Ancient Nuclear Power Controlled By Water

[earthseed]

zavvy, <b>I</b> read your post. My conclusion is that maddad was wise not to. It comes in three parts. First a personal attack on Richard Dawkins. Well, Dawkins may be a jerk, or maybe he was smeared by some second rate academic looking for attention. This personal trivial has no relevance to anything.<br /><br />Next we get 100 people agreeing with the obvious - we should continue to research evolutionary theory. Wow!<br /><br />And finally, the usual Creationist drivel, mostly referencing information from early in the last century. <i>In the 1930s, paleontologist Otto Schindewolf concluded...</i> So what. Here is another: <i>Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat" ancestors.</i> Bats do not fossilize well, because of their light bone structure and where they tend to live. Bat fossils are rare. So the "sudden" appearance of of complete bat fossil in the Eocene is no surprise. If complete bat fossils were found continuously after that it would suggest a sudden appearance of bats, but that is not the case. It is the usual Creationist distortion. Sorry if I sound nasty here, but please, post something with some actual content.<br /><br />On the other hand, the paper referenced by kmarinas86 is worth reading. I am not knowledgable enough to properly evaluate it. However, I note he frequently references Simon Conway Morris. I have read his popular works, but not the scientific papers. The material does not correspond well to what I have read. Maybe he says one thing to scientists and another to the public. Or maybe not.<br /><br />The "sudden" appearance of Cambrian organisms is turning out to be an artifact of the fossil record. Organisms with hard parts simply fossilize better. With time, more Precambrian fossils are being found. This story is not nearly over yet.

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">First a personal attack on Richard Dawkins.</font><br /><br />The attack was perpetrated on Richard Milton. Anyone who claims to know anything about evolution controversy would know this...

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">the usual Creationist drivel</font><br /><br />Actually, they should be called <b>creationites</b>, not creationists. <br /><br />I would not honor the supporters of the pseduo-science of "creationism" with the "-ism" suffix. One of the problems we have in this society is that we allow those with agendas to frame the discussion by carefully choosing word labels with connotations that add credibility when none is deserved. <br /><br />The connotation of the "-ist" suffix is that of an expert or professional, e.g. scientist, chemist, pianist, endocronologist. <br /><br />The connotation of the "-ite" suffix is that of a dillettante or amateur. It is especially used for a person who supports particular beliefs not demonstrable through reason: e.g. luddite, trotskyite<br /><br />Nor should that word be capitalized, it isn't a proper noun.<br /><br />Better would have been "<b>the usual creationite drivel</b>" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">So you're saying that none of the transitional fossils on these pages are relevant in claims of evolutionary theory?</font><br /><br />I don't see any...<br /><br />Show me ONE transitional species and I'll consider this theory further.. just one... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br /><i>(P.S. Can you say Archaeopteryx..??)</i>

 

[zavvy]

silylene...<br /><br />I hope I made it clear that I'm not a creationist...??

 

[silylene old]

The label should be <font color="yellow">"creationite"</font> not creationist.<br /><br />I just object to the choice of a word to frame a discussion with undeserved legitimacy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[zavvy]

silylene... <br /><br />I hope I made it clear that I'm not a "creationite" either...??

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Show me ONE transitional species and I'll consider this theory further.. just one... </font><br /><br />From the link, for which I found five minutes in my busy day in order to learn something:<br /><br />Part 2B, horses, tapirs, rhinos:<br />Miohippus assiniboiensis (mid-Oligocene) -- This species split off from early Mesohippus via cladogenetic evolution, after which Miohippus and Mesohippus overlapped for the next 4 my. Distinctly larger, slightly longer skull, facial fossa deeper and more expanded, subtly different ankle joint, variable extra crest on upper cheek teeth. In the early Miocene (24 My) Miohippus began to speciate rapidly. Grasses had just evolved, & teeth began to change accordingly. Legs, etc., started to change for fast running. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zavvy]

Show me the missing link...

 

[spacester]

Huh?<br /><br />Do you want a fossil from every species in every decade in the history of the earth or what? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zavvy]

No. Just proof of evolution... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[spacester]

It's a <i>theory</i>, silly.<br /><br />Theories are postulates put forward to explain the available evidence.<br /><br />No one has ever "proved" to me that the Earth is round. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">It's a theory, silly.</font><br /><br />I know that, silly .. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> .. <br /><br />That's what I initially stated, but there are people in this thread who are claiming it's <i>fact</i>....

 

[spacester]

So did my example show a transitional species or not?<br /><br />And if it did, then you said . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

I can't decide who the biggest losers are, the guys who defend a theory as fact or the guys who refuse to look at the evidence.<br /><br />I was kinda hoping for a boost in intellectual curiosity and honesty after Nov 2 . . . <br /><br />Sigh . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">So did my example show a transitional species or not? </font><br /><br />Not as far as I can tell....

 

[spacester]

Never mind. You are clearly not interested in a discussion; I'm not gonna play your stupid game any more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">You are clearly not interested in a discussion</font><br /><br />That's what I said right here...<br /><br /><font color="orange">'It really isn't my intention to get involved in a heated debate about why evolution is just a theory that hasn't been satisfactorily proven over the years - I really don't have the time.'</font><br /><br />Then I got bollocked for making a long post..<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I'm not gonna play your stupid game any more. </font><br /><br />So take your ball and go home... <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

Hey folks....<br /><br /><br />...if you want to discuss evolution, would you be willing to move it to Free Space, and keep this thread for the fascinating discussion about a natural nuclear reactor? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Alternately, I may be able to break the evolution debate off of this thread and move it to Free Space, if you'd all like to continue the discussion that way. Any votes for that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Calli,<br /><br />Please remove the creatonism discussion.<br /><br />Speculating and discussing how natural reactors might have influenced evolution is perfectly fine, interesting, and arguably belongs here since it can have scientific merit.<br /><br />However debating creationism with creationites, or the validity of evolution theory belongs with other religious discussions in Freespace. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[Maddad]

zavvy<br />"<font color="yellow">The attack was perpetrated on Richard Milton. Anyone who claims to know anything about evolution controversy would know this.</font><br />The point is that it has nothing to do with your creation contenion.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">It's a theory, silly. <br />I know that, silly .. .. <br />That's what I initially stated, but there are people in this thread who are claiming it's fact.</font><br />Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact because we see body plans changing in time through the fossile record. The challenge for scientists in the 1700's and 1800's was to explain <strong><em>why</em></strong> we saw those changes. The issue was never <strong><em>whether</em></strong> the changes occured or not.<br /><br />Evolution is also a <strong><em>theory</em></strong> to explain the <strong><em>fact</em></strong> of evolution. It is both a fact and a theory.<br /><br />Calli<br />"<font color="yellow">...if you want to discuss evolution, would you be willing to move it to Free Space, and keep this thread for the fascinating discussion about a natural nuclear reactor?</font><br />It is the nature of all threads to evolve from one topic to another.

 

[earthseed]

silylene: Thank you. Its "creationite" for now on.<br /><br />zavvy: If you are not a creationite, why post their rubbish, and echo their false statements? What is a transitional fossil? I suppose it is defined as an organism that lies between two fossils that we actually have, so it can never exist. Look, there is good material out there challenging parts of evolutionary theory, why not post some of that instead?

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...if you want to discuss evolution, would you be willing to move it to Free Space, and keep this thread for the fascinating discussion about a natural nuclear reactor?"</font><br /><br />I understand what you're saying, but looking back, I see that the topic was derailed very early on, and primarily by zavvy, the originator of the thread! <br /><br />The discussion of the natural nuclear reactor can include a discussion of its effect on the environment -- including the ecology and evolution of life in the area. It's a shame that evolution is such a hot button issue.<br /><br />Anyway, the natural reactor issue could be broached again by someone in another thread and perhaps stay on course a little longer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is the nature of all threads to evolve from one topic to another.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, it is. But if the offtopic discussion in a thread threatens to obliterate the original topic, it is a moderators job to either haul it back on topic or break off the offtopic portion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[earthseed]

Well, reikel was on topic, wondering if similar reactions could happen in the interior of the Earth. My first question is how did the uranium get concentrated in one location on the surface to start the Gabon reactor? The answer I found, from here, is<blockquote><em>"Minor amounts of uranium are present in many crustal rocks. Granitic rocks and carbonates may be particularly rich in uranium (meaning that its concentration in these may be in the rage of ppm to tens of ppm; in most rocks it is even lower). In granites, the uranium is concentrated in the late stages of magma crystallization; its large atoms fit relatively poorly in most early crystallizing silicate minerals. Uranium is concentrated in carbonate rocks during precipitation of the carbonate rocks from water, including seawater. As uranium-bearing rocks weather under near-surface conditions, that uranium goes into solution. Uranium is particularly soluble in an oxygen-rich environment. The uranium-bearing solutions infiltrate and join the groundwater system. As they percolate through permeable rocks, such as sandstone, they may encounter chemically reducing conditions, created by some factor such as an abundance of carbon-rich organic matter, or sulfide minerals, in shales bounding the sandstone. Under reducing conditions, solubility of uranium is much lower. The dissolved uranium is then precipitated, and concentrated, in these reducing zones. Over time, as great quantities of uranium-bearing groundwater percolate slowly through such a zone, a large deposit of precipitated uranium ore may form."</em></blockquote><br />There is not likely any such process in the interior, so we are left with uranium concentrating in the center of the Earth, due to its density. As for how it can migrate through a solid iron core, maddad pointed out that a solid under such a high temperature and pressure may behave differently t