Is T-Rex actually three separate species?

[rossum]

They sure do....and the bible mentions a flood...whee they can go look at the sediment strata and the flood buried plants and animals and in many locations see that they were deposited in a flood.

But your problem is that those were not the same flood, but many different floods years apart. If there was one Flood, then all land animal species should have a genetic bottleneck at the date of the flood. Where is your evidence of a simultaneous genetic bottleneck in kangaroos and armadillos?

They find polystrate fossils....which PROVE that sediment deposits don't have to take millions of years to accumulate around an object. (That's just one example of many)

Polystrate fossils happen in some circumstances, such as volcanic eruptions. Other fossils are not polystrate and did not happnen in those conditions. If a flood causes polystrate fossils, then you need to show that all fossils, wherever found, are polystrate.

They have samples of lava...that they know the exact dates they flowed because they were recorded in history by the eyewitness of men....and those dates are often radiometrically dated as being much, much older.

Your source is lying by omission here. Ask yourself why scientists want to spend money on dating a rock when they already know the date? They weren't trying to date the lava, they were asking a different question: "Does potassium-argon dating work on pillow lavas?" The answer to that question was "no it does not" because, as you said, the dating gave an incorrect result in that situation. Your source did not bother to explain that, did it?

You didn't even bother to read the likely reference your source used:

Submarine pillow basalts from Kilauea Volcano contain excess radiogenic argon-40 and give anomalously high potassium-argon ages. Glassy rims of pillows show a systematic increase in radiogenic argon-40 with depth, and a pillow from a depth of 2590 meters shows a decrease in radiogenic argon-40 inward from the pillow rim. The data indicate that the amount of excess radiogenic argon-40 is a direct function of both hydrostatic pressure and rate of cooling, and that many submarine basalts are not suitable for potassium-argon dating.​

​

Source: Dalrymple and Moore (1968) "Argon-40: Excess in Submarine Pillow Basalts from Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii".​

That "not suitable for potassium-argon dating" was the reason for the study. It is an example of science cross-checking its methods.

I've mentioned the biomaterial in some dino fossils that could not have survived the 65+ MY's...which clearly shows an age dating problem for the evo-minded.

Where is your evidence that biomaterial cannot last 65+ my? We know that biomaterial can last for more than 10,000 years. Why don't all fossils have preserved biomaterial if the Young Earth timescale is correct? Where is your 10,000 year old biomaterial from trilobites?

YEC makes a lot of claims but cannot provide the supporting evidence of trilobite biomaterial or an armadillo genetic bottleneck.

You have a Bronze Age text and no supporting evidence.

 

[CrowCross]

But your problem is that those were not the same flood, but many different floods years apart. If there was one Flood, then all land animal species should have a genetic bottleneck at the date of the flood. Where is your evidence of a simultaneous genetic bottleneck in kangaroos and armadillos?

Do you think the flood filled the earth up like a bathtub? Do you think there were many local floods that grew into a big flood?

As to the bottlenecks....I have presented "loss of heterozygosity" to you in the past. With the understanding about the loss of heterozygosity why is that not part of your question? You appear to ne ignorant or willfully deceptive.

Polystrate fossils happen in some circumstances, such as volcanic eruptions. Other fossils are not polystrate and did not happnen in those conditions. If a flood causes polystrate fossils, then you need to show that all fossils, wherever found, are polystrate.

Well, here you go, more deception. You tell people that polystrate fossils are only created under volcano like conditions. You can learn about polystrate fossils here in this quick read.

Your source is lying by omission here. Ask yourself why scientists want to spend money on dating a rock when they already know the date? They weren't trying to date the lava, they were asking a different question: "Does potassium-argon dating work on pillow lavas?" The answer to that question was "no it does not" because, as you said, the dating gave an incorrect result in that situation. Your source did not bother to explain that, did it?

You didn't even bother to read the likely reference your source used:

Submarine pillow basalts from Kilauea Volcano contain excess radiogenic argon-40 and give anomalously high potassium-argon ages. Glassy rims of pillows show a systematic increase in radiogenic argon-40 with depth, and a pillow from a depth of 2590 meters shows a decrease in radiogenic argon-40 inward from the pillow rim. The data indicate that the amount of excess radiogenic argon-40 is a direct function of both hydrostatic pressure and rate of cooling, and that many submarine basalts are not suitable for potassium-argon dating.​

​

Source: Dalrymple and Moore (1968) "Argon-40: Excess in Submarine Pillow Basalts from Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii".​

The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar “age” of 0.35±0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from the dacite which formed in 1986 give K-Ar “ages” from 0.34±0.06 Ma (feldspar-glass concentrate) to 2.8±0.6 Ma (pyroxene concentrate). These “ages” are, of course, preposterous. Reference

That "not suitable for potassium-argon dating" was the reason for the study. It is an example of science cross-checking its methods.


Where is your evidence that biomaterial cannot last 65+ my? We know that biomaterial can last for more than 10,000 years. Why don't all fossils have preserved biomaterial if the Young Earth timescale is correct? Where is your 10,000 year old biomaterial from trilobites?

When you present an actual method for how biomaterial is preserved other than "We know that biomaterial can last for more than 10,000 years"...simply because you are bouncing it off of evo-dates in a form of circular reasoning...get back to me.

YEC makes a lot of claims but cannot provide the supporting evidence of trilobite biomaterial or an armadillo genetic bottleneck.

Still leaving out ..."loss of heterozygosity"

You have a Bronze Age text and no supporting evidence.

 

[The Pixie]

They have samples of lava...that they know the exact dates they flowed because they were recorded in history by the eyewitness of men....and those dates are often radiometrically dated as being much, much older.

Why would the radiometric dating give the date the rock solidified? What isotopes were they looking at?

How does young Earth creationism explain the distribution of isotopes? For example, potassium-argon dating consistently shows high argon rations at the bottom of the geological column, and indeed the ratio of argon is a function of the rock's depth in the column.

The old Earth model explains that by relating position in the column to when it was buried, but the young Earth model has the column form over just one year. So how do you explain that pattern for the distribution of argon?

I've mentioned the biomaterial in some dino fossils that could not have survived the 65+ MY's...which clearly shows an age dating problem for the evo-minded.

Compared to all the overwhelming data for an old earth, this is an anomaly that is seeking an explanation. not something that demonstrates a young Earth.

And an explanation is here:

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

A T. rex found with soft tissue preserved in her bones was an 'iron lady,' according to new research finding that iron kept the tissues from decaying for millennia.

www.livescience.com

What's the half life of a magnetic field? We can measure the magnetic field of the earth...now...and with some math we can calculate what it would have been 25 thousand years ago. Take some time, do the math and tell me why such a strong field would not be a problem.

The magnetic field of the earth does not simply decay over time, so the idea of a half life is flawed. Back in real science, it is known that the magnetic field of the earth flips a few times every million years.

Magnetic Reversals

www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk

As a matter of geological record, the Earth's magnetic field has undergone numerous reversals of polarity. We can see this in the magnetic patterns found in volcanic rocks, especially those recovered from the ocean floors. In the last 10 million years, there have been, on average, 4 or 5 reversals per million years. At other times in Earth's history, for example during the Cretaceous era, there have been much longer periods when no reversals occurred. Reversals are not predictable and are certainly not periodic in nature. Hence we can only speak about the average reversal interval.​

Got to say, I find it odd creationists are still pushing this one when the science so firmly points to magnetic pole reversals being so (relatively) common.

Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time

Earth's magnetic field has flipped its polarity many times over the millennia - but this causes no dramatic effects, and will not lead to problems in 2012.

www.nasa.gov

When north goes south: Is Earth's magnetic field flipping?

It's been 780,000 years since this happened — and some scientists say that Earth's magnetic poles are long overdue for a switch.

astronomy.com

You sound like the Opining Pixie.

And yet I linked to, and quoted, the evidence. Here it is again:

Answer In Genesis statement of faith explicitly says.

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.​

Are you going to deny that that is their statement of faith? Are you really going to pretend this is just my opinion? You might delude yourself, but no one else is falling for.

 

[CrowCross]

The magnetic field of the earth does not simply decay over time, so the idea of a half life is flawed. Back in real science, it is known that the magnetic field of the earth flips a few times every million years.

Bull.

The strength of the magnetic field has been reliably and continually measured since 1835. From these measurements, we can see that the field's strength has declined by about seven percent since then, giving a half-life of about 1,400 years. This means that in 1,400 years it will be one-half as strong, in 2,800 years it will be one-fourth as strong, and so on. There will be a time not many thousands of years distant when the field will be too small to perform as a viable shield for earth. reference.

Calculating back into the past, the present measurements indicate that 1,400 years ago the field was twice as strong. It continues doubling each 1,400 years back, until about 10,000 years ago it would have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle. The inescapable conclusion we can draw is that the earth must be fewer than 10,000 years old.

 

[rossum]

Do you think the flood filled the earth up like a bathtub?

No. I think that a large local flood covered part of the Middle East in the late Bronze Age, and was recorded by peoples in the area.

Do you think there were many local floods that grew into a big flood?

No. There have been many local floods on earth.

As to the bottlenecks....I have presented "loss of heterozygosity" to you in the past.

That is not a simultaneous bottleneck in all land species down to two, or fourteen, individuals. Can you show simultaneous effects in kangaroos and armadillos, as would be expected in a worldwide flood?

Well, here you go, more deception. You tell people that polystrate fossils are only created under volcano like conditions. You can learn about polystrate fossils here in this quick read.

Polystrate fossils can be created by volcanos as well as floods. Not all polystrate fossil are the result of floods. You have failed to explain why all, or even the majority, of fossils are not polystrate.

The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar “age” of 0.35±0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from the dacite which formed in 1986 give K-Ar “ages” from 0.34±0.06 Ma (feldspar-glass concentrate) to 2.8±0.6 Ma (pyroxene concentrate). These “ages” are, of course, preposterous. Reference

This is an old piece of deceptive science from AiG, who explicitly say that they will ignore any science that contradicts their overly literal interpretation of Genesis. That is what they are doing here; in short they are lying to you.

1. The lab that did the dating explicitly said that they could not resolve dates less than two million years old. AiG are claiming 0.35 million years old.​

​

2. Xenocrysts in the sample gave a false date. In effect they were left inside the volcano after a previous eruption and were ejected in the 1986 eruption.​

​

Source: Talk Origins CD013.1.​

AiG lie. They tell us they lie. Why do you believe people who lie to you?

When you present an actual method for how biomaterial is preserved other than "We know that biomaterial can last for more than 10,000 years"...simply because you are bouncing it off of evo-dates in a form of circular reasoning...get back to me.

Here is a report of some 6,000 year old DNA being sequenced. I await your reference to some 6,000 year old Trilobite DNA being sequenced. Hint: DNA is "biomaterial".

Still leaving out ..."loss of heterozygosity"

Still irrelevant. Show us a simultaneous genetic bottleneck in kangaroos and armadillos down to two individuals each.

 

[CrowCross]

From The Pixie article....Iron is presented as the answer.

Iron lady

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

In order to conduct the experiment and have hopes of it working here's what they had to do...

They used Chicken and Ostrich blood because they thought they were the closest to dinosaurs.
Put in an anti-coagulant
Put it in a centrifuge to remove serum.
Put it in a centrifuge to take out platelets
Took out white blood cells
Purified and broke down the red blood cells and added a chemical to expose the hemoglobin which contains iron atoms to do the preserving.

Yeah, that process mimics the real world.

Tissue was then soaked in the modified blood for 2 years in a laboratory environment. That is, no insects, water, microbes, plant roots etc were present….which would have been present when the organisms were buried.
From the heavily modified blood Mary Schweitzer was able to extrapolate 2 years into 65+ MY's and suggest that's how the biomaterial may have been preserved.
But, as we all very well know in the natural conditions the blood would have clotted and hardened and the iron would not have been available.

Is iron the answer...no. Iron fails.

 

[CrowCross]

Polystrate fossils can be created by volcanos as well as floods. Not all polystrate fossil are the result of floods. You have failed to explain why all, or even the majority, of fossils are not polystrate.

Here's the point.....it now has been proven strata can de deposited quickly. When you drive down an interstate and look at a road cut...that strata didn't have to take millions of years to be deposited. People like rossom will insist that it did.

 

[CrowCross]

Here is a report of some 6,000 year old DNA being sequenced. I await your reference to some 6,000 year old Trilobite DNA being sequenced. Hint: DNA is "biomaterial".

How do they know she was 6,000 years old?

 

[mikeT]

Nope. They "study" the bible.

Anything which questions the creationist's understanding of God or the bible is ignored. As such, there are no creationist paleontologists.

They sure do....and the bible mentions a flood...whee they can go look at the sediment strata and the flood buried plants and animals and in many locations see that they were deposited in a flood.

aka. no fossil study

They find polystrate fossils

Finding a fossil isn't the same as studying that fossil.

That's twice you've helped me demonstrate that creationist paleontologists don't exist.

 

[The Pixie]

Bull.

The strength of the magnetic field ...

I started another thread on this fascinating topic.

- Declining Strength of the Earth's Magnetic Field

The Earth's magnetic field is declining. Measurements have been made of the Earth's magnetic field more or less continuously since about 1840. Some measurements even go back to the 1500s, for example at Greenwich in London. If we look at the trend in the strength of the magnetic field over this...

forums.carm.org

 

[rossum]

Here's the point.....it now has been proven strata can de deposited quickly. When you drive down an interstate and look at a road cut...that strata didn't have to take millions of years to be deposited. People like rossom will insist that it did.

We have known that strata can be deposited quickly since 79CE when Vesuvius erupted and covered Pompeii. Once again your sources are lying to you about what scientists know.

YEC does not have any facts to support it, so AiG and others have to resort to lies on their websites and in their publications.

How do they know she was 6,000 years old?

How do you know she wasn't? Pine resin can be carbon dated easily.

 

[Komodo]

So far, I'm with the paleontologists that have reasons to call the new hypothesis weak and unconvincing.

___

I'm not remotely qualified to put in even one cent on this question, but would it be particularly surprising if there were three species of Tyrannosaurus? A genus which is widespread and which lives in different kinds of environment will often speciate: I think there are five living species of Panthera, for example, and I assume there are others in the fossil record.

 

[inertia]

I'm not remotely qualified to put in even one cent on this question, but would it be particularly surprising if there were three species of Tyrannosaurus? A genus which is widespread and which lives in different kinds of environment will often speciate: I think there are five living species of Panthera, for example, and I assume there are others in the fossil record.

I'll take a guess.

Paleontologists that call the hypothesis "weak and unconvincing" probably rest on the fact that simply eyeballing fossils cannot provide enough information to identify species-level phylogenies. Identifying the nodes of trees requires analysis using genetic material.

___

 

[Komodo]

I'll take a guess.

Paleontologists that call the hypothesis "weak and unconvincing" probably rest on the fact that simply eyeballing fossils cannot provide enough information to identify species-level phylogenies. Identifying the nodes of trees requires analysis using genetic material.

___

But aren't bone structures sometimes considered decisive in taxonomy, even at the species level? (African elephants have rounded heads, Asian elephants have "twin-domed" heads.) If the number and type of teeth, for example, differed consistently in Tyrannosaurs from one region to another, wouldn't that be prima facie reason for calling them different species? (I don't know if that's actually the case, of course.)

 

[inertia]

But aren't bone structures sometimes considered decisive in taxonomy, even at the species level? (African elephants have rounded heads, Asian elephants have "twin-domed" heads.) If the number and type of teeth, for example, differed consistently in Tyrannosaurs from one region to another, wouldn't that be prima facie reason for calling them different species? (I don't know if that's actually the case, of course.)

Decisive? No

That said:

It's been a number of years since I have looked into how reliable fossil morphology compares with phylogenetic analysis (example). It appears that there has been some recent progress (here) when considering a biased representation of fossils with phylogenetic signal.

___

 

[Temujin]

But aren't bone structures sometimes considered decisive in taxonomy, even at the species level? (African elephants have rounded heads, Asian elephants have "twin-domed" heads.) If the number and type of teeth, for example, differed consistently in Tyrannosaurs from one region to another, wouldn't that be prima facie reason for calling them different species? (I don't know if that's actually the case, of course.)

We should remember that the whole concept of species is for the convenience of human beings, particularly scientists. It helps us label and categorise things. It helps us study and understand evolution, but as far as the organisms themselves are concerned it is meaningless. We can't even come up with a concrete definition of what a species is. After all Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are different species, yet we all carry Neanderthal genes.

 

[Komodo]

We should remember that the whole concept of species is for the convenience of human beings, particularly scientists. It helps us label and categorise things. It helps us study and understand evolution, but as far as the organisms themselves are concerned it is meaningless. We can't even come up with a concrete definition of what a species is. After all Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are different species, yet we all carry Neanderthal genes.

Yes, fair point. I was taking the "three different species" claim as meaning essentially, "there was considerably more variety among Tyrannosaurs than paleontologists previously thought, let along what we thought when we were kids playing with the models. Enough variety to meet the (admittedly loose) criteria we generally use when saying 'these were different species'."

Of course if they were gunning for "BREAKING; everything we thought we knew about T-Rex is false!!" then that would be extremely silly.

 

[inertia]

We should remember that the whole concept of species is for the convenience of human beings, particularly scientists. It helps us label and categorise things. It helps us study and understand evolution, but as far as the organisms themselves are concerned it is meaningless. We can't even come up with a concrete definition of what a species is. After all Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are different species, yet we all carry Neanderthal genes.

Indeed. Neanderthals interbred with humans even though they exhibited extensive biological differences. Their mitochondrial DNA does not overlap at all within the human mtDNA genome, the resulting hybrids lacked the ability to produce a lot of offspring, and Neanderthals exhibited substantial differences in cognitive capacity; yet, their compatibility remained at the biological edge of hybridization even though the differences are pervasive enough to justify classing the two as distinct species. ?

The model needs to be refined.

___