.
This is from your P. Giem reference. What level of C14 pmc is he referring too? He fails to mention that data point which is an important omission. The next question you should ask once you've found the answer to the previous question is: what is the accepted cutoff of pmc for reliable dating and why is the bar set at that level? What pmc value indicates a 50,000 yr age? How does that compare to the cutoff value for reliable C14 dating? These are critical points in the presentation of this material and for very good reason. however, I assume from your reply that you are not familiar enough with this data to pin down the answers to these questions. give it a shot and report back with your findings or provide the citation for the data set you were referencing. Either way I wish to discuss the specifics of the study and if you aren't conversant with the methods used in this study it would be a wasted effort for me I'm afraid. I do want to discuss this with you but it appears we are at two different levels of familiarity with these studies.franklin_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

That’s your mistake then. I’m not a mind reader. And I never brought up the RATE research, you did. Apaprently, your first mistake was to assume I was referencing RATE research – well, I wasn’t.
thus the need to provide citations for ones claims. That way everyone will understand what data a individual is referencing. <blockquote.So, what’s so hard about providing specifics? there is nothing difficult, or hard, about providing specifics. However, if you aren't familiar with the RATE study and its methodologies (e.g., why did they choose 0.077 pmc as background and is that a correct and proper estimation of the background) than it would be a waste of both of our times in my trying to discuss the specifics which you aren't familiar with. Our time would be better spent if you provided the citation for the data you were referencing and we can then discuss something you are familiar with.
Well, considering from an arrays of experiments I’ve read about, they use more than one independent secular lab using a thrid party in between. So. Yes. I think the ‘ages’ are what the method would accurately provide, and not contaminated by the lab considering separate labs come with similar results.
not being familiar with the methods used in the C14 analysis and data compilation/analysis you aren't in a position to make this claim. For example in a generic C14 analytical situation what do you feel is the most important issue that needs to be addressed and how should this issue be addressed to provide reliable dates from the procedure?
On the last question, I’d say no (it’s not impossible). Surprised to hear that from me..a YEC?
No, it only makes me wonder why the refusal to answer well understood and documented questions.
How much radioactive material must there have been at the time of the dinosaur such that it would still leave measurable C-14 levels?
Really? This is the question you ask? first let's start with how much C14 is claimed to exist in the coal samples and how was that data generated. Once we have that starting point we can discuss the Uranium-Thorium decay series in depth and perhaps arrive at an answer to your question.
However, to explain the current rather high levels of 14C in coal, oil, and other ancient carboniferous fossils, the amount of surrounding radioactivity must have been much greater in the past.</blockquote. This is from your P. Giem reference. What level of C14 pmc is he referring too? He fails to mention that data point which is an important omission. The next question you should ask once you've found the answer to the previous question is: what is the accepted cutoff of pmc for reliable dating and why is the bar set at that level? These are critical points in the presentation of this material and for very good reason. however, I assume from your reply that you are not familiar enough with this data to pin down the answers to these questions. give it a shot and report back with your findings or provide the citation for the data set you were referencing. Either way I wish to discuss the specifics of the study and if you aren't conversant with the methods used in this study it would be a wasted effort for me I'm afraid. I do want to discuss this with you but it appears we are at two different levels of familiarity with these studies.
franklin_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Bonus material - author Paul Giem: "NUCLEAR SYNTHESIS OF CARBON-14 IN SITU IS NOT AN ADEQUATE EXPLANATION The next explanation that might be made is that these carbon-14 atoms are created by nuclear reactions while the sample is in the ground. This is highly improbable. Zito et al. (1980) calculated that groundwater in granite could possibly have carbon with a carbon-14 concentration of 0.00266 pmc. Florkowski et al. (1988) corroborated their calculations. If one reworks the calculations using oil, one comes up with 2.7×10-8 pmc (Giem 1997a, p 186-187). This is well below the range capable of explaining the above experiments. One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen-14 captures neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis in situ." http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htmJGuy_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Sean Pitman wrote on the de novo production argument: "The theory of the de novo production of carbon 14 by surrounding radiation is presented as one source of possible carbon 14 formation/contamination. However, to explain the current rather high levels of 14C in coal, oil, and other ancient carboniferous fossils, the amount of surrounding radioactivity must have been much greater in the past. For example, lets say we have a 10 million year old specimen with enough 14C in it to give it an apparent age of 40,000 years. In order for this level of 14C to be the result of surrounding radioactivity the initial level of radioactivity 10 million years ago had to be far above lethal levels (high enough to glow like a light bulb).16 Also, such sources of surrounding radiation had to be very widely present throughout the entire geologic column since all samples of coal, oil, and other organic fossils show approximately the same rather high levels of carbon 14. This level of contamination would be hard enough to believe with oil and gas, but would be extremely incredible with coal since many coal seams are hundreds of feet thick and very pure without evident radiogenic contamination significant enough to explain the high carbon 14 levels generally found in coal fields all over the globe. Clearly there is a problem here. " - http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html#Contamination Reference 16. Giem PAL. 1997b. Carbon-14 dating methods and experimental implications. Origins 24:50-64.JGuy_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

Franklin
Can alpha particles generate neutrons? Can neutrons interact with C13 to produce C14? Does Uranium decay produce alpha particles? How many radiodaughters (all producers of alpha particles) are found in the Uranium-Thorium series? Is coal known to contain uranium? Is coal known to contain C13? Is the denovo production of C14 in coal an impossibility?
On the last question, I'd say no (it's not impossible). Surprised to hear that from me..a YEC? ;) ...now you, answer this question... For the levels of C-14 in coal to be what they are. How much radioactive material must there have been at the time of the dinosaur such that it would still leave measurable C-14 levels? And could life survive in such an environment? And is there evidence that that amount of uranium has actually decayed in the coal seams? Of course, the problem restated. Life may have had to have survive somehow with lethal levels of radioactive material decaying in the environment. Thanks!JGuy_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

For someone who claims to understand the chemistry and procedures/methodology used for C14 dating I would think that the errors would be stand out and be obvious to someone with that knowledge.
That's your mistake then. I'm not a mind reader. And I never brought up the RATE research, you did. Apaprently, your first mistake was to assume I was referencing RATE research - well, I wasn't. However, I am a bit familiar with their research. They've had several experiments done with many samples tested from these various experiments. And the C-14 dates they did were done by independent secularized labs. You either can point out the errors you are thinking, or you can't. Simple as that. Playing games like "well, if you don't know..then.. nevermind" is a disingenuous argument - not the kind of argument I'd expect from someone with a genuine case. So, what's so hard about providing specifics?
Do you really need me to tell you where they made the fatal errors?
Yes. You made the claim. I wasn't referencing RATE in the original post. And I'm not a mind reader.
Do you think their results are reliable/credible?
Well, considering from an arrays of experiments I've read about, they use more than one independent secular lab using a thrid party in between. So. Yes. I think the 'ages' are what the method would accurately provide, and not contaminated by the lab considering separate labs come with similar results. So, why not? hmmm.. let me guess.. because the values indicated too young of ages for you, therefore they must be contaminated somehow? :)JGuy_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

my apologies, sal, I forgot a few question pertinent to this topic: Does the burning of coal release radiation? If yes, what is the source of the radiation? Does coal ash contain radiation? If yes, what is the source of the radiation? thanks!franklin_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

they make passing appeals to Uranium irradiating the Carbon, but that fails because one needs a mix of 99% Uranium and 1% carbon! Oh well.
Hey Sal, I'd like to see a reference for your assertion, i.e., uranium:carbon ratio. While your looking for that you can also put your physics background on display here by answering these questions: Can alpha particles generate neutrons? Can neutrons interact with C13 to produce C14? Does Uranium decay produce alpha particles? How many radiodaughters (all producers of alpha particles) are found in the Uranium-Thorium series? Is coal known to contain uranium? Is coal known to contain C13? Is the denovo production of C14 in coal an impossibility?
There is in principle a way to find out if in doubt. So why isn’t the research being done?
already been done as you are aware. How (and why) do you think the errors were so obvious and easily spotted? I will also note for the record (as KF is fond of stating) that you have failed to address any of the questions posed. Care to try again?franklin_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Do you really need me to tell you where they made the fatal errors?
Widely acknowledge that there is a C-14 in the carboniferous era (300 million years ago). Even Darwin loving Wikipedia acknowledges it is not a laboratory anomaly. Even Darwin worshiping TalkOrigins! They left the problem unanswered -- they make passing appeals to Uranium irradiating the Carbon, but that fails because one needs a mix of 99% Uranium and 1% carbon! Oh well.
Do you think their results are reliable/credible?
For the Carboniferous (300 million years ago) yes, TalkOrgins says so. So why not for the Dinos. Further, chemical kinetics says the biological material is in too good a shape to bee 70 million years old in the case of dinos. Now, what would happen if we take a fossil like a horseshoe crab and find it doesn't have much sequence divergence from existing (extant) horseshoe crabs. That would suggest the following possibilities: 1. the fossil is young 2. molecular clocks for evolution don't work 3. both 1 and 2 Theory predicts if neutral evolution is mostly true over eons, then we should expect substantial sequence divergence from an ancestor to the descendant after 450 million years. Any takers?
Do you think their results are reliable/credible?
There is in principle a way to find out if in doubt. So why isn't the research being done? :-) For the sake of argument assume the fossil record on the whole is old, it doesn't mean a specific fossil is old as well. Heck, they thought lots of creatures were extinct for millions of years only to find them alive! So much for the discipline of paleontology. You should be the one questioning the reliability of paleontological inferences if you're going to question laboratories.scordova_{October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Thats funny and true. Its so absurd to have the crab just perfectly fitting its niche with a nary a whisker difference in 450 mill years and yet evolution went to town to make me. Its very unlikely and unreasonable to see evolution hit the brakes. If evolution was not trur one would predict creatures in fossils indicating unchanged types. The crab was indeed only killed 4500 years ago in the flood and just showing a greater diversity existed then. So they remain with us in obscure areas. Evolutionism stresses a hunch that change is what biology is about but the crab ruins this hunch. anyways hunches are not science.Robert Byers_{October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

Of related note: "Tracks of birds were found in the Dinosaur Cove in southern Victoria that date to 105 million years ago. The evidence indicates that true flying birds existed at the same time as dinosaurs during the Early Cretaceous. The evidence is a bird’s landing tracks. The tracks have a backward pointing toe that is the same as modern birds. ...The birds were estimated to be the size of a small heron by the scientists." (True flying bird tracks from dinosaur times discovered in Australia, October 28, 2013) http://www.examiner.com/article/true-flying-bird-tracks-from-dinosaur-times-discovered-australiabornagain77_{October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Franklin symbolizes the rich irony in play. Darwinists are now hoping there is a flaw in the C-14 radiometric dating. THEY are the ones insisting the radiometric dating procedures are is flawed, not the creationists. Ah, the rich irony.
That's pretty funny, sal,but it is contrary to what we find in the real world.franklin_{October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply