First Love Child of Human, Neanderthal Found

[magnifier661]

The funny thing is when creationists claim there's a whole in the fossil record that means God did something, scientists go look for the missing fossils and find them. Not drawings, but bones and other artifacts.

There really weren't very many humans 200,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

(Says there were between 1,500 and 16,000 total humans 200,000 years ago)

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ly-1000-humans-in-asia-europe-/1#.UVjzRKtAQh8

(Says there were as few as 1,000 humans in Asia and Europe combined, 30,000 years ago)

The point being, that finding these fossils are going to be tough because there were so few humans to start with. They'd have to die and their bodies be in a place where they would be preserved instead of rotting away to nothingness.

Creationists? So you are saying all of them?

 

[BlazerWookee]

Ok.

Jesus, what an annoying avatar.

EDIT: That sounded WAY snarkier than it did in my head. Meant as a good-natured rib...

 

[magnifier661]

ERR! WRONG, SORRY! Try again. The emission of an electron CANNOT change the atomic number. It is a proton decaying into a neutron and neutrino that can only change the atomic number, or simply the emission of a proton.

Regardless of getting the atomic number wrong; the decay is actually a good point.

P.S. I am open to evolution and old Earth, just explaining that point is actually a valid argument.

 

[Nikolokolus]

That's a problem for the evolutionary theory then, because the evolutionary theory states that modern man has been around for about 200,000 years. If changes 30,000 years ago like that were occurring, we'd have a lot of transitional fossils, but we don't. There is also no trace of ancient literature or cultures going past 5,000 or so years. I do not believe that man has been on earth for more than 10,000 years. As for the age of the earth and the universe itself it's hard to know exactly IMO. I believe God can do weird things with time.

Get a refund on that edumafacashun.

 

[magnifier661]

Did you know that red blood cells and soft tissue were found in the bones of a "beautifully preserved" T-Rex dug up in the 90's and was originally dated 68 million years old?

I did know this.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

Then the article talks about "Young Earth Christians" using this to support their belief.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists.

And even though most old Earth science still agree that the earth is billions of years old; they are baffled by this feat.

http://www.science20.com/curiousity...ls_survived_millions_years_trapped_bone-95449

The big question, then, is how these fragile cells managed to survive in an environment where everything has been working against them for 65 million years. The authors are still at a loss to explain such a remarkable feat, although they speculate that the fact that these cells are entombed in bone is most likely key to their survival. Embedded deep within the bone, the osteocytes are protected from other live cells and microbes; osteocytes in particular are not dividing cells and so they are expected to live roughly the lifetime of the organism (of course, this is not always the case), therefore they are more resistant to programmed cell death; and the fact that they are esconced in mineral may serve as a protective feature. Interestingly, the researchers also hypothesize that the iron released from red blood cells after they die may have ‘fixed’ the cells and their proteins in place by forming an elaborate crosslinking bridge between iron molecules, cell membranes, and associated proteins, keeping everything firmly secured in place and resistant to degradation.

In addition to the Bone paper which was recently accepted for publication, Schweitzer also gave a talk at the annual meeting of the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology on October 17th. It is not yet clear how skeptics will react, although many of her findings are certainly damning to the biofilm hypothesis. Most scientists like to exercise exceptional prudence, however, especially when dealing with something as improbable as dinosaur cells surviving for millions of years, and so Schweitzer may still have some work to do before the 'dinosaurian' origin of the cells becomes widely accepted.

This is a very good argument for "Young Earth Christians". Red Blood Cells are programed to deteriorate. I seem to remember that the longest carbon remains of plants and animal tissue can only last 40,000 years old. So if there was a dino that was supposedly extinct hundreds of millions of years ago, the timeline is in question.

 

[MARIS61]

Denny, what museum can I go to where I can observe the millions of transitional fossils displayed publicly? We have all kinds of 65+ miiiillion year old dinosaur bones, so don't give me the fossilization copout

Also I'd get mocked if I used wikipedia as my reference.

Only because wikipedia won't support your claims.

Human culture 40,000 years ago:

Cave paintings are paintings found on cave walls and ceilings, and especially refer to those of prehistoric origin. The earliest such art in Europe dates back to the Aurignacian period, approximately 40,000 years ago, and is found in the El Castillo cave in Cantabria, Spain. The exact purpose of the paleolithic cave paintings is not known. Evidence suggests that they were not merely decorations of living areas, since the caves in which they have been found do not have signs of ongoing habitation. They are also often located in areas of caves that are not easily accessible. Some theories hold that cave paintings may have been a way of communicating with others, while other theories ascribe a religious or ceremonial purpose to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting

 

[MARIS61]

The skeletal remains of an individual living in northern Italy 40,000-30,000 years ago are believed to be that of a human/Neanderthal hybrid, according to a paper in PLoS ONE.

How does this differ from other Italians?

 

[magnifier661]

Not talking about fossils right now. More concerned with your assertion that there is no evidence for human existence beyond 10,000 years ago.

So are you yes or no on carbon dating?

OdenRoyLMA2 is right. Radio Carbon is not used to date rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Radiometric Dating is the dating tool for geologists.

It basically reads the amount of isotopes and the decay.

This is also a problem because science use "age" with the refraction or distance of light from our planet. AND in the other thread, the dating can be argued because no one knows just how far the universe expanded, moving faster than the speed of light, and without the normal limits of the universe. This same argument can be applied on the decay. There is an agreed moment when time and natural laws were not binding in this universe. For all we know, all of this mass was already formed in the great expansion.

 

[speeds]

Not sure where I'm wrong. I have only and repeatedly asked him about carbon dating and whether he thinks it works. You guys both tried to race ahead of me and assume I was going to talk about fossils or w/e but I was actually going to talk about fairly young things we can date with carbon dating that are still older than 10k years.

 

[magnifier661]

Only because wikipedia won't support your claims.

Human culture 40,000 years ago:

Cave paintings are paintings found on cave walls and ceilings, and especially refer to those of prehistoric origin. The earliest such art in Europe dates back to the Aurignacian period, approximately 40,000 years ago, and is found in the El Castillo cave in Cantabria, Spain. The exact purpose of the paleolithic cave paintings is not known. Evidence suggests that they were not merely decorations of living areas, since the caves in which they have been found do not have signs of ongoing habitation. They are also often located in areas of caves that are not easily accessible. Some theories hold that cave paintings may have been a way of communicating with others, while other theories ascribe a religious or ceremonial purpose to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting

This was on your link.

The second-oldest known cave art is that of Chauvet Cave in France, the paintings of which date to around 30,000 BCE (Upper Paleolithic) according to radiocarbon dating[6]. Some researchers believe the drawings are too advanced for this era and question this age.[7].

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm

Is carbon dating accurate?

Is carbon dating accurate? Only to a certain extent. In order for carbon dating to be accurate, we must know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime. Unfortunately the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 has yet to reach a state of equilibrium in our atmosphere; there is more carbon-14 in the air today than there was thousands of years ago. Furthermore, the ratio is known to fluctuate significantly over relatively short periods of time (e.g. during the industrial revolution more carbon-12 was being produced offsetting the ratio a bit).

Carbon dating is somewhat accurate because we are able to determine what the ratio was in the unobservable past to a certain extent. By taking a carboniferous specimen of known age (that is, a specimen which we are able to date with reasonable certainty through some archaeological means), scientists are able to determine what the ratio was during a specimen's lifetime. They are then able to calibrate the carbon dating method to produce fairly accurate results. Carbon dating is thus accurate within the timeframe set by other archaeological dating techniques. Unfortunately, we aren't able to reliably date artifacts beyond several thousand years. Scientists have tried to extend confidence in the carbon dating method further back in time by calibrating the method using tree ring dating. Unfortunately, tree ring dating is itself not entirely reliable, especially the "long chronology" employed to calibrate the carbon dating method. The result is that carbon dating is accurate for only a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is questionable. This fact is born out in how carbon dating results are used by scientists in the scientific literature. Many scientists will use carbon dating test results to back up their position if the results agree with their preconceived theories. But if the carbon dating results actually conflict with their ideas, they aren't too concerned. "This attitude is clearly reflected in a regrettably common practice: when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether." (Peter James, et al. (I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish), Preface to Centuries of Darkness, 1991)

So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.

Radiocarbon dating is accurate for only a few thousand years. So don't say this, as a matter of fact.

 

[magnifier661]

Not sure where I'm wrong. I have only and repeatedly asked him about carbon dating and whether he thinks it works. You guys both tried to race ahead of me and assume I was going to talk about fossils or w/e but I was actually going to talk about fairly young things we can date with carbon dating that are still older than 10k years.

Radio Carbon Dating is only accurate for a few thousand years. Anything after that, it is extremely inaccurate.

Look at the post I just gave Maris

BTW... I didn't say you were wrong. I said Oden was right about radiocarbon dating not being used for geology dating.

 

[speeds]

Radio Carbon Dating is only accurate for a few thousand years. Anything after that, it is extremely inaccurate.

Look at the post I just gave Maris

BTW... I didn't say you were wrong. I said Oden was right about radiocarbon dating not being used for geology dating.

I don't know what your definition of "a few thousand years" is. Can you be more accurate?

 

[magnifier661]

I don't know what your definition of "a few thousand years" is. Can you be more accurate?

2,000-4,000 years?

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus/british/few

If you want exact dates, then all of science past 4,000 is extremely inaccurate.

 

[speeds]

I see. Well I'm waiting to hear from OdenRoy, then.

 

[magnifier661]

In other news... There are current x-rays of neanderthals living with us today.

 

[Eastoff]

Regardless of getting the atomic number wrong; the decay is actually a good point.

P.S. I am open to evolution and old Earth, just explaining that point is actually a valid argument.

If he is going to argue that he knows more about radiocarbon decay facts; his basis being wrong about what occurs is a BIG red flag.
"I know more than you about your wife Sarah!"
"Her name isn't Sarah."
"Oh ... well I still know her better than you!"

That's kind of what his argument sounds like to me.

 

[speeds]

Jesus, what an annoying avatar.

EDIT: That sounded WAY snarkier than it did in my head. Meant as a good-natured rib...

I thought it was creepy. Maybe it's just annoying?

 

[MARIS61]

Comically hypocritical to see people who base their belief in mythical magical beings solely on "faith" nitpicking over how accurate carbon dating is.

 

[Eastoff]

Paging troll RoyLMAOden, Paging Troll.

 

[magnifier661]

Comically hypocritical to see people who base their belief in mythical magical beings solely on "faith" nitpicking over how accurate carbon dating is.

Why? Faith isn't requiring accuracy, but science does. So when someone using science, tosses speculation; then it should be noted that its speculation.

I doubt any Christian would deny there is some magic wand thing happening in creation. But debating an atheistic approach; we don't want to go down a slippery slope now do we?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Why? Faith isn't requiring accuracy, but science does. So when someone using science, tosses speculation; then it should be noted that its speculation.

I doubt any Christian would deny there is some magic wand thing happening in creation. But debating an atheistic approach; we don't want to go down a slippery slope now do we?

So what the fuck is faith based on? Inaccuracy?

 

[magnifier661]

So what the fuck is faith based on? Inaccuracy?

Faith! Lol!!!

 

[MadeFromDust]

Hey sorry I start Spring term this week so I've been pretty busy so I can't really dedicate hours to debating here right now. When I get some more time i'll be happy to dialogue with you guys