Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Harsh86_Patel

Did man and dinosaur co-exist?

478 posts in this topic

Evolution observed in the laboratory

http://www.newscient...in-the-lab.html

Very good i was waiting for someone to bring out this experiment.

Now this experiment demonstrates that a particular strain of E.Coli started digesting citrate after 20,000 generation,it does not mention what other treatments the bacteria were subjected to and does not say that E.Coli evolved into another species (as such a claim would have made scientists laugh).Second of all i don't deny that 'variations' and 'adaptations' happen but random evolution of new genes is not yet been observed.I am waiting for further studies that determine what were the genetic changes that made Mr.Lenski's E.coli digest citrate permanently in aerobic condition to answer a simple question that was there already a gene (which was switched off) to code for a enzyme for digestion of citrate present in the E.coli which got turned on permanently and was not being regulated due to a mutation?

http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli

Please read and evaluate the facts in the article,don't go on the website posting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know recent studies have shown that evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics never happened,the genes that give antibiotic resistance were found in bacterial cultures taken from very old frozen stocks before we started wide scale use of particular antibiotics.This means that some bacteria always had resistance to these antibiotics and over the period of time our constant use of antibiotics has killed the rest but the one's which 'always had the resistance genes' are the ones alive and multiplying.

Though the example yoiu gave shows that you are ready to think,since you don't like creationist website which have hence 'the bible is right' inference,here are a few more issues you can look into.

http://www.programme...ion_issues.html

If our other resident biologist Copacetic were here, he'd be the first to point out that evolution occurs in populations, not individuals, much like every thread you start seems to gradually develop into nothing but evolution discussion.

Speaking of which, there already at least two rather long threads dealing directly with evolution and abiogenesis. You might want to give them a read instead.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dissapointed that this thread went into the evolution argument territory instead of what dinosaur would be most effective for riding/awesome jousting tournaments.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dissapointed that this thread went into the evolution argument territory instead of what dinosaur would be most effective for riding/awesome jousting tournaments.

That's because its long been established FACT that triceratops is the best mount.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know recent studies have shown that evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics never happened,the genes that give antibiotic resistance were found in bacterial cultures taken from very old frozen stocks before we started wide scale use of particular antibiotics.This means that some bacteria always had resistance to these antibiotics and over the period of time our constant use of antibiotics has killed the rest but the one's which 'always had the resistance genes' are the ones alive and multiplying.

Though the example yoiu gave shows that you are ready to think,since you don't like creationist website which have hence 'the bible is right' inference,here are a few more issues you can look into.

http://www.programme...ion_issues.html

also called "Survival of the Fittest"... proves Darwin to a tee.... Those bacteria able to survive in such a hostile environment actually survived!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also called "Survival of the Fittest"... proves Darwin to a tee.... Those bacteria able to survive in such a hostile environment actually survived!!

If survival of the fittest is true in an absolute sense then why do multiple species co-exist?Survival of the fittest cannot be seen as an individual agent.

http://www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone pointed out let us not turn this into a evolution vs logic and science debate.

Lets talk about the results that were got when these dino fossils were carbon dated,is the process of carbon dating easily susceptible to contamination and hence fallible and not completely reliable or dinosaurs did co-exixt with man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because its long been established FACT that triceratops is the best mount.

I thought everybody knew that already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love that revisionist history

raptor%20riding%20jesus.jpg.jpg

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, because when I want real science, I turn to godandscience.org.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

welcome back Emma. long time no see posts.

We want the virtirol dripping occam's razor.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dissapointed that this thread went into the evolution argument territory instead of what dinosaur would be most effective for riding/awesome jousting tournamensts.

Pacyrhinocephalus would be a good contender for a jousting mount...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pacyrhinocephalus would be a good contender for a jousting mount...

Only if he wore a hat, right?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd use a Utahraptor, way cooler then any of y'all's picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

welcome back Emma. long time no see posts.

We want the virtirol dripping occam's razor.

Ha, hey you too! I've been around, occasionally poked out of my forum-lurking by the odd infuriating logic-lacking thread... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most obvious and logical answer to the stats in that pdf in the OP is... dun dun dahh "Contaminated Samples". Although not every dinosaur will fossilize immediately upon death, no dino fossil has been found above the k2 boundary and no human fossils beneath it (unless they were delibrately buried that deep). So in no way known did man ever coexist with dinosaurs.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most obvious and logical answer to the stats in that pdf in the OP is... dun dun dahh "Contaminated Samples". Although not every dinosaur will fossilize immediately upon death, no dino fossil has been found above the k2 boundary and no human fossils beneath it (unless they were delibrately buried that deep). So in no way known did man ever coexist with dinosaurs.

Can you be sure that they were deliberately buried that deep?Fossilization can be a very fast process under the right circumstances unlike previously believed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most obvious and logical answer to the stats in that pdf in the OP is... dun dun dahh "Contaminated Samples". Although not every dinosaur will fossilize immediately upon death, no dino fossil has been found above the k2 boundary and no human fossils beneath it (unless they were delibrately buried that deep). So in no way known did man ever coexist with dinosaurs.

The most obvious and logical answer is: any sample older than 65,000 years old will give bullpoop results when analyzed by for carbon isotopes.

What most people don't understand is that we are not really talking about carbon here, we are talking about nitrogen bombarded by cosmic rays that create an unstable isotope known as C14. This Isotope has a half time life of about 5500 years. After about 65,000 years there is about 0.09090 of the original C14 left, and given that the natural occurrence of C14 is not much higher than 0.1 per trillion there is not much radiocarbon left to measure anything with after that time, in fact, there can be none at all. In any case it would be less than what would give an accurate reading within the normal margin of error.

The reason why this works is that the chemical properties of the carbon isotope is exactly the same as stable carbons (C12 and C13), thereby any living organism will accumulate, with the natural carbon, also some decaying isotopes. But let me put this in perspective: a normal human body with a weight of 80 Kg will have no more than 14 Kg of carbon, from which no more than 0.00000000000144 Kg will be C14 (for those who don't understand metric that would be 0.000000000050794505207424 ounces). Every 5,500 years that amount will be halved and disappear mostly traceless as nitrogen happens to be a gas.

So, why can't we date fossils with radiocarbon? Because, as a rule, hardly anything fossilized still has any of its original biological components, they are either permineralized, that means: just like a cave forms stalactites the gas containing cavities will be filled up by hardening minerals. Or they are simple forms of cast and molds, where nothing except the the hardened minerals are left.

What ever C14 is there has generally nothing to do with the original organism, and be it only because of the growth speed of permineraliztion (it could take up to 1000 years for a cubic centimeter).

While there might have been some C14 that was measured with some dino tusk (or whatever) but that was more likely to be there because somebody spit on it to clean it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you be sure that they were deliberately buried that deep?

yes - it's basic archaeology. The layers with dinosaur fossils would have been covered over time and later burials would have had to cut through the existing layers. It would be very obvious during an excavation that it's from a later period. Like this:

156.jpg

Lets say the dino fossils are in the subsoil layer, then a later burial would look like the iron age ditch - it's as deep down as the subsoil but it's still (obviously) a later period. When it comes to dinosaur and human remains there's just more layers in between - if they co existed they would have been found in the same layer not separate layers.

As someone who's done excavations (though mainly Viking age/medieval and later) I can say that if the excavation is done right and sections (profiles) are made of the ditches there can't be any doubt what so ever that it's separate periods.

It's called stratigraphy - and is a method of getting a relative dating.

Absolute dating: methods such as Radiocarbon and potassium-argon dating - which gives us a specific date or time-range (of course these methods have a certain inaccuracy but they can provide a lot of us full information)

Relative dating: methods such as typology and stratigraphy - which means placing certain items or events in the order that they occurred. It tells us which of a series of items or events are oldest in relation to each other.

We don't get an absolute date by using stratigraphy but we can say which items or events are oldest. In this case dinos are below the human finds meaning they are oldest.

short explanation of stratigraphy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratification_%28archeology%29

It makes the inaccurate absolute datings irrelevant as it doesn't mater if the finds are 1.000.000 or 1000 years old - the relative datings tells us that dinos are older than humans, no matter which absolute dating we get.

So no I don't believe they coexisted.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes - it's basic archaeology. The layers with dinosaur fossils would have been covered over time and later burials would have had to cut through the existing layers. It would be very obvious during an excavation that it's from a later period. Like this:

156.jpg

Lets say the dino fossils are in the subsoil layer, then a later burial would look like the iron age ditch - it's as deep down as the subsoil but it's still (obviously) a later period. When it comes to dinosaur and human remains there's just more layers in between - if they co existed they would have been found in the same layer not separate layers.

As someone who's done excavations (though mainly Viking age/medieval and later) I can say that if the excavation is done right and sections (profiles) are made of the ditches there can't be any doubt what so ever that it's separate periods.

It's called stratigraphy - and is a method of getting a relative dating.

Absolute dating: methods such as Radiocarbon and potassium-argon dating - which gives us a specific date or time-range (of course these methods have a certain inaccuracy but they can provide a lot of us full information)

Relative dating: methods such as typology and stratigraphy - which means placing certain items or events in the order that they occurred. It tells us which of a series of items or events are oldest in relation to each other.

We don't get an absolute date by using stratigraphy but we can say which items or events are oldest. In this case dinos are below the human finds meaning they are oldest.

short explanation of stratigraphy: http://en.wikipedia....on_(archeology)

It makes the inaccurate absolute datings irrelevant as it doesn't mater if the finds are 1.000.000 or 1000 years old - the relative datings tells us that dinos are older than humans, no matter which absolute dating we get.

So no I don't believe they coexisted.

Nice post. Thanks for the actual real-life information and experience that you bring to the party. Nothing better to combat inane questions with! :tu:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most obvious and logical answer is: any sample older than 65,000 years old will give bullpoop results when analyzed by for carbon isotopes.

What most people don't understand is that we are not really talking about carbon here, we are talking about nitrogen bombarded by cosmic rays that create an unstable isotope known as C14. This Isotope has a half time life of about 5500 years. After about 65,000 years there is about 0.09090 of the original C14 left, and given that the natural occurrence of C14 is not much higher than 0.1 per trillion there is not much radiocarbon left to measure anything with after that time, in fact, there can be none at all. In any case it would be less than what would give an accurate reading within the normal margin of error.

The reason why this works is that the chemical properties of the carbon isotope is exactly the same as stable carbons (C12 and C13), thereby any living organism will accumulate, with the natural carbon, also some decaying isotopes. But let me put this in perspective: a normal human body with a weight of 80 Kg will have no more than 14 Kg of carbon, from which no more than 0.00000000000144 Kg will be C14 (for those who don't understand metric that would be 0.000000000050794505207424 ounces). Every 5,500 years that amount will be halved and disappear mostly traceless as nitrogen happens to be a gas.

So, why can't we date fossils with radiocarbon? Because, as a rule, hardly anything fossilized still has any of its original biological components, they are either permineralized, that means: just like a cave forms stalactites the gas containing cavities will be filled up by hardening minerals. Or they are simple forms of cast and molds, where nothing except the the hardened minerals are left.

What ever C14 is there has generally nothing to do with the original organism, and be it only because of the growth speed of permineraliztion (it could take up to 1000 years for a cubic centimeter).

While there might have been some C14 that was measured with some dino tusk (or whatever) but that was more likely to be there because somebody spit on it to clean it.

Also you should highlight that 1)the C14 to regular C ratio has not yet stabilised in our atmosphere (that is urprising as it should have in 30000 years since we had an atmosphere) 2)to account for this a correction factor was introduced in C14 dating but the correction factor is again based on modern rate increments in C14 concentrations and have been assumed to be constant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also you should highlight that 1)the C14 to regular C ratio has not yet stabilised in our atmosphere (that is urprising as it should have in 30000 years since we had an atmosphere) 2)to account for this a correction factor was introduced in C14 dating but the correction factor is again based on modern rate increments in C14 concentrations and have been assumed to be constant.

Where there are correctives as the cause is well known and cyclic. That is just another smoke screen certain evolution detractors are blowing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it also interesting to look into how the whole concept of different geological layers and their suspected dates came into existence.Seach for 'Geological Column'.I was surprised that so much was based on assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also about the RBC discovered with DIno bones.

http://www.smithsoni...e/dinosaur.html

In amounts so small that a RC dating is impossible. It might change some views about fossilization but hardly about dating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.