Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • This week in Las Vegas there was a TR session at the big paleontology to do. Then an Elvis tribute

Recent Posts

1
My point here is to help us get our heads around the Flood Model ...

IF the ancient biosphere was 100X the modern ... then that's 219,000 Gt of carbon !!!

Or about 300X the modern atmospheric carbon.
...
There is no "Flood Model"
There is (1) the axiomatic, faith-based ASSUMPTION of a "Global Flood", and there are multiple, contradictory apologetics projects to try to wedge observations into a framework that accommodates that assumption[/b/]
This thread is about ONE of those apologetics projects: R.H. Brown's.
It is not about THE "Flood Model".
2
First problem I see with the 100X thing is .... the total global inventory is only about 43,000 Gt. I think there should be the same total carbon per and post flood.
3
Here it is again:

Pingu ...  you are getting better about saying things more simply but this last post is still too complicated.  Try to explain it like you were explaining it to a third grader.  I don't understand why we would not expect all the curves to agree under EITHER model.  Why would that be exclusive to the OE model?

OK, Dave, that is a good question.

Let's step back a bit to where we last  had an agreement:

  • changes in atmospheric C14:C12 ratio will affect ALL samples from any given date EQUALLY.
  • Errors in count-date, because they arise from many different kinds of errors, will be DIFFERENT for different sources.


And let's first consider samples where the count-date is <5000 years old.

Let us imagine we have a set of samples for which we have both count date and radiocarbon date (calculated using N0=modern values).  This is what we would see if there were NO errors in the count date, and ALL the deviation from the 1:1 line are due to atmospheric C14:C12 ratios being different in the past:



The ORANGE datapoints are what we would see if Brown's model is correct. The BLACK data points are what we would see if N0 has been constant for the past 5000 years.  The BLUE datapoints are what we would see if something else had been the case, for instance if N0 was slightly higher in the past.

And if we kept taking more and more samples, always correctly identifying annual layers and never miscounting them or misidentifying them, we'd get more and more data points, and they would all agree:



If Brown was right, they'd all lie on Brown's line; if the "N0=constant" was right, they'd all lie on the 1:1 line; and if something else was right, they'd all lie on that line.

The AGREEMENT between the curves would tell you that the count was accurate, and the CURVE itself would tell you how much atmospheric C14:C12 ratios have changed, and by how much, over the past 5,000 years.

Am I making sense so far?
4
Quote
It is still not clear why mainstream cladistic analyses conclude that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs and not like basal paraves. They are two branches stemming from pennaraptora. I do not expect anyone here to know the answer to this but if anyone does, please let us know.

It is not like concluding that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs is parsimonious. Far from it. It requires tens of millions of years of "ghost lineages". And the belief in an absurd number of "exaptations".
Why do mainstream cladistic analyses conclude that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs and not like basal paraves? After all, there are two branches stemming from pennaraptora.
I have been reviewing again material on optimization such as:
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/teaching/cladistics.pdf

My first take on the subject of pennaraptora is that the conclusion that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs and not like basal paraves, is because of the a priori assumption that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

If I am correct about this then it is completely circular.
If we look just at the taxa within "pennaraptora" then according to optimization there is no reason to prefer one hypothesis over the other. It is only when you assume a ground based dinosaur ancestor for "pennaraptora" that you would conclude that pennaraptora is like oviraptorosaurs rather than like paraves.
5
Dave, why are you ignoring my direct responses to your question?
6
My point here is to help us get our heads around the Flood Model ...

IF the ancient biosphere was 100X the modern ... then that's 219,000 Gt of carbon !!!

Or about 300X the modern atmospheric carbon.

Now one thing I don't know is ... if there really was that size biosphere, then how much carbon would be in the atmosphere? I'm thinking it would be much higher than 750 Gt

???
7
Quote
It is still not clear why mainstream cladistic analyses conclude that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs and not like basal paraves. They are two branches stemming from pennaraptora. I do not expect anyone here to know the answer to this but if anyone does, please let us know.

It is not like concluding that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs is parsimonious. Far from it. It requires tens of millions of years of "ghost lineages". And the belief in an absurd number of "exaptations".
Why do mainstream cladistic analyses conclude that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs and not like basal paraves? After all, there are two branches stemming from pennaraptora.
I have been reviewing again material on optimization such as:
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/teaching/cladistics.pdf

My first take on the subject of pennaraptora is that the conclusion that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs and not like basal paraves, is because of the a priori assumption that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

If I am correct about this then it is completely circular.
8
In what way do you think cladistic analysis concludes that Pennaraptora was like like oviraptorosaurs and not "basal Paraves"?

And no, they aren't two branches "stemming from Pennaraptora" they ARE Pennaraptora. Yet again you're confusing names given to clades defined by nodes for actual taxa. How many times did we have to tell you that you don't put taxa at the nodes? Do you still not get this?
9
Quote
It is still not clear why mainstream cladistic analyses conclude that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs and not like basal paraves. They are two branches stemming from pennaraptora. I do not expect anyone here to know the answer to this but if anyone does, please let us know.

It is not like concluding that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs is parsimonious. Far from it. It requires tens of millions of years of "ghost lineages". And the belief in an absurd number of "exaptations".
Why do mainstream cladistic analyses conclude that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs and not like basal paraves? After all, there are two branches stemming from pennaraptora.
I have been reviewing again material on optimization such as:
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/teaching/cladistics.pdf

My first take on the subject of pennaraptora is that the conclusion that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs and not like basal paraves, is because of the a priori assumption that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
10
Why do mainstream cladistic analyses conclude that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs and not like basal paraves? After all, there are two branches stemming from pennaraptora.
You'd think this is the sort of thing "Dr. Pterosaur" would know like the back of his hand.