Did humans descend from other primates?

[McCulloch]

Man did not descend from the primates.

Did humans descend from other primates?
Are humans primates or should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity?
Please cite evidence.

[Goat]

"Please present evidence that water saturated with bacteria can travel down hundreds/thousands feet deep of rock and infuse coal, oil, and diamonds. And do it within a single bacterial lifespan."

Ok see, water seeps downward. It formes underground channels and things like that, in some cases down great distances.

You still did not present any evidence that this can happen.

Also, if water can seep into oil deposits, oil can also likewise seep out. And so after a period of time, no oil deposit would exist there.

Also, consiser that one culture of bacteria can continue to suvive for an infinite amount of time in proper conditions. So there is no "life span" issue to worry about.

For it to survive beyond a generation, it would require a food source. What food source would be available in these rocks?

On a sidenote, I have been studying science for quite some time, and know a few geological engineers, and I have never heard of a phenomena where there is an abundance of C14 in coal and oil deposits. Are we talking about a regular phenomena or a chance occurance that was found once at one period of time?

Nobody is claiming that there is an "abundance" of C14. Only thing claimed is that there are detectable levels.

No, I do not get the impression that it is just found once at one period of time.

It's called "half life" in that half will deteriorate in a certain time. The C14 is still detectable after a million years, but with so few atoms it is not distinguishable with enough accuracy to be valid for determining age.

The half life of C14 is 5730 years. From my calculations, one mole of C14 would completely disappear in half a million years. Given that Carboniferous coal is at least 300 million years old, there cannot even theoretically be one atom of C14 present.

And cosmic rays are not the only form of radiation that can form C14 from normal carbon, so there is always a "background" C14 count that the cosmic ray formed type disappears into over time.

The only other source of C14 mentioned in Wikipedia is: "Carbon-14 can also be produced in ice by fast neutrons causing spallation reactions in oxygen."

And bacteria do not have to trickle down from the surface, water will carry dissolved CO2 down to where the bacteria live.

If this is the case, why posit bacteria then at all?

Because bacterial will concentrate the carbon from the CO2. This allows for the radioactive particles to be less disperse.

[blueandwhite]

"You still did not present any evidence that this can happen. "

Study geology. It can, and does. Water breaks channels into all sorts of things. Rivers can move hundreds of meters in almost any direction is a mere dacade.

"Also, if water can seep into oil deposits, oil can also likewise seep out. And so after a period of time, no oil deposit would exist there."

Does oil move around underground? Abesolutely yes. Which is why your claim is not significant. Things change beneth the ground at a very rapid pace, not unike the way it is above ground. Many things are in a constant state of flux.

"For it to survive beyond a generation, it would require a food source. What food source would be available in these rocks?"

Oil, dead vegetation that seeped in through the soil, nitrates and phosphates and sulphates from the soil, dead microorganisms. Bacteria has been living in water for billions of years without ecoming extinct. It is very resourceful.

"No, I do not get the impression that it is just found once at one period of time. "

Could I please ask for an article of some kind stating the occurence and timing of this phenomena? I'm just trying to understand if it is commonplace or a rare occurance.

"If this is the case, why posit bacteria then at all?"

Because both are valid. CO2 pockets have been known to form underground because of this.

[nygreenguy]

For it to survive beyond a generation, it would require a food source. What food source would be available in these rocks?

Lots

Researchers exploring the deep subsurface here on Earth—continental crust, marine sediments, and ocean crust—are not so optimistic, however. They are finding deep life, but it mostly seems to be living indirectly off the energy of sunlight rather than using local, less tempting sources of energy, such as the rock itself...

"Deep life in the slow, slow lane." Richard A. Kerr, Science, May 10 2002: 1056-1058.

The search for extraterrestrial life may be facilitated if ecosystems can be found on Earth that exist under conditions analogous to those present on other planets or moons. It has been proposed, on the basis of geochemical and thermodynamic considerations, that geologically derived hydrogen might support subsurface microbial communities on Mars and Europa in which methanogens form the base of the ecosystem. Here we describe a unique subsurface microbial community in which hydrogen-consuming, methane-producing Archaea far outnumber the Bacteria. More than 90% of the 16S ribosomal DNA sequences recovered from hydrothermal waters circulating through deeply buried igneous rocks in Idaho are related to hydrogen-using methanogenic microorganisms. Geochemical characterization indicates that geothermal hydrogen, not organic carbon, is the primary energy source for this methanogen-dominated microbial community. These results demonstrate that hydrogen-based methanogenic communities do occur in Earth's subsurface, providing an analogue for possible subsurface microbial ecosystems on other planets.

"A hydrogen-based subsurface microbial community dominated by methanogens." 2002. F.H. Chapelle, K. O'Neill, P.M. Bradley, B.A. Methe, S.A. Ciufo, L.L. Knobel, and D.R. Lovley. Nature, 17 January, 2002; 415 (6869): 312-315.

The only other source of C14 mentioned in Wikipedia is: "Carbon-14 can also be produced in ice by fast neutrons causing spallation reactions in oxygen."

No, theres this (which several of us have already mentioned):

This may indicate possible contamination by small amounts of bacteria, underground sources of radiation causing the 14N(n,p) 14C reaction, direct uranium decay (although reported measured ratios of 14C/U in uranium-bearing ores[15] would imply roughly 1 uranium atom for every two carbon atoms in order to cause the 14C/12C ratio, measured to be on the order of 10−15), or other unknown secondary sources of carbon-14 production.

If this is the case, why posit bacteria then at all?

Because its another source. We scientists dont stop when we get one answer.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment

Jeez man, do your research before making outlandish claims.

Responses to you will wait until you can make civil responses.

You don't think its a bit insulting to us that you don't even bother to put in some effort to learn about the stuff you are debating?

Feel free to challenge whether another poster has provided adequate or accurate information to support their claims. It would be better not to speculate on the amount of effort they did or did not put in.

[otseng]

And bacteria do not have to trickle down from the surface, water will carry dissolved CO2 down to where the bacteria live.

If this is the case, why posit bacteria then at all?

Because bacterial will concentrate the carbon from the CO2. This allows for the radioactive particles to be less disperse.

However, concentration ratios of C14 to C12 would not be different for a bacteria colony and water. Unless there is some way for bacteria to have a special affinity for C14 rather than C12.

Study geology.

This is not providing evidence either.

Also, if water can seep into oil deposits, oil can also likewise seep out. And so after a period of time, no oil deposit would exist there.

Does oil move around underground? Abesolutely yes. Which is why your claim is not significant. Things change beneth the ground at a very rapid pace, not unike the way it is above ground. Many things are in a constant state of flux.

This does not address the problem that I presented. If rocks are permeable enough for water and bacteria to go through, oil would likewise seep out.

Oil, dead vegetation that seeped in through the soil, nitrates and phosphates and sulphates from the soil, dead microorganisms. Bacteria has been living in water for billions of years without ecoming extinct. It is very resourceful.

Carboniferous coal is at least 300 million years old. Rocks above that would likewise be quite old. Microorganisms would only be present in rocks if they travelled down also. And what microorganisms would you be talking about?

Could I please ask for an article of some kind stating the occurence and timing of this phenomena? I'm just trying to understand if it is commonplace or a rare occurance.

I've been trying to find this. But, I don't think this is something that people do much research on.

Those who believe in evolutionary timeframes would assume that things millions of years old would be radiocarbon dead. So, they would not look for it. And even if they did, it would raise more problems for their position. So, I don't think they would do much research on this.

However, I found one article on this: Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model.

It cites 90 items from various journals that have been measured to have C14 that should be C14 dead. It also presents 10 coal samples from various locations that have measurable C14.

[nygreenguy]

Carboniferous coal is at least 300 million years old. Rocks above that would likewise be quite old. Microorganisms would only be present in rocks if they travelled down also. And what microorganisms would you be talking about?

Not according to the article I posted.

Those who believe in evolutionary timeframes would assume that things millions of years old would be radiocarbon dead. So, they would not look for it. And even if they did, it would raise more problems for their position. So, I don't think they would do much research on this.

Do you have any evidence of this or is it just speculation? Dont we from upon speculating on peoples motives here?

It cites 90 items from various journals that have been measured to have C14 that should be C14 dead. It also presents 10 coal samples from various locations that have measurable C14.

Many of these are creationist journals. The issue (source) of c-14 has been explained in the journal articles I already presented.

[Goat]

And bacteria do not have to trickle down from the surface, water will carry dissolved CO2 down to where the bacteria live.

If this is the case, why posit bacteria then at all?

Because bacterial will concentrate the carbon from the CO2. This allows for the radioactive particles to be less disperse.

However, concentration ratios of C14 to C12 would not be different for a bacteria colony and water. Unless there is some way for bacteria to have a special affinity for C14 rather than C12.

Study geology.

This is not providing evidence either.

Also, if water can seep into oil deposits, oil can also likewise seep out. And so after a period of time, no oil deposit would exist there.

Does oil move around underground? Abesolutely yes. Which is why your claim is not significant. Things change beneth the ground at a very rapid pace, not unike the way it is above ground. Many things are in a constant state of flux.

This does not address the problem that I presented. If rocks are permeable enough for water and bacteria to go through, oil would likewise seep out.

Oil, dead vegetation that seeped in through the soil, nitrates and phosphates and sulphates from the soil, dead microorganisms. Bacteria has been living in water for billions of years without ecoming extinct. It is very resourceful.

Carboniferous coal is at least 300 million years old. Rocks above that would likewise be quite old. Microorganisms would only be present in rocks if they travelled down also. And what microorganisms would you be talking about?

Could I please ask for an article of some kind stating the occurence and timing of this phenomena? I'm just trying to understand if it is commonplace or a rare occurance.

I've been trying to find this. But, I don't think this is something that people do much research on.

Those who believe in evolutionary timeframes would assume that things millions of years old would be radiocarbon dead. So, they would not look for it. And even if they did, it would raise more problems for their position. So, I don't think they would do much research on this.

However, I found one article on this: Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model.

It cites 90 items from various journals that have been measured to have C14 that should be C14 dead. It also presents 10 coal samples from various locations that have measurable C14.

And you expect me to accept something from the IRC?:?? Honestly?

Of course, then there is the analysis of the claims here

How Creationists misrepresent the C-14 Dating Method


One big misrepresentation that the particular article it that C-14 is not used to measure the age of the earth. Previous posts to this show why there will be detectable C-14 is old organic samples. Between those two very basic mistakes, the entire article is shown not to be scientific , but pseudo science.

That is why it can't be published in a science magazine , but only has to be presented to people who already believe..

[otseng]

Some more problems about the bacteria hypothesis:

The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.

bacteria/fungi hypothesis: Lowe then makes a reasonable case for fungi and bacteria - there are fungi that can degrade lignite (Polyporus versicolor and Poria montiola), as well as autotrophic "thiobacillus-like" bacteria that oxidize pyrites in coal, and he points out that bacteria have been found 3km underground apparently living on granite. Lowe states that fungal and bacterial activity is particularly likely in warm, damp coal exposed to air, and he points out that microbial action only has to result in the deposition of ~0.1% by weight of modern carbon in the coal to produce an apparent age of 45,000 years for the specimen.

Since Lowe's paper, there have been many more reports of deep subterranean bacteria, which apparently form a heretofore unrecognized ecosystem deep below the earth in rocks and in oils (abstracts below). Presumably most of these bacteria never interact with the "modern" 14C of the atmosphere. But some deep bacterial activity apparently can result in increased concentrations of 13C.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

[Grumpy]

otseng

It cites 90 items from various journals that have been measured to have C14 that should be C14 dead. It also presents 10 coal samples from various locations that have measurable C14.

"So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

Where there is Uranium in the coal or surrounding the coal there will be Carbon 14.

Grumpy

[otseng]

And you expect me to accept something from the IRC?:?? Honestly?

Yes, I knew there would be pushback from me quoting any Christian source. But, I was willing to post it because they use secular sources (in addition to Christian sources). So, unless you can provide evidence to refute their sources, then yes, I do expect it to be considered valid evidence.

Of course, then there is the analysis of the claims here

How Creationists misrepresent the C-14 Dating Method

Actually, I'm not arguing against the validity of C14 dating. So, I fail to see the relevance of this.