Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

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
Howso? Be specific.
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?franklin
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
The Geophysical Conference in Singapore feature physicists who found C14 in dino bones. They invited others to duplicate the research and maybe do it right. Curious, no one seems interested in figuring out the cause of "contamination". Where is the interest in the scientific method here. No one wants to fix the problem. They just say it exists and don't want to figure out what the problem is. https://uncommondescent.com/news/cocktail-c14-dna-collagen-in-dinosaurs-indicates-geological-timescales-are-false/ And there is still the problem of the biological material itself. Its existence violates all known chemical kinetics. Maybe there isn't a problem at all, and the dates are accurate. 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. So Darwinists will say experimental error without actually identifying the error! They are given the chance and prodding to do it right, but no takers, not even when bribed to do the right thing: https://uncommondescent.com/news/icc-2013-creationist-bob-eynart-attempts-to-bribe-darwinist-jack-horner/ Evolutionary Paleontology is an interpretive framework that ignores pointed questions about its inferences.scordova
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
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! Howso? Be specific.JGuy
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Franklin, I understand the process well enough - especially the chemistry. And it doesn't take a rocket scientists to know that background contamination is serious concern and contentious point (esp. when "ages" conflict with paradigm). So, whether or not I know the statistics on whether contamination is more or less likely to occur in the lab versus field is irrelevant to the logic of accounting for background contamination - which was my point and where you launched in with your argument and criticism. Since you now seem to acknowledge that C14 background levels at the site should be accounted for, then I think you should agree that one would want to analyze that environment in the strata for C14. And no, unlike your prior claim, you wouldn't use a method of dating the strata (especially one other than carbon 14) since carbon 14 is the isotope you need to screen the background for! The point isn't to "date" the strata, but to determine the background C-14 levels to compare with the bone/fossil specimen. Hopefully, that makes sense for you now.JGuy
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Unless, you think laboratories are the primary cause of contamination – in which case, when are dates correct? When they align with the paradigm?
laboratories have been notable sources of C14 contamination which can last for many years but the largest source of C14 contamination is from the technicians processing the samples. That you even ask the question 'when are the dates correct' further demonstrates that you have no idea of how C14 dating methodology is conducted. Have you looked at the RATE project? Do you know where the fatal errors are found in that project? Is it your position that C-14 dating should not include any procedures to mitigate errors from background C-14 levels? What ever gave you that idea?
An application of common sense, rather than the talk-origins stylized trite would be more helpful.
Actually, understanding the methodology and the chemistry is much more fruitful that some alleged 'common sense' you think trumps understanding the processes used in any chemical/dating analysis.franklin
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Frankin, I did not suggest that this was the only source of possible contamination. But it is perhaps the most contentious. Unless, you think laboratories are the primary cause of contamination - in which case, when are dates correct? When they align with the paradigm? lol Is it your position that C-14 dating should not include any procedures to mitigate errors from background C-14 levels? What concern, with isochron 'dating' of igneous rock, is being addressed when multiple samples are taken from different place in the rock???? I understand that dating sedimentary strata is theoretically pointless, but you can still test it for existing C-14 background levels. If none exist or there is less than the bone/fossil, then you need to explain, in the simplest way, why the bone/fossils have high C-14 levels in comparison. An application of common sense, rather than the talk-origins stylized trite would be more helpful.JGuy
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
C14 in fossils is ubiquitious.
in ignorant hands C14 contamination ends up everywhere. It appears you also don't understand the C14 dating process but why let that get in the way of your musings. you could prove me wrong by outlining the entire process of C14 dating from the collection of the sample to the final analysis....bullet points will be sufficient.franklin
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
OK, i'll admit to having very little idea of what you trying to say. Or indeed what "living fossils" have to do with it. Do you really think people should be trying to extract and sequence DNA from fossils that are tens of millions of years old? In any case, I don't think you realise how diverse modern horseshoe crabs are. The common ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs lived ~ a hundred million years ago and they've diversged a lot since then (that molecular clock thing).wd400
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
In this case it appears patently obvious that the author of this statement has no idea of how C14 dating is conducted and why (and at what point) contamination is incorporated into the sample.
You're1 the one with no idea. :-) I suggested one could in principle separate the biotic material and see if the bio-polymers have C14. Whether practical is another story, but in principle it can be done. And what if C14 is discovered in the bio polymers that can't be explained by it get radioactive otherwise? But its clear there is an institutional imperative not to be properly skeptical of such basic questions. Too much institutional, metaphysical, financial, and reputational interests in play. Enjoy your self-imposed willful blindness to compelling empirical possibilities.scordova
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Also since no citation has been provided on the dating of the strata which likely was not via C14 dating method).
Dating strata? You have fossils with C14. The strata could in principle be old, but a young fossil stuck in them. C14 in the fossil says the fossil is young. You can bury a living dog today in 400 million year old strata, it doesn't mean the dog died 400 years ago. Seems to make sense to actually test the dog tissue rather than the rocks it's buried in. C14 in fossils is ubiquitious. You can check for yourself. Heck, pretty much the entire carboniferous era of around 300 million years ago.scordova
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Find one of their proteins, BLAST it, look at the distance tree. You can’t stop evolution, and indeed you’ll find horsehoe crabs sti on a nice long branch, away from the true crabs and with other arachnids. There clocks have been ticking away.
Your circular reasoning is noted. Do you have a legitimate point to make. Sequence divergences are in evidence, but they do not establish the truth of molecular clocks because the cause of the sequence divergence is assumed to be because of the clock. Your circular reasoning is thus: 1. molecular clocks cause ALL sequence divergence 2. we find sequence divergence, and since molecular clocks cause ALL sequence divergence, the molecular clock hypothesis is true On the contrary, there is growing evidence the clock hypothesis isn't the explanation for ALL the sequence divergences https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/zuck-is-out-of-luck-marsupial-findings-vindicate-behe-denton-hoyle/scordova
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Why would the bone/fossil just-so-happen to contain more C14 than adjacent environment of the strata?
It really helps when one wants to be a skeptic about something to actually understand the bit of science you want to be skeptical about. In this case it appears patently obvious that the author of this statement has no idea of how C14 dating is conducted and why (and at what point) contamination is incorporated into the sample. Also since no citation has been provided on the dating of the strata which likely was not via C14 dating method). 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!franklin
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Lol. You don’t need to waste your time trying to extract DNA from fossils that are tens of millions of years old to know horshoe crabs aren’t living fossils, and that their molecular clocks tick just fine.
Lol yourself WD400... you don't even comprehend the argument being made. You're criticizing an argument I'm not making. The argument wasn't establishing the horseshoe crab is a living fossil, but whether the supposed 450-million-year-old fossil fossil has roughly the same sequence as the current horseshoe. If it does, it suggests either the molecular clock is broken or that the supposed 450-million-year-old fossil isn't 450 million years old, because in principle, the clock ought to tick for the same species from ancestor to descendant, or do you not comprehend that either? And if not this crab, we can do it for another species. Comprende? On the contrary, you're wasting my time by criticizing arguments I didn't make, and me having to take time to point out your misrepresentations.scordova
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Lol. You don't need to waste your time trying to extract DNA from fossils that are tens of millions of years old to know horshoe crabs aren't living fossils, and that their molecular clocks tick just fine. Find one of their proteins, BLAST it, look at the distance tree. You can't stop evolution, and indeed you'll find horsehoe crabs sti on a nice long branch, away from the true crabs and with other arachnids. There clocks have been ticking away.wd400
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
"The irony is rich." The carbony is richer. ba da dam :PJGuy
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
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?
Great point! And this puts the Darwinists in the strange position of hoping C-14 radiometric dating is flawed. The irony is rich. :-)scordova
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
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?JGuy
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
One does not need to be a YEC to question paleontological ages.
Fer sher. Question everything. Especially the consensus narrative.
“Cocktail” designates a speculative idea
Darn.CentralScrutinizer
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
I didn't know how pervasive the pattern of overall stasis in the fossil truly was until I watched this video Living Fossils - Dr. Carl Werner, part 1 of 2 | Origins - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6LmWznY4Ys Living Fossils - Dr. Carl Werner, part 2 of 2 | Origins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noljXQOW9qA Dr Carl Werner also has another excellent video called "The Grand Experiment Vol 1" http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/ I was very surprised to learn how much disinformation about the fossil record is in our museums. Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed http://vimeo.com/30921402 Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30932397 The Unknown Origin of Pterosaurs - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6htc371fM Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30926629 Bat Evolution? - No Transitional Fossils! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6003501/bornagain77
October 29, 2013
October
10
Oct
29
29
2013
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply