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.

[Grumpy]

otseng

You'll need to elaborate on this. What is the steps here from one alpha particle to 450,000 neutrons?

I should have said electrons, not neutrons, my bad.

Also, from my understanding, the conversion from N14 to C14 involves elemental nitrogen, rather than N as part of a compound.

Nitrogen is not inclined to be in compounds easily. But the effect is not affected either way as it involves the nucleus, not the electron shell.

This would be the only time I can see where U can emit just neutrons.

However, for spontaneous fission of U, it occurs very rarely and can be considered a negligible source of neutrons.

"For uranium and thorium, the spontaneous fission mode of decay does occur, but it is not seen for the majority of radioactive breakdowns".

We are talking about trace amounts(determined by counting each atom)of C14. Rare is not non-existent and a source for energetic neutrons is Uranium. There seems to be a direct corelation between the presence of Uranium and C14 in fossil carbon. The Creationists claims of young ages being the sole sourcefor this C14 is not true.

The issue is not U turning into C14, but the issue is that U decay does not produce sole neutrons.

But, as I have shown, the decay of Uranium DOES produce neutrons.

Just a correction here. Technically U238 is not fissile.

ALL forms of Uranium are radioactive and unstable. U238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and decays into Thorium 234 with a HL of 24.1 days. It is not EASILY fissile, but that is due to the limits of our technology. Breeder reactors convert several percent of U238 to Plutonium 239 and that is high grade fissile material. All it takes is a sufficiently slow Neutron from a U235 atom's fission moderated by carbon(Chernobyl was a carbon moderated reactor).

Grumpy

[blueandwhite]

The oil pools, and collects in pockets, and much of the time is mixed with dirt and water as well. They all collect in the same places often enough. Nothing is "seeping out". It just changes frequently as rock and ground positions change.

Yes, oil are found in pockets. But the pockets are where the rocks on top are not permeable.

Typically yes.

Allmost all radiometric dating is done on igneus rock so that you know that no C14 has leaked in or out.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Can you elaborate?

Its pretty simple. You are dating something that formed thousands of years ago. in thousands of years what are the odds that C14 found its way in or out of what you are testing? Pretty good. Unless you have igneus rock, which by definition has not changed since its formation. Then you have a test without error caused by C14 diffusion or convection.

A) Without the proper igneus rock nearby the test has a high degree of error.

You mean the C14 would have a high degree of error?

Yes the amount of C14 itself can be in error because of mass transfer, which tends to happen over thousands of years.

C) These are not "Evolutionary" timeframes. Geologists and physicists came up with these dating methods.

I use "evolutionary timeframes" in a chronological sense, not a biological sense.

Well evolution is a biological phenomena. When measuring timeframes were are outside the realm of evolution. I think that wording paints a picture that evolution can be wrong, while the rest of science remains intact. If our dating methods are wrong, a lot more things than evolution will be put in jeopardy. Including Nuclear physics and geology.

D) No scientists worth his salt would ignore or intetionally not gather information on the basis that it "would raise more problems for their position"

Ideally yes.

Ok well you can't raise the position that someone is making an unethical decision purely on the basis that sometimes some people make unethical decisions. These are highly qualified people, who could lose all their prestige in the drop of a hat by faking test results or leaving out data.

E) If this test was done with C14, they should also do longer radiometric tests, like uranuim to see if the data correlates (ie. if 4 radiometric tests say its 300 million years old, and 1 says its 2000 years old, theres likely a problem with that one test).

Possibly. But I have yet to see other radiometric dating done on these.

Well then you seem to be operating without enough knowledge to adequately make your point (I think theres a word for that...). To assume an age based on one mere radiometric test would be laughable in science. You always always always do multiple tests. And the date only holds if all the tests (using different radioisomers) yield the same result.

Creation research isn't science.

Because it does conform to the naturalism paradigm?

No because dozens of court rulings in the US (where Creation science flourishes) have declared this, as well as many leading scientific organizations and institutions.

[otseng]

There seems to be a direct corelation between the presence of Uranium and C14 in fossil carbon.

I would grant that there could be some small amount of C14 due to the spontaneous fission of uranium hitting a nearby nitrogen atom. But for both to happen seems quite remote. Spontaneous fission does not occur very frequently. And there would be very little nitrogen in coal and oil.

But, as I have shown, the decay of Uranium DOES produce neutrons.

I think to be more technically correct, spontaneous fission (emits neutrons) rather than decay (emits alpha and beta particles) would be a source of neutrons.

[LiamOS]

Grumpy.

I apologise in advance for not having checked the second link you presented in enough detail to have found the answer I am looking for, but it seems that the first link didn't really have anything to do with the question I was asking. If I am missing something, please correct me.


I don't think you've yet shown that ²³⁸U decay results in neutron emission either directly or indirectly.
If you could outline in detail how the alpha particle interacts with the nucleus to release neutrons I would be grateful. The more technical the better.

The reason I make this request is that as of yet I'm not entirely sure of the validity of the hypothesis you present.

[Goat]

Grumpy.

I apologise in advance for not having checked the second link you presented in enough detail to have found the answer I am looking for, but it seems that the first link didn't really have anything to do with the question I was asking. If I am missing something, please correct me.


I don't think you've yet shown that ²³⁸U decay results in neutron emission either directly or indirectly.
If you could outline in detail how the alpha particle interacts with the nucleus to release neutrons I would be grateful. The more technical the better.

The reason I make this request is that as of yet I'm not entirely sure of the validity of the hypothesis you present.

This article is assuming the neutrons being formed by u-238


Radiochemical study of the competition between neutron emission and fission in U238 at discrete excitations near the binding energy

[LiamOS]

My university doesn't have full access to this article, but it seems that the entire experiment is based on photoexitation and photofission using gamma radiation. I don't see how this is appropriate given that most natural uranium isn't being bombarded with large quantities of gamma radiation.

[Goat]

My university doesn't have full access to this article, but it seems that the entire experiment is based on photoexitation and photofission using gamma radiation. I don't see how this is appropriate given that most natural uranium isn't being bombarded with large quantities of gamma radiation.

Ok. in the wiki article on spontaneous fission they say


The spontaneous fission of uranium-238 leaves trails of damage in uranium-bearing minerals as the fission fragments recoil through the crystal structure. These trails, or fission tracks, provide the basis for the radiometric dating technique known as fission track dating.


That says that u-238 does spontaneously fission.

[LiamOS]

I know it does.

I still don't know if that's capable of accounting for the amount of C¹⁴ in question.

[Goat]

I know it does.

I still don't know if that's capable of accounting for the amount of C¹⁴ in question.

You also have to remember that U-238 decays into other radioactive substances.. which then also decay, and eventually turns into lead.

U-238 decays into to 2 Neutrons adn 2 alfpha particles, and becaomes Th-234

etc etc etc.

You have to take into account all the daughter reactions too.

[LiamOS]

Are you sure?

²³⁸U => He²⁺ + ²³⁴Th
Where do the neutrons come from? That's my question.