Cordova and Runyon on the fossil record

I don’t think you understand what you are reading. When I get a minute I will try and explain what they are saying. See, you think that the fossil they are referring to is in the area. Not so. They are cobbling together dates from where the original fossil was dated, and now including this area in Peru, trying to ‘bracket’ the age of a certain Triassic era.

I will try and explain later. But you are largely misunderstanding these articles. You indiscriminately throw them out as if they support you – and you are correct in that most people who read these articles do not even question them. But you forget you are dealing with a whole new paradigm which questions the very foundation of your paradigm, and so - yes, you must take a step back from your data and also see how it may very well support our paradigm, not just yours.

That one too is generally rejected by the people who do ancient DNA sequencing.

This is not an argument from science and does not support you. You stated nothing here that all of us do not already know. Can you answer my original challenge about dating the object and clock resetting? Or not?

where? can you give any reference for that claim that doesnt base on assumption? you should also expain this:

" The possibility of contamination is extremely low because no PCR products were detected in any negative controls, and the laboratory at Washington State University in which DNA of M. latahensis was extracted, amplified, and sequenced never possessed samples of the four extant species of Magnolia that share an ndhF sequence with M. latahensis ."

Excellent. Please start by explaining this, from the abstract: " The sampled ash bed–bearing interval is located just above the last occurrence of the bivalve Monotis subcircularis". Now, I don’t have access to the full paper, but this does say that the ash bed is actually just above a fossiliferous stratum, which you seem to be denying.

This seems simple enough. If a rock is melted, or raised to a high enough temperature that atoms become mobile, then the clock is reset. This is basic science. If thats something that all of us already know, why are you denying it?

Check out any review of ancient DNA, for example this one.

Alright, hold on. Just a minute. The fossil could very well have been in the area, yes. So I add that correction to my initial statement. But here is what you are missing. They are taking fossils of identical organisms found in different areas, dating and getting different dates, and trying to narrow down a Triassic era. Which completely establishes my point that this information is “cobbled together”.

Now, true enough, that cobbling together does not bother you. Fine. But you must realize when another looks at your so-called evidence, they find support for an entirely different paradigm. You must give space to that kind of thinking. Or…you must show how

THE EVIDENCE ONLY SUPPORTS YOUR VIEW

Can you do that?

And when we do get access,l think you will see my point is validated.

they are talking about contamination. but that is not the case with my paper:

" The possibility of contamination is extremely low because no PCR products were detected in any negative controls, and the laboratory at Washington State University in which DNA of M. latahensis was extracted, amplified, and sequenced never possessed samples of the four extant species of Magnolia that share an ndhF sequence with M. latahensis ."

and: " The newly determined sequence was exactly the same as the sequence from GenBank. Thus, because the fossil sequence differs from all other sequences of Lauraceae reported to date, contamination seems highly unlikely."

First off that would be fun. I hope we do it. Perhaps we set up PS venue for this.

Second, I suggest this set of guidelines for topics to avoid the 10 against 1 mess:

  1. Stay on topic with each thread.
  2. Do not introduce offtopic side shots.
  3. Encourage @moderators to split side topics.
  4. Stay on topic with each thread.

@stcordova I notice you have a tendency to introduce a lot of side topics. This thread has your name on it, so I’m not going to crack down. You don’t generally like splits, so I havent pushed for it. However if you want to avoid the pile on effect it helps to keep things tightly focused on scope.

I think some people are getting frustrated with the flip between topics too, and encouraged a robust response to counter some of your offhand comments.

Would you consider starting new threads for new top is rather than jumbling everything together.

Also, is acceptable to test out apologetics arguments on the boards. This a public board so we expect some theatre. I will say that trust is the most valuable currency. You build trust when you are transparent about this, and you acknowledge directly where an argument fails, rather than shifting to a new topic.

4 Likes

Why do you think that, what is your point, actually, and how do you think it will be validated?

You mean that’s the argument made in “your” paper. But it really wasn’t accepted by most other researchers.

First off that would be fun. I hope we do it. Perhaps we set up PS venue for this.
Thank you. The dialogues is important.

Also, is acceptable to test out apologetics arguments on the boards.

Thank you very much for that. PdotdQ has already corrected several errors in my knowledge of the literature, and it will help me convey accurate information in my church course and the ID/Creation college course I’m putting together.

@stcordova I notice you have a tendency to introduce a lot of side topics. This thread has your name on it, so I’m not going to crack down. You don’t generally like splits, so I havent pushed for it. However if you want to avoid the pile on effect it helps to keep things tightly focused on scope.

Thank you for not cracking down.

I happy to start new threads by mutual agreement, but this thread was FORCED on me. I said I’d start a thread sometime, and then instead of waiting for me to start the thread with my writing the opening, the thread with MY NAME was put on the title. I didn’t create the title either, nor write the opening post in the way I felt appropriate. If a thread is FORCED on me like that, I think I then should have discretion on how I defend my points and whether I think I did a good job, not how Timothy Horton or evograd think I’m doing because. They say “I’m embarrasing myself” when in fact I might personally think the reverse. Who is to decide who is making the best argument but the interested readers, and the YEC/YLCs might certainly think I’m availing myself well in this discussion.

So thank you for giving me latitude in this thread. And again thank you for giving me a chance to clean up my teaching materials here.

You don’t generally like splits, so I havent pushed for it.

I don’t like splits being forced on me. Also, I didn’t want to flood PeacefulScience with many many threads. If for every side topic I introduced, and made a thread, there would be an immense number of threads, so as a courtesy to the forum, I didn’t want flood the forum.

You build trust when you are transparent about this, and you acknowledge directly where an argument fails, rather than shifting to a new topic.

Several of my arguments didn’t fail, I shifted to new topics and ignored mischaracterizations and misrepresetnations and veiled ad hominems. I’m not going to invest time in dealing with those when there is an abundance of data for my case. As I put that laundry list down, I was accused of a Gish Gallop. But again, this thread was forced on me with the rather general heading of “the fossil record.” That’s just asking for an immense discussion, so big a discussion that there is hardly a “side topic.”

That said, we can work this dialogue out. On behalf of my students and church, I thank you for the opportunity to help me deliver quality materials to them.

2 Likes

You’ve done that to yourself by all the gish galloping you’ve been doing.

2 Likes

The title of this thread, which was not mine, was “the fossil record.” There are plenty of topics under that heading.

Just stop. You know what you’ve been doing. You will throw out argument and after argument before the previous one was even properly addressed or before you even responded to it. So all the piling up of things is on you.

1 Like

You have to deal with some of them rather than galloping off in all directions. You have not, to my knowledge, responded in detail on a single point. You just make a claim and abandon it when challenged, without comment, just moving on to something else. And the “faint young sun” is entirely off-topic.

Ok, you don’t have to participate. I feel bad your name was on the title to. That was not of my doing.

You want to talk specific issues, we negotiate that. But the first problem is we don’t even agree what issue takes priority, like the Faint Young Sun paradox, nor the issue of contact points, nor the issue of what clocks take priority.

You obviously wanted me to address the stuff the Evos think take priority. I’m not going to respond to those since I think the stuff I put on the table totally takes precedence. So perhaps we don’t have a discussion because we can’t even agree on what data points supercede others. And I think Varves and tree rings are way down on the list, for example.

1 Like

How about we setup a dedicated, moderated thread for a specific topic, limited to you against at most 3 participants, similar to what we did with gpuccio?

People who want to debate @stcordova, please identify yourself and what topic you’re interested in.

3 Likes

@John_Harshman

I the flood of comments I missed that you might want access to Judson and Ritter. I apologize. I can arrange to PM you links to my personal drive that have papers since i have academic access.

Please let me know how I can be of service there. Thanks for your comments.