Discovery rekindles debate on origins of multi-cellular life

Dec 22, 2010 by Jeff Stevens

A recent discovery by a University of Florida geologist may lend support to the theory that one of the defining moments of evolution may not have occurred as currently thought.

While studying the ancient microcontinents that make up the geography of central Kazakhstan in Asia, geological sciences professor Joe Meert and colleagues uncovered evidence that multi-cellular organisms may have evolved 100 million years earlier than previously thought, well before the Cambrian Era. His findings are published online today in the journal Gondwana Research.

The Cambrian era is known for an explosion of multi-cellular life, including the first hard-shelled organisms. Most modern species can trace their evolution back to this event, which is unique in the evolutionary record. Prior to the Cambrian era, the record becomes more cryptic, as the soft-shelled organisms of the era leave relatively few fossils. The prevailing theory is that multi-cellular life developed just after a series of glacial episodes 750 to 653 million years ago.

Meert discovered the fossilized remains of two Ediacara fauna, Nimbia occlusa and Aspidella terranovica, in a that predates the earliest by more than 50 million years.

“I am sure that the fossils will be controversial due to their enigmatic nature and the fact that they are more than 100 million years older than similar fossils” Meert said.

While the findings may support the theory than metazoan developed much earlier than previously assumed, the exact nature of Nimbia Occlusa remains a subject of controversy. Scientists are split on whether it is a multi-cellular animal, a bacterial colony, or a microbial mat. The new fossils are identical to those that appear in the up to 150 million years later, meaning it passed through tectonic, climatic, oceanic, and atmospheric events without significant change.

Explore further: Human sense of fairness evolved to favor long-term cooperation

Related Stories

Fossils show earliest animal trails

Feb 04, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Trails found in rocks dating back 565 million years are thought to be the earliest evidence of animal locomotion ever found, Oxford University scientists report.

Fossil record receives new timeline

Nov 10, 2010

Beginning around 542 million years ago, a profusion of animals with shells and skeletons began to appear in the fossil record. So many life forms appeared during this time that it is often referred to as the ...

Fossil find fills in picture of ancient marine life

May 13, 2010

Paleontologists have discovered a rich array of exceptionally preserved fossils of marine animals that lived between 480 million and 472 million years ago, during the early part of a period known as the Ordovician. ...

Scientists decipher 3 billion-year-old genomic fossils

Dec 19, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- About 580 million years ago, life on Earth began a rapid period of change called the Cambrian Explosion, a period defined by the birth of new life forms over many millions of years that ultimately ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 75

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Quantum_Conundrum
1.1 / 5 (29) Dec 22, 2010
Just to put in perspective what is being claimed here, continents and other plates supposedly move by up to 6 inches per year, which would be about 56% of the circumference of the earth in that alleged 150 million year time frame.

Moreover, in an alleged 750million year time frame, some continents could have traveled a distance equal to the circumference of the earth with respect to one another as much as 2.82 times, or equivalent of circling the entire 2.82 times if one continent is assumed stationary while the other moves...

I start to wonder if these people should be taken any more seriously than Peter Pan or Fantasia...
Quantum_Conundrum
1.1 / 5 (30) Dec 22, 2010
If the rate of erosion on earth was 1/1000th of an inch per year, (which is tiny compared to what you find in real mountain ranges, canyons, gullies, etc; the himalayas experience something like an inch per year rate of erosion;) then in an alleged 750 million year period, roughly 11.84 miles thick worth of continental crust would have eroded.

Even if erosion was just 1/10,000th of an inch per year, that would have eroded 1.184 miles thick worth of continent crust. Which is nearly double the amount of erosion needed to create the Grand Canyon, but applied to every point on the face of the earth over longer time scale.

Basicly, it should not even be physically possible for a fossil to exist on the earth above a few million years old, no matter how old you think the earth is.

Anything remotely that old should have been completely destroyed by now, whether by physical and chemical erosion, even at the molecular level.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.1 / 5 (30) Dec 22, 2010
In order for these fossils to survive even negligible amounts of erosion for so long, they would have needed to be 12 miles under the surface at some point.

They could not have been in a depositional environment, such as an oceanic plate, throughout that time, because an oceanic plate moving 3 to 6 inches per year would have been completely destroyed and re-surfaced through ocean ridging at least 5 to 10 times during that time frame.
Donutz
4.5 / 5 (23) Dec 22, 2010
Wow, you are either a moron, or pretending to be one so you can 'accidentally' overlook a bunch of inconvenient (for you) facts. Go read a book.
They're those things with a bunch of pieces of paper with writing on them. They contain information. Who knows, you might accidentally learn something.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.1 / 5 (28) Dec 22, 2010
You dumbass. I aced physical geology in college. They had to throw out my grade so they could curve everyone else. It's true.

Why don't you actually try some critical thinking for once, instead of just parroting everything you read in a book, or what your professor said.

Quantum_Conundrum
1.1 / 5 (28) Dec 22, 2010
Whenever you learn to apply some real critical thinking, instead of just believing everything these people claim, you start to see that none of this crap ever matches up. It's not even internally consistent, nevermind actually reflecting the real world observations.
alec123456789
4.8 / 5 (22) Dec 22, 2010
Quantum, WTF is wrong with you? These rates you are quoting are not constant or uniform, and never were. They are gross simplifications to make kids watching Bill Nye go "Ooo" and "Ahhhh"
epsi00
4.8 / 5 (22) Dec 22, 2010
I think we need to go back to the simple definition of erosion. if point A is eroded, then point B somewhere down the line gets " the fruit of that erosion " and the balance is restored. There cannot be uniform erosion at all points of the planet Earth. where does the matter goes?
Quantum_Conundrum
1.2 / 5 (25) Dec 22, 2010
Quantum, WTF is wrong with you? These rates you are quoting are not constant or uniform, and never were. They are gross simplifications to make kids watching Bill Nye go "Ooo" and "Ahhhh"


These are the rates cited in collegiate level texts and encyclopedias and journals as long term averages, and they are the rates cited on programming on history channel and discovery channel as well.

It just goes to show the complete absurdity of the degree of internal inconsistency within and among the sciences of physical and historical geology, biology, and astronomy.

So now in order to defend your pet theory, you want to pretend that geological processes are sudenly 1.5 to 2 orders of magnitude slower, at least whenever you want thm to be.

If the earth formed from acretion, then the mantle and core would have had more energy in the past, which means oceanic plates would have been created adn destroyed even faster in the past than they are today.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.1 / 5 (27) Dec 22, 2010
There cannot be uniform erosion at all points of the planet Earth. where does the matter goes?


It ends up in the oceans.

Unfortunately for the fakes who did this research, the oceans are not static, but move also, as stated. Which means that all the material that is eroded from continents eventually subducts into the mantle, along with old fossils.

There are also other odd exceptions, such as india, which is one continent uplifting on top of another, or to say another way, one continent subducting under another.

In Europe, the african plate is uplifting over the European plate, and the mediteranian is basicly a low spot in this plate.

But the point is, there simply cannot exist fossils that are that old.

Aquatic fossil in oceanic crust would have been subducted several times over by by now, while terrestrial fossiles would have been completely eroded by now.

So it doesn't fit either way.
CHollman82
4.7 / 5 (26) Dec 22, 2010
Which is nearly double the amount of erosion needed to create the Grand Canyon, but applied to every point on the face of the earth over longer time scale. Basicly, it should not even be physically possible for a fossil to exist on the earth above a few million years old, no matter how old you think the earth is.


You aced geology but you think the rate of erosion is consistent across the entire surface of the earth?

You're an idiot... we have found plenty of things older than "a few million years", not the least of which the 3.8 or so BILLION year old crystals that we believe were formed during the initial solidification of the planet. Why you, a genius of geology apparently (rofl), don't realize that not all points on earth are subject to erosion, subduction, upheaval, or other tectonic or geologic processes that would fundamentally decompose material is beyond me...
alec123456789
4.6 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2010
Okay everyone, calm down.
A little checking shows QC to the the most prolific (and most pummelled) troll on Physorg.

I think the old BBS wisdom of, "DO NOT Feed the Trolls" applies here.
CHollman82
4.6 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2010
It ends up in the oceans.

Unfortunately for the fakes who did this research, the oceans are not static, but move also, as stated. Which means that all the material that is eroded from continents eventually subducts into the mantle, along with old fossils.

There are also other odd exceptions, such as india, which is one continent uplifting on top of another, or to say another way, one continent subducting under another.

In Europe, the african plate is uplifting over the European plate, and the mediteranian is basicly a low spot in this plate.

But the point is, there simply cannot exist fossils that are that old.

Aquatic fossil in oceanic crust would have been subducted several times over by by now, while terrestrial fossiles would have been completely eroded by now.

So it doesn't fit either way.


It's as if you just forgot about the vast flat areas at the center of continental plates...
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (24) Dec 22, 2010
You're an idiot... we have found plenty of things older than "a few million years", not the least of which the 3.8 or so BILLION year old crystals that we believe were formed during the initial solidification of the planet.


See, you're doing that same crap that they always do, which is citing a THEORY as though it were a FACT, and then incorrectly implying that the THEORY somehow PROVES another THEORY about another FACT to be true.

You DON'T know the age of much of anything on earth. You have a THEORY based on interpretations of FACTS, and those interpretations are not consistent with one another, nevermind much of anything else.

Moreover, you must not be familliar with radio dating, because one of my main contentions against radio dating is the false assumption of there having always been similar ratios of radio-isotopes vs stable ones. There could not have been.

So they want to assume continuity in radio-dating when it suits them, but not physical processes. BS.
CHollman82
4.7 / 5 (25) Dec 22, 2010
Okay everyone, calm down.
A little checking shows QC to the the most prolific (and most pummelled) troll on Physorg.

I think the old BBS wisdom of, "DO NOT Feed the Trolls" applies here.


He's not a troll, that's giving him too much credit, he actually believes the stuff he types...
Quantum_Conundrum
1.2 / 5 (24) Dec 22, 2010
So wait, now you're saying flat land doesn't get eroded at all?

You do realize I went down to 1/10,000th of an inch per year, which you can get that much erosion from one thunderstorm.

If you piss in a sand box it'll erode more than that.
Donutz
4.8 / 5 (22) Dec 22, 2010
You dumbass. I aced physical geology in college. They had to throw out my grade so they could curve everyone else. It's true.


You aced geology, but you don't even know that the continents float on the crustal plate and don't get sucked down during subduction. Uh-huh. Where'd you get your degree -- a matchbook cover?

CHollman82
4.6 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2010
QC, please tell me what a theory is, because they way you are using it leads me to believe you have no idea what the word means.
CHollman82
4.5 / 5 (17) Dec 22, 2010
So wait, now you're saying flat land doesn't get eroded at all?

You do realize I went down to 1/10,000th of an inch per year, which you can get that much erosion from one thunderstorm.

If you piss in a sand box it'll erode more than that.


What erodes, what erodes it, and where does the material go?

I'll answer for you, wind can cause erosion, but only of peaks, not of flat land covered with vegetation. Water can erode, but only where it forms rivers... what exactly do you think is the erosional agent of a flat mid-continental grassland area that will affect the entire area?
CHollman82
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2010
If you piss in a sand box it'll erode more than that.


It won't erode at all... you don't know what erosion is...
Donutz
4.8 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2010

Moreover, you must not be familliar with radio dating, because one of my main contentions against radio dating is the false assumption of there having always been similar ratios of radio-isotopes vs stable ones. There could not have been


1) And of course you're the only one who's ever thought of that, because you're soooooooooooo much smarter than everyone else. It would *never* occur to a 'real' scientist to work backwards from the current OBSERVED ratio of isotopes of various kinds, using KNOWN decay rates, to arrive at what the ratios would have been at some arbitrary date.
QC, the only isotope dating that has any degree of uncertainty (beyond obvious limits-of-accuracy stuff) is carbon dating, because they have know also figure how much was being absorbed by living things.
carbon dating is used for relatively short intervals only.
dammit running out of chars...
Donutz
4.8 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2010
cont'd....

And regardless of all of the above, do you have any clue of how far out dating techniques would ahve to be to incorrectly read billions of years as a few million? And not in just one dating technique, but multiple ones? Which would have to coincidentally just happen to match up with unrelated measurements like sea-floor spreading and fossilized magnetic field reversals, just to mention a few of many?

Say, do you also go by the name "Ed Conrad"? 'Coz you sure display as just as big an idiot!
Donutz
4.8 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2010
And BTW, QC, if you're so much smarter than everyone else and you have so much education, why are you posting on this two-bit forum beside the likes of kevinrts and the rest of us? You should be PUBLISHING! You should be showing those two-bit podunk mainstream scientists who's boss!

Wait, lemme guess. You've already tried to do that, but no-one will publish you. They're JEALOUS!!!! It's a CONSPIRACY!!!!! They're trying to STEAL YOUR IDEAS!!!!!

Ref: "Hermits and Cranks" on the Scientific American website. If the shoe fits.....
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2010
So, just assuming neither side is right in this debate can't we infer the age of the solar system from the sun?

We know it's mass, we know the rate it converts hydrogen into helium, we know those proportions in our star. Reverse the math and you should get an approximate age there.

True this says nothing definitive about the age of the Earth per se, but it would lend credence to one side or the other because it seems highly probable that both formed at roughly the same time (the Earth of course formed later than the sun, but not "much" later on cosmic scales).
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2010
Actually any non-static aspect of the solar system you could do this with really. And there isn't much in the solar system that's truly static.

What about the moon? Isn't it getting further and further away? At what rate? Reverse the math and you might have an approximation of it's formation (since it's made of the same stuff as the earth the impact theory seems pretty plausible). Also since the moon doesn't Erode anymore we could date those rocks and get an estimate on the Earth too.

Seems there's more than one way to skin this cat...neh?
Quantum_Conundrum
1.2 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2010
Holloman, let's give some examples of erosion that you seem to neglect or ignore.

Wind/rain/snow/glaciation on mountains.
Glaciers and river in valley
continetal glaciers
land slides
scarp
frost wedging
heat wedging
tectonic i.e. earthquake
River in plains
Wave action at beaches (see Alaska)
Wind in deserts
animals dig burrows, transport matter when eat/deficate

Those are all purely physical processes, but then there are chemical processes that can break down compounds in stones, etc, such as acid rains and oxidation. This then makes it easier for physical erosion to occur, if for example your limestone or metal compounds in an igneous rock have been broken down by an acid the residue can then be washed away by water or wind easier.

Then all this stuff is transported, usually to a lower location, via rivers, glaciers, wave action, wind, landslide, scarps, volcanism, organisms, etc.

Need a more detailed, point by point analysis, "professor"?
CHollman82
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2010
So, just assuming neither side is right in this debate can't we infer the age of the solar system from the sun?

We know it's mass, we know the rate it converts hydrogen into helium, we know those proportions in our star. Reverse the math and you should get an approximate age there.

True this says nothing definitive about the age of the Earth per se, but it would lend credence to one side or the other because it seems highly probable that both formed at roughly the same time (the Earth of course formed later than the sun, but not "much" later on cosmic scales).


Yes, and we have done exactly that, and I think you know the outcome...
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2010
We know it's mass, we know the rate it converts hydrogen into helium, we know those proportions in our star.


Well,see, they don't "know" that either.

They have an estimate based on theory, and like all these other things, no real way to test the theory in the classical sense of experimentation.

The only time we've ever observed fusion is in bombs, and those aren't even "pure fusion" devices, because they use fission to obtain fusion through instantaneous radiant heat and energy. Whereas the sun's fusion comes purely through it's own mass smashing it together. there is no way to test theories about how fast the sun burns, or how much hydrogen it had in the past.

You can look at other stars, which is what they do, but almost every object in the universe displays unique behaviors. This tpe explosion, that type explosion, gamma ray burst here, x-ray there, gobular cluster here, single star there,e tc.

They act like it's same everywhere, and it clearly isn't.
CHollman82
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2010
Need a more detailed, point by point analysis, "professor"?


And what exactly of this do you think uniformly erodes flat land areas at the center of continents?
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2010
You can get an decent estimate of the Sun's current energy production, but that isn't very useful when you are talking about long time scales, and certainly not the obscene amounts of time scales these people throw around. I think they are up to claiming that the earth is 4.567 billion years old now, and some wanting to push it to around 6 billion lately.

It's kinda like the whole "inflationary period" thing on the big Bang Theory. When it suits them, they allow the laws of physics to change at any arbitrary time to explain the size of the universe, since it's size would violate relativity otherwise anyway.

If the laws of the universe can change for the "inflationary period" then why should any thing be taken as constant over time? They are the ones who contradict themselves, not me, because they hypocritically change the laws of physics when it suits them, and find nothing wrong with that, but suggest anything like htat happened with radio-dating and you get mocked...
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2010
And what exactly of this do you think uniformly erodes flat land areas at the center of continents?


Oh come on now. Wind for one. Surely you know this.

In America we can give examples of modern day catastrophism which produced extreme wind erosion, namely F5/EF5 tornados which in the past 20 years have been observed to litterally pulverize brick construction and even pulverize and uproot concrete and asphault roads. (see Jarrel tornado, erosion to depth of 18 inches, and Greensburg tornado). We've seen cars, trucks, trees, and chunks of buildings carried for over 40 miles in some cases with a tornado. I've seen other examples where several FEET worth of soil erosion and/or deposition happened in one tornado.

It would only take like one such storm every 1.8 million years to meet or exceed the long term average of 1/10,000th of an inch erosion rate, not even counting all other wind and rain events throughout time.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2010
It's kinda like the whole "inflationary period" thing on the big Bang Theory. When it suits them, they allow the laws of physics to change at any arbitrary time to explain the size of the universe, since it's size would violate relativity otherwise anyway.


The one that drives me nuts is the first law of thermodynamics. "13 Billion years ago everything burst into existence from nothing"...Mkay.

However as to fusion, well if our theories were wrong about that then those bombs wouldn't work. The math is very precise to get those firecrackers to blow. I'd say that's a pretty solid theory.

Then there's nucleosynthesis, which is also in accord with how we know stars burn. Sure all stars are different. So are all gas tanks, doesn't mean the fundamentals of internal combustion are different from car to car.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2010
The other thing I forgot to metion for large flat spaces on continents is fire.

A fire can "erode" huge amounts of material in the form of converting wood to vapor, i.e. CO2. And of course, once a forest, jungle, or grassland is burned, normal wind and rain can erode the remaining ashes at rates that are simply ludicrous compared to "every day" processes.

So normally a forest grows adn decays with only some local erosion, but if the forest burns, then you've vaporized a huge percentage of it's mass, and then what's left gets blown away or washed away incredibly easily.

Later, more plants come on the scene, converting more soils to combustible material where it can be easily vaporized the next time a fire comes through. Ok, this takes decades to centuries to complete one full cycle, but it's potentially much faster than you might imagine.

Recap:

Plants convert soil to wood, foliage and shrubs. Fire converts it to CO2 and ash, which wind and rain move effortlessly.
Caliban
5 / 5 (17) Dec 22, 2010
QC,
You conveniently ignore the basic concept of Sedimentology. It is entirely true that layers of any and all types of rocks can and are subsequently buried by sediment at some point following their formation, after anywhere from zero to advanced erosion.

All that is required for these preserved strata to persist over very long time periods is to not be deeply enough or tectonically stressed enough to undergo the metamorphism necessary to re-crystallize. Which is exactly what happens in many areas, across the globe, on the Continental Platforms, especially away from the margins.

If we have found Ediacaran fossils already, from half a billion years ago, then it is not in any way impossible for them to be found at an even earlier date, and is only dependent upon the discovery of even younger, non-metamorphosed strata, which is precisely what has happened here.

Qtom
1 / 5 (21) Dec 22, 2010
QC, your ideas are actually quite clever.
I am disappointed in some responses to your posts that personally insult you.
The lack of manners of some is pathetic: calling you am idiot tells of nothing about you but plenty about the author.
My phone battery is going but watch this space for elaboration when I get back to my PC.
DamienS
5 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2010
QC has truly excelled himself in this thread, even to the point of creating a new sockpuppet ^ so that he can agree with himself.
Graeme
5 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2010
This is very significant, finding these fossils from the Cryogenian period. I am disappointed that the authors also used the term Vendian rather than Ediacaran. Using the word today is an anachronism, as there are links to it from 16 December. Publication at http://dx.doi.org...0.11.008 (Lets ignore QC's posts are we seem to be encouraging them)
Jotaf
5 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2010
This is pretty cool! It makes sense that multicellular life existed in some form way before the Cambrian explosion; it must've taken some time for the organisms to reach the degree of adaptation that allowed them to fill every niche in the oceans. But at this point it's hard to distinguish between simple multicellular life and colonies of bacteria that can't live on their own.

Anyway, regarding the point about carbon dating, Quantum_Conundrum, an army of scientists had time to go over all of those issues. Just see the wikipedia page on carbon dating and how they take into account the differences in the concentrations of different isotopes that may occur (exactly the objection you raise).

http://en.wikiped...eservoir

I'm sorry, you seem like a smart fella, but you know a single human is subject to error and there's always someone smarter than you (and me!).
CHollman82
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
I don't think you know what erosion is QC...

A tornado is not going to "erode" flat land areas... sure, it may suck up some dirt and throw it a few hundred feet... that is not erosion.

Nothing that you rambled on about in those long posts would cause actual erosion to flat lying vegetation covered land...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2010
Personally I don't think what they're describing qualifies as multicellular life. There seems to be some debate on that issue even amongst themselves. I still subscribe to a mass extinction, possibly a snowball Earth event, as the "culprit" for the Cambrian explosion.
Observitate
1.5 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2010
I've herd of fossils being moved through tectonic events that make them appear much older than they are when age is being determined by the surrounding earth. Any possibility of a case like that here?
El_Nose
not rated yet Dec 23, 2010
as i replied to QC in a PM -- water is the answer he's seeking. All fossils share water in common, well water or tar -- but water is the main perserver of the past -- the object falling into a stream or ocean that build sedimentary layers upon it is how everything was preserved. the western US was the bottom of an ocean once-- the middle US was a swamp --- this is true of all areas where fossils have been found.
skenwrick
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2010
I hate to join in the QC bashing.. but you state:

"Plants convert soil to wood, foliage and shrubs. Fire converts it to CO2 and ash, which wind and rain move effortlessly."

However every one knows that plants convert carbon from the air into wood, foliage and shrubs.. Only a minuscule amount is taken up from the soil as nutrients..

Whoops!

skenwrick
not rated yet Dec 23, 2010
However lets just say that through chemical or physical means a single layer of atoms is eroded from a surface every minute or so (by wind, water, chemical erosion etc). If we take an atom to be about the order of 1 Angstrom thick (0.1 nanometres), then over a period of 150 million years we would lose about 7.8 kilometers.. 1 atom an minute is not alot.. 7.8 KM is quite alot.. He probably has a point..
CHollman82
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
Not only that, but when the plants die they return to the soil... in fact soil is nothing but the remains of decayed plant and animal matter...

The vast majority of the material is not going to go anywhere, and this is not an example of erosion.
CHollman82
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
However lets just say that through chemical or physical means a single layer of atoms is eroded from a surface every minute or so (by wind, water, chemical erosion etc). If we take an atom to be about the order of 1 Angstrom thick (0.1 nanometres), then over a period of 150 million years we would lose about 7.8 kilometers.. 1 atom an minute is not alot.. 7.8 KM is quite alot.. He probably has a point..


No he does not... soil is not lost over time, in fact it is mostly gained over time. Soil forms from the decaying remains of plant and animal life... at a much faster rate than wind or anything else can remove it... QC has no idea what he is talking about.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2010
The most amazing thing is that QC will point out these detailed "problems" and demand that nothing can be known from observation to any certainty and that the whole collection of scientists is wrong. He'll do all this while holding beliefs that are supported far less than accepted theory. How can you argue so fervently and believe the earth is young? That two humans started it all? That a worldwide flood occurred? All this with NO evidence. It is so disgusting, the double standard you hold. Really? Imagine your bible theories are correct, what kind of problems do you encounter now while observing the earth and universe? Did that assumption cause all the data to beautifully meld? F*&# NO! You're worse off for thinking it.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (13) Dec 24, 2010
Cholliman82:

You realize you are dead wrong.

Barring extreme cases of man-made hydroponics, Plants require soil to grow. They don't "make" soils. It's true that roots can sometimes keep soils in tact by giving it some structure to stay in place from runoff, but that makes my piont for me.

Ask a meteorologist what happens when it rains after a forest fire. You get massive erosion not only of the ash, but of the underlying soil, because thereis nothing to keep it in place, and no living plant matter to soak up any water either.

Skenwreck:

Nice to see someone else at least attempted to do some actual math of their own, instead of parroting someone else.

Caliban:

You're doing it once again. you are taking someone elses assumption/conclusion and then citing that as if it were somehow "evidence". A theory cannot be evidence of it's own self. That is circular reasoning.

"radio dating of rock a is good because radio dating of rock b is good..." = you = Ignorant fallacy.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2010
@ Quantum

I want to actually see you type out the answer to my question. If we assume that we have a young earth, Adam and Eve were real, etc, etc, bible babble, does that fit the data and observations of today better than our current model? Does it really work better under your assumptions?
Caliban
5 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2010
@QC,

You've done nothing here except to expose your lack of understanding of basic scientific principles(in this case, geological), and the observation and measurement that back them up. The Earth is not 8,000 years young. Get used to it.

Merry Christmas.
GaryB
4.2 / 5 (11) Dec 24, 2010
> Quantum_Conundrum sez
If the rate of erosion on earth was 1/1000th of an inch per year, ... then in an alleged 750 million year period, roughly 11.84 miles thick worth of continental crust would have eroded...
Basicly, it should not even be physically possible for a fossil to exist on the earth above a few million years old, no matter how old you think the earth is...

Are you a young earther, just ignorant, or both? You argument is just silly: Erosion isn't the only process that goes on, the eroded material goes somewhere, that's called deposition (covered up). So, something can be preserved indefinitely if it gets covered a bunch, eroded slightly less, covered again. It's true that most fossils have probably been destroyed over time by various effects, that's why finds are rare. But extremely old sites are extremely possible. Back to geo 101 with you.

Inflaton
5 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2010
Qtom was created on dec 22 2010........not suspicious in the slightest :P
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2010
You realize you are dead wrong.

Barring extreme cases of man-made hydroponics, Plants require soil to grow. They don't "make" soils. It's true that roots can sometimes keep soils in tact by giving it some structure to stay in place from runoff, but that makes my piont for me.
What do you think dead plant material decays into?
You can look at other stars, which is what they do, but almost every object in the universe displays unique behaviors. This tpe explosion, that type explosion, gamma ray burst here, x-ray there, gobular cluster here, single star there,e tc.

They act like it's same everywhere, and it clearly isn't.
"Each person dies of something a little different. Heart attack here, stroke over there, asthma over there, etc. Medical experts act like all people are the same but they clearly aren't all people."

But we are all people, and we are all different, just like all stars are stars, and follow the same rules.

Chemistry is a universal.
ahmedgnz
5 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2010
QC contends

--------------------------------------
Moreover, you must not be familliar with radio dating, because one of my main contentions against radio dating is the false assumption of there having always been similar ratios of radio-isotopes vs stable ones. There could not have been.

-----------------------------------------------

The mineral used for dating samples of the age in discussion is Zircon (ZrSiO4 which readily admits uranium as a substitute for Zr but rejects lead. Therefore any Pb found in the sample must derive from radioactive decay of U. Two isotopes of U decaying into two distinct isotopes of Pb at differing half-ages provide a cross check. Zircon is so stable and heat resistant that minute crystals with pockets containing the pre-oxygen atmosphere of the Earth have been found in Australia.
ahmedgnz
5 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2010
To contend that the rate itself of radioactive decay has changed in time, is to say that the weak interaction, one of the four fundamental forces, has not been constant either after the symmetry breakdown of the inflationary period. If this is so, then I say, Where are the FACTS that support this THEORY of his? Indeed, what is his THEORY at all and how does it explain the hundreds of years of observed facts in the physical sciences? Publish or perish.
Argon
1 / 5 (13) Dec 25, 2010
QC,

I believe you are far more intelligent than so many of these people are implying by all of their scoffing. It seems that they think they are the only people with a mind that works. Saying "we are right" and "we are main stream", but they seem to think there is some high mountain of evidence for evolution sitting on the shelves of every science room. Yet when you ask most proffessors for proof they say "vistigial organs in a whale or something". If evolutiion possesses such a fortress of unrefutable proof please point it out!

QC,

Anyway, I am curious to know what do you believe to be the best physical evidence for a young creation?

How do evolutionists explain the formation of the fossils found all accross the earth?

Is there some proof-positive that they(the fossils) had to have formed during a global flood?

Can the theory of evolution be picked apart piece by piece using sound evidence?

Are there any experiments that can disprove evolution? confirm it true?
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2010
Anyway, I am curious to know what do you believe to be the best physical evidence for a young creation?
He thinks the Bible is enough. He has NO physical evidence. At least he has never posted any. Nor has anyone else.
How do evolutionists explain the formation of the fossils found all accross the earth?
Did you mean to ask what HE thought was the source of the fossils?
Is there some proof-positive that they(the fossils) had to have formed during a global flood?
No. Indeed the evidence is totally to the contrary.
Can the theory of evolution be picked apart piece by piece using sound evidence?
No. All he has bullshit.
Are there any experiments that can disprove evolution? confirm it true?
Yes. They prove it true. If it wan't true they would have proved it false.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2010
It seems that they think they are the only people with a mind that works. Saying "we are right" and "we are main stream", but they seem to think there is some high mountain of evidence for evolution sitting on the shelves of every science room.
Outside of Texas, yes, there is.
Yet when you ask most proffessors for proof they say "vistigial organs in a whale or something".
So you've never asked.
If evolutiion possesses such a fortress of unrefutable proof please point it out!
Right here:
http://www.amnh.org/
Inflaton
5 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2010
Is Argon another QC sockpuppet?
He sure is sounding like one.
Argon
1.9 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2010
Is Argon another QC sockpuppet?
He sure is sounding like one.


Why are there so many rude people on this forum?

I asked some questions and made only one statement that referred to a personal experiance (asking a few professors: What is the best physical evidence for evolution) and somehow now I'm a sockpuppet of some person who has yet to even reply to my post when all was addressed to just that person (QC,).

If you would like me to direct any of my questions to any of you in the future and share my thoughts with you on various topics and articles please be more respectful to me (there is not much motivation to talk to people who only value their own thoughts and hurl insults whenever they disagree with you).
Inflaton
5 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2010
In all fairness it was very similar to Qtom's post to QC (and Qtom is blatantly a sockpuppet).
jmeert
5 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2010
Actually, Vendian has precedent over Ediacaran and Vendian includes the interval we are talking about here whereas Ediacaran does not. Furthermore, the entire discussion about erosion rates is nonsensical. Erosion removes a lot of the geologic record, but not all of it. The same people who complain that erosion should have removed this record on an old earth are the same who claim that marine fossils on Everest are proof of a global flood.
jmeert
5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2010

I start to wonder if these people should be taken any more seriously than Peter Pan or Fantasia...


Or Kent Hovind, or Ken Ham or any of the creationist wackos who claim the earth is 6000 years old an a global flood took place 4000 years ago! The main difference is that the people reporting this have some evidence on their side whereas Hovind/Ham are just lying for jeeeeeesus
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2010
If you would like me to direct any of my questions to any of you in the future and share my thoughts with you on various topics and articles please be more respectful to me (there is not much motivation to talk to people who only value their own thoughts and hurl insults whenever they disagree with you).
Is this your first day on the internet? I'm not trying to be rude, but with your above commentary, you're going to draw the attention of the worst trolls going.
The main difference is that the people reporting this have some evidence on their side whereas Hovind/Ham are just lying for jeeeeeesus
No, they're lying for mooooooneeeey.
A2G
3 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2010
Quantum,

I previously reminded you of a warning given long ago about casting pearls in the wrong place..You should know better. What you are doing is not helping anyone here or yourself. Your best bet is to leave this place and let happen what will happen. Knock the dust off your feet and move along.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2010
I previously reminded you of a warning given long ago about casting pearls in the wrong place.
Let us know when you find a pearl in QC pro fundamentalism posts. He can't even manage to tell us when he thinks that flood occurred. Or where there is evidence for it.

Ethelred
CHollman82
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2010
rofl @ casting pearls to swine reference, that is certainly a favorite of the religiotards... do you all get together in a big group meeting and come up with these things?

Anyways, QC is not casting pearls to swine here, he is casting feces at intellectuals and ruining our suits...
hylozoic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2010
Crustal Displacement or BUST. Tectonic hypothesis is SO ten-minutes late.
mysticshakra
1 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2010
As I recall techtonic theory was vehemently denied and attacked by scientists if the day because they absolutely knew that it wasn't possible/there is no mechanism for it, etc. Just like airplanes can't fly and man can't go faster.than 40 MPH.

The arrogance that man, after only a few hundred years of science has unraveled the secrets of *everything is astonishing.

*Except of course for a theory can can resolve gravity and electromagnetism, memory, the behavior of galaxies, existence itself and that little problem about what is life exactly anyway....
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2010
techtonic theory was vehemently denied and attacked by scientists if the day because they absolutely knew that it wasn't possible/there is no mechanism
Denied for good reason and vehemently denied are two different things.
Just like airplanes can't fly and man can't go faster.than 40 MPH.
Try and find a remotely competent scientist that EVER said airplane can't fly. It's 60 not 40 and it wasn't scientists that made the claim. HORSES go 50 even with men on their backs.
The arrogance that man
There is at least one man who is too arrogant to even get his bullshit right.
after only a few hundred years of science has unraveled the secrets of *everything is astonishing
Especially so to the scientists that have made no such a claim. When did anyone competent ever claim to have a functioning even half proven TOE?
what is life exactly anyway
Nothing to do with a Theory of Everything since life is an emergent property of the physics of atoms.

Ethelred
mysticshakra
1 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2010
Infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue9/wright.html

Here you go. Ignorant scientists who know everything proclaiming what is possible based on their own infallibility. The references are footnoted.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2010
1/3
Infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue9/wright.html
And you take a site that heavy on Cranking seriously?
Sopwith and a half-million other people would not have latched onto aviation and developed it intensively
This guy is pretty ignorant. The French were building planes BEFORE they ever had proof of the Wright Fliers.
People often ask: if cold fusion is real, why is it ignored and attacked?
Well it isn't real so there isn't much to attack.
If the Wrights had not built the airplane, man would not have flown for another ten or twenty years,
Bullshit. The FRENCH were building planes as said above. This MUST be the source of your writing technique. Make shit up and call it real.
If Bell Labs had not come up with the transistor, by now we would have computers with a million "vacuum tubes on a chip."
Nonsense. The chips were made to exploit transistors. No transistor no chips. Another idiot remark by a Crank.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2010
2/3
This had been proved mathematically with "unassailable logic" by leading experts in physics, writing in distinguished journals and magazines.4
Considering all the rest of this guys crappy claims I doubt there any article by competent PHYSICIST supporting this claim.

4. F. Kelly, The Wright Brothers: A Biography authorized by Orville Wright, (Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1943), p. 116, describing Simon Newcomb.


Oh, I see the book was talking about ONE MAN, Simon Newcomb, who had NO formal education but doesn't actually support his claim in anycase despite that.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2010
3/3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Newcomb#On_the_impossibility_of_a_flying_machine


Where we find that I am and your source is full of shit.
In 1903, however, Newcomb was saying, “Quite likely the 20th century is destined to see the natural forces which will enable us to fly from continent to continent with a speed far exceeding that of a bird. But when we inquire whether aerial flight is possible in the present state of our knowledge; whether, with such materials as we possess, a combination of steel, cloth and wire can be made which, moved by the power of electricity or steam, shall form a successful flying machine, the outlook may be altogether different.
The references are footnoted.
Yes it was. And unlike you, I tracked it down. Do check on things. A Crank looking for support from Cranks is bound to find something. Next time use a reliable source that doesn't make up shit and call it Shinola.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
Dec 31, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jmcanoy1860
not rated yet Jan 12, 2011
Not sure if this has been pointed out to the resident cretinists. In all of your "my grade is so high they had to kick me out of Harvard to let everyone else pass" you neglect to factor in one thing. That the fossils are formed in the ocean (ie being buried with time under incremental layers of sedimentation) and were subsequently raised above sea level (at least once but likely more than once). Only on the final "rise" would erosion would have an impact on removal of overlying rock layers. Then they would eventually be able to be discovered.

Now quit being an idiot.