0
   

CBS, Natue Geoscience misled by geologists

 
 
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 02:13 am
Nature Geoscience misled by geologists

CBS news and Nature Geoscience journal recently reported (notes 1, 2) that geologists of Kansas University (note 3) found no fossil in samples of 3.5-billion-year-old Apex Chert Formation of western Australia.
However, I found many mammalian red blood cell fossils right in the micrograph of the above-mentioned geologists:
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

It’s a fact that organisms could fossilize into different minerals (note 4). In this case, red blood cells mineralized into quartz. Red blood cells have also been found to mineralize into magnetites (note 5).

That does not mean there were mammals on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.
That simply means the red blood cell fossils moved with water into the rock much later than 3.5 billion years ago. Likewise, bacteria could also move into the 3.5-billion-year-old rock layer much later.

Note 1: CBS news report http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20043932-501465.html
Note 2: article abstract and figures in Nature Geoscience
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo1084-s1.pdf (see Figure S2)
Note 3: Press Release by Kansas University http://www.news.ku.edu/2011/march/15/fossil.shtml
Note 4: Wikipedia article on permineralization of organisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Permineralization
Note 5: RBCs turned into magnetites
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,389 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 05:30 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
However, I found many mammalian red blood cell fossils right in the micrograph of the above-mentioned geologists

How do you know they aren't reptilian red blood cells or avian red blood cells?
bewildered
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2011 05:33 am
@rosborne979,
Because they were round/concave. See newly added figure:
Seven mammalian red blood cell fossils are newly marked in the complete figure at
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2011 05:57 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
Because they were round/concave.

Reptile and Avian red blood cells are round/concave as well. They look the same. And in any case, you can't see any of those details in the images you are referencing. So how do you know they are mammalian cells?
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2011 06:01 am
@rosborne979,
because he's a lunatic, and lunatics see things like that*


disclaimer: i'm not a real psychoanalyst, but i play one on the intertubes, much like others play scientist Wink

rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2011 06:06 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

because he's a lunatic, and lunatics see things like that*
He's certainly bewildered, at the very least Wink
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2011 02:22 am
@rosborne979,
Reptile and Avian red blood cells are NOT round/concave. They are elliptical and convex.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2011 03:55 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:

Reptile and Avian red blood cells are NOT round/concave. They are elliptical and convex.

And you can see that in the micrographs?
bewildered
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2011 08:33 am
@rosborne979,
Yes. If you cannot, see the first micrograph below:
Don’t use chemistry or location to identify fossils.
Many people like to use chemical composition of material to identify fossils (note 1). However, Wikipedia article says clearly:
“This process (in fossilization) can occur in very small spaces, such as within the cell wall of a plant cell.” (note 2)
“In some cases the original remains of the organism have been completely dissolved or otherwise destroyed.” (note 3)

So, many fossil cells can be just casts. That means those fossil cells are just like rock minerals except for their shape/size and their origins in biology. Just one recent example: Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Many anatomists need to study the location (context) of cells in order to identify fossil cells. They are not used to things that are long dead and distorted out of context as shown in this micrograph:
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
So, they may not be sure about fossil cell identification.

Note 1: a recent example
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-overturns-oldest-evidence-life-earth.html

Note 2: Wikipedia article paragraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Permineralization

Note 3: Wikipedia article paragraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Casts_and_molds

Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2011 09:01 am
@bewildered,
Quote:
Many anatomists need to study the location (context) of cells in order to identify fossil cells. They are not used to things that are long dead and distorted out of context . . .


It is incredible the tripe you post. The same could be said about you. If, as you allege, cells "long dead" can be "distorted out of context," then when you make a statement such as this:

Quote:
Reptile and Avian red blood cells are NOT round/concave. They are elliptical and convex.


. . . you destroy your own credibility. The cells you allege are mammalian could have as easily been "distorted out of context." For that matter, so could avian and reptilian cells. It's not just that you have no credentials of which we know which would lead anyone here to believe your hilariously inexpt accusations--in addition, you can't make a coherent and internally consistent argument, because you contradict your own bullshit as you post more of your signature bullshit.
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2011 10:08 pm
@Setanta,
Sorry, by "distorted out of context" I referred to tissues distorted out of context. As to red blood cell fossils, they deformed and "moved out of context (out of blood vessels or any other organic tissues)". Anyway, no convex RBCs could deform or be distorted into concave ones.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2011 10:22 pm
@bewildered,
Oh, that's a horse of a different color:

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2011 05:09 am
@bewildered,
Goofball statements from authority are your stock in trade, but they don't convince anyone. What surprises me is that you persist despite not getting a single positive response to the bullshit you post here.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2011 08:46 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
Yes. If you cannot, see the first micrograph below:

I've seen all your micrographs. Not one of them shows what you say it does. Simply claiming that a speck on a photo is something unusual it not sufficient to make it so. Do you have anything more convincing than photo's of specks?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 08:41 am
On a personal note, I hope that Dr. Hoover is right and that asteroids are indeed filled with exotic extraterrestrial life of various sorts. That would be thrilling. But so far, his evidence for such us extremely sketchy and it is incumbent upon him to back up extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence, and so far he hasn't done it (and neither has anyone else). (bummer).
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2011 04:14 am
You seem obsessed. Why the interest in all this?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2011 04:38 am
I'd say he's workin' up to some supertsitious hocus-pocus.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2011 05:56 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I'd say he's workin' up to some supertsitious hocus-pocus.
We can only hope Wink
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2011 01:05 am
@rosborne979,
You are obssessed with non-truth. You have no faith in truth, because you have no faith in God. God is the biggest picture and the smallest picture. Most scientists have tunnel visions, because they concentrate on a small area and lose sight of the big pictures. That's why they often babel.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2011 02:09 pm
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
You are obssessed with non-truth. You have no faith in truth, because you have no faith in God. God is the biggest picture and the smallest picture. Most scientists have tunnel visions, because they concentrate on a small area and lose sight of the big pictures. That's why they often babel.

That's the best you can do? A religious rant? I'm very disappointed. I was hoping for something far more interesting and "sci-fi like".

Nobody's interested in tired old "God lectures" which have been done thousands of times before. We're looking for some fresh new jaw-dropping lunacy which we can really sink our teeth into, like the martian mammals and scientists stuff you posted before. The public has a short attention span and unless your act is fresh and ever changing people will lose interest. Look at Charlie Sheen, top of the charts on whacky behavior for a while, but he's already losing the headlines.

You don't want to lose your audience, or nobody will visit your wretched web site.
 

Related Topics

ET cell study: origins & results - Discussion by bewildered
Basic Theophysiology - Discussion by davidhannon
Reviewing Einstein’s Theory of Relativity - Question by Dale E Hayes
Google deleted my article. - Discussion by bewildered
Fossils are all over Mars, period. - Discussion by bewildered
 
  1. Forums
  2. » CBS, Natue Geoscience misled by geologists
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/11/2018 at 05:11:41