Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Tagline To Be Decided By Poll

Topic: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims (Read 749 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #25

If this is what you really believe, then do like JonF has done and list the items you disagree with and why.
Dave, multiple people, including Pingu, have already done this in the other thread.

It's dumb shit like the fact that you don't read responses and then continue to ask for more that causes everyone to think you're an idiot at best and a liar at worst.
if you think Pingu has done it, then why don't you quote her on this thread.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #26
Christ you are one lazy idiot. Here you go...

You are being awfully shy about saying how old you think the youngest and oldest sloth poop is, Dave.

It would seem to be quite important to your argument as to how quickly it was pooped.
No it's not important. What's important is showing how ridiculous it is to spread 15 (or 60) sloth years of poop over 2000 years. 

You still haven't understood that showing that A is reasonable is not the same as showing that not-A is ridiculous.

THEN we can look at Brown's model

No, do that now.  If Brown's model is correct, you can then figure out how long the sloths took to poop and when they stopped.  If it isn't, then you can use a different model to figure that out.  Trying to discover the ONLY NON-RIDICULOUS timetable for an extinct sloth to poop over is utterly stupid.  Find out what the time parameters are first THEN you can figure out what sloth behaviour is most likely given those parameters.

and see what we've got. THEN maybe we can make some educated guesses about sloth poop that are not in la la land.

You've forgotten what this thread is about, haven't you?

Go on, deal with Mike's numbers.
I think we need to back up and talk about what kinds of statements are scientific and what kinds of statements are not.  First, it is correct that "that's ridiculous" is not a scientific statement.  Both sides of this debate are guilty of engaging in unscientific statements at times.

So I'm going to lead the way - at least in this post - in making only scientific statements about the sloth poop topic.  In other words, I'm going to attempt to list FACTS ONLY.  Here goes ...

1) The poop in Rampart Cave Unit A is almost entirely Shasta ground sloth poop and that animal is now extinct

The first is an inference, not a fact. The paper only refers to one sampled profile.  But yes, the animal is now extinct.  The entire point of the paper was to find out WHEN it went extinct, not to find out how it pooped, although the plant material in the poop turns out to be interesting.

2) Two obvious ways to study the pooping habits of an extinct sloth would be (a) study the poop itself and (b) study the pooping habits of the closest living relative, denoted by Wikipedia as simply "Sloth" ... link here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloth

Nope.  The most obvious way to do it is first to date the poop.  Radiocarbon dating works on poop.  Choose any atmospheric C14:C12 model you want.  You can also analyse the poop for its content, e.g. pollen will tell you whether pooping was seasonal (it was) and food plants will tell you whether climatic changes occurred over the period of uses.  Interleaving layers of other material will tell you how continuous or discontinuous the pooping was.

When you've done all that, you could look at the physiology of modern sloths.  You could also look at their behaviour, but that wouldn't tell you a lot as modern sloths are arboreal, and these weren't.  It might suggest that they may have been solitary.  It, and the poop contents, will tell you that they were vegetarian, feeding on rather un-nutritious plants, and so probably spent most of their time NOT in the cave, as plants don't grow in caves.

3) If we read the Wiki Sloth article, we find some curious things ... (a) modern sloths only poop about once a week (b) when they poop, they do so in the same spot over and over again (c) they poop out about 1/3 of their body weight each week

Which would be interesting in the light of your dating data.  Not otherwise.

4) For argument's sake if we assume that the Shasta ground sloth has a similar habit then from the data given in the Long paper, we could calculate what would be required for one Shasta sloth to deposit Unit A

I thought you were listing FACTS, Dave.

5) This has been done by myself with the help of osmanthus and the result is that Unit A represents roughly "15 sloth years" of weekly, year round pooping of one adult Shasta sloth ... or "60 sloth years" of weekly, seasonal pooping (3 months of Spring only)

And he's off....
6) Unit A was supposedly deposited over a 2000 year time frame (not 1500, Faid) determined by carbon 14 (p.1844 first sentence of last paragraph in LH column)

Read the table, Dave.  Also, in the Science paper, Long and Martin quite clearly state that "Sloth dung above 61 cm was deposited from about 12,500 to 11,000 years ago". 

7) Carbon 14 dating ignores theories of catastrophic global resurfacing events within the past 10,000 years.

Scientists are free to ignore any theories they like.  What they are NOT free to ignore is DATA, and radiocarbon dating does NOT ignore the DATA that shows that atmospheric C13:C12 have remained nearly, but not quite, constant over the last 50,000 years.  R.H.Brown does ignore this, and so do you.

8.) There is a difference in flora found in the upper part of Unit A compared to the lower part with more succulents being in the lower part

Yes.

9) Unit A has very little of any other kind of feces.  Almost entirely Shasta ground sloth feces.

The papers do not say that i.e. it is not a FACT.  The paper in Science DOES report a "blackened" layer which "may indicate a depositional pause.


To the best of my ability, I have attempted to give nothing but FACTS in the above list, which represents my attempt to be scientific about this topic.

There are a couple of facts there.  Most are extropolated inferences, and some are simply false.


Are there any points that you disagree with in my list?

Yes.  The key one is that it is neither a FACT nor even a sensible VIEW that to date the poop of an extinct animal, FIRST you see how some related animal poops THEN  attempt to date the poop by some other means.

That is absurd.  You START with DATA in science, and the DATA includes the C14 content, the plant species and parts in the poop (pollen for time of year, foodsources, for climatic evidence) and the nature of the intervening layers.  That will tell you how the animal MIGHT have pooped and what its habits might have been.  THEN you might relate that to the habits of related animals, or even to the habits of animals with related lifestyles or from related habitats.

But because you are ONLY interested in ridiculing any theory but your preferred one, you are idiotically trying to demonstrate that ALL POOPING SCHEDULES CONSISTENT WITH MODERN RADIOCARBON DATES ARE "RIDICULOUS".  They aren't.  They may be surprising, but they aren't ridiculous.

If you want to know how old that poop is then you need to look at the radiocarbon data.  Use Brown's model, or Mike's corrected version of Brown's model, or the modern model, it's up to you.  But the radiocarbon data are FACTS Dave.

You are free to ignore any theories you want but you are not free to ignore FACTS.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #27
Pingu ...

"Most of us are NOT in agreement with your itemised list.  Some things we mostly agree are "facts", others are arguments, others are opinions, and others are bullshit."

If this is what you really believe, then do like JonF has done and list the items you disagree with and why.

I've already provide you with a detailed, item by item response, Dave.  If you can't be bothered to read my posts, I'm damned if I'm going to repost them for you.  Find my responses in the other thread,  It was only this morning.


It's vague stuff like this combined with the massive amount of squid ink before and after this paragraph that causes me to compare you to a plexus sales person.

You are an idiot, Dave.

The "squid ink" that you dismiss is detailed posts on how you could actually go about testing both Brown's model and the "constant ratio" model.  The "vague stuff" you dismiss seems largely to refer to your perception that I haven't spelled out stuff that I have, and you didn't deign to read.

Such an asshole.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #28
Just for the record, here's the response I posted to your "facts" too, which I guess you also somehow missed, despite the fact that it was posted twice in that thread (once by me and then quoted by Pingu)...

1) The poop in Rampart Cave Unit A is almost entirely Shasta ground sloth poop
Not sure. Others have suggested this might not necessarily be true.
and that animal is now extinct
Yes, definitely a fact.
2) Two obvious ways to study the pooping habits of an extinct sloth would be (a) study the poop itself
Yes, that would bet the best way.
and (b) study the pooping habits of the closest living relative, denoted by Wikipedia as simply "Sloth" ... link here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloth
No, that would not be an "obvious" way. It would not be a remotely effective way at all, in fact, because living sloths are very, very different from ground sloths, so there is no reason to think their pooping habits would be at all similar.
3) If we read the Wiki Sloth article, we find some curious things ... (a) modern sloths only poop about once a week (b) when they poop, they do so in the same spot over and over again (c) they poop out about 1/3 of their body weight each week
It is a fact that the Wikipedia article says that. The questions of its veracity, and which sloth species it refers to make it incomplete.
4) For argument's sake if we assume that the Shasta ground sloth has a similar habit then from the data given in the Long paper, we could calculate what would be required for one Shasta sloth to deposit Unit A
5) This has been done by myself with the help of osmanthus and the result is that Unit A represents roughly "15 sloth years" of weekly, year round pooping of one adult Shasta sloth ... or "60 sloth years" of weekly, seasonal pooping (3 months of Spring only)
It is a fact that if you assume anything, you can conclude anything that logically follows from that assumption. But there are no facts that would allow you to make that particular assumption. It's also important to note that the pollen does not indicate that they pooped there for all of spring.
6) Unit A was supposedly deposited over a 2000 year time frame (not 1500, Faid) determined by carbon 14 (p.1844 first sentence of last paragraph in LH column)
Still seem to be some questions about that number.
7) Carbon 14 dating ignores theories of catastrophic global resurfacing events within the past 10,000 years.
Carbon 14 dating also ignores "theories" of magic fairies. This is a fact. Until you provide some actual evidence in support of the catastrophic global resurfacing theory, it's an irrelevant fact.
8.) There is a difference in flora found in the upper part of Unit A compared to the lower part with more succulents being in the lower part
Yes, this is a fact.
9) Unit A has very little of any other kind of feces.  Almost entirely Shasta ground sloth feces.
This is a repeat of (1). Still not sure about it.

To the best of my ability, I have attempted to give nothing but FACTS in the above list, which represents my attempt to be scientific about this topic.

Are there any points that you disagree with in my list?
Noted above. You also left out several important facts:

1) There is a lot of material that isn't sloth poop in the cave.
2) There is a blackened layer in Unit A.
3) The material found in the cave includes infant bones.
4) Perhaps the most important fact: Radiocarbon dating has been independently tested many times in different ways and found to be accurate. I know you disagree with that fact, but it is still a fact. (ETA: In fact, these tests disprove any "theories" of "global catastrophic resurfacing.")

Perhaps it's time to leave sloth shit and move on to examining C-14, as was supposedly the purpose of this thread?


ETA: Actually maybe the most important facts in regards to estimating how "ridiculous" any amount of sloth shit over any amount of time is...

1) No one, especially you, has any idea at all how often extinct ground sloths pooped
2) No one, especially you, has any idea how often extinct ground sloths pooped in caves.
3) No one, especially you, has any way of evaluating how "ridiculous" any amount of sloth shit over any amount of time would be.
4) The amount of sloth shit in a cave is not a "test" of radiocarbon dating.

Conclusion: Time to stop talking about sloth shit and start talking about radiocarbon dating.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #29
And just to head off at the pass an objection I can sense is coming, yes those responses are to your original list. But given that your only modifications so far have been to eliminate the one repeated item, and to try to hide your idiotic assumption about the pooping habits of tiny arboreal modern sloths being exactly the same as those of giant ground-dwelling extinct sloths, I think you can go ahead and take these responses as still applying to your modified list.

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #30
Following is a revised list, based on feedback received from JonF ...

1) The poop in Rampart Cave Unit A is almost entirely Shasta ground sloth poop with very little of any other kind of feces.  That animal is now extinct.
2) Two ways to study the pooping habits of an extinct sloth would be (a) study the poop itself and (b) study the pooping habits of the closest living relative
2b) Wikipedia describes the (modern) "Sloth" ... link here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloth
3) If we read the Wiki Sloth article, we find some curious things ... (a) modern sloths only poop about once a week (b) when they poop, they do so in the same spot over and over again (c) they poop out about 1/3 of their body weight each week
4) From the data given in the Long paper, the info in (3) above and applying a scale factor to scale up from "modern sloth" to the size of a Shasta sloth, we could calculate what would be required for one "Shasta sloth sized modern sloth" to deposit Unit A
5) This has been done by myself with the help of osmanthus and the result is that Unit A represents roughly "15 sloth years" of weekly, year round pooping of one adult Shasta sloth ... or "60 sloth years" of weekly, seasonal pooping (3 months of Spring only)
6) Unit A was supposedly deposited over a 2000 year time frame (not 1500, Faid) determined by carbon 14 (p.1844 first sentence of last paragraph in LH column)
7) Carbon 14 dating ignores theories of catastrophic global resurfacing events within the past 10,000 years.
8.) There is a difference in flora found in the upper part of Unit A compared to the lower part with more succulents being in the lower part

I eliminated Point 9 as it was redundant and I modified the others to be more FACTUAL.

Are we in agreement on these points?
NO.

"2) Two ways to study the pooping habits of an extinct sloth would be (a) study the poop itself and (b) study the pooping habits some extant animal that we can establish as analogous".

(Which would be one hell of a trick).

2b and 7 are true but irrelevant.

You left out quite a few relevant facts, such as the dark band contained in unit A.

So, is this your formal abandonment of any attempt to discuss Brown's model, Steve's model, or the real tests of Brown's model?
Don't forget 2, that's the most important one:

"2) Two ways to study the pooping habits of an extinct sloth would be (a) study the poop itself and (b) study the pooping habits some extant animal that we can establish as analogous".

Which is an accurate statement of the critical fact in your fantasy, and far more accurate than your formulation, but faces you with the impossibility of accurately estimating the age of the poop independently of 14C dating.

Quote
You say "NO" we are not in agreement ... but then you say "2b and 7 are true but irrelevant."  If you think they are true, how can you not be in agreement?
It is also true that:

  • There was a major earthquake in Mexico yesterday.
  • Paris is the site of the 2024 Olympics.
  • My granddaughter is 8-1/2 months old.
  • Pentatonix recently released a very popular version of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah.
  • Smile.amazon.com will donate a minuscule amount of almost all your purchases to your charity of choice.
  • I chose Planned Parenthood.
            .
            .
            .
Please add those and all other facts you can think of to the list.  Since there's no need to have only relevant facts.

Quote
Also you want me to list an item about the dark band ... ok ... Are you talking about the "Guano Layer" item in Figure 1 on the right side?  If so, fine I can add that.
No, I'm speaking of the dark band within unit A that has been mentioned so many times. With which you would be familiar if you had read the paper. And "Abundant Sphaeralcea (globe mallow) and Ephedra (Mormon tea) pollen in the dung". And "A distinct change in sloth diet appears ...between the bottom and top of unit A." And "[There is a] greater amount of Agave in the dung from 53 cm...". And any other relevant facts one could extract just as easily as I just did by fucking reading the fucking papers.

Quote
No I'm not abandoning anything.  Just separating out this topic for better clarity.
Sure you are.  You'll never post again in the other thread.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #31
In the spirit of the thread title, here are the actual claims R.H. Brown made about sloth dung (with my annotations):
Quote
TESTS OF BIBLICALLY COMPATIBLE C-14 AGE CONVERSION [1]
[...]

Another test can be made with the data for the ground-sloth dung deposit in Rampart Cave in Grand Canyon (Long and Martin 1974). Approximately 39,000 dung pellets[2] accumulated in the main area of this cave between 40,000 and 20,000 C-14 years B.P. [3]An average of 1.9 pellets per year (39,000 divided by 20,000 C-14 years)[4] is unrealistic for a viable population of sloths in the vicinity of the cave.[5] Conversion according to the relationship represented in Table 26.2 yields 5,350 and 5,270 corresponding real-time year age limits, with an accumulation time of only ~ 80 years.  [6] An 80-year interval represents only about 1.4 dung pellets per day.[7]The upper 20 inches of Rampart Cave floor deposit built up between 12,000 and 10,800 C-14 years B.P., and represents an accumulation in the main area of the cave at about 215 dung pellets per C-14 year.[8] Conversion to suggested real-time age equivalents yields a 13-pellet average per day during ~50 years. [9]
Origin by Design (revised edition 2005; p361)
note that the only thing "tested" about this is (misrepresented) amounts of sloth dung vs. ages estimated by a formula not derived from any empirical data, but force-fit to a lot of assumptions made specifically, explicitly, to accommodate  "BIBLICAL" (i.e. YEC) articles of faith.
Note that both the number and the "pellets" characterization are made up out of whole cloth
Note that, while the bottom of the pile was dated to ">40,000 years" (i.e. beyond the limit of the sensitivity of radiocarbon dating at the time) the 20,000 number appears to be, again, invented.
a meaningless "statistic" based on made up numbers and made up units
Note this statement contains a boatload of unstated and unwarranted assumptions. Among the most obvious: (1) what constitutes "realistic"? (2) what constitutes a "viable population"? Actual biological scientists would pretty much universally agree that 2 is NOT a viable population, especially when it represents the population, not just "in the vicinity of the cave", but on the entire planet. But Brown neglects to comment on the fact that this very "AGE CONVERSION" thingy he purports to be "testing" has that entire Unit C layer being deposited within 10 years immediately following "The Flood" (4) what fraction of the population used this cave in any given year, (5) what fraction of years did they use it at all (6) what fraction of any given year did they use it (7) what fraction of their dumps did they take in the cave ...
But conversion according to that relationship from the 14C dates actually presented in the cited paper yields ~5,350 (yep; the very year "The Flood" is assumed to have happened) and ~5,340 (ten years later)
On the other hand, a 10-year interval represents 0 dung pellets per day, because ground sloth dung doesn't come in "pellets". It does, however, represent about 60 cubic meters of the stuff / 10 years = 6 cubic meters/year "Brown time"
Again: no. "Pellets" is not a unit of ground sloth dung. It does represent about 11 cubic meters
No. It represents 11 cubic meters / 50 years, i.e. 0.22 cubic meters / year. I.e. a rate just ~ 4% of the rate in the first layer. Which rather calls into question all of those assumptions listed in footnote 5 about uniformity of rate of deposition. After a hiatus of some 200 years. Which rather calls into question the assumption of continuous occupancy.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #32
Following is a revised list, based on feedback received from JonF ...

1) The poop in Rampart Cave Unit A is almost entirely Shasta ground sloth poop with very little of any other kind of feces.  That animal is now extinct.
2) Two ways to study the pooping habits of an extinct sloth would be (a) study the poop itself and (b) study the pooping habits of the closest living relative
2b) Wikipedia describes the (modern) "Sloth" ... link here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloth
3) If we read the Wiki Sloth article, we find some curious things ... (a) modern sloths only poop about once a week (b) when they poop, they do so in the same spot over and over again (c) they poop out about 1/3 of their body weight each week
4) From the data given in the Long paper, the info in (3) above and applying a scale factor to scale up from "modern sloth" to the size of a Shasta sloth, we could calculate what would be required for one "Shasta sloth sized modern sloth" to deposit Unit A
5) This has been done by myself with the help of osmanthus and the result is that Unit A represents roughly "15 sloth years" of weekly, year round pooping of one adult Shasta sloth ... or "60 sloth years" of weekly, seasonal pooping (3 months of Spring only)
6) Unit A was supposedly deposited over a 2000 year time frame (not 1500, Faid) determined by carbon 14 (p.1844 first sentence of last paragraph in LH column)
7) Carbon 14 dating ignores theories of catastrophic global resurfacing events within the past 10,000 years.
8.) There is a difference in flora found in the upper part of Unit A compared to the lower part with more succulents being in the lower part

I eliminated Point 9 as it was redundant and I modified the others to be more FACTUAL.

Are we in agreement on these points?
NO.

"2) Two ways to study the pooping habits of an extinct sloth would be (a) study the poop itself and (b) study the pooping habits some extant animal that we can establish as analogous".

(Which would be one hell of a trick).

2b and 7 are true but irrelavent.

You left out quite a few relevant facts, such as the dark band contained in unit A.

So, is this your formal abandonment of any attempt to discuss Brown's model, Steve's model, or the real tests of Brown's model?
You say "NO" we are not in agreement ... but then you say "2b and 7 are true but irrelevant."  If you think they are true, how can you not be in agreement?  Also you want me to list an item about the dark band ... ok ... Are you talking about the "Guano Layer" item in Figure 1 on the right side?  If so, fine I can add that.

No I'm not abandoning anything.  Just separating out this topic for better clarity.
Because 2b is about living sloths, and therefore fucking useless when discussing extinct sloths with a totally fucking different ecology.
Why do I bother?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #33
...as any honest person would realize once they have access to the bare facts of the situation.
So anyone who disagrees with you must be a dishonest person.
(Or, perhaps, "fucking insane"?
Or living in "Alice's Wonderland"?
...)

So much for "leading the way" with "only scientific statements" and "FACTS ONLY".  ::)
It's quite obvious to me why you don't want to deal with my list of facts.
It is quite obvious to everyone here that you are scared shitless to compare the actual predictions of Brown's (or any other YEC's) model of radiocarbon chronometry with reality. Your entire "argument" CONTINUES to be "if we make a whole lot of assumptions about X,Y,Z... and apply them to the standard science model, we come up with inferences I find incredible". You STILL don't get that - even if you could make a coherent case that the standard science makes a hard-to-believe pre/post-diction - that doesn't mean any particular alternative is any MORE credible. Or is NOT a whole lot LESS credible.

I.e., despite your thread title, you still have NOTHING TO SAY about R.H. Brown's "model".
  • Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 10:58:49 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #34
Faid, which part of ...
Quote
Sloth dung of unit A was deposited between 13,000 and 11,000
yr ago at a rate of approximately 0.03 cu m (1 cu ft)/yr.
... are you having trouble with?

Last time I checked 13,000 minus 11,000 = 2000.  No?

And even if it's 1500 years instead of 2000 ... so what?  Why have a caniption [sp?] fit over it?
Dave, learn to READ articles instead of Ctrl-F'ing them. The end of Unit A is determined by the 12,440 sample, at 61 cm. The 13,140 one is at 67 cm, within the top layers of Unit B. And if you had read the text, you would know that sloth dung can be occasionally found within unit B, which the authors attribute to the rats digging them up. The authors may use rounded up numbers to set wide boundaries for the deposition of Unit A in their other article, but the numbers don't change.

But if it's "so what" for you, fine. Use that number and I don't have any "fits" but for your other garbage numbers (which I noticed you didn't even try to defend. Or are my posts partly invisible now?).
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #35

"Both are perfectly plausible."

No they are not as any honest person would realize once they have access to the bare facts of the situation.

The problem, though, is providing those bare facts to honest people amidst a veritable tsunami of squid ink.

I am convinced more and more that  massive amounts of squid ink are the only way you maintain the illusion of truth.

It's quite obvious to me why you don't want to deal with my list of facts.
Your unfounded assumptions and numberwanking are not "bare facts". In fact, you completely ignored "bared facts" (like the pollen evidence), until it was rubbed in your face enough times. And you still try to downplay it by continuing to present the continuous habitation assumption as an option.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #36
OK, better deal with this piece of calumny as well:

"Both are perfectly plausible."

No they are not as any honest person would realize once they have access to the bare facts of the situation.

It is not "dishonest", Dave, to disagree with YOUR personal assessment of what is "plausible".  Of course it is "plausible" that sloth use of the cave could have been seasonal and discontinuous.  We may disagree about whether it is likely, but that perception will largely depend on how we evaluate the DATING evidence.  If you are convinced it all took place over 200 years, clearly you will find the scenario in which use was discontinuous less plausible than someone like me who accepts the radiocarbon evidence that it all took place over a period of about 30,000 years.  But there is nothing "implausible" about either. 


The problem, though, is providing those bare facts to honest people amidst a veritable tsunami of squid ink.

If I were like you, Dave, I guess I'd accuse you of being "dishonest" in regarding my posts as "squid ink".  Especially seeing as you actually stated that you often don't bother to read them.

But clearly you have a different perception from my own as to what data are relevant to the issue of how to test Brown's model.  I have no idea why, because it seems self-evident to me  that the best way to test a model that predicts how old something is is to test against something for which you have an alternative and independent method estimating how old it is.  And also self-evident that a "test" that relies on the subjective evaluation of what is "plausible" usage of a cave for pooping in by extinct sloths is not.



I am convinced more and more that  massive amounts of squid ink are the only way you maintain the illusion of truth.

Well, oddly enough, I think the same of you.  I think you are burying your head in sloth poop as a way of avoiding the blindingly obvious method of testing Brown's model.  So one of us at least is wrong.

I think it is you.


It's quite obvious to me why you don't want to deal with my list of facts.

And it's equally "obvious" to me why you don't want to deal with the radiocarbon calibration datasets.

And I point you at BtheB's post above in which he kindly REPOSTED my response to your "list of facts" which you appeared to have Hawkinsed right past. 

You really are a choice asshole Dave Hawkins.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #37
Not that it really matters (like most of the listed "facts", it doesn't seem particularly relevant to anything to do with radiocarbon chronometry) but where did this come from:
1) The poop in Rampart Cave Unit A is almost entirely Shasta ground sloth poop with very little of any other kind of feces. 
Seems questionable, especially in light of
Quote
Close examination of the surface revealed that postglacial or modern wood rat (Neotorna) feces and food material are mixed with clipped twigs of Ephedra from the trampled dung of sloths.
and
Quote
In collecting A-1041 and 1392, we carefully excluded wood rat detritus.
Long et al. 1974
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #38
It's quite obvious to me why you don't want to deal with my list of facts.
Your list of "facts" has been dealt with.
Extensively.
Exhaustively.
In detail.
Item by item.
By multiple posters.
Repeatedly.

Why do you say "you don't want to deal with my list of facts"? 
Do you have some non-standard definition davinition of "to deal with"? 
Something like "to concede", perhaps?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #39
OK, better deal with this piece of calumny as well:

"Both are perfectly plausible."

No they are not as any honest person would realize once they have access to the bare facts of the situation.

It is not "dishonest", Dave, to disagree with YOUR personal assessment of what is "plausible".  Of course it is "plausible" that sloth use of the cave could have been seasonal and discontinuous.  We may disagree about whether it is likely, but that perception will largely depend on how we evaluate the DATING evidence.  If you are convinced it all took place over 200 years, clearly you will find the scenario in which use was discontinuous less plausible than someone like me who accepts the radiocarbon evidence that it all took place over a period of about 30,000 years.  But there is nothing "implausible" about either. 


The problem, though, is providing those bare facts to honest people amidst a veritable tsunami of squid ink.

If I were like you, Dave, I guess I'd accuse you of being "dishonest" in regarding my posts as "squid ink".  Especially seeing as you actually stated that you often don't bother to read them.

But clearly you have a different perception from my own as to what data are relevant to the issue of how to test Brown's model.  I have no idea why, because it seems self-evident to me  that the best way to test a model that predicts how old something is is to test against something for which you have an alternative and independent method estimating how old it is.  And also self-evident that a "test" that relies on the subjective evaluation of what is "plausible" usage of a cave for pooping in by extinct sloths is not.



I am convinced more and more that  massive amounts of squid ink are the only way you maintain the illusion of truth.

Well, oddly enough, I think the same of you.  I think you are burying your head in sloth poop as a way of avoiding the blindingly obvious method of testing Brown's model.  So one of us at least is wrong.

I think it is you.


It's quite obvious to me why you don't want to deal with my list of facts.

And it's equally "obvious" to me why you don't want to deal with the radiocarbon calibration datasets.

And I point you at BtheB's post above in which he kindly REPOSTED my response to your "list of facts" which you appeared to have Hawkinsed right past. 

You really are a choice asshole Dave Hawkins.
I believe it's plausible that the word "plausible" is another one that Bluffy doesn't really understand. Or at least has a davinition for.
Are we there yet?

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #40
There's only one person that has dealt honestly with my list of facts and that is JonF.   He actually agrees with all of them he just thinks that some of them are irrelevant and he thinks there are additional facts that are important.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #41
 All you other people apparently need some help in determining what is a fact and what is not a fact.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #42
There's only one person that has dealt honestly with my list of facts and that is JonF.  He actually agrees with all of them
So I was right:
Quote
Do you have some non-standard definition davinition of "to deal with"? 
Something like "to concede", perhaps?
Because I, and others, have dealt with your list, by any standard definition of "to deal with".
(and "honestly", by any standard definition of "honestly").
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #43
All you other people apparently need some help in determining what is a fact and what is not a fact.
no u
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #44
There's only one person that has dealt honestly with my list of facts and that is JonF.  He actually agrees with all of them he just thinks that some of them are irrelevant and he thinks there are additional facts that are important.
Where "honestly" means "not disagreeing with Dave in any way," right? If not, prove me wrong. Show me how any of us were dishonest.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #45
For example ...

FACT:  Long and Company did in fact determine  carbon-14 levels of poop samples

NON-FACT:  The age estimates based on these carbon-14 levels is not established as a fact

FACT:   Most of the poop in unit a is from an extinct Shasta ground sloth

NON-FACT:  it is not an established fact that modern sloths have the same defecation habits as the extinct Shasta ground sloth

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #46
There's only one person that has dealt honestly with my list of facts and that is JonF.  He actually agrees with all of them he just thinks that some of them are irrelevant and he thinks there are additional facts that are important.
Also, unless I'm misreading him, JonF is not agreeing with your 2b. He's proposing a corrected version of it and saying that even with the corrected version it would still be irrelevant.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #47
For example ...

FACT:  Long and Company did in fact determine  carbon-14 levels of poop samples

NON-FACT:  The age estimates based on these carbon-14 levels is not established as a fact

FACT:   Most of the poop in unit a is from an extinct Shasta ground sloth

NON-FACT:  it is not an established fact that modern sloths have the same defecation habits as the extinct Shasta ground sloth
Is this post supposed to be a response to some specific statement someone made? It would help if you would quote what you think is wrong in any of our responses.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #48
For example ...

FACT:  Long and Company did in fact determine  carbon-14 levels of poop samples

It is a fact that they report that they MEASURED carbon-14 levels of poop samples.  It is not a fact that they DETERMINED the carbon-14 levels.  That is my point about data and models, Dave.  What they got was a measurement.  A measurement is a model of reality.  And not always a very good model.


NON-FACT:  The age estimates based on these carbon-14 levels is not established as a fact

No, it is an estimate.  That's why they are called estimates, and why they come with confidence limits.


FACT:  Most of the poop in unit a is from an extinct Shasta ground sloth

That is an inference, Dave.  Probably justified, but not a fact.  It could turn out to be wrong.


NON-FACT:  it is not an established fact that modern sloths have the same defecation habits as the extinct Shasta ground sloth

No, it is not a fact.  It is a very dodgy inference.


I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #49
Yeah I was a little unclear on Jon's meaning at first ... now I think I understand ...

He want to change one of my sentences to the following ...

"2) Two ways to study the pooping habits of an extinct sloth would be (a) study the poop itself and (b) study the pooping habits some extant animal that we can establish as analogous."

Fine by me.