Proof that evolution is the only answer

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: peter vlar

Very cool stuff about the highlanders' ability to reside at such lofty elevations around the world. Even more interesting is the way they evolved convergently to withstand such extreme conditions.

Absolutely. It's one of the more interesting aspects of their adaptations, different mutations and different mechanisms for dealing with the low 02 at higher altitudes. The other thing I find rather interesting is that both of these mutations appeared in roughly similar time frames on opposite sides of the globe.

I've been doing some research into the various mutations that gave way to these special traits. There is something intriguing about the timing of these mutations that will require a bit more research to flush out. Might be the topic of a forthcoming thread...

It will definitely be an interesting topic to explore so I look forward to you putting this together.

originally posted by: peter vlar
This study evaluates genetic and phenotypic variation in the Colla population living in the Argentinean Andes above 3500 m and compares it to the nearby lowland Wichí group in an attempt to pinpoint evolutionary mechanisms underlying adaptation to high altitude hypoxia. We genotyped 730,525 SNPs in 25 individuals from each population. In genome-wide scans of extended haplotype homozygosity Collas showed the strongest signal around VEGFB, which plays an essential role in the ischemic heart, and ELTD1, another gene crucial for heart development and prevention of cardiac hypertrophy. Moreover, pathway enrichment analysis showed an overrepresentation of pathways associated with cardiac morphology. Taken together, these findings suggest that Colla highlanders may have evolved a toolkit of adaptative mechanisms resulting in cardiac reinforcement, most likely to counteract the adverse effects of the permanently increased haematocrit and associated shear forces that characterise the Andean response to hypoxia. Regulation of cerebral vascular flow also appears to be part of the adaptive response in Collas. These findings are not only relevant to understand the evolution of hypoxia protection in high altitude populations but may also suggest new avenues for medical research into conditions where hypoxia constitutes a detrimental factor.
Colla Study

This is not a mutation exhibited only in the Collas people... There has never been a human found that does not have a ELTD1 or VEGFB gene. Both of these genes are present in all humans and are regulated epigenetically, meaning their expression changes according to environmental cues:

VEGFB epigenetics

ELTD1 Epigenetics

originally posted by: peter vlar

This is in stark contrast to people born with the EPAS1(along with roughly 10 more adapttive mutations) mutation from Tibet, Nepal and Northern India.

Again, This is not a mutation special to those in Nepal or India, all humans have these genes and they are regulated epigenetically:

EPAS1 epigenetics

originally posted by: peter vlar
The other thing I find rather interesting is that both of these mutations appeared in roughly similar time frames on opposite sides of the globe.

All humans have all 3 of the genes you are referring to. This did not evolve specially for those in high altitude, it is present in all humans but is expressed more in those living in high altitudes - this mechanism is epigenetic.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Masterjaden

So what you're really saying is that it takes 6 paragraphs and a double post for you to say nothing and then demonstrate that you still don't understand what empirical evidence is in context of the scientific method. One does not have to millions or billions of years of first person witness in order to be empirical. When tests are done and those results are independantly repeated and corroborated, this too is empirical data. In the case of radiometric dating, this independant corroboration has been done on an international scale for 75+ years in some instances such as 14c dating which was first demonstrated in the late 40's.

With carbon-dating you can estimate to a certain degree the starting C-14 in the sample organism because we could make an assumption on past atmospheric C-14 levels based on what we observed today, although this still involves assumption
You love to claim its all assumption which I find perplexing. No dating method is ever the sole determinate when an age is given. his is especially true in the example of 14C dating. We have atmospheric records going back over 100 KA from ice core samples taken from multiple locations across the planet from Antarctica to Greenland to Canada, Alaska, Siberia etc... so to say its an assumption regarding 12C:14C rations is silly. Additionally, dendrochronology is used to calibrate and corroborate the efficacy of 14C dating.

But with Uranium-lead dating I see no clear empirical evidence that could determine initial lead concentration of the sample.

As I've tried to explain to you before, the starting ration of U 238

b 206 is mind blowingly simple to understand. Lead 206 only exists as the end product of Uranium 238's decay. There are a total of 8 Alpha and 6 Beta decays between U 238 and its daughter nuclides and its final daughter, the isotope of Pb 206.

I simply don't understand why it is such a difficult concept to grasp that if Pb 206 can not exist until after this decay process, then the initial count is going to consist of U 238/100%- Pb 206/ 0%. If there is any Lead 206 in your sample then the sample is old enough to have undergone decay and the ratios can be determined thereby giving you an age, within its known margin of error of course. Nobody is saying that these dates are down to the exact year or month, especially when dealing with ages in the range of Billions of years.

Every date given, from any of the dozens of radiometric dating techniques, includes a margin of error. Even 14C dating. But to imply that everything is pure assumption and that there is no way to determine the initial rations of given isotopes within a sample makes me wonder if you are not reading any of the citations provided by Phantom423 or if you're just being obstinate for your own amusement.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423



Coop, I gave you the entire explanation - in detail - in a previous post. Didn't you read it???????????????????

None of it addressed my concern - how are initial Lead-Uranium concentrations determined? I am not concerned with instruments and contemporary decay rates.

Then explain your concerns. What's the problem with the instrumentation? What's the problem with the calculations? To say you're "concerned" doesn't say much. Please explain.

originally posted by: cooperton

Rereading some of the posts, I think you may have misinterpreted Peter's explanation. He's absolutely correct - at time = zero for uranium there were no decay products i.e. lead - that's when uranium was formed in the galaxy, probably super novas. Uranium is of cosmic origin, not formed on this planet (at least to my knowledge). So at time zero for uranium, the decay byproducts were at zero concentration. After its formation, uranium begins to decay, then the decay products appear, ultimately resulting in lead.

You're asking about initial concentrations of uranium. Concentrations are irrelevant - whether it was one gram or one ton the half life calculation is the same. If that calculation was incorrect, there would be another element present today - and it wouldn't be the uranium byproducts that we observe i.e lead.

I think the misunderstanding goes to what half life really is. Half life is NOT dependent on concentration of a particular atom. It's only dependent on the energy difference of the reactants. For any element that is radiogenic, the kinetic energy (before) - kinetic energy (after) = the decay product. The difference can be measured and the result is the half life of that particular element. That solution applies to one atom or one hundred tons of the element. The starting concentration or quantity of the element is irrelevant. If the decay rate was different for uranium in the past, then we would have different element byproducts today - and it would NOT be the uranium byproducts that we observe - i.e. lead.

Where did uranium come from?Cosmochemists have been concerned not only with patterns and secular trends of abundance of the elements in galaxies but also with the origins of abundance anomalies in particular stars and with theories on the synthesis of different nuclei to account for these observations. According to the theories developed, the Earth's uranium was produced in one or more supernovae ("An explosive brightening of a star in which the energy radiated by it increases by a factor of ten billion ... A supernova explosion occurs when a star has burned up all its available nuclear fuel and the core collapses catastrophically." - Oxford Dictionary of Physics). The main process concerned was the rapid capture of neutrons on seed nuclei at rates greater than disintegration through radioactivity. The neutron fluxes required are believed to occur during the catastrophically explosive stellar events called supernovae. Gravitational compression of iron (the island of nuclear stability, incapable of further exothermic fusion reactions) and sudden collapse in the centre of a massive star triggers the explosive ejection of much of the star into space, together with a flood of neutrons. Remnants of hundreds of supernovae have been found, and we "witnessed" one in the Magellanic Clouds in 1987.So, we know that the Earth's uranium was produced through this process in one or more supernovae, and that this material was inherited by the solar system of which the Earth is a part.

www.world-nuclear.org...

edit on 23-10-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Phantom423
at time = zero for uranium there were no decay products i.e. lead - that's when uranium was formed in the galaxy, probably super novas. Uranium is of cosmic origin, not formed on this planet.

Which you would agree is an assumption right? There is no empirical evidence to prove such a claim.

originally posted by: Phantom423

You're asking about initial concentrations of uranium. Concentrations are irrelevant

No they are very relevant. If you don't know the initial concentration how could you have a start point to compare the end sample?

- whether it was one gram or one ton the half life calculation is the same.

This is true. But without knowing the concentration of the initial sample, you cannot have a certain date. Petervlar assumes the initial concentration had no lead, but this is an assumption because we cannot currently prove such an assumption.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
at time = zero for uranium there were no decay products i.e. lead - that's when uranium was formed in the galaxy, probably super novas. Uranium is of cosmic origin, not formed on this planet.

Which you would agree is an assumption right? There is no empirical evidence to prove such a claim.

Yes of course there is - new elements have been found and even produced in the lab. If the element uranium wasn't uranium, then it would be something else. So what is it?? The element was isolated and characterized. What else do you need to know? If it was something different in the past, then it would be something different today.

There's no assumption here. If it were an assumption (which you use ad infinitum in the wrong context) then nothing would "work" as we understand uranium - or any other element for that matter.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
at time = zero for uranium there were no decay products i.e. lead - that's when uranium was formed in the galaxy, probably super novas. Uranium is of cosmic origin, not formed on this planet.

Which you would agree is an assumption right? There is no empirical evidence to prove such a claim.

That's not true. It doesn't matter if you have 1 atom or 1 gram or 1 ton. The element is the element - it has an atomic number and a place in the periodic table.

originally posted by: Phantom423


There's no assumption here. If it were an assumption then nothing would "work" as we understand uranium - or any other element for that matter.

we know the decay rates because we can test it, I am not arguing that. we DONT know the initial concentrations of uranium-lead rock because we cannot observe such conditions. To say lead-206 ONLY comes from radioactive uranium is an assumption. To say there was no lead in the initial concentration is an assumption - if you can't accept that I don't see this conversation going anywhere.

a reply to: Phantom423

No they are very relevant. If you don't know the initial concentration how could you have a start point to compare the end sample?

Again, I don't think you understand half life. Half life is about energy loss. It's about an atom, in this case uranium, losing some energy and producing another element. That's it. There's nothing complicated about it.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Phantom423

Again, I don't think you understand half life. Half life is about energy loss. It's about an atom, in this case uranium, losing some energy and producing another element. That's it. There's nothing complicated about it.

Solve this puzzle:

A burning candle loses 1 inch of wax every minute, and is currently 12 inches tall. How long has the candle been burning?

Here we know the rate (i.e. half life) and the present measurement, yet without the initial measurement, we can never know how long the candle has been burning

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423


There's no assumption here. If it were an assumption then nothing would "work" as we understand uranium - or any other element for that matter.

we know the decay rates because we can test it, I am not arguing that. we DONT know the initial concentrations of uranium-lead rock because we cannot observe such conditions. To say lead-206 ONLY comes from radioactive uranium is an assumption. To say there was no lead in the initial concentration is an assumption - if you can't accept that I don't see this conversation going anywhere.

Uranium at time = zero has no decay products. When the first atom of uranium was formed it only began to decay at some time after it was formed. It doesn't matter if 1 atom was formed or a million atoms were formed. The decay process is simply a loss of energy which can be measured at specific rate. It's a rate constant - that's all it is.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Phantom423

Again, I don't think you understand half life. Half life is about energy loss. It's about an atom, in this case uranium, losing some energy and producing another element. That's it. There's nothing complicated about it.

Solve this puzzle:

A burning candle loses 1 inch of wax every minute, and is currently 12 inches tall. How long has the candle been burning?

Here we know the rate (i.e. half life) and the present measurement, yet without the initial measurement, we can never know how long the candle has been burning

No, no and no. That's an absolutely wrong analogy. The candle doesn't burn by itself - it doesn't lose energy as a consequence of its chemical composition. Someone lit the candle - this is an entirely different process.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Uranium at time = zero has no decay products.

Is it not possible that the formation of uranium coincides with lead formation? How do you know uranium formation is 100% pure?

originally posted by: Phantom423

No, no and no. That's an absolutely wrong analogy. The candle doesn't burn by itself - it doesn't lose energy as a consequence of its chemical composition. Someone lit the candle - this is an entirely different process.

The analogy was meant to express that you can't determine the age of something without knowing the initial measurement. Dendrochronology is nice because you know the tree's starting date. other dating methods like Uranium-lead and C-14 rely on assumption for determining the starting concentration in the sample.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Uranium at time = zero has no decay products.

Is it not possible that the formation of uranium coincides with lead formation? How do you know uranium formation is 100% pure?

Because if it wasn't "pure" it would be something else.

he Atom that Changed the World
Quick Facts:
Color: silvery-white
Atomic weight: 238.0289, no stable isotopes
State: solid
Melting point: 1135 ℃, 1408 K
Boiling point: 4130 ℃, 4403 K
Electrons: 92
Protons: 92
Neutrons in most abundant isotope: 146
Hardness: 6.0 mohs
Reaction with air: mild, ⇒ U3O8
Oxide(s): UO, UO2, UO3, U2O5, U3O8Atom

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Uranium at time = zero has no decay products.

Is it not possible that the formation of uranium coincides with lead formation? How do you know uranium formation is 100% pure?

That simply isn't true. There are numerous ways to determine age. You never questioned the zircon example which I posted the other day. I would have expected you to ask why zircon can be used as a baseline for dating. Think about it. What chemical properties of zircon allow for dating? How does uranium fit into the mix?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Coop, I gave you the entire explanation - in detail - in a previous post. Didn't you read it???????????????????

None of it addressed my concern - how are initial Lead-Uranium concentrations determined? I am not concerned with instruments and contemporary decay rates.

My response was posted improperly - here's the correction:

Rereading some of the posts, I think you may have misinterpreted Peter's explanation. He's absolutely correct - at time = zero for uranium there were no decay products i.e. lead - that's when uranium was formed in the galaxy, probably super novas. Uranium is of cosmic origin, not formed on this planet (at least to my knowledge). So at time zero for uranium, the decay byproducts were at zero concentration. After its formation, uranium begins to decay, then the decay products appear, ultimately resulting in lead.

You're asking about initial concentrations of uranium. Concentrations are irrelevant - whether it was one gram or one ton the half life calculation is the same. If that calculation was incorrect, there would be another element present today - and it wouldn't be the uranium byproducts that we observe i.e lead.

I think the misunderstanding goes to what half life really is. Half life is NOT dependent on concentration of a particular atom. It's only dependent on the energy difference of the reactants. For any element that is radiogenic, the kinetic energy (before) - kinetic energy (after) = the decay product. The difference can be measured and the result is the half life of that particular element. That solution applies to one atom or one hundred tons of the element. The starting concentration or quantity of the element is irrelevant. If the decay rate was different for uranium in the past, then we would have different element byproducts today - and it would NOT be the uranium byproducts that we observe - i.e. lead.



www.world-nuclear.org...

originally posted by: Phantom423
Concentrations are irrelevant - whether it was one gram or one ton the half life calculation is the same.

Initial ratio of Uranium to Lead in the sample. How do we know the given sample of Uranium-lead contained no lead to begin with? I believe this is an assumption and would like to see a certain way to determine the original sample contained no lead. I know uranium atoms are uranium atoms, but the samples that are being tested contain both uranium and lead- how do they know the original sample contained no lead?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
Concentrations are irrelevant - whether it was one gram or one ton the half life calculation is the same.

Initial ratio of Uranium to Lead in the sample. How do we know the given sample of Uranium-lead contained no lead to begin with? I believe this is an assumption and would like to see a certain way to determine the original sample contained no lead. I know uranium atoms are uranium atoms, but the samples that are being tested contain both uranium and lead- how do they know the original sample contained no lead?

Because Lead 206 does not occur naturally. It only exists as the end result of radioactive decay of that specific isotope of Uranium. No other element, nor their isotopes, decay into Lead 206. It can NOT exist until U 238 begins to radioactively decay.

I've asked before, do you have any data suggesting that this is not true? Show me a paper that demonstrates that there is another way for this isotope of Lead to come into existence and I will admit that you have an argument. You can't just keep ignoring the chemistry and insist it's an assumption without supporting your position. This is insane.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
Concentrations are irrelevant - whether it was one gram or one ton the half life calculation is the same.

Initial ratio of Uranium to Lead in the sample. How do we know the given sample of Uranium-lead contained no lead to begin with? I believe this is an assumption and would like to see a certain way to determine the original sample contained no lead. I know uranium atoms are uranium atoms, but the samples that are being tested contain both uranium and lead- how do they know the original sample contained no lead?

I'm not sure what you mean by "original sample". As I discussed before, the U-Pb method is usually done on zircon. Why? Because the core of zircon rejects lead. So any lead present OUTSIDE THE CORE is considered to be the decay product of the uranium.

Mineralogy[edit]

"Uranium-lead dating is usually performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other minerals such as monazite, titanite, and baddeleyite.
The zircon mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystalline structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic.
Where crystals such as zircon with uranium and thorium inclusions do not occur, a better, more inclusive, model of the data must be applied. Uranium-lead dating techniques have also been applied to other minerals such as calcite/aragonite and other carbonate minerals. These types of minerals often produce lower precision ages than igneous and metamorphic minerals traditionally used for age dating, but are more common in the geologic record."

If you're referring to uranium in the distant past, then you have to start at time = zero. At time = zero, there is only uranium. As time progresses, the decay processes produces the decay byproducts. There is no lead at the origin because uranium is at time zero.

That's why the zircon method is very useful. Uranium is isolated and any byproduct OUTSIDE THE CORE is calculated and the date of the zircon is determined.

Uranium is an element - it can't be "contaminated".