30 million years ago

[Helio]

Helio, interesting methodology in post #24, avoiding the potential that the ancient solar eclipse date and history is better established and better dates than Lucy and Ardi. On a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being the highest confidence for a fact, 0 being the lowest confidence level, what number do you assign Lucy and Arid as the dates and the claim they are your ancestor and what number do you assign for the solar eclipse record redated? I place the solar eclipse event at 9 or 10, Lucy and Ardi at 5 or below.

I agree with your eclipse rating, but I would bump Ardi to perhaps a 7 or 8. Their margin of error is likely something near 200,000 to 400,000 years. I didn't state the margin of errors they gave in any formal paper issued by the team.

I don't know enough about dating methods to give you a better guess. Anything that is in the millions of years in age will come with a significant margin of error, no doubt. I doubt any eclipse a million years ago would be even close to a 3 on your scale.

When it comes to our physical origins (not spiritual) then the order is more important than the exact age. Ardi's claim for being human and pre-dating Lucy, met with huge resistance (initially), but this was partly due to animosity towards Tim White, the team leader, who was very protective of Ardi.

The reconstruction of Ardi, along with the science, took the team about 15 years or more. This is a bit much but not all that unusual. The bones are like powder and require special efforts to remove the rock they are often encased within, for example

 

[rod]

Interesting Helio in post #26. 200,000 to 400,000 years is quite a range compared to the Ugarit solar eclipse redating ~ 150 years. Also Lucy and Ardi bones are not directly dated, samples of nearby strata, generally argon-argon method that can yield conflicting isochrons too as is documented in other sources I read. I have not seen a complete review of the various dates obtained from different strata near Lucy and Ardi or C14 dates published on the bones, e.g. min and max date ranges. There is no evidence that solar eclipses took place *using the dates* provided for Lucy or Ardi, we can assume they did and the SAROS cycle would be different than at Ugarit or as observed today in astronomy including the rotation rate of the Earth.

Bottom line. All of this discussion illustrates that *facts* of the past that you and I did not observe, some or perhaps many are subjective interpretations that weigh differently depending upon who is doing the measuring and weighing

 

[bolide]

By definition, a scientific theory must be falsifiable, meaning any prediction of the theory must involve the ability to test those predictions. So if something must be capable of falsification, how can it also be indisputable?

To carry this point, you must reduce 'indisputable' to the equivalent of 'true by definition,' something whose denial would be self-contradictory, which is clearly not what is meant. As the term is used, it rather means to say that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor, so that no grounds can be found to question the theory, though we might still be able to imagine evidence against it.

 

[Helio]

To carry this point, you must reduce 'indisputable' to the equivalent of 'true by definition,' something whose denial would be self-contradictory, which is clearly not what is meant. As the term is used, it rather means to say that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor, so that no grounds can be found to question the theory, though we might still be able to imagine evidence against it.

I agree in principle to your argument but not everyone understands "clearly" what is being claimed. Science isn't scientism, and there are those who believe in scientism enough to confuse others -- perhaps not consciously -- as to the the difference between fact and theory. This is hyperbole for that belief.

The strength of any theory is in the degree it is tried and tested. It is a fact that there is overwhelming evidence that, say, our models (theories) for gravity (Newton's and Einstein's) are sound. Evolution theories aren't quite so obvious, so the subjectivity of the term "overwhelming" rises to the surface since any given set of facts becomes a matter of opinion as to how much their weight goes to support, or hurt, any given theory.

 

[Catastrophe]

Critics of evolution relish in emphasizing the complexity and unsolved problems surrounding its mechanisms. They point to errors made by earlier researchers, and enthusiastically conclude from all of these difficulties that evolution is “only a theory.” They routinely misinterpret or ignore the repeatable, observable, measurable scientific evidence that overwhelmingly supports evolution as a fact. This evidence is abundant. It is the worldwide, sum total of the fossil record. Sedimentary rocks and the fossils preserved in these rocks, even though an incomplete paleontological record, are primary, factual evidence of what has happened back through time. One thing apart from all others presents a compelling case for evolution that is independent of its weaknesses. It is the simple, repeatable observation that deeper, older rocks contain fossils of more primitive, less-evolved organisms than do the younger rocks that rest above them. Consider the magnificent Grand Canyon in Arizona. The rock layers at the base of the gorge are undeniably older than those at the top. No matter how much time was involved in cutting the gorge through all these rocks, there is no way of reasonably denying that as one takes the winding path down the gorge and passes across the layers of rock one also goes back through recorded time. Today we can observe the same thing, obviously on a vastly smaller scale, in the layers of trash at waste disposal sites. The old newspapers, bottles and cans, the less “evolved” cameras and telephones, 78-rpm records, and vacuum-tube radios are preserved among the layers found toward the bottom. The younger more evolved “fossils” are among those found near the top. In the vast Grand Canyon geological “dump” the deeper flat-lying rock layers contain the simpler, more primitive fossils. Gaps in the record notwithstanding, there are shells buried there that record the presence of species not found in the younger rocks above, and no bones of any kind are to be found. The rocks at the top contain fossil remains of still more evolved (developed) animals. All of these thousands of feet of flat-lying rocks rest directly on still older layers. Those below are set at a steep angle. Obviously, substantial time must be allowed for these even older sediments to have been deposited, hardened, turned on edge by mountain-building processes, and later cut down by erosion. In these much older rocks there are precious few fossils of any kind. There are neither shells nor bones. Only a few fossils of simple, microscopic life forms have been found. Geologists find similar rock sequences in many regions of the globe. While these may not have the grandeur and ease-of-visibility that the deeply cut Grand Canyon offers, their included fossils exhibit the same upward changes. I find it hard to escape the conclusion that from this overall geological and paleontological evidence there has been an increase upwards through time in the complexity and sophistication of life. The global fossil record does not present a jumbled mixture of large and small, older and younger, as would be the case after a giant flood of some kind. This record is repeatable, undeniable factual global evidence for a long process of evolution…of biological change over time. The total fossil record reveals these same upward changes, irrespective of the mechanisms that caused them.

Critics of evolution relish in emphasizing the complexity and unsolved problems surrounding its mechanisms. They point to errors made by earlier researchers, and enthusiastically conclude from all of these difficulties that evolution is “only a theory.” They routinely misinterpret or ignore the repeatable, observable, measurable scientific evidence that overwhelmingly supports evolution as a fact. This evidence is abundant. It is the worldwide, sum total of the fossil record. Sedimentary rocks and the fossils preserved in these rocks, even though an incomplete paleontological record, are primary, factual evidence of what has happened back through time. One thing apart from all others presents a compelling case for evolution that is independent of its weaknesses. It is the simple, repeatable observation that deeper, older rocks contain fossils of more primitive, less-evolved organisms than do the younger rocks that rest above them. Consider the magnificent Grand Canyon in Arizona. The rock layers at the base of the gorge are undeniably older than those at the top. No matter how much time was involved in cutting the gorge through all these rocks, there is no way of reasonably denying that as one takes the winding path down the gorge and passes across the layers of rock one also goes back through recorded time. Today we can observe the same thing, obviously on a vastly smaller scale, in the layers of trash at waste disposal sites. The old newspapers, bottles and cans, the less “evolved” cameras and telephones, 78-rpm records, and vacuum-tube radios are preserved among the layers found toward the bottom. The younger more evolved “fossils” are among those found near the top. In the vast Grand Canyon geological “dump” the deeper flat-lying rock layers contain the simpler, more primitive fossils. Gaps in the record notwithstanding, there are shells buried there that record the presence of species not found in the younger rocks above, and no bones of any kind are to be found. The rocks at the top contain fossil remains of still more evolved (developed) animals. All of these thousands of feet of flat-lying rocks rest directly on still older layers. Those below are set at a steep angle. Obviously, substantial time must be allowed for these even older sediments to have been deposited, hardened, turned on edge by mountain-building processes, and later cut down by erosion. In these much older rocks there are precious few fossils of any kind. There are neither shells nor bones. Only a few fossils of simple, microscopic life forms have been found. Geologists find similar rock sequences in many regions of the globe. While these may not have the grandeur and ease-of-visibility that the deeply cut Grand Canyon offers, their included fossils exhibit the same upward changes. I find it hard to escape the conclusion that from this overall geological and paleontological evidence there has been an increase upwards through time in the complexity and sophistication of life. The global fossil record does not present a jumbled mixture of large and small, older and younger, as would be the case after a giant flood of some kind. This record is repeatable, undeniable factual global evidence for a long process of evolution…of biological change over time. The total fossil record reveals these same upward changes, irrespective of the mechanisms that caused them.

As excellent an exegesis as I have seen in a long time. Thank you.

I am no expert in this field, but a very simplistic proof of evolution (excluding the possibility of extra terrestrial interference) is that "then there were those primitive organisms - now there are ourselves" so what but evolution can be proposed?

Cat

 

[rod]

Catastrophe. Post #30 does recap a summary of age evidence for Grand Canyon supporting evolution and old age model for GC. There are holes in the paradigm and summary. I have a source that shows radiometric isochron ages were obtained for the Cardenas basalt at GC (oldest layers). Some showed an age 1.07 billion years old, the generally accepted age. Other isochrons obtained from the western Canyon basalts (some of the youngest strata), the age obtained was 1.34 billion years old, so the youngest strata (near the top layer) dated 270 million years older than the oldest strata and bottom layers. There is also the problem of earth's changing length of day and lunar orbit and distance from earth. Do the strata at GC show the length of day when the bottom layers formed and the length of day when the top layers formed? What I see here is zeal but not much in the way of *facts*

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod Thank you for your substantive comments.
As I said, I am no expert in this field and at my age I have to admit that I have some difficulty in short term memory learning retention when addressing new subjects. I am about to try L-glutamine which is reputed to help in mending cell walls and helping to prevent ingress of "nasties". Fingers crossed.

What do you say to my simplistic proof?
QUOTE
but a very simplistic proof of evolution (excluding the possibility of extra terrestrial interference) is that "then there were those primitive organisms - now there are ourselves" so what but evolution can be proposed?
QUOTE

As I see it, barring extra terrestrials, the only alternative is independent occurrence of monkeys, apes and humans et cetera. I believe we can rule out independent occurrence?

I would have to agree with this:
QUOTE
[This record is repeatable, undeniable factual global evidence for] a long process of evolution…of biological change over time. The total fossil record reveals these same upward changes, irrespective of the mechanisms that caused them.
QUOTE

Cat

 

[rod]

Interesting Cat your questions in post #32. You asked "What do you say to my simplistic proof?
QUOTE
but a very simplistic proof of evolution (excluding the possibility of extra terrestrial interference) is that "then there were those primitive organisms - now there are ourselves" so what but evolution can be proposed?
QUOTE As I see it, barring extra terrestrials, the only alternative is independent occurrence of monkeys, apes and humans et cetera. I believe we can rule out independent occurrence?"

Documented issues. Living fossils are abundant and show little change towards evolving into better and higher types with major 3D form changes. Here is a recent example, 'Jurassic Spider from China Is Largest Fossil Specimen Discovered', http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110421210754.htm My observation. ScienceDaily reported on a fossil find in China that was a golden orb-weaver spider species (Nephila). It is in strata considered to be Jurassic age. This was some 150 or more million years ago. The find is considered an example of living fossils because the modern Nephila genus are identical to the fossil species found. There are more than 3,000 living fossils documented now since 2013 in the Paleobiology database. Living stromatolites documented on earth since 1956 are another example, some 3 billion years or more old and no evolutionary transformation or macro evolutionary change.

Cat, Geomartian acknowledges and takes the position that Darwinian science does not explain for example the Cambrian explosion. There is also the entire problem of the plant record explosion too including trees as well as little or no *biological change over time* for more than 3,000 living fossils documented now. This view leaves out numerous examples of the evolutionary tree of life nodes connected in diagrams for the fossil record that have no fossil record for that connection, step by step, inch by inch

Cat you said, "I would have to agree with this:
QUOTE
[This record is repeatable, undeniable factual global evidence for] a long process of evolution…of biological change over time. The total fossil record reveals these same upward changes, irrespective of the mechanisms that caused them.
QUOTE"

*a long process of evolution…of biological change over time.* is model dependent dating methods and I just documented some objective examples at Grand Canyon that show how quickly different ages can be found. Defining precisely how *biological change over time* works has issues as seen in living fossils. I do not see such evidence as *fact* but model dependent interpretation of the observation(s) in nature which can be considered a theory, perhaps a good theory in places and holes in other parts. Does main stream science embrace Charles Darwin today, especially in biology and fossil studies? My answer is yes. There is little alternative it seems when committed to naturalism in science. Geomartian approach to the Cambrian explosion injects space alien intelligence in earth's past, someone else may inject progressive creationism thinking (assuming the dates for the fossils are correct).

Thanks Cat for your thoughtful questions and comments. However, we are both off the discussion about horses in the fossil record and human riders that started the thread I hope you will enjoy success at treating short term memory loss, that can be troubling.

 

[Catastrophe]

You are correct. We are off topic. I will start a new thread.
Rod. I do find your responses to my simplistic questions rather overwhelming, but I do appreciate the thought invested in them. Thank you.

 

[rod]

You are correct. We are off topic. I will start a new thread.
Rod. I do find your responses to my simplistic questions rather overwhelming, but I do appreciate the thought invested in them. Thank you.

Thanks Cat. Remember Cat, I am no professional at all, not trained but untrained and enjoy astronomy as a hobby---Rod

 

[Catastrophe]

Let us get back on topic.

Is it possible that Earth has been spinning and compacting dust and debris and if we dug down and removed 30 million years of the debris and meteors we would find human bones?

What we must ask is: have we provided Trithinium with a satisfactory answer?

If not, please tell us, and more importantly, test us again. What we need here more than anything, is to encourage discussion on interesting topics.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

There is a spin off question here.
"Is it possible that Earth has been spinning and compacting dust and debris" has the increase in weight caused us to move nearer to the Sun?
It is definitely true that planet Earth is accumulating mass every second.
Increased mass means increased attraction which means Earth moves nearer the Sun. Where will this end?

 

[Helio]

There is a spin off question here.
"Is it possible that Earth has been spinning and compacting dust and debris" has the increase in weight caused us to move nearer to the Sun?
It is definitely true that planet Earth is accumulating mass every second.
Increased mass means increased attraction which means Earth moves nearer the Sun. Where will this end?

As much as I find the Sun attractive, it is actually less attractive each year since it is losing more mass than it is taking in. On average, the Earth loses about 1.5 cm per year.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio. You are, as usual, very accurate and correct. I don't know the eventual outcome, but the force is, of course, proportional to (m1 x m2)r^2.
I have no idea of the relative increase / decrease in the Earth / Sun masses and distance apart.

Cat

 

[sam85geo]

OK. How about a level set right back to the 1960's and 70's. "African Genesis" by Robert Audrey and the "The Accent of Man" by Jacob Bronowski, both are easy reads. After which try reading Richard Dawkins books detailing evolution and others previously mentioned above. My speculation: the common ancestor of the genus Homo was A. Africanus, a nasty little ape with a proclivity for violence and a seeming lack of emotional control. We talking 7-5 mya. This may not be correct, but it sure fits most of the H. Sapiens that are currently out and about.

 

[Catastrophe]

OK. How about a level set right back to the 1960's and 70's. "African Genesis" by Robert Audrey and the "The Accent of Man" by Jacob Bronowski, both are easy reads. After which try reading Richard Dawkins books detailing evolution and others previously mentioned above. My speculation: the common ancestor of the genus Homo was A. Africanus, a nasty little ape with a proclivity for violence and a seeming lack of emotional control. We talking 7-5 mya. This may not be correct, but it sure fits most of the H. Sapiens that are currently out and about.

Pardon?

 

[Helio]

OK. How about a level set right back to the 1960's and 70's. "African Genesis" by Robert Audrey and the "The Accent of Man" by Jacob Bronowski, both are easy reads. After which try reading Richard Dawkins books detailing evolution and others previously mentioned above. My speculation: the common ancestor of the genus Homo was A. Africanus, a nasty little ape with a proclivity for violence and a seeming lack of emotional control. We talking 7-5 mya. This may not be correct, but it sure fits most of the H. Sapiens that are currently out and about.

You might enjoy a book I just read ("The Fossil Men") which is mainly about the adventure of the discovery of Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus), which predates Lucy. Apes are more cousins to us, apparently, in the tree of life. The trees are now seen more like bushes and a simple tree trunk likely doesn't exist.

 

[Helio]

Helio. You are, as usual, very accurate and correct. I don't know the eventual outcome, but the force is, of course, proportional to (m1 x m2)r^2.

Yep, Newton's law. The Sun will eventually lose so much mass that it seems when its radius swells (red giant phase) to our existing orbit that our new and now more distant orbit will not place us within the photosphere of the Sun. Of course, the word "toast" comes to mind either way.

 

[Catastrophe]

Yep, Newton's law. The Sun will eventually lose so much mass that it seems when its radius swells (red giant phase) to our existing orbit that our new and now more distant orbit will not place us within the photosphere of the Sun. Of course, the word "toast" comes to mind either way.

The Sun's radius is, of course, something else. Maybe I should have put d for Sun-Earth distance.

Cat

 

[Helio]

The Sun's radius is, of course, something else. Maybe I should have put d for Sun-Earth distance.

When the Sun becomes a "red giant" in about 5 billion years, it will have thrown off a lot of its mass, which gives us those beautiful "planetary" nebulae. This event will cause the Earth's orbit to have drifted millions of miles outward. This came to mind when I read the question, which helped me think about the slightly bigger picture.

So the fact that the Earth is tending to move inward with mass gain, it is also tending to move outward due the net mass loss of the Sun. Since the mass loss exceeds, even today, the mass gain at both the Earth and Sun (e.g. stargrazers) then the net orbital distance from the Sun is about 1.5 cm/yr. It's one of those questions that requires the bigger picture and why science is fun.

 

[Wolfshadw]

This event will cause the Earth's orbit to have drifted millions of miles outward.

I would think that while the sun is shedding off it's outer layers, the mass of those layers would still be within the orbit of the planet Earth. If the total mass is still within the Earth's orbit, why would the planet's orbit extend outward?

-Wolf sends

 

[Helio]

I would think that while the sun is shedding off it's outer layers, the mass of those layers would still be within the orbit of the planet Earth. If the total mass is still within the Earth's orbit, why would the planet's orbit extend outward?

The Sun does throw much of its mass up and, as we are accustomed per the famous adage, it falls back down. But some of the mass not only goes beyond the Earth (violent flares and stronger CMEs) but have speeds, sometimes, that exceed the escape velocity of the solar system (618 kps). The solar wind also contributes but I would assume this mass eventually falls back to the Sun since the normal speed is about 1/3 that of escape velocity, IIRC.

[Added: this site notes CMEs can reach speeds of 3000 kps, ~ 1% the speed of light.]

 

[Helio]

Also, since there is a mass equivalence for energy, the Sun tosses out about 4.5 million tons per second in the form of radiation.