What does a 45,000-year-old femur mean for the Neanderthal in you?

The Christian Science Monitor's Science Blog ^ | October 23, 2014 | Anne Steele

[AndyTheBear]

The fact that the alleged physicist claims he found over 5 percent C14 in a sample — more than any organic form can have — shows he really doesn’t know what he’s doing, or what he’s talking about, AT BEST.

We are stipulating he is dumber than a rock remember? However, curious I listened through the video again and missed this 5 percent claim. How far into the video was it made? Was it on one of the papers or was the narrator saying it?

That aside, assuming the link is a fraud for the purposes of this discussion, you emphatically asserted earlier:

Dinosaur bones have never been RC dated within 40K, irrespective of the claims at that link.

Now you say they don't have RC dating at all. Do you mean merely that no dino bone has ever been subjected to radio carbon testing, or are you also asserting that they could not be tested because of some technical issue?

If there is not some kind of technical issue, I am curious as to why they have not been tested by main stream science, even though they are expected to have no significant C14, I see two values to testing them:

1) Verification of the limits of C14 testing. For example if dino bones fell in range of 60,000 years or more, then this would be evidence that 60,000 years or more should be considered essentially infinity.

2) To verify that we don't have another shocking near coelenterate type situation (i.e. fossils showing them to be extinct millions of years ago until some turned up alive).

Just to clarify, not that it should matter, but cosmological speaking I find the evidence for Georges Lamaitre's long term version of creation to be compelling, and think of both short term creation and an eternal universe as implausible. This is not an official position, since I am no authority on such matters, just my personal leaning with the understanding I currently have. I am trying to learn, not argue with you. However I am an equal opportunity skeptic, wanting to be convinced by good arguments and reason rather than bashing others credentials.

So I guess what I am really curious about is if there is a good technical reason why trying RC dating on a dino bone is not possible?

[SunkenCiv]

WTF are you talking about? Dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million years old, more than 1,000 times longer ago that is possible with RC dating. Stop wasting my time!

[AndyTheBear]

WTF are you talking about? Dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million years old, more than 1,000 times longer ago that is possible with RC dating. Stop wasting my time!

Yes, as I have said more than once they would be expected to be an infinity years old on an RC scale. Thus, as I tried to make clear as best I could, I was curious why they would not be used to determine the effective range of RC testing. It seems bizarre that this makes you angry.

[SunkenCiv]

WTF is “an infinity years old”?

The effective range of RC testing IS known.

The age of dino fossils is at least 1,000 times greater than the effective range of RC testing.

[AndyTheBear]

WTF is “an infinity years old”?

The age of dino fossils is at least 1,000 times greater than the effective range of RC testing.

You answered your own question here. Such ages are effectively infinity on an RC scale.

The effective range of RC testing IS known.

I am not certain how it is known, and how well it has been verified. But bones that are effectively infinity years old on the RC scale seem an ideal way to verify the upper limit in real world terms. Theory is a good starting point. Verification is better.

[SunkenCiv]

Fossils have been dated with other radiometric methods. Only people ignorant and dismissive of the sciences think that radiocarbon dating is the only radiometric method.

And no, I didn’t answer my own question. There is no “an infinity years old”. It’s a nonsense term.

[AndyTheBear]

Fossils have been dated with other radiometric methods. Only people ignorant and dismissive of the sciences think that radiocarbon dating is the only radiometric method.

Yes, I am aware that there are many radiometric dating techniques. No I am not at all dismissive of sciences. I am also aware that none of the other radiometric dating techniques have been used directly on any dino bones because they can't be, but are instead used on nearby ingenious rocks that have chains of half lifes between sister isotopes and so forth...

And no, I didn’t answer my own question. There is no “an infinity years old”. It’s a nonsense term.

Oh good grief, really? You are nit picking my language instead of engaging my points. You insult and assert but have offered no knowledge that is not basic and well known, but you have offered it in a way that is exceptionally angry vulgar and condescending. You hardly have the attitude of one who is curious about discovery. Rather you have displayed the attitude of one needlessly insecure.

You have wasted my time.

[BroJoeK]

AndyTheBear: "Yes, I am aware that there are many radiometric dating techniques.
No I am not at all dismissive of sciences.
I am also aware that none of the other radiometric dating techniques have been used directly on any dino bones because they can't be, but are instead used on nearby ingenious rocks that have chains of half lifes between sister isotopes and so forth... "

Andy pal, you still sound very confused, and you're trying the patience of our very patient Sunken Civ.
So, take a break and learn something.

Here is a brief summary of geochronology methods.
And here a summary of radiometric dating techniques.
Note that all-told they mentions dozens of different dating methods, of which carbon-14 is just one.
Note also, the explanation of carbon-14 dating clearly shows the year limits on that technique (60,000 max).

As for those dino bones which have you so exercised, please remember that there has never-ever been a complete dinosaur bone found anywhere on earth.
Yes, unconfirmed reports of "dino soft tissue", carefully teased out of specially selected samples, but never a complete bone.

What has been found instead are rock-fossils, sedimentary rock formed by mud particles filling in cells of buried dinosaurs.
They look exactly like the original bones, but are not bones, they are sedimentary rock.
Sedimentary rocks cannot themselves ordinarily be dated radiometrically.
What can be dated absolutely are volcanic ash layers within which, or close to where, fossils are found.

For the past century now, geologists have worked to date, absolutely or relatively, every stratigraphic layer of rock within which fossils (or valuable minerals) are found.
So the approximate dates of any new fossils found are often known pretty well, just from previous work done on nearby geological strata.

Of course, if you fantasize that all those thousands of layers of various kinds of rock were somehow laid down in a matter of days in recent millennia, you likely won't buy anything that reeks of "scientific explanation".
But that is your problem, not ours.

[BroJoeK]

blam: "Last I read, Asians have a slightly higher % of Neanderthal DNA than Europeans. Africans have none."

I was trying to make a funny, hope it didn't fall flat. ;-)

Somewhere I once saw a breakdown of percentages, based on ethnic groupings, now can't remember for sure, but do know the range was 2% to 4%, which means we are talking about the statistical difference between two or three Neanderthal great-great-great-great grandparents.
And, since it's been at least 1,000+ generations since our last Neanderthal, ahem... indiscretions, we have to suppose that only those beneficial traits survived into today's populations.

[AndyTheBear]

What has been found instead are rock-fossils, sedimentary rock formed by mud particles filling in cells of buried dinosaurs. They look exactly like the original bones, but are not bones, they are sedimentary rock.

Did some research on the Schweitzer research and reaction to it among scientists...and found that RC testing actually was done on other dino bones (by bones I mean the ones found with soft tissue that some think have not fully fossilized).

In an article published in the journal PLoS One on July 20, 2008, researchers Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler and Zbigniew Sawlowicz argue just that. This team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum. Through carbon dating, the team also determined that the material was modern, not prehistoric [source: Kaye et al.]. In statements made to National Geographic, Schweitzer stood by her findings, noting, among other things, that Kaye's team did not address more recent protein studies of her T. rex samples [source: Roach].

Look, my attitude is about learning with an attitude of curious skepticism.

Of course, if you fantasize that all those thousands of layers of various kinds of rock were somehow laid down in a matter of days in recent millennia, you likely won't buy anything that reeks of "scientific explanation".

What I fantasize about is a world where people can discuss theories without using condensation as a means of rhetoric.

I have read the young earthers mention vertical fossils in sedimentation layers as evidence that it can happen quickly. The answer as far as I understand it from the main stream is that it only happened quickly for those layers where the fossil is vertical, but that the sedimentation was slower other times. Is the reason to suppose this mostly based in igneous radiometric dating in proximity to the layers that must have been more slowly developed?

There is much I don't know and am curious about, and I was honestly seeking answers to questions raised. Good information rather than condensation and links to common geological links would be appreciated. I am asking because I have done some reading and can't find the answers.

[blam]

"And, since it's been at least 1,000+ generations since our last Neanderthal, ahem... indiscretions, we have to suppose that only those beneficial traits survived into today's populations. "

Every feature that is used to describe Neanderthals can be found in the worldwide human population today. For example, the Australian Aboriginies have a greater/larger brow ridge than that found on Neanderthal skeletons. Brow-ridges are often used to describe 'primitiveness.' Every feature has survived somewhere.(?)

So....(We Are Neanderthals)

[BroJoeK]

AndyTheBear: "Did some research on the Schweitzer research and reaction to it among scientists...and found that RC testing actually was done on other dino bones (by bones I mean the ones found with soft tissue that some think have not fully fossilized)."

Schweitzer's "soft tissues" are still controversial, and not fully accepted as genuine dino-stuff.
Of course, in due time they may well become accepted scientifically, especially as more & more examples are found, and more questions answered about them.

But that is not yet the case.
As of today, the number of published examples of truly "soft tissue" allegedly from dinosaurs is very small, less than a hand-full, not "dozens" as is sometimes claimed.
Those "dozens" of soft-tissue examples you sometimes hear about are not in fact really "soft".
Rather, they are especially well preserved stone fossils of dinosaur hide and sometimes even internal organs.
They are called "soft tissue" because that is what was fossilized, but there is nothing "soft" about those fossils.

In those very small number of cases -- Schweitzer's being the best known -- where actual dino-tissue is alleged, small amounts of simple collagen were reported.
Analyzed, it was found to be similar to collagen in chickens, of which Tyrannosaurs are thought to be a particularly exuberant example.

So, as of today, the evidence is suggestive but not conclusive, and will remain that way until more examples are fully analyzed.

AndyTheBear: "...it only happened quickly for those layers where the fossil is vertical, but that the sedimentation was slower other times.
Is the reason to suppose this mostly based in igneous radiometric dating in proximity to the layers that must have been more slowly developed? "

Sorry, but I don't quite understand the question.
Yes, I "get" that examples of vertical tree trunks have excited the imaginations of some "young earthers".
But I don't "get" why a local mud-slide millions of years ago should create such excitement today.

[BroJoeK]

"So....(We Are Neanderthals)"

;-)

[SunkenCiv]