Monday, August 24, 2009

Alleged Fastest Evolving Animal Is Biggest Evolutionary Loser



"In history and in evolution, progress is always a futile Sisyphean struggle...." -- Matt Ridley, zoologist, 1993

Descended from the Patagonian order Sphenodontia therefore falsifying plate tectonics, New Zealand's tuatara is alleged to be the fastest evolving animal. It is also alleged to be the biggest evolutionary loser. In other words, the faster an animal evolves the faster it loses. So much for survival of the fittest.

Science Daily: Naming Evolution's Winners And Losers.

ScienceDaily (Aug. 24, 2009) — Mammals and many species of birds and fish are among evolution's "winners," while crocodiles, alligators and a reptile cousin of snakes known as the tuatara are among the losers, according to new research by UCLA scientists and colleagues.

52 comments:

Jeffery Keown said...

200 million years ago, South America, Antarctica, Africa and Australia (including New Zealand) were all contiguous.

Tuatara is the last known Sphenodont, they once had much greater diversity. To assume that this disproves either continental drift or evolution is absurd.

But that's not too off-base around here, is it?

And when did you start believing in evolution? You get a bump on the head or something?

Anaconda said...

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Money for Brazil's offshore oil drilling; no expanded offshore drilling in U. S. waters.

The U.S. Export Import Bank has directed more than two billion dollars in loans to Brazil for its offshore oil exploration & production.

This agency is heavily influenced by policy out of the White House: The Obama administration.

Is the Obama administration helping political friends?

"Underlying the controversy was the disclosure that Obama-supporter and billionaire hedge-fund manager George Soros bought a $811 million stake in Petroleo Brasileiro SA in the second quarter, making the Brazilian state-controlled oil company his investment fund's largest holding."

If so, then the hypocrisy is stunning on many levels.

The Wall Street Journal took note with an editorial that lead with the headline, "Obama underwrites offshore drilling," followed by the sub-headline, "Too bad it's not in U.S. waters."

Brazil's offshore pre-salt oil deposits (Abiotic Oil) are huge and may top out at 100 billion barrels of oil.

How much oil exists in U.S. offshore deposits?

If it's up to the Obama administration we'll never know.

Considering where things now stand economically, this is simply unacceptable.

Obama: Boys from Brazil better than U.S. President blocks drilling at home, funds exploration abroad (WND)

"Red Alert has also consistently argued that oil is an abiotic product that should be found in abundance as drilling technology becomes affordable at deeper levels, especially offshore."

"A key theme of 'Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil,'...was that Russian geologists at the end of World War II advanced deep-earth theories of oil."

"According to deep-earth theories, oil is abiotic, a natural product of the earth created in the earth's mantle on an ongoing basis, not a biological product or 'fossil fuel' created by biological debris, including dinosaurs, ancient forests or small biological agents such as plankton."

"While abiotic theories are still not embraced by U.S. geologists, Ukrainian geologists are generally in agreement with Russia."

So, the U. S. government is backing exploration for Abiotic Oil abroad, but not at home.

(Anaconda shakes his head.)

Somehow, it seems that the Obama administration's priorities are mixed up.

But then again, maybe they are more interested in helping socialist Brazil than capitalist America and helping Obama political friends along the way.

Is this Chicago politics writ large?

If so, I can do without it.

Jeffery Keown said...

They seem to have always been a tool of the president. Here's a list of EX-IM behavior's during the previous administration:

The Bank has come under criticism for allegedly favoring special interests ahead of that of the U.S. taxpayer. These interests include that of heavily subsidized corporations such as Boeing or Enron as well as those of well-connected foreign governments and nationals (such as a 1996 $120 million low-interest loan to the China National Nuclear Power Corporation (CNNP).

However, the current congressional mandate for the Export-Import Bank of the United States is to focus on small business support.

In 2007, WFAA-TV in Dallas revealed that the Ex-Im Bank had given at least $243 million in fraudulent loans to companies doing business with Mexico, including giving loans to companies with no verifiable address and individuals who were known associates of the Sinaloa and Juarez drug trafficking cartels.

In February 2009, the Ex-Im Bank settled a 7-year long legal proceeding brought by Friends of the Earth, other NGOs, and various American cities. The plaintiffs claimed that the Ex-Im Bank and the Oversees Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) provided financial assistance to oil and other fossil fuel projects without first evaluating the projects' global warming impacts. In 2005, the plaintiffs were granted legal standing to sue these federal bodies. The landmark decision is the first time that a federal court has specifically granted legal standing for a lawsuit exclusively challenging the Federal government's failure to evaluate the impacts of its actions on the earth's climate and U.S. citizens. In its settlement agreement, the Ex-Im Bank agrees to evaluate the carbon dioxide emissions as part of its determination for qualification for a project.

I don't think these bozos have ever been about helping us.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"200 million years ago, South America, Antarctica, Africa and Australia (including New Zealand) were all contiguous."

That's a problem for plate tectonics because then you believe that the tuatara magically and miraculously migrated to New Zealand and to no other place on Earth.

OilIsMastery said...

Furthermore, plate tectonics maps clearly show South America was not in fact connected to New Zealand 200 million years ago: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/graphics/Fig2-5globes.gif

Jeffery Keown said...

That's a problem for plate tectonics because then you believe that the tuatara magically and miraculously migrated to New Zealand and to no other place on Earth.

It would be like if all other birds except ducks died except for the ones in my front yard. There would still be evidence of other birds, and I wouldn't assume that the ducks in my yard just magically appeared there or had been dropped by Venus on its way past Earth.

The theory of Evolution predicts that change occurs in small isolated populations. Like being trapped on New Zealand for 200 million years. They adapted and lived on, while the others faded away to fossils.

Furthermore, plate tectonics maps clearly show South America was not in fact connected to New Zealand 200 million years ago.

That's not the map I used (see http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm), but still, the Sphenodonts were spread all over the world at one time. The tuatara is the last known one.

See how I repeated myself? It's because you did not listen to me. All the other Sphenodonts died out. There is only one species left.

One.

1.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"It would be like if all other birds except ducks died except for the ones in my front yard. There would still be evidence of other birds, and I wouldn't assume that the ducks in my yard just magically appeared there or had been dropped by Venus on its way past Earth."

Irrelevant red herring.

"The theory of Evolution predicts that change occurs in small isolated populations. Like being trapped on New Zealand for 200 million years. They adapted and lived on, while the others faded away to fossils."

Evolution contradicts the hypothesis of plate tectonics. Evolution requires Pacific vicariance. Plate tectonics on the other hand says Pacific vicariance was impossible (Panthalassic Ocean).

"That's not the map I used (see http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm)"

The map you used also is falsified by Pacific vicariance and the tuatara in new Zealand among other Pacific vicariance. Why no tuatara in the rest of Gondwana? More miracles and violations of the laws of nature. Hilarious.

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

Ihe oil industry will strip the earth of accumulated oil. Everywhere but in their SA straegic reserve: USA! Use up everyone elses oil first. When a genuine oil peak comes then the US reserves will be wealth indeed.

Good policy ......

Jeffery Keown said...

The map you used also is falsified by Pacific vicariance and the tuatara in new Zealand among other Pacific vicariance. Why no tuatara in the rest of Gondwana? More miracles and violations of the laws of nature. Hilarious.

So do you buy into evolution or not? Some of your posts indicate that you do (using evolution to "disprove" plate tectonics) while other posts (and many comments) show you place no trust in it at all.

I think you support whatever position will make your point at the time.

As for why the tuatara is found only in New Zealand, I give up; let's use your explanation that they walked there after Noah let them out of the Ark.

Anaconda said...

@ Fungus FitzJuggler III:

No. Very bad policy!

We need the oil now!

If oil is abiotic, as I am convinced it is, and my conviction is supported by the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, it is unlikely or long distant that the "oil industry will strip the earth of accumulated oil".

It is possible, but long distant.

Hypothetically, let's say 70 years off before accumulated oil deposits world-over are exhausted and Earth is left with whatever is abiotically generated in real time (as opposed to what has been accumulated over geologic time).

Nobody knows what level of regeneration takes place.

Fungus FitzJuggler III, what kind of technological advance will Man have in the next 70 years if our economies function relatively well?

I might even agree with you that there is no guarantee that our economies will function "relatively well" in the next 70 years.

But for America's and the world's benefit, primarily America's (I'm an economic nationalist) keeping the price of energy reasonable and lessening the drain of dollars to foreign oil producers is crucial for America, now.

For we must get to that 70 year mark in good shape, not limp there as a broken nation:

Then, it would be too late for those "held back in reserve" oil deposits off America's shores to do any good.

Look! My Abiotic Oil conviction is apparently considered "not friendly" to the oil industry.

But the oil industry is wrong about what the impact of wide-spread understanding in the general population of the reality of Abiotic Oil would be.

Drill baby, drill...

Drill now...

Jeffery Keown said...

A partial list of Tuatara and its relatives from Lots of Places(tm), showing its geographical range in the distant past.

Palaeopleurosaurus - Germany
Clevosaurus - Nova Scotia
Homoeosaurus - Germany
Brachyrhinodon - Also Europe
Planocephalosaurus - England, North America
Theretairus - North America
Pleurosaurus - Germany
Opisthias - North America
Eilenodon - Same area as Opisthias
Tuatara - New Zealand

So, go ahead and perpetuate the Expanding Earth "evidence" of the Tuatara's existance. You have this list and access to the same research material as I do. If you make this claim again, that Tuatara is an undifferentiated Sphenodont, we'll know that you are:

A. Ignoring evidence presented in a clear, concise manner.
B. Incapable of honesty.
C. A charletan.

While you're at it, hard at work ignoring evidence (itself a titanic effort) Queensland's Myolania oweni is almost identical to another patagonian fossil. The ancient connection of South America, Antarctica and Australia is shown by many disciplines (geography, biology, genetics to name a few).

The Sphenodonts lived all along the shores of the Tethys ocean, penetrating deep into Gondwana. They were, most likely, a dominate taxon until Squamata edged them out, a process only ending today with the one remaining critter. It's a grand and epic tale. You make it sound quite trite.

Anaconda said...

Jeffery Keown stated: "The ancient connection of South America, Antarctica and Australia is shown by many disciplines (geography, biology, genetics to name a few)."

Yes, all the above were connected on a smaller Earth.

Jeffery Keown stated: "The Sphenodonts lived all along the shores of the Tethys ocean, penetrating deep into Gondwana."

The Tethys ocean is a fantasy that never existed except in the minds of men. Same as Gondwana.

Do you really believe that the continents go wondering around and periodically come together in one big cluster fuck?

Actually, the geological evidence is that the continents are rooted down into the Earth like trees in the ground.

To say they go wondering around is the same as saying trees go wondering around.

I said "rooted".

Why?

Because the geological evidence is that the continents' geological "roots" are 600 miles deep.

Also, the mantle is not hot and liquid so that continents can go sliding around, rather, the mantle is "cold" (a relative term), and as such is not liquid or molten, but solid (there are pockets of molten areas).

There simply is not enough energy available in the Earth's system to account for the energy required to move the continents about.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence of an expanding Earth.

There are 40,000 miles of mid-ocean expanding ridges, but little evidence of so-called "subduction" zones, and even if you accept "subduction" zones for the sake of argument, nowhere near 40,000 miles of "subduction" zones have been identified, which would be necessary to balance the 40,000 miles of mid-ocean expanding ridges.

And, almost all of these supposed "subduction" zones are located in the Pacific basin, while the expanding ridges are evenly distributed around the world.

It doesn't add up.

But on Scientific questions some people just have to stay with the herd, no matter what the evidence.

Jeffery, you must be among the herd.

Jeffery Keown said...

@Anaconda,

Please present:

What is the mechanism that powers the expansion?

How many tons of material are added each year?

Why isn't the Earth observed to be expanding today?

Jeffery Keown said...

How do you account for GPS data in EE?

http://geology.about.com/library/bl/maps/blplatemo_atlas.htm

Jeffery Keown said...

Democritus had it right! Despite being born thousands of years before transiting technology, the old man scores again!

Suicidal planet seems on death spiral into star

As reported too often on this blog, Democritus knew about this planet. We looked it up.

The atoms, moving and combining in the original void, form all of material reality, following strict mechanical laws. The motion of atoms is characterised by collisions and unforeseen changes in speed, which give rise to a series of vortices of various sizes. All bodies and an infinite series of worlds are produced from these vortices, because, according to Democritus, worlds are infinite in time and space.

Essentially, he predicted every thing we will ever "discover."

Pencils down... we're done.

Anaconda said...

Jeffery Keown stated: "What is the mechanism that powers the expansion?"

This planet is receiving electrons and ions all the time from the Sun at a large rate, and has received larger rates of electrons and ions in prior ages, over the course of millions of years.

The sea beds are estimated to be in their oldest places 195 million years.

Time and material add up.

But I won't endeavor to provide a more detailed answer at this time, as you wouldn't likely accept it and I don't have the time, and I've already done it over the course of many posts on the subject.

If you want my views on the subject, they are here, you only have to look for them: Research the question. That's what this website is here for.

Jeffery Keown stated: "How many tons of material are added each year?"

Can't give you an exact answer, but, indeed, it is quite a lot.

Jeffery Keown states: "Why isn't the Earth observed to be expanding today?"

OilIsMastery could give you a better answer than myself, I'm sure, but to the best of my knowledge from my recollection, the Earth is expanding, today.

And there are measurements that show that.

Jeffery Keown stated: "How do you account for GPS data in EE?"

Again, OilIsMastery could give you a better answer than myself, I'm sure, but to the best of my knowledge from my recollection, in the brief (geologically speaking) time that GPS has been available (even in real time it has been a relatively short time), a small amout of expansion has been noted, but as is so often the case in Science, anomalous data that doesn't fit the consensus, is ignored or overlooked.

Jeffery Keown states: "Democritus had it right!"

I respect the intellect and knowledge that Democritus left to us in his existant writings that have come down to us through the ages, truly a man of wisdom.

"The atoms, moving and combining in the original void, form all of material reality, following strict mechanical laws. The motion of atoms is characterised by collisions and unforeseen changes in speed, which give rise to a series of vortices of various sizes. All bodies and an infinite series of worlds are produced from these vortices, because, according to Democritus, worlds are infinite in time and space."

I have no disagreements or criticisms to make about the statement.

It doesn't speak to the possibility of an expanding Earth.

Jeffery Keown stated: "Essentially, he predicted every thing we will ever 'discover'."

I'll have to take that assertion under advisement.

Jeffery Keown stated: "Pencils down... we're done."

No, we're not done.

You failed to address my assertions.

Any significant evidence for the existence of the Tethys ocean, beyond raw assertion?

Any significant evidence for the existence of Gondwana, beyond raw assertion?

And not "somebody said..."

Real scientific evidence.

I asked you a direct question (it was not rhetorical): "Do you really believe that the continents go wondering around and periodically come together in one big cluster fuck?"

Please answer.

If the geological evidence is that the continents' geological "roots" are 600 miles deep, how do you account for the continents moving around.

(Geological hypothesis has the Earth forming supercontinets, all the land mass grouped or joined together, four or five times over the course of the Earth's existence.)

How do you account for the fact that while the mantle is not hot and liquid so that continents can go sliding around, but, rather, the mantle is "cold" (a relative term), and as such is not liquid or molten, but solid (there are pockets of molten areas), and the continets supposedly still slid around?

Where does the energy come from to make available enough energy in the Earth's system to account for the energy required to move the continents about?

Anaconda said...

(Cont. from privious comment)

How would Science even determine if there was enough energy to move the continents about?

I'll tell you, it is only an assumption so that the assumption that the continents slide about can be considered as a hypothesis and not just a fanciful notion.

(But I still want your answers, nevertheless.)

How do you account for the fact that there are 40,000 miles of mid-ocean expanding ridges and such a lack of evidence of so-called "subduction" zones? And how do you account for a definite lack of the necessary 40,000 miles of "subduction" zones, so that the Earth wouldn't need to expand to accomodate those pesky 40,000 miles of mid-ocean ridges?

And, how do you account for the fact that the short amount of lengths that could be "subduction" all happen to be in the Pacific basin?

I'd say, "pencils down... we're done," but you got a lot of writing to do, or you're just a part of the irrational herd that goes along with what everybody else believes because somebody supposedly in authority told you to.

Raptor Lewis said...

Jeffery Keown took the words right out of my mouth. :) It may seem there is an "Evolutionary Loser," but that is Incorrect. Chordates like the Tuatara had more diversity about 200 million years ago. The only thing this is evident of is Genetic Drift and Genetic Isolation.

How did the Tuatara get to New Zealand?

I assume that the common ancestor of this Sphenodont migrated across the continents around 300 million years ago during the Permian period, living along side the Synapsids (The dominant animal group that gave rise to the Mammalia, yet when they went Extinct the dominance was obtained by the Dinosauria), in other words, Pangaea. The ancestor lived in various parts of Pangaea and as the Continents drifted and environments were isolated, so did the organisms that live there, hence Genetic Drift and Natural Selection.

Continental Drift is the ONLY way for a Continents climate to change.

Raptor Lewis said...

Anaconda-

This is NOT Religion!! You clearly do NOT understand religion, or if you do, seem to think we "blindly" follow this Universal "Dogma," which, in reality, we don't. Our, meaning Jeffrey and I, opinions are based on sound research. I do NOT believe this without seeing the evidence for myself. In fact, a lot of these claims that you make about us Being a "Religious cult" as you infer (though I KNOW you did NOT actually say it.)

There's a big difference between religion and shared beliefs based on thorough indiviual research.

Second, do YOU have any PROOF that the Tethys Ocean is a so-called "Fantasy?" These ideas were based on hard science and you seem to be the one delusional.

Anaconda said...

Raptor Lewis stated: "Second, do YOU have any PROOF that the Tethys Ocean is a so-called "Fantasy?" These ideas were based on hard science and you seem to be the one delusional."

There is no so-called "Tethys ocean".

I'm looking at a globe of the world and I just can't find it.

The burden of evidence is on the proponents of any particular proposition in the empirical scientific method.

So, the burden of evidence is on those who claim that a "Tethys ocean" once existed.

But I will say this: The evidence that there never was a "Tethys ocean" exists in the lack of evidence to support the general proposition that continents "skid around" the Earth periodically coming into so-called "supercontinents".

Raptor, you know why this "continents slide around the Earth's surface" hypothesis exists?

Because there is so much evidence that the continents were in contact, however, on a smaller Earth, but that is so anathema to most geologists that they will latch on to the flimsiest evidence to avoid reaching that conclusion.

Putting the scientific evidence on the scales of decision to weigh which side has the more compelling case, leads to one inescapable conclusion:

The Earth has expanded.

But do the research for yourself, don't take my word for it.

Science is a "Missouri state of mind" endeavor: Show me.

As I told Jeffery Keown, the evidence is all here on this website, see for yourself.

"These ideas were based on hard science [existence of the "Tethys ocean"]..."

Oh, really, what actual evidence would that be?

Remember, I'm from Missouri, "the show me" state (figuratively).

I've never heard a compelling case for the existence of the "tethys ocean" and when the Expanding Earth theory was raging, here, on this website, not once did one of the mainstream supporters offer evidence in that regard.

I suggest you are making an assumption, rather than basing the conclusion on actuall hard scientific evidence.

Nobody calls geologists on their self-imposed fantasies because in some sense it all amounts to arguing about "how many angels can fit on a pinhead".

And inertia carries on the opinion.

Show me -- that is Science.

LunarMeteorite*Hunter said...

Dear Mastery,
Would you kindly contact me by email. Please delete this post after you have my email address. Thank you.
Best always in LIFE, Dirk Ross...Tokyo

drtanuki@gmail.com

Jeffery Keown said...

Note that my original beef with this post is Oil's usual "Here is one fact that makes all of plate tectonics null and void."

I presented counter-evidence to his claims, which increasingly sound desperate, as if he is trying so hard to convince somebody of how lousy PT theory really is.

For a thorough debunking of Oils' and Anaconda's claim that Earth has expanded in the distant past, I can only refer one to Clastic Detritus posts back in November of last year.

In a three-part series, aimed directly at Oils and Anaconda, CD lays out the evidence for Plate Tectonics and Subduction masterfully.

It should be noted that this excellent body of evidence and citation was ignored. Oils reduced his entire effort to "pretty pictures" that proved nothing.

What we are dealing with here is a fringe element of people interested in science, but more interested in pet theories, victimization and some kind of internet notoriety for being the underdog.

I have yet to see an actual mechanism of Earth Expansion. I doubt one exists at all. I even asked for a mechanism in plain English. The answer was "Solar Radiation."

The sun loses 6.7 billion tons of mass per hour, less than .001% of that impacts Earth. At that rate, you would need in excess of 5 billion years to double earth's size as proposed by EE theory.

We are supposed to beleive this output added 65% to the Earth in the last 200 million years.

It sure as hell doesn't add up to 5mm/year shown by GPS.

When this thread started, I made a prediction, that Sphenodont fossils would be found across the world, and I was right. A little digging turned up the list I presented earlier, and a bit more turned up the locations they've been found in. Notice the lack of fossils in what is now Asia.

There must have been a physical barrier of some kind.

An ocean, perhaps?

For some reason, Sphenodonts never made it to Asia (or, technically what would become Asia, the ancient continent of Cimmeria, perhaps?). Oceans are really good at preventing tiny lizard-like creatures from crossing them.

Note that the finding of a basal Sphenodont east of the Urals would totally destroy this argument.

Anaconda said...

A lot of belly aching, but not much in the way of a substantive response to the questions.

Yes, I'll take the lizard into consideration, but that by itself is a slender reed.

5mm/year, what does that mean to you?

Failure to answer questions presented speaks volumes.

I'll let you think about that.

Jeffery Keown said...

The 5mm is the average movement of the North American plate as measured by the Global Positioning System.

Like I said, if you're going to ignore Clastic Detritus, I have no way of convincing you of anything.

This is unscientific, and rude, but I'm going to say it anyway:

You Expanding Earth guys are wrong. You have no mechanism, you have no evidence other than your manipulated maps. You call the mantle "cold" but never give figures, you can't explain mountains, ocean trenches and GPS data. You cannot show expansion on going today, you can't explain expansion pre-200mya. You're out of science.

You hand-wave everything. You are no better than that idiot Carl Baugh... he also thinks Earth expanded in the past. Look him up, he's far from good company.

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

Anaconda
If it were crucial, and all this BS about fossil fuels and anthropogenic global warming is designed to make it so, than the US and others who used to be self sufficient should tax consumption like the Europeans do. One litre is $1.40!!! That is why euro cars lead the world in fuel economy. They have a vibrant car industry and import less fuel. They also squander all the revenue, but that's the government for ya!
I have been looking for a long time for a change in US policy on gastax. Still hasn't happened. Wasteful to use up three times what other nations do.
However, Anaconda old chap, pulls him aside and gives a knowing wink, if the USA were engaged in covert warfare against all other nations on the earth,it is rational to do this. Patriotic! All those currently petro rich countries can buy expensive (cos they are the best!) arms. From the good ol' USA! And most of em need oil .... A war machine needs energy and oil is mastery.
All hail: OIM! OIM! OIM!

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

I consider the ozone hole to be evidence that hydrogen ions, protons, from the solar "wind" reach the earth and combine with oxygen. Producing water and reducing O2 to O which rapidly becomes O3, ozone. This water falls where it is mostly formed at ther poles.
This does not explain the earths expansion, however. The water on earth is evidence of how much oxygen has been created by plant and plankton etc. Add what we have used up and exhaled, we animals, and we see the effects of life based on Oxygen. Water is not necessary for life, but life is necessary for water. Water is necessary for advanced, Oxygen breathing life.

The expansion of earth is a fascinating idea and I have to laugh at those who oppose it! It answers so many questions that conventional science hides, as a threat to the current theory dominating the field which is plate tectonics and movements of those plates including subduction. Both theories could be wrong, but subduction is definitely weaker than expansion.
We all seem agreed that the steady movement now is small. WE saw from that NZ quake recently that NZ southern island, called poetically South Island, moved a fair distance closer to Australia.
So catastrophe can move mountains, unlike scientific faith!
The best basis for expansion of the earth (and other planets too!) has to do with how they are formed. It seems that the earth is very hot and that pressure increases as we descend into the earth? Agreed? Well, all this pressure bursts through from time to time, as catastrophe, volcano etc. The Deccan traps are a massive show of vulcanism, agreed? This expansion of what was under immense pressure, is all that it takes .... !

The earth is still cooling and that means we are cold and crusty. But there is more to the earth than we know. The immense pressure is not in equilibrium. Volcanoes prove this. The Atlantic ridge shows where the new surface of the earth is created. That is also proof that the earth is busting out! We therefore expand. The density of the earth is so high that (if we accept the measurements which I do not) we consider that we have a nickel iron and iron core or maybe half the mass of the earth. That is a density of 7 times water. Surface rocks are more like 2.8 or so. Magma is slightly heavier. What idf the core is made of what comes up from volcanoes? But under immense pressure such that the density of it is .... 7, not 3? As it reaches freedom, it blows off steam, literally! It explodes. The pressure has existed for many millions of years and will for many more. But in the meantime, as it reaches freedom, it out gases and cools wherever it can, forcing apart the plates and covering over the land.

Please send me the Nobel prize for bullshit! Due apologies to Raptor for gratuitous vulgarity.....

Anaconda said...

Jeffery Keown:

Of course I've read those Clastic Detritus posts, and I commented at length on the first one.

But the author BrianR was not interested in addressing the lack of evidence for "suduction" directly.

He ducked and avoided the tough questions just like you are, here.

It became obvious you could place a black cat in front of him and he'd say it was a white cat if that was what it took to keep his geology career on track.

Under those circumstances, it was clear that dialogue was a waste of time.

But you know what? He never did answer the 40,000 miles of mid-ocean spreading ridges versus limited evidence of "subduction".

Not once!

Couldn't even get him to articulate the problem, he'd just ignore it.

Like you are doing now.

I will acknowledge that BrianR was and no doubt still is very slick.

He was interested in self-justification for geology and his place in it.

But that doesn't make him a good scientist.

Now, BrianR didn't want to run a foul of the geology community, so I understand his take perfectly.

What's your excuse?

Truth is nobody knows exactly what goes on inside the Earth.

Apparently, you don't have an answer about the energy needed to move the continents about.

No wonder, nobody does.

So, if I use your standard (no energy mechanism) that invalidates the idea of continents moving about the Earth.

You know what?

That's called putting a mirror up to your face.

But you didn't realize it.

Actually, trenches, mountains, and most geologic features are better explained by an expanding Earth.

And yes there is evidence that the Earth is expanding, today.

But being part of the herd means going along with what the herd thinks.

Look at the history of scientific ideas.

It is the individual that refuses to follow conventional wisdom that time after time ends up advancing scientific knowledge.

Rarely, a man of the herd.

Face it, Jeffery, you are a man of the irrational herd.

Too afraid to actually look at the evidence available right here.

I'm not going to try and spoon feed you.

Your a grown man cabable of making his own decisions...

Or are you...in this instance the irrational herd is making your decision for you.

Anaconda said...

I have found it instrumental to study the history of development of various scientific doctrine to understand how they came about and to help understand the quality of evidence that supports them.

In case of so-called "subduction", the history is stark.

Before the 1960's the idea of tectonic plates moving around the world's surface was scorned in the geology community.

But then the mid-ocean spreading ridges were found in the Atlantic ocean, and soon it was reported that these mide-ocean spreading ridges criss-crossed the world's oceans.

This led to a crisis in geology: The spreading ridges meant that the Earth was expanding, but that was a hated idea in geology and a crisis was brewing threatening to split the geology community in a schism.

The leading lights were determined to avoid that outcome -- then this hypothesis of "subduction" came out with little supporting evidence and little in the way of anything else, except one thing: It did come up with a mechanism to avoid the conclusion that the Earth was expanding!

And the leading lights of the geology community jumped on it like a chiken on a June bug.

Soon, a series of papers, one building on the other created an ediface for "subduction" even though the evidence was meager and there weren't enough areas identified as being a "subduction" zone, to cover the 40,000 miles of mid-ocean spreading ridges that had been identified.

But that didn't really matter, they had their mechanism, their story, and they were sticking to it, no matter what.

When physical examination of the so-called "subduction" zones was made there is nothing to suggest the edge of the continent is slipping under the other one.

These trenches were known for a while before "subduction" became the thing, and nobody rushed to identify characteristics that suggested one slab was sliding under another.

No piles of scraped off sediment, nothing.

Actually, the evidence is that it is a spreading "rift" where the Earth is pulling apart much like where a crack develops in drying mud. There are rifts on land as well.

In other words, these rifts are more consistent with an expanding Earth.

Sorry, yes, that's right, the trenches are more consistent with an expanding Earth.

If anybody has the courage of their convictions they should be happy to review the evidence, not dismiss it out of hand.

Hell, I felt as you did, felt confident in my convictions and had always assumed geologists had a "rock solid" basis for "subduction" and plates "sliding" around the Earth.

So confident that I wanted to review the evidence, confident it wouldn't pan out and this idea could be dismissed.

But you know what?

It turned out just the opposite of what I expected, the evidence was weak for "subduction" and strong for Expanding Earth theory.

I followed the evidence where it lead me.

It is those that want to stay safely in the herd that have no interest in following the evidence to wherever it leads.

Because they have no confidence in the power of their own reasoning capability, so they rely on the herd to make their decisions for them.

BrianR said...

Anaconda ... nice to see you are still calling me a bad scientist.

The time since those posts referred to in this thread (~9 months) is sufficient for you to have compiled the relevant data and synthesized your hypotheses into a paper. Or, at least a first draft for you co-authors and collaborators to review. Or, if not a manuscript prepared, by now you must at the very least have some good data compiled and some preliminary results to share. The deadline for abstracts for the December AGU meeting is September 3rd. Search the 'tectonophysics' sessions and you'll find several that could be appropriate. The site is here: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/index.php I look forward to seeing your talk/poster.

As for the length of plate boundary zones -- convergent margins = ~55,000 km (Lallemand, 1999); mid-ocean ridges = ~60,000 km (Kearny & Vine, 1990). So yes, an 8% difference, which is indeed interesting. Maybe that could be the focus of your AGU abstract ... you could show a global map and compile all the rates too. I think others would be interested to see and discuss that. If you really want to shift paradigms, get in there and show the community your work.

(and no, my comment here is not a signal of me re-entering this "debate" with you guys, I'm far too busy these days; it's just a friendly FYI about the AGU mtng, cheers)

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

The Earth is observed to be expanding and GPS shows the same. The mechanism is called plasma.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

You say Democritus had it right but Democritus believed in expanding worlds.

Jeffery Keown said...

The Earth is observed to be expanding and GPS shows the same. The mechanism is called plasma.

Um, no. GPS shows the continents sliding around like butter on a hot skillet. I went out looking for GPS data that supported your position (Pun intended, I'm afraid), and could only find that GPS is assumed to operate with a non-expanding planet.

This does not hold up. GPS satellites hold their position relative to each other and the planet. Beneath them, individual receivers are seen to move across the surface of the planet from one year to the next, this movement is often in sync with earlier VLBI measurements. This is especially true of the Plate Boundary Observatory project which measures movements with a resolution of a few millimeters. Added with data from strainmeters and other hyper-accurate equipment, continental drift is inescapable.

If earth were expanding, they'd have to move the satellites to higher orbits. The orbits are adjusted for gravity alone.
Plasma is not a mechanism. It is a state of matter. Please explain how St Elmo's Fire increases the size of the planet?

Are you suggesting that plasma flows from the sun, gets caught by the Earth's magnetic field and is channeled into the planet where its by-products (magma, mountains and the goats that live upon them) increase the size of the planet?

How many tons of plasma must hit the planet per year to cause this hypothesized growth? How does this compare to actual solar out put? The Sun loses 1 Earth mass of plasma every 150 million years, but most of that never impacts the earth.

As mentioned, the small amount that does reach Earth cannot account for the proposed expansion over the last 200 mya.

You folks are going to have to do better. Until then, I have a large paper on the game Fallout 3 to write. I am confident that it will contain more science than this blog.

Jeffery Keown said...

You say Democritus had it right but Democritus believed in expanding worlds.

Yes, but actual prediction of accretion theory was beyond him. This theory holds that planets are built up through a process of successive impacts early in the lifetime of their star system. If you think otherwise... well... crap, you do, don't you?

All that matters to you is that he wrote some stuff down that turned out correct.

Where is the practical application of his notions? Yes, if he were alive today, he would likely be the greatest scientist of our age, as he had the imagination to conceive of things without imparting their causes to some mountain-dwelling spirit or god.

For example, where is the evidence for his claims? I mean, of course, of his own citations, there are none. Today, many of his assertions are proven correct, as we have oft on these pages argued. His are blind assertions of the sort that do not play these days. He wrote explanations for things he had no method of testing or observing.

You know what happened to the Greeks who were wrong about this stuff? No one knows, because their work is called "mythology" or is just plain lost. Their words are not held in awe by moderns, as their blind assertions were incorrect, and not out of the ordinary for their time.

Sound familiar?

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"I went out looking for GPS data that supported your position (Pun intended, I'm afraid), and could only find that GPS is assumed to operate with a non-expanding planet.

This does not hold up. GPS satellites hold their position relative to each other and the planet. Beneath them, individual receivers are seen to move across the surface of the planet from one year to the next, this movement is often in sync with earlier VLBI measurements. This is especially true of the Plate Boundary Observatory project which measures movements with a resolution of a few millimeters. Added with data from strainmeters and other hyper-accurate equipment, continental drift is inescapable.

If earth were expanding, they'd have to move the satellites to higher orbits. The orbits are adjusted for gravity alone."

I suggest you read the sidebar on the blog where all of these issues are addressed and refuted. You obviously haven't looked at any measurements that I have. I refer you to Maxlow, Scalera, McCarthy, Smith et al etc.

OilIsMastery said...

Here are some quotes:

According to Milne et al. (2001), PGR is affecting all of Fennoscandia: "The Fennoscandian region is in active uplift, with a maximum uplift rate of 11.2 +/- 0.2 mm/year for the site of Umea."
(Milne at al. (2001) "Space-Geodetic Constraints on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment in Fennoscandia." Science. Vol. 291, pp 2381 -2385) 2)

According to Donnellan and Luyendyk, 2001, PGR is also occurring in Antarctica: "The network also suggests a dome of uplift centered near the Rockefeller Mountains, with the maximum rate being in the Rockefeller Mountains of 12 +/- 8 mm/yr. This is consistent with proposed post-glacial rebound for the region." (Donnellan, Andrea, and Bruce P. Luyendyk, GPS Measurement of Tectonic Deformation and Isostatic Rebound in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica, Eos Trans. AGU, Fall Meet. Suppl., Vol. 82, no. 42, F801, 2001.) 3)

According to Argus (1999) and Pagiatakis and Salib, (2002) PGR is also pushing up Canada: (Argus et al. (1999) JGR v. 104, p. 29077-93, 1999.) In fact, Argus wrote in a personal communicaton: "Canada is still rising," and "that gps observations shows that postglacial rebound is undoubtedly still occurring in Canada and Scandinavia.

Now, what exact data are you referring to?

OilIsMastery said...

"Plasma is not a mechanism. It is a state of matter. Please explain how St Elmo's Fire increases the size of the planet?"

Are you aware that matter is being added to the Earth every 8 minutes?

OilIsMastery said...

"Are you suggesting that plasma flows from the sun, gets caught by the Earth's magnetic field and is channeled into the planet where its by-products (magma, mountains and the goats that live upon them) increase the size of the planet?"

Yes. And that is exactly what has been discovered to be true.

Jeffery Keown said...

"Now, what exact data are you referring to?"

Why are you using a paper on isostasy and plate tectonics to "prove" Earth Expansion?

Isostatic rebound is the tendancy of land to rise as ice receeds from it. Why does it rebound? Because it's floating. Earth isn't expanding in those areas, it's plates are bobbing like corks in water.

Jeffery Keown said...

Every 8 minutes? That's the time it takes light to reach us from the sun.

To what, exactly, are you referring?

Jeffery Keown said...

"Are you suggesting that plasma flows from the sun, gets caught by the Earth's magnetic field and is channeled into the planet where its by-products (magma, mountains and the goats that live upon them) increase the size of the planet?"

Yes. And that is exactly what has been discovered to be true.


Yep... Thought so. Do you know how long it would take to double earth's size by this method?

Also, it suggests that the Earth was vanishingly small at one time (while life existed on its surface). Why do you not believe in accretion and bombardment?

In fact, I'm not sure what you believe in any more. Discussing EE with you is futile.

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

Jeffery
One of the attractions of the "smaller earth in the past" theory is that it enables dinosaurs to move around like birds on land, rather than shallow sea dwelling whales with feet. The force of attraction between them and the planet would be less, enabling them to grow so large. It also solves the pterosaur weight problem.

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

Jeffery,
The earth is seen to be rising and the cause is put down to ice having been removed. But it is also possible that the rise is yet another proof of a volume increase in the earth. Land is rising as the volume of that upon which it floats increases. Due to expansion.

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

I have yet to see an actual mechanism of Earth Expansion. I doubt one exists at all. I even asked for a mechanism in plain English. The answer was "Solar Radiation."

Halton Arp suggests that gravitons are responsible as they perhaps stick to bodies of some mass thereby increasing them. I may not have understood him correctly. The star nearby is also known to emit neutrin os. Although these are too few to establish fusion in the core of the star, there is enough to support fusion on the surface of the star caused by electrical currents.
The neutrinos are capable of interacting only weakly, but the volume of material in the earth will cause some of them to be retained within it. Most pass through. But do those gravitons sourced from the star interact more with the earth? The interaction will increase the energy within the earth and therefore it will expand. E=mc2?
Halton Arp suggests that this may even explain the asteroid belt as being the remains of the expected planet between Mars and Jupiter.

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

Plasma is the main state of matter in the universe. The solar wind is one of the forms of plasma we can detect from the sun. It is channelled into the poles by the electro-magnetic forces on the earth. NASA has declared that the sun is connected to the earth by a "flux tube" containg the solar wind. This enormously long tube is typical of electrical structures in space. It is detectable only by passing through it. All of the material is extremely enegetic as it accelerates away from the sun with temperatures in the millions K. Far hotter than on the surface of the sun. No wonder there is fusion! Again, all this matter and energy flows into the earth. All interactions will cause the earth to acquire more energy within as well as on the surface and in the atmosphere. Water is not the only product, remember the fusion. We are only at the neginning of finding out what is sent along that tube. The edges of the tube are formed by double layers.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"Do you know how long it would take to double earth's size by this method?"

As a matter of fact I know exactly how long it took to double in size and you would too if you'd bother to read any expanding earth material on the sidebar or anywhere else. The correct answer is 200 million years.

Jeffery Keown said...

Fungus,
I do not know where to start.

A smaller planet requires either greater density or an unexplainable mass increase. There is not enough material hitting the earth to account for the suggested growth.

Further, what happened pre-200 mya? No answer is available. Either growth just started up, or it was always growing and any evidence of ancient ocean floor is dead wrong. Unfortunately for EE proponents, there is ample evidence of the existance of the earth, and ancient seas, prior to the "start" of the growth.

Gravitons, if they exist at all, would have to be massless and incapable of interacting above the Planck scale as you describe.

First thing on your shopping list for this one might be to first discover the graviton. After you finish spending the Nobel Prize money, come back here and explain the interaction to me.

Neutrinos? Sorry, they do not interact with enough frequency to explain the increase. Any increase in energy at the core would increase temperature, not add mass.

No fusion at the core of the sun? Google yourself some "nucleosynthesis" and get back to me.

A lighter earth would not have been able to hold atmospheric gasses as well as our planet does today. How does EE propose that a 65% lighter earth had available breathing gases?

As for observed isostatic data, EE claims that Earth is growing along the Mid-Ocean Ridges. Unfortunately for EE, the only observable isostatic rebound is found on continents where glaciers are receding.

Additionally, Earth's orbit would not be stable as the mass increased, the tug on Earth by the sun would have altered, requiring the planet to somehow speed up or slow down to account for the change in gravity. Angular momentum is a bitch.

Expanding Earth hypothesis is unsupported by physics, geology or discussion. There is no mechanism, no observance, there is only thinly-vieled bad math and supposition.

The most parsimonious explanation is that the Earth has not appreciably changed size since the Late Heavy Bombardment ended.

Infalling dust accounts for ~7 cm of growth over the lifetime of the planet, incoming plasma even less.

EE is done. I do not say that in the sense that Creationists say "Evolution is in Crisis!" That's a marketing slogan. I say it as in "This is a dead theory. Thanks for playing. Good luck next time."

Jeffery Keown said...

"As a matter of fact I know exactly how long it took to double in size and you would too if you'd bother to read any expanding earth material on the sidebar or anywhere else. The correct answer is 200 million years."

You know good and well that I know that number. I do not acknowledge that it is correct in any sense. I am incapable of acknowledging it for the very reasons I've stated above time and again. That answer is based entirely on the observed age of thin oceanic crust. It does not take into account ophiolites (ancient seafloor rock) found around the world.

Unless you think the Alps are part of the conspiracy?

Oceanic fossils are found within these rocks, supporting the notion that Earth had ancient seas long before 200 mya.

I've read the material. I've visited 4th Revolution, I've read the EE FAQ. The only reason you think I haven't is that I am not convinced. You fail to understand the process that leads to acceptance of an idea. I've read it, I've read materials contra-arguments and found that the so-called Mainstream explanation is solid.

You cannot explain a smaller earth's atmosphere, growth mechanism or orbit. As I've said, you are out of science. Please concentrate on Abiotic Oil. It may be your most convincing field of study. So far, it's only yielded methane and ethane, but that's a start.

Jeffery Keown said...

Heck, allow me to wear your shoes for a moment:

"The face of places, and their forms decay;
And that is solid earth, that once was sea;
Seas, in their turn, retreating from the shore,
Make solid land, what ocean was before."

Ovid, Metamorphoses, XV

He knew it, why is he wrong? He found oceanic fossils in the Alps and sought to explain it. The answer? The Alps are the uplifted seafloor of the Tethys Ocean.

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

Truth is there is less known about the internal dynamics of the Earth than what IS ACTUALLY KNOWN.

In other words, there are more questions than answers.

There are many unanswered questions about the internal dynamics of the Earth.

After all, Science's ability to make direct observations & measurements of Earth's internal dynamics are very limited, most geophysical theories are based on indirect data and the inferences drawn from that data.

Can we at least agree on that?

If so, categorical dismissals are unwarranted simply because Science doesn't have enough data to make such dismissals.

Louis Hissink is a geologist by training and profession (he is a field exploration diamond geologist).

Obviously, as part of his training he was steeped in so-called "subduction" theory.

Yet, he has reviewed the evidence for "subduction" and concluded it is unwarranted.

Please see his latest post on the subject: Plate tectonics subducted.

Hissink: "The following seismotomoraph shows that my disbelief is founded in strong physical evidence. The image below is sufficient in itself to bury subduction models, as Dong Choi wrote. The link at the end of this post will show the existence of a formidable body of physical evidence that Plate Tectonics theory is nothing other than another example of consensus science, and is thus not a scientific theory despite the thoroughly scientific work being done under its name."

It should be noted that Hissink does not subscribe to Expanding Earth theory, but for entirely scientific reasons questions the validity of the "subduction" model.

From the caption for a schematic of seismic evidence contradicting "subduction" depicted in Hissink's post.

"The seismotomographic image (Figure 3) shows that the “descending plate” or “cold slab” (with faster seismic velocities) is missing under the Java Trench and the Indonesian arc. A higher-velocity feature only starts to appear below 400 km, but takes a subvertical attitude, clearly in conformity with the deep-seated SWJ tectonic zone. Furthermore, the supposed subducted slab becomes subhorizontal below 700 km, and is separated into several layers. “This tomographic image alone,” says Choi, “is enough to bury the subduction models.”

It should also be noted that Doug Choi, also does not subscribe to Expanding Earth theory.

Below is the direct link to the article that Hissink's post is based on:

Plate Tectonics Subducted

Note the links and refences in the footnotes at the bottom of the link.

The point is that many individual scientists, geologists by training, don't accept "subduction" theory and many if not most don't subscribe to Expanding Earth theory, either.

These scientists reject "subduction" because there simply isn't enough evidence to support it.

You are simply riding on the consensus as part of the herd.

One of your concluding comments only confirms your consensus orientation as part of the irrational herd:

"Please concentrate on Abiotic Oil. It may be your most convincing field of study. So far, it's only yielded methane and ethane, but that's a start."

There is overwhelming scientific evidence for Abiotic Oil theory, above and beyond laboratory experiments that "yielded methane and ethane", but because you are a herd animal chewing the accepted cud, that is all you are willing to accept.

If your attitude prevailed in all men's hearts (the herd mentality) scientific progress would be greatly retarded and the Ptolemaic system would still be the paradigm (the math works great) reflected on the walls of the cave by the fire controlled by the shamins or the powerful in society.

I pity you.

Jeffery Keown said...

@Anaconda

"Oh, yeah?" wouldn't have sufficed?

I do not care what others accept or do not accept. For example, I have questioned certain bits of astronomy in years past, and feel that my personal hypothesis of galaxy formation is about to be proven.

But I do not beat up on all of science because of it. I do not feel like a victim. I do, however, read voraciously about astronomy, biology, earth science, etc; eager to find hints of my crackpottery being reforged as current theory.

You ad hominem pity is unwarranted.

OilIsMastery said...

"That answer is based entirely on the observed age of thin oceanic crust."

Therefore you are basing your faith on something other than observation.

"It does not take into account ophiolites (ancient seafloor rock) found around the world."

I guess you've never read Samuel Warren Carey's The Expanding Earth as he addresses ophiolites ad nauseum.

"Oceanic fossils are found within these rocks, supporting the notion that Earth had ancient seas long before 200 mya."

Exactly. That is consistent with an expanding earth but inconsistent with plate tectonics.

"All marine fossils from 200 million years ago or earlier are found exclusively on continental locations -- just as expanding Earth theory predicts. That's because all large marine environments pre-Jurassic were epicontinental seas -- not oceans. Incredibly, if we deny expanding Earth theory, all the pre-Jurassic oceanic marine fossils must have vanished, along with all pre-Jurassic oceanic crust, as well as all of the fossils of all the trans-Pacific taxa that simply 'walked' from one location to the other. Hmmm. Even your mainstream fixist geologist counterparts of the first half of the twentieth century didn't have to accept that many miracles." -- Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003

Jeffery Keown said...

"Oceanic fossils are found within these rocks, supporting the notion that Earth had ancient seas long before 200 mya."

Exactly. That is consistent with an expanding earth but inconsistent with plate tectonics.

Hardly inconsistent. I'll grant you that it looks good for EE on that point, but it is predicted by PT that we'd lose a lot of older oceanic crust, and all the fossils it contained. Uplift of oceanic crust is responsible for many mountainous areas, the Alps, the Himalayas.

But I digress. I hate the point in the conversation where some one says they'll "Agree to disagree," and so I won't say it.