4 of 11
4
Evolution Disproven?
Posted: 04 August 2007 03:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
narwhol - 03 August 2007 03:07 PM

I suspect this poster is going on the pseudoscientific works of William Dembsky.  Evidence of assemblage of microorganisms into larger communities that function as a whole “organism”: Funghi and their fruiting bodies.  Drug resistant bacteria appear to be poor competitors in the wider population and therefore less adapted to surviving and thriving in an environment already densely populated by other’s of a slightly different strain. Kill off most of the population and the drug resistant ones will do better due to the lack of non-drug resistant ones.  There are quite a few pieces of very clear evidence (examples) for all of the different speciation mechanisms including apatric, allopatric and saintpatric speciation mechanisms and you really ought to look at them instead of the nonsensical made up and completely untested information “theory” of William Dumbski that you appear to be spouting. It is simply another attempt by him and the other ID proponent freaks to get something unscientific and poorly thought out into mainstream science without doing the work like the rest of us have to.

On this point, Could one of the moderators check out the IP numbers of people posting to this site and trace the registered users please as I think the site has been targetted by Christian weirdos and freaks recently.  Today, I have found a piece of junkmail in my email account that was sent to me via CFI from someone calling themselves “dearoneinchrist@yahoo.com”  and it is a long and idiotic scam mail.  I can post it to a moderator if they wish to view the evidence.

I am not related at all to the individual you are mentioning as William Demsky.

But I can tell you that life in the uiniverse appears to me as being formed the same way as the bodies in the cosmos are formed: by association of elements.

Planets are formed by association of gases or cosmic dust or planetesimals, this can cause the similitude of different planets in different locations because their elements are the same but with different proportions. For example, it has been detected that Jupiter might have oil, but oil on Earth is assumed to be as a “fossil fuel”, what is going on here?

And, for your records, I am not a religious person.

[ Edited: 04 August 2007 03:14 AM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

A lot of what you are saying does not make any sense, I can say that with greatest confidence whenever you encroach upon my particular field which is physics.  I would urge you to look again at what you said about the supernova.  I’m not actually sure what you are trying to say about elements from a supernova can you please explain precisely what you mean about that because in its current formulation it is nonsense.  Not all bodies in the cosmos are formed by association of elements there are an awful lot of compounds out there ttoo.  I don’t think I ever saw this article you refer to in which Jupiter was claimed to maybe have oil.  I’d say it is very unlikely that this is the case since it is a gas giant.  Having just googled it to make sure, it appears that you are referring to the Hydrocarbon lakes on titan.  These are extremely unlikely to be oil.  If you’re referring to the work of Thomas Gold, I assure you he is just a nutjob.  Your insistence on the idea that evolution only refers to favourable mutations is simply not true.  There are unfavourable mutations (often entire populations) that were quite well adapted to their environment but died out when their environment changed.  There are also neutral adaptations such as flightless birds still having wings.  The banana example is just plain silly.  No one in their right mind ever suggested that we shared a common ancestor with the Banana in evolution.  Given that living things need many of the same cellular proteins and share a similar set of life processes, it is inevitable that many fairly large sections of our DNA will share a similar pattern of codons to other living things.  50 % is really not that high a percentage since there are (if memory serves me correctly) 20 amino acids and a few of these only have one codon that ever codes for them. 

The fact that I share 98% of my genes (96 % of my total DNA) with a chimp (a comlex arrangement, but we manage) on the other hand is a little more compelling.  The fact that modern humans were not around for a large part of even homonid history points to evolution.  The presence of transitional human species such as homo heidelbergensis appears to support this.  On the other hand, something that beggars belief is the idea that as each of these former species of human died off completely, another species of human spontaneously assembled itself from chemicals that happened to be lying around to takes its place.  I think I will stick with evolution thank you very much.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
narwhol - 04 August 2007 09:49 AM

A lot of what you are saying does not make any sense, I can say that with greatest confidence whenever you encroach upon my particular field which is physics.  I would urge you to look again at what you said about the supernova.  I’m not actually sure what you are trying to say about elements from a supernova can you please explain precisely what you mean about that because in its current formulation it is nonsense.  Not all bodies in the cosmos are formed by association of elements there are an awful lot of compounds out there ttoo.  I don’t think I ever saw this article you refer to in which Jupiter was claimed to maybe have oil.  I’d say it is very unlikely that this is the case since it is a gas giant.  Having just googled it to make sure, it appears that you are referring to the Hydrocarbon lakes on titan.  These are extremely unlikely to be oil.  If you’re referring to the work of Thomas Gold, I assure you he is just a nutjob.  Your insistence on the idea that evolution only refers to favourable mutations is simply not true.  There are unfavourable mutations (often entire populations) that were quite well adapted to their environment but died out when their environment changed.  There are also neutral adaptations such as flightless birds still having wings.  The banana example is just plain silly.  No one in their right mind ever suggested that we shared a common ancestor with the Banana in evolution.  Given that living things need many of the same cellular proteins and share a similar set of life processes, it is inevitable that many fairly large sections of our DNA will share a similar pattern of codons to other living things.  50 % is really not that high a percentage since there are (if memory serves me correctly) 20 amino acids and a few of these only have one codon that ever codes for them. 

The fact that I share 98% of my genes (96 % of my total DNA) with a chimp (a comlex arrangement, but we manage) on the other hand is a little more compelling.  The fact that modern humans were not around for a large part of even homonid history points to evolution.  The presence of transitional human species such as homo heidelbergensis appears to support this.  On the other hand, something that beggars belief is the idea that as each of these former species of human died off completely, another species of human spontaneously assembled itself from chemicals that happened to be lying around to takes its place.  I think I will stick with evolution thank you very much.

It appears that you have not updated your information because in order to check my statements anyone -including you- can use the Google search and write “elements decay after supernova explosion” and find lots of articles about it, or to write “hydrocarbons detected in Jupiter” and tens of articles about presence of hydrocarbons in other planets is available.

The question is simple, how oil is formed, by fossils or by other natural formations? The current observations are leading that petroleum can be formed by natural formations which won’t require life or extincted life as the source. I have the strong perception about petroleum as being formed by natural causes other than by dead organisms.

Lets check factual obsrerbvations against traditionaltheories:

1)-  Petroleum seems “to look for caves or underground canals to settle”, this phenomenon was discovered in the last spills of oil tanks when the cleaning was in progress. The observation was that petroleum used to hide under the rocks in the shore. Well, we have ancient wells of water which dried up long ago, these ancient wells contain as leftovers millions of bacteria. When the formed oil in our atmosphera took the liquid form and fell on ground it found these underground caves or canals and settled in them. The already existed bacteria in the caves and canals mixed with the hydrocarbons. This event explains their presence in oil and can easily be accepted as valid as easy was accepted the idea that oil comes from dead living organisms millions and millions of years ago.

2)- Even more, before the discovery of hydrocarbons in other planets, a best seller book of the 50’s claimed that oil was formed in the atmosphera of our planet by the encounter of our planet earth witth another celestial body. The explanation given is also acceptable and is supported by the detections of hydrocarbons made by spacecrafts in other planets. Your seem to believe that Titan is the only body in space having hydrocarbons besides Earth in our solar system, use the Google search again and you will found yourself as incorrect.

I have to go now, I’ll check your other statements later on.

Best wishes.

[ Edited: 04 August 2007 12:31 PM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

I am asking, exactly what kind of elements and what kind of decay.  I’m not going to bother googling it, I’m assuming radioactive elements and radioactive decay. At which point I would have to ask how fast are they travelling during this process before I could answer that point.  I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to ask you to be more specific in your statement since the link you made to evolution and “association” seems somewhat unreasonable at present and “elements decay faster…” is meaningless without mechanism and conditions.

As to saying hydrocarbons detected in jupiter, that’s a long way from saying there might be oil.  A very long way.  If we’re talking about methane and some of the other simple hydrocarbon gases, they are pretty abundant in the universe from all sorts of processes.  This is because Carbon and hydrogen are ubiquitous and have a tendency to combine.  Even the outer surface of diamond is carbon bonded to hydrogen as XPS studies show.  This is hardly surprising because carbon is tetravalent, so the outer surfaces must have two of unpaired electrons free to bond to something else.  The only forms of elemental carbon in which this does not happen are the fullerenes.  So hydrocarbons found in Jupiter? Sure, whyever not. Crude oil found in jupiter? Our survey said: “Eh urrrrr!”

Petroleum is generally found under layers of impermeable rock.  Not caves.  Bacteria? Again, these are ubiquitous (on this planet).  They are even found in hot springs in Iceland.  It only takes one to survive and thrive in an environment for whole colonies to develop.  Oil formed in our atmosphere?  Not a chance.  There was a lot of methane in our atmosphere at one point, but crude oil?  Very seriously doubt it.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4095
Joined  2006-11-28

I have to concur with Narwhol that a lot of what you are saying makes no sense. Evolution is the process of species gradually changing over time. You are the one who insists on the notion of “progress.” The mechanism of evolution is natural variation and natural selection leading to differential reproduction based on environmental conditions. It really isn’t complicated.

“Complexity in the process of information not int he organisms?” I have no idea what that means. “Complex” is a fairly straightforward word, meaning more parts and a greater number of relationships between parts and relationships between parts that are more intricate. Denying that eukaryotes are more complex than prokaryotes is, again, just refusal to accept the obvious when it contradicts your preconceptions.

You dismiss the fossil record, but you are wrong to do so. The evidence from fossils and molecular genetics and carbon dating all agree, so you’re just being stubborn by pretending it doesn’t actually make a solid case.

The mechanisms by which microorganisms change in response to environmental pressures, such as an tibiotics or host resistance, are well-understood. They were predicted by evolutionary theory and, when elucidated, fit it perfectly. Your cague and confusing statements about this and rabbit coat color changes don’t really say anything to explain this away.

You claim birth defects are the same as inheritance of acquired characteristics. Completely wrong.

The trouble with breeding CHihuahuas and Great Danes has nothing to do with living in different environments. Put simply, the relevant parts don’t fit together. This is because selection for different body types by humans has gradually led to changes in structure, encoded by genes and transmitted to offspring. Classic example of evultion except with an artificial selection pressure. Your comments about horses are also ill-informed and irrelevant. Currently horses are domesticated, and yes their ability to survive in a wild environment is as doubtful as that of the Chihuahua. But the species existed, survived, and evolved from ancestral forms long before domestication, so it is a perfect example despite your insistence on misunderstanding it.

All of this amounts to say that we cannot even debate the merits of evolutionary theory because you make vague assertions which ignore well-demonstrated scientific facts and then claim you’ve somehow invalidated evcolutionary theory. It sure seems like you have a pre-conception about how the idea must be wrong, and you interpret whatever you hear in a way to confirm this bias. I don’t know what your educational background is, but as a professional biologist I can say you haven’t shown a very accurate understanding of actual scientific facts in the field of biology in your posts. I’m happy to have a debate about evolution, but you need to make clear statements that are coherent and consistent with the facts you claim to care about before we can, and that hasn’t happened yet.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 08:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
narwhol - 04 August 2007 12:51 PM

I am asking, exactly what kind of elements and what kind of decay.  I’m not going to bother googling it, I’m assuming radioactive elements and radioactive decay. At which point I would have to ask how fast are they travelling during this process before I could answer that point.  I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to ask you to be more specific in your statement since the link you made to evolution and “association” seems somewhat unreasonable at present and “elements decay faster…” is meaningless without mechanism and conditions.

The answer is observable as well, while supernovas produce some heavy elements,  the residuals of the explosion or stars and planets can recycled them only. The energy released in a supernova is capable to create several elements around which cannot be created but recycled by other stars. So far, this is what is understood about the origin of some heavy elements. There is no trace about certain elements origin by the lack of a perceptable observation like the one made some decades ago by observing a supernova explosion with out telescopes.

The decay of the elements is faster when they are not regenerated by energy, this is why the hipothesis of “perpetual motion” won’t be possible in the universe. An element created by the energy of a supernova will start a faster decay when is spread out of it. This is like to say that you will decay faster outside the city without food than staying in the city feeding yourself properly.  Right?

Well, the same applies to the decay of elements in the universe. The oldest stars appear as having poor quantities of metals and more quantities of other heavy elements. Our Sun and Earth enjoy more metals in their composition, giving the hipothesis that certain heavy elements cannot be produced anymore by the lack of a higher energy like the one observed in supernonas or novas.

Now well, you can read about what I am writing here plus about association as the key action to form planets and stars, in the following link:

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/CCD_NEW/seti/topics/stars/part2.html

Or, a more easier to understand link:

http://www.pd.astro.it/education/PlanetV/planetarium/L23_02S.html

As to saying hydrocarbons detected in jupiter, that’s a long way from saying there might be oil.  A very long way.  If we’re talking about methane and some of the other simple hydrocarbon gases, they are pretty abundant in the universe from all sorts of processes.  This is because Carbon and hydrogen are ubiquitous and have a tendency to combine.  Even the outer surface of diamond is carbon bonded to hydrogen as XPS studies show.  This is hardly surprising because carbon is tetravalent, so the outer surfaces must have two of unpaired electrons free to bond to something else.  The only forms of elemental carbon in which this does not happen are the fullerenes.  So hydrocarbons found in Jupiter? Sure, whyever not. Crude oil found in jupiter? Our survey said: “Eh urrrrr!”

Petroleum is generally found under layers of impermeable rock.  Not caves.  Bacteria? Again, these are ubiquitous (on this planet).  They are even found in hot springs in Iceland.  It only takes one to survive and thrive in an environment for whole colonies to develop.  Oil formed in our atmosphere?  Not a chance.  There was a lot of methane in our atmosphere at one point, but crude oil?  Very seriously doubt it.

Good points but obsolete conclusions. I mentioned before about a book from the 50’s which narrates the possible origin of Petroleum from the upper atmosphera down to ground. People used to laugh about it until Hydrocarbons was found in the cosmos as well. Your position is that petroleum was formed from underground dead organisms through millions and millions of years.

Enough for imaginations of that kind. Today you can make petroleum in days, so the millions and millions of years is a dead story.

Lets go now for the possibility to have enough dead organisms to produce the huge amounts of petroleum which is pulled from underground everyday for the last century. Hmmmm, sorry, but you must start to use a calculator and give me numbers to back up such idea of yours. So far, micro-organisms dying and dying like crazy one over another to pill up great amounts of today’s fossil fuel is an out of reality event. Come on.

We know that Hydrogen and Carbon can become flamable with the presence of Oxigen. Check the composition of comets which include mainly the elements Carbon and Hydrogen. In outerspace they won’t burn but passing thgrough our atmosphere they can.

This event will cause the ignition of Hydrogen and Carbon with the contact with our atmosphera, but as the event is so huge a great quantity of Hydrocarbons will become liquid and will rain over the earth. On ground this liquid will sink into the pores of the sand and into clefs between the rocks. Here, the Hydrocarbons will meet with the existing bacteria.

See? No millions of years for this or millions of years for that. You even mentioned diamonds, well, in order to make diamonds you don’t need millions of years of pressure as well, and you know this, diamonds can be also made artificially in a few days.

Traditional theories are popular but still lack of scientific sense. The millions of years needed for every event are inacurate calculations based in what some scientists want to believe. Reality is telling us a different story.

For example, by the radioactive decay of the carbon isotope 14, the discoverer of this method W. F. Libby found out that the age of the samples of petroleum from the Mexican Gulf were of thousands of years and not of millions of years. (Science 1952, also check Harper’s Magazine, August 1953, p.48-53)

These results are against the statements of theories which implied millions of years for every change on earth, including the formation of petroleum. It must be remembered that Libby’s measurements were not under any pressure by any theory, so his calculations are impartial in regard with any theory made up to his years.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 09:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
narwhol - 04 August 2007 09:49 AM

Your insistence on the idea that evolution only refers to favourable mutations is simply not true.  There are unfavourable mutations (often entire populations) that were quite well adapted to their environment but died out when their environment changed.  There are also neutral adaptations such as flightless birds still having wings.  The banana example is just plain silly.  No one in their right mind ever suggested that we shared a common ancestor with the Banana in evolution.

Your examples show lots of adaptations and no evolution at all. Adaptation in biology is practically to gain and lose characteristics.

There is not such a “win only” event in biology. Lots of scientists argue that bacteria becomes more resistant to drugs because evolution, but I have showed you that the drug indeed affects its metabolism and make the bacteria to lose information. You can statre that “by luck” the losing of information causes a protection to the bacteria against the drugs, and thgis deformity or birth defect is inherited. It is a question that you evade in my arguments, is the bacterium the one who made the changes to protect itself from the drugs or it is an event out of control by the bacterium?

Given that living things need many of the same cellular proteins and share a similar set of life processes, it is inevitable that many fairly large sections of our DNA will share a similar pattern of codons to other living things.  50 % is really not that high a percentage since there are (if memory serves me correctly) 20 amino acids and a few of these only have one codon that ever codes for them. 

I don’t think that you are making sense, the point is that similitude is not equality, and the information in the genes can be completely different between humans and bananas and between humans and apes.

This is like a library. From far away you see the shelves with books whicjh appear to be the same. Yes, they have the same appearance in size and color but they are different because one group of books have information about science, the other group of book have information about poetry, and another group of books have information about comics.

They enjoy a similar number of pages and the printing is similar as well.

Then , lets see your point about you and the ape.

The fact that I share 98% of my genes (96 % of my total DNA) with a chimp (a comlex arrangement, but we manage) on the other hand is a little more compelling. 

See?, what is the guarantee that you and the chimp are really sharing the same quality of information? You have nothing but similitudes, and this is not enough to be considered as evidence. The bee nest is exagonal as lots of formations of lava and other things in nature are, however, you cannot establish a relationship between the exagonal presence in them.

The fact that modern humans were not around for a large part of even homonid history points to evolution.

Wait a minute right there. Show me how the homonoids were formed in the first place in order to verify your assumption. You cannot input a conclusion without the observable fact or observable phenomenon. You have not provide a single evidence to verify your transition from ape like creature to human like crreature. Is the food? What causes it? Without the vehicle which causes the changes you have no theory of evolution considered as valid. Sorry.

The presence of transitional human species such as homo heidelbergensis appears to support this.  On the other hand, something that beggars belief is the idea that as each of these former species of human died off completely, another species of human spontaneously assembled itself from chemicals that happened to be lying around to takes its place.  I think I will stick with evolution thank you very much.

Transitional, good, transitional into what? Having no chin (homo heidelbergensis) is a birth defect which is inherited as well as having less fingers in your hands. Again, playing with assumptions is not a valid support for a theory.

Life of species on earth don’t last longer than a few thousands of years, check right now how several species are getting extincted by the changes in the environment. The survivors lose characteristics, like flying ants losing their winds by the effect of volcanic vapors, frogs born with birth defects or deformed to the point of causing their extinction, and more.

I look around and I don’t see any evlutionary event in nature which can guide us to think that species will become more suitable and better adapted to the changes in their environment. On the contrary, more and more news are reporting the danger of extinction of more species instead of their evolutionary changes to adapt the new environment.

You should start doing the same, look around our reality and by comparing it with what you read you will find the difference.

Between what the news about reality say in the information media and the news about evolutionary doctrines, well, reality is causing the theory of Evolution to get extincted without mercy.

[ Edited: 05 August 2007 01:49 PM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 09:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

Could you rewrite the decay of elements bit in English please - I’d like to know what kind of decay, amongst other things.  The two links you gave are nothing I don’t already know in much greater detail and one is slighty eroneous anyway, and neither deals with this decay of which you speak.

And as to your hydrocarbon theory, I wasn’t trying to make hydrocarbons millions of years ago!  Yes, chemists can - they’re not dfficult.  Nature on this planet is not a human or a chemist (not that the two are mutually exclusive; but almost) and it takes millions of years.  You need to know the differerence between simple hydrocarbons and oil.  You are making no sense whatsoever and I would urge you to learn an awful lot more basic science than you seem to know, reread these things that you have written, realise how daft you are being and acknowledge it if you are to grow as a person at all.  I mean have you ever taken a walk around a limestone quarry and seen how much tonnage of just the shells of dead organisms make up the walls and the amount of empty space from what has already been mined.  There have been an almost incomprehensible amount of living things on this planet!  If their shells alone can make that many tonnes of limestone in a very small fraction of the globe, just imagine how much petroleum their bodies can make.  I am coming further towards the conclusion that you are nothing more than just a nutter.  Please prove me wrong.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 09:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

And no, I don’t.  I didn’t evade any of your arguments.  I told you how bacterial populations become skewed towards the greater anitbiotic resistance and you’re ignoring that.  Just as you evaded my arguments re speciation mechanisms and examples of things that have changed through them and just as you’ve ignored my arguments about different species clearly having evolved from each other, rather than having suddenly assembled themselves into existence from chemicals the very second that another very similar species disappeared from existence.  I thought you were just a nutter before that second post, but now I know it. Please do not waste any more of the other people-on-this-site’s time with this pseudoscience.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 09:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

I just looked at the last bit of your last post!  You blinking loon!  Evolution does not say that species will respond to changes at the drop of a hat.  Adaptations that cope well with a given change in the environment have to be there already within a species to make it flourish if that change happens in order for it to work.  If not the netire species won’t evolve it will just go extinct.  As has happened to ninety-nine point something percent of the species that have ever lived on this planet.  And whether people are saying that a whole species on this planet (based on a fall in their numbers) or not, does not mean that they will- better adapted members of that species (to whatever the changed environment might be) might survive and the rest might perish.  Or the species might go extinct.  Go away and learn the theory of evolution, nutter.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 11:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14

I would suggest checking THIS out, about petroleum. There is also some interesting background info on geology HERE.

... In particular, THIS is of interest, about drilling in sedimentary rock, THIS is about the geologic timescale, THIS is about cores taken from a well—note please in particular this claim: “Cutting the fresh, flat, surface allows the P[etroleum] G[eologist] to see things in the core much more clearly.  He is usually looking for indicators that will tell him what environment the rock was formed in, such a beach, a sand bar, or a river system.  He will also note grain sizes, small fossils, and burrows caused by worms or other marine life.” (My emphasis). On that same topic, THIS is of very real interest (about correlating oil with fossils)

The “abiogenic” theory (that petroleum was not created by the decay of living organisms) is discussed HERE, along with the fact that it was basically began in the ex-Sovet Union as a semi-politicalized theory, and that there is very little good evidence for it. That is, while some petroleum deposits may be abiogenic, there is no good evidence that they are anything but a very, very small minority of all the petroleum we can find.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 02:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

conquer -

I am curious as to what your educational background is, especially with respect to science education.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Conquer, any chance you also have the screen name JeromeDaGnome on other fora?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 02:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
narwhol - 04 August 2007 09:09 PM

Could you rewrite the decay of elements bit in English please - I’d like to know what kind of decay, amongst other things.  The two links you gave are nothing I don’t already know in much greater detail and one is slighty eroneous anyway, and neither deals with this decay of which you speak.

Now is my English, well, here is a link in excellent English which will useful for every reader of this topic.

http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/methods/quantlit/RadDecay.html -

You have a supernova with energy enough to contain and create heavy elements. After the supernova explosion the heavy elements are not formed anymore but are sent away and are distributed in the new stars and planets and leftovers of the supernova. As these heavy elements don’t enjoy the former supply of energy these heavy elements will transform in different elements which are more simpler. Now well, the oldest stars show in their composition to have more heavy elements than metal, and, the newest stars show to contain more metals than other heavy elements.

To identify the names of the metals like copper, gold and the heavy elements like thorium check this link

http://mcdonaldobservatory.org/news/releases/2002/0107b.html

What are these elements of the metals? Well, the decaying status of former heavy elements.

The oldest stars contain more of those heavy elements which after their decay become more simpler elements. As long as these older stars still alive their heavy elements still are in existence, their explosion as supernovas create such a strong energy to produce heavy elements. But, what is after such explosion? What other event in the world is capable to do the same?

As far as we know: one. Period.

This is why with pleasure I can tell you that after a supernova the elements decay faster, in the way to say, these heavy elements will disappear faster as well because there is not such energy available to keep them alive the way they are.

You say that you are something in physics, well, you are better than anyone to recognize that without a strong energy like the one found in a supernova there is no other way to produce and maintain those heavy elements, and that lesser stars and planets can recycle them but in a lower status.

This is not about common sense alone, but everything you see around will decay faster unless an event or factor will intervene and slow the decay or change its current status into a different element.

[ Edited: 05 August 2007 04:26 PM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 02:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

I see, it is the word faster that is being incorrecly used in your post.  Heavy elements are formed in the later Nuclear fusion processes occuring in stars.  The material that is ejected from a supernova will not decay any slower than the same substance made by any other process.  Half of all the atoms of the substance will decay in a time equal to the half-life of the material.  Now, you then went on to compare that process to species.  I don’t see any link at all.  Species will die out when conditions become unfavourable to their survival.  The rate is not dictated by any kind of exponential decay mechanism such as you see with radioactive nuclei.  The claim is just silly.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 11
4