Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
Ive never seen someone jump through so many hoops to prop up their pet hypothesis thats devoid of anytging resembling evidence.

I just don't understand how you think it is due dilligence to suppose that you can identify that Lucy fossil into any sort of classification. I can't find any other "A. Afarensis" fossil that has more to it than Lucy. This is what shows me that there is a remarkable lack of evidence for your theory. The thing is, if transitional hominids were walking around for 5 million years you would think we would have ample evidence, instead you guys are grasping for straws... desperately.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Prove it that they are not real.

It's hard to prove a negative, but we've been looking for over 100 years with nothing but a bunch of CGI images to show for it. Peter is upset because deep down I think he realizes his whole life work has been a lie. It's a tough cookie to swallow, so that's why he gets so angry with me.

From a scientific standpoint, I think we're well past the point of this negative being proven.

As Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently said on the Joe Rogan podcast speaking specifically of proving a negative (I'm paraphrasing):

Suppose you want to take shelter in a cave, but you don't know if there's a bear in that cave.

So you sit outside for a week and watch the cave to see if a bear goes in or comes out.

You don't see one, but you're still not sure. So you look for footprints or bear droppings around the forest and near the entrance of the cave.

You don't see any, but you still think there might be a bear in the cave. So you light a fire outside the entrance to see if you can smoke it out.

No bear comes out.

At what point do you go in the cave?

At what point have you proved with enough relative certainty that there's no bear in that cave?

Can somebody list the conditions and requirements for fossilisation to occur please.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Can somebody list the conditions and requirements for fossilisation to occur please.

My favorite fossil is a well-preserved fossilization of Ursa Teddy-Bearius:



This Ursa Teddy-Bearius is estimated to be millions of years old because fossilization takes super long.

a reply to: cooperton

No, that's a mineralised coating from a river in Yorkshire naturally super rich in calcium carbonate. This is not fossilisation. A fossil has its entire organic structure replaced with a mineral. The bear simply has a mineral crust.

Try again.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
A fossil has its entire organic structure replaced with a mineral.

Ahh yes, if there were a truly old sample, even without extreme conditions, there should be no trace of organic tissue left.. yet dinosaur bones have been proven to consistently contain soft tissue.



This is an Achilles heel in the evolutionary timeline.

Those examples you state (although I would contest the word 'consistently') are not original organic materials, but transformed into polymers. You bring this example up all the time, and each time you are corrected, but again and again you bring it up.

Try again.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Those examples you state (although I would contest the word 'consistently') are not original organic materials, but transformed into polymers.

No they found red blood cell fragments. You can't wish this away. This is original organic material from the dinosaur

And yes I would use the word consistently, because now that researchers know where to look they are realizing it requires no type of special preservation for these fossils to contain soft tissue fragments. These are their words not mine.

This is good news - it means your ancestors aren't mutated pond scum bacteria

a reply to: cooperton

Nope, nothing in its original organic form. No proteins, no original molecular biology.

Read this www.earthmagazine.org...
Which is an abstraction of this www.nature.com...

I trust the findings of these people rather than the waffle of a creationist hell-bent on the distortion of facts and outright lying to maintain a belief in their personal myth.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Nope, nothing in its original organic form. No proteins, no original molecular biology.

Read this www.earthmagazine.org...
Which is an abstraction of this www.nature.com...

I trust the findings of these people rather than the waffle of a creationist hell-bent on the distortion of facts and outright lying to maintain a belief in their personal myth.

What do you think this is saying? I don't think you know, you're just shooting in the dark. This is why you say you have to believe them, because you don't know what they're actually saying. I can effectively discuss science with scientists, not someone who blindly believes

"Based on molecular and statistical data, we predict that oxidative depositional environments are likely to yield morphological preservation of soft tissues in fossils."

It's unavoidable man.. its soft tissue. Of course it's not the original form of the soft tissue, that would mean it's very fresh. Instead it is oxidized into a different form of soft tissue... but it's still soft tissue... it's still organic matter.

The hard tissue they're referring to is the fossilized group. Without oxygen (what they refer to as a reducing environment) the soft tissue mineralizes in place, sometimes maintaining its original structure.


On the other hand, They found "tubular nerve projections" and "fully articulated three-dimensional vascular system" in supposed Jurassic period soft tissue. Youre telling me blood vessels structure can persist its shape for over 145 million years?! Absolutely not. Its over for evolution. The whole evolutionary timeline is wayyyyy off.

Good find on the article though

a reply to: cooperton

I know exactly what this paper is saying. I've read it. Have you? Do you understand the process involved in revealing these structures? Read the Nature article, if you understand chemistry as you claim, you'll understand the process and that this does not reveal what you claim it to be.

Yes, the structures are incredible, especially some vascular systems, but they are not the original part of the creatures that bore them, as you seem to be suggesting. You are either deliberately misleading your cult or you don't understand the processes required to create them.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

I know exactly what this paper is saying. I've read it. Have you? Do you understand the process involved in revealing these structures? Read the Nature article, if you understand chemistry as you claim, you'll understand the process and that this does not reveal what you claim it to be.

Yes, the structures are incredible, especially some vascular systems, but they are not the original part of the creatures that bore them, as you seem to be suggesting. You are either deliberately misleading your cult or you don't understand the processes required to create them.

Yeah I read the nature paper first. There's a distinction between soft and hard tissue. They're saying that hard tissue emerges in reducing environments (low oxygen / electron rich environments). This is because it is favorable for fossilization. I am speculating here, but I'm pretty sure a reducing environment (no oxygen) allows minerals to be the oxidizing agent rather than oxygen, which causes the soft tissue structures to mineralize rather than get oxidized by oxygen.

On the other hand, ALL samples that persisted in oxidative environments maintained their soft tissue. So yes this does occur 'consistently', as I said before. These supposed Jurassic period remains are so well preserved that there were blood vessels and nerves that maintained their shape and organic tissue. The browning reaction they are referring to is simply oxidation, just like how a banana turns brown. The thing that makes me know that these dinosaur bones are young is that these oxidation reactions, given the hypothetical 70 million years+, should be entirely oxidized by now.

Since there is still organic tissue, it leads any unbiased researcher to see that these samples are younger than previously thought.

Ironically it is the scientism that is the cult at this time, unwilling to change its dogma in light of new evidence

a reply to: cooperton

Your claim that there is only one consistent way that soft tissue is preserved is a complete fabrication. It can be preserved unaltered, as carbonized stains, as permineralized material, or as impressions.

a reply to: cooperton

I'm afraid this changes nothing about the age of the fossils. There are several different methods to determine the near-approximate age of the samples, and they are all confirmatory.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

I'm afraid this changes nothing about the age of the fossils. There are several different methods to determine the near-approximate age of the samples, and they are all confirmatory.

No, they are confirmatory with the young age. All carbon dating data has them less than 45,000 years old. If you know of any samples that tested >50kya lemme know...

carbon dating dinosaur bones

It would also explain the abundance of dinosaur depictions throughout human history:

ancient depictions of dinosaurs

So yeah all the evidence points towards dinosaurs being way younger than evolutionary theory requires.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

Your claim that there is only one consistent way that soft tissue is preserved is a complete fabrication. It can be preserved unaltered, as carbonized stains, as permineralized material, or as impressions.

Never said that. I just said soft tissue is consistently found in dinosaur bones. Which is true. The study that terraliga provided had ALL samples in oxidative environments containing some sort of soft tissue.

a reply to: cooperton

You're probably talking about Carbon-14, but if not please tell me which radiometric isotope you're using. What is the half-life of Carbon-14? What does this tell you for its suitability for determining the age of anything over +/-50k years?

Can you find me an annotated cave drawing specifically identifying that drawing as a dinosaur please? It could be a crude drawing of one of their foodstock, or it could be a dream depiction or it could be something they revere as a god. Maybe they found a fossilised skeleton and drew what it could have looked like. We'll never know, and to use these examples as any sort of proof is foolish.

The study proves that the conditions that something is preserved in is critical for its fossilisation. Only a small percentage of fossils have been found preserved in these conditions. Most are not and contain nothing, as the study shows. Of all fossils so far discovered, this only represents a tiny fraction of all flora and fauna that have lived on Earth.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

You're probably talking about Carbon-14, but if not please tell me which radiometric isotope you're using. What is the half-life of Carbon-14? What does this tell you for its suitability for determining the age of anything over +/-50k years?

Dude you consistently embarrassed yourself. If they get a dTe greater than 50,000 years old then the results will say its out of the dating range. I even have an email chain with a C14 technician who said that they would unambiguously know if it is outside the dating range. But the results always come back in range and less than 45,000 years old.

Can you find me an annotated cave drawing specifically identifying that drawing as a dinosaur please? It could be a crude drawing of one of their foodstock, or it could be a dream depiction or it could be something they revere as a god. Maybe they found a fossilised skeleton and drew what it could have looked like. We'll never know, and to use these examples as any sort of proof is foolish.

No, anthropological evidence is not foolish. Its actual evidence that you refuse to accept because it goes against your dogma. A kid could identify the exact dinosaur they are depicting on most of these ancient artistic renderings... why do you need annotations?



Show this to any human that can talk and they should be able to identify it for you.

The study proves that the conditions that something is preserved in is critical for its fossilisation. Only a small percentage of fossils have been found preserved in these conditions. Most are not and contain nothing, as the study shows.

No its literally all the samples they checked have either soft tissue or hard tissue. If it's in an oxidative environment it has soft tissue, according to their research:

"Soft tissues were present in all modern samples, but only in those fossils from oxidative settings"

a reply to: cooperton

Show the letters.

Meanwhile;
science.howstuffworks.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.britannica.com...
www.radiocarbon.com...
www.acs.org...
www.chem.uwec.edu...

I could go on, but it's just too repetitive. All of them show that you're a lying to55er who, even on an extremely basic level, is fooled by an idiotic cult. Pr@t.

originally posted by: TerraLiga


I could go on, but it's just too repetitive. All of them show that you're a lying to55er who, even on an extremely basic level, is fooled by an idiotic cult. Pr@t.

Lol.

So do you admit there is soft tissue in dinosaur bones or no?

I'll say it again, and I know Peter would vouch for this: if there is a carbon dating result that is >50kya, the result would say so.

But the result never says so. All dinosaur soft tissue is dated to less than 45,000 years old.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Show the letters.

Meanwhile;
science.howstuffworks.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.britannica.com...
www.radiocarbon.com...
www.acs.org...
www.chem.uwec.edu...

I could go on, but it's just too repetitive. All of them show that you're a lying to55er who, even on an extremely basic level, is fooled by an idiotic cult. Pr@t.

Here is one of my emails when communicating with the AMS tech in Canada. She clearly says that they would know if the sample is greater than 50,000 years old... Yet no dinosaur bone ever tested has come back with a result >50,000 years old. all carbon-dating tests done on dinosaur soft tissue have resulted in less than 45,000 years old. This shows they are definitely not millions of years old, and therefore ruins the evolutionary narrative.

a reply to: cooperton

Define what you understand to be 'tissue'.

What is the precise source of the C14 count? Has this been determined?