Oldest Fossil Protein Sequenced [from Neanderthal]

Max Planck Society ^ | 08 March 2005 | Staff

[clearsight]

It's not their research on cell phones. They are simply gathering others and presenting to us the reader. They're
world view doesn't change others research.

[orionblamblam]

> the effects are very similar on the cells

What are you basing that on?

> again I will err on the side of caution

Well, if you live in fear of the Earth's magnetic field changing, then if you want to be consistent with a fear of microwaves... better find a place where there are no high-pitched dog whistles.

[orionblamblam]

> research on cell phones.

Again irrelevant. Even assumign that cell phones have risk (and there is no statistical evidence that they do), cell phones emit radiation in the form of radio waves. Yet again... NOT magnetic fields.

> They're world view doesn't change others research.

Horse hockey. Their world view means they pick and choose the research to look at, and how to spin it.

Bah. Until such point as you can actually come up with a cogent arguement, I'm done with you.

[clearsight]

Likewise........, but it really is all about "debate and argumentation" not truth or anything really noble. Just the thrill of the argument. That is what these blogs are all about........sparing for the sake of sparing........so chill out......all is well in the world and the environment.

[Betis70]

Very interesting. must read later ...

[StJacques]

I just wanted to put up a comment on the discussion of J.F. Kenney's hypothesis of the flow of abiogenic oil deposits, and the accompanying analysis of the refilling of the offshore Eugene Island block 330 oil field by Christopher Cooper and Jean K. Whelan, which was told in a series of posts by clearsight, starting with #49. I find this topic particularly interesting for a number of reasons, the most innocuous of which is that, right out of high school, I worked in Eugene Island block 330 as a deckhand on a work boat, which has nothing to do with what I'm about to post except that I can say that "I've been there." And as a final unrelated comment, I cannot help but mention that I am really missing my late father right now -- he passed away in 2003 -- who was a Petroleum Engineer of the first rank with very extensive experience in drilling oil and natural gas wells throughout the Louisiana offshore oil fields. We used to sit down and discuss geological theory from time to time, it's something of a hobby of mine, and we had a talk or two about the possibilities of abiogenic oil formation. My Dad believed it was possible but that it could in no way account for over 99% of the oil that had been found, and I really do wish I could have consulted him about this post. I miss you Pop!

I have two points to make here. The first is that I am convinced that Kenney's hypothesis about abiogenic oil flow in general and Whelan's specific theory about Eugene Island 330's "replenishment" are flawed based upon information I will shortly post, including quotes and links. The second is that the theory of abiogenic oil formation as a companion hypothesis to that of the organic formation of oil (the evidence for organic oil formation is overwhelming) deserves to be treated seriously, but that everyone would do much better to research the work of Dr. Thomas Gold of Cornell University, an astrophysicist who has theorized the formation of abiogenic oil based upon correlations between the early history of the earth and observations of other astronomical bodies, than to rely upon J.F. Kenney's work, which has some flaws, primarily in that it is mathematically-based and avoids a detailed examination of the "geologic parameters" (physical evidence) within which abiogenic oil would be formed and mined. But let me get on with all of this.

The first point that needs to be made about Cooper and Whelan's discussion of Eugene Island block 330's reserves is that they have some of their facts wrong and they may not have understood the way reserves are reported, specifically in terms of understanding the difference between "proven" and "probable" reserves. I'm going to post a link to a "leftie" web site, 911-strike.com, and ask for everyone's forgiveness for using their site as I will be referencing a response to an article they posted in which they argued that world oil supplies were not so limited as conventional wisdom would have it. (This is not the first time the left has gotten their facts wrong.) Two geologists, Dale Pfeiffer and Jean Laherrere, contested the evidence presented to indicate abiogenic origins for major oil fields, which had been advanced by numerous Russian geologists, as well as by J.F. Kenney, Jean K. Whelan, Christopher Cooper, and others. Pfeiffer and LaHerrere pointed out the following (see "-3- Refilling oil and gas fields : Case of Eugene Island 330 oilfield" about 2/3 of the way down the page):

". . . Cooper claimed that the reserves reported previously at 60 Mb now are estimated at 400 Mb after an increase of production from 4000 b/d in 1989 to 15000 b/d. The production in 1989 was in fact 20 000 b/d ; the low was in 1992 at 15 000 b/d and the peak in 1996 at 30 000 b/d (28 000 for OGJ and 33 000 for MMS). The reserves were in fact estimated in 1978 by OGJ at 325 Mb (500 Mb by the famous explorer Klemme in 1977) and increased to 388 Mb in 1996, normal reserve growth with the poor US practice of reporting (SEC rules) only the proved reserves, neglecting the probable reserves. But MMS estimated the reserves at 464 Mb in 1986 and only at 416 Mb in 1998 (negative growth !). . . ."

Note: "Mb" = Millions of barrels, "b/d" = barrels per day, "OGJ" = Oil and Gas Journal, "MMS" = Minerals Management Service (Dept. of the Interior)

So the first thing everyone should understand is that the reserves at Eugene Island are NOT growing, but are being depleted at a much slower rate than had been anticipated. But that still does not answer the dramatic, I think this term is suitable here, increase in total production the Eugene Island block 330 field has accounted for over its projected lifetime output. But there is an answer for that as well, and Jean K. Whelan herself was involved in producing it:

". . . The annual production of the field displays a strong decline, then a minor rebound and a new decline shows only a minor refilling, very easy to explain with a minor charge from the original source-rock as explained in the article « Recovering dynamic Gulf of Mexico reserves and the U.S. energy future » Roger N. Anderson, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University et al. Jean Whelan was a co-author. . . ."

And to quote the article itself (which is quoted on the page):

". . . Texas A&M's Geochemical and Environmental Research Group has conducted a four-part, Gulf of Mexico Oil Correlation Study. Phase 4 included the analyses of 33 oils from all the major reservoirs of EI 330. Among the conclusions: the oils are biodegraded in the shallow reservoirs; there is little biogenic gas present; and the biomarkers, heavy metals, and sulfur isotopes indicate a carbonate marine source of probable Cretaceous age. . . ."

This quote is particularly important for two points. The first is that the oils extracted and analyzed from the Eugene Island block 330 field are from "shallow reservoirs" (which discounts deep mantle-oriented abiogenic sources Kenney, Whelan, and Christopher have suggested) and the second, and very important point, is that an analysis of the oil itself, which included biomarkers (something I'll say more about in a moment), suggested a Cretaceous origin for the oil, which discounts an abiogenic hypothesis, though it does show a movement of oil up from older rock formations (Cretaceous, 144 to 65 million years ago) into younger ones (Pleistocene, 1.8 million years ago). The original deposits of the Eugene Island 330 field are dated to the Pleistocene, which you can verify by reading an overview of the Eugene Island block 330 field.

And the conclusion of the published article that was quoted in this source was as follows (remember that Jean K. Whelan was a co-author):

". . . Our working hypothesis for the rock mechanical behavior of the system is that volume changes from the generation of gas produce an added pressure increase to that of compaction within the geopressured "kitchen." Periodically, pressures build to hydraulic fracturing stresses. Faults like the Red Fault Zone open to release bursts of fluids upward toward the surface. The hydrocarbons, being the most buoyant components of the released fluids, fill the first available space in the more weakly pressured (down-thrown side in the case of the Red Fault Zone). Filling is in a deep-to-shallow sequence. The oils are swept with the fluid, whereas the gases are dissolved in the fluid. Such bursting events have occurred repeatedly during the Plio-Pleistocene evolution of the Gulf of Mexico, and billions of barrels of as yet undiscovered hydrocarbons must exist within the geopressured depths of the basin. To think otherwise is illogical. . . ."

As a side note, the "Red Fault Zone" is a major rock formation traversing much of offshore Louisiana and Texas, in which numerous oil and gas fields have been discovered. It has been extensively studied by the U.S. Geological Survey in particular. But to put the previous quote into layman's language, the article summarizes those conclusions as follows:

". . . They see a large potential from refilling from the deeper sedimentary reservoirs (proof with biomarkers), but not from abiogenic sources in the basement and the mantle! . . ."

Now; for a word about "biomarkers," which constitute what may be the best proof that the oil that is replenishing the Eugene Island field is not of abiogenic origin. Biomarkers are essentially "molecular fossils" that are found in oil and other minerals that can be used in a variety of ways, but specifically to trace the origins of the oil in terms of its age and in providing a description of the original ecosystem in which the organic compounds which were converted into oil were deposited. Of all the counterweighted evidence proponents of abiogenic oil sources have to confront, biomarkers may be the most significant since both their presence and their quantity within oil deposits must be accounted for if an abiogenic origin is to be hypothesized. This is why the article I just referenced in my last quote posted just above, used the term "proof with biomarkers," as something of a "final word" on the matter. You can read more about biomarkers by going here. If you do read up on them pay attention to the large number and types of biomarkers that are discussed.

So for all of the above-stated reasons, the specific hypothesis offered to explain the refilling of the Eugene Island block 330 field by an upward flow of abiogenic oil from the mantle does not seem to hold up. But, having stated that, the question as to whether abiogenic oil can exist in significant quantities is another matter entirely. Personally, I doubt that is the case, but there is one truly credible scientific hypothesis advanced to promote the idea, that of the astrophysicist Dr. Thomas Gold, who I mentioned near the beginning of this post. You can read his 1993 paper "The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth" to learn more. Gold's hypothesis is not generally favored among petroleum geologists as describing the origins of commercially-viable deposits of oil, and Gold himself has had to give a nod to the fact that there is significant evidence pointing to many oil deposits as originating in organic life, but that does not discount the possibility that there may exist significant quantities of oil in the earth's mantle (at very great depths) and that some of that oil may occasionally flow upward into the crust. Gold did convince the Swedish government to drill two wells in the late 1980s at the lowest points of the "Siljan Crater," a large meteoritic crater that could have been expected to have sent shock waves to the mantle and which exists over granitic rock formations that should not contain biogenic sedimentary deposits necessary for the creation of oil. (See the "Results in Sweden" section of the just-referenced paper for more.) Some oil was discovered and Gold has argued that the biomarkers found within it suggest that it was not of organic origin. But it must be noted that the quantity of the oil that was found was not sufficient to be commercially-viable, which seems to discount the possibility that other productive oil fields have an abiogenic origin. This is really fascinating stuff however.

And Patrick, thanks for the ping on this topic. I do find it very interesting indeed.

[clearsight]

Thanks for the info.

[StJacques]

"Thanks for the info."

And thank you for the series of posts you put up that raised the topic. I do find this stuff fascinating.

[PatrickHenry]

Good post. Much appreciated.

[b_sharp]

The Earth's magnetic field has reversed many times in the past, at some point in the reversal we would have been left with a time of no magnetic field. Since the world is still full of organic organisms (sorry) there was obviously little or no damage done. BTW the reversal was a change in polarity not a rotation of poles.

[b_sharp]

I hate to go this far back in a thread, but since I'm always the last to show up...

"There also is research showing that coal can form in a matter of months at rather shallow depths. Mt St Helen's for instance; Coal is already forming under the debri fields and at surprisingly shallow depths."

Sorry but that is peat, not coal and this creationist propaganda has already been refuted.

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

"The rate of accumulation of lunar or space dust is approximated at 1/8" to 1/4" every 10,000 years. The reason for the large dia. landing pads on the lunar lander was because of the expected depth of the dust on the moon based on the moon's assumed age. Nasa was shocked when they only discovered at the max an average of 1/4" of lunar dust."

Again an assertion that has been debunked numerous times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

[BlueDragon]

I never made it out to E.I 330... 231, was as far as I got! But then, that was long ago.

Boat decks and (on land, for me) "worms corner", back when it was still "legal" to sling/wrap chain around a joint of pipe.

Here's yet another link to a Dale Allen Pfieffer article; http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml

I'm not taking sides, just think it's interesting. On another note, If I'm hearing things right, deep gas deposits have been found beneath old, relatively shallow oil production fields? Hehehe...if you had a really deep string, and it started to "get light", would 'ya trust the blow-out preventer? If it goes, then the deep ones, would hurl A LOT of pipe out of the ground! I can't run as fast as I used to, either...

[StJacques]

Thanks for sharing that BlueDragon. I'm almost willing to venture a guess that you're from Deridder given the nickname you use. I'm from Lafayette by the way.

On your comment about gas deposits, I recall a discussion with my father about how removing oil from rock formations also carried with it the removal of water and a reduction in the density of rock in which both had remained which made it possible for gas to enter the formation to replace it. I think that is a pretty common occurrence, but as for the volume of gas that re-enters the formations being commercially-viable I do know that in the Lake Arthur field additional wells were drilled to re-enter formations that had once been mined for oil just to get at gas deposits that were not extracted [or possibly were not even available] with the original oil. That might be some of what you heard.

And as for blowouts, I remember going with my father out to a location in North Louisiana (Claiborne Parish) when I was a teenager of about 16 years and, just as we arrived at the site, witnessing a mass exodus of everyone in the toolpusher's crew who were in one heck of a hurry to save their respective a$$e$ because the casing had just been blown sky high. I'll never forget my father trying his best to calm those guys and convince them to return to the derrick platform to shut down the well. He only succeeded with about half of them, but they went back and got it done. My dad at first told me to stay with the car, which caused a couple of the crew to immediately state "See! You're telling us it's safe to go back but you tell your boy to stay away!" I ended up going with everyone back to the site as something of a hostage, though my father whispered to me privately out of earshot of everyone else that if the moment came when I saw him running down the derrick platform stairs I was to immediately "shag a$$" (my father's exact words) and not wait for him.

I take it you remember similar situations.

Thanks for the response BlueDragon. It brought back some fond memories of my dad. I told the very story I just referenced to you above at my father's wake and it broke everyone up because a couple of his old friends were present and told the rest of the tale we never heard about what went on in the central office when the news about these events arrived. My dad got a special bonus for that one.

[Right Wing Professor]

Oh by the way has ultra sound ever been really tested yet as to its safety to be used on pregnant women ??

Oh, they know full well it renders the fetuses unusually suggestible. Then in government schools they can be hypnotized by the minions of the NEA to accept a secular humanist view of America, which will allow us to be taken over by the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Rosicrucians, all of who are operatives of the NEW WORLD ORDER, which is managed by SATAN HIMSELF!!!

Other than that, it's harmless.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

Simply read my posts and do an Internet search on the names of the researchers. One can read between the lines of their findings that they do not accept the 10's of millions of year old earth theory. 6,000 years ???? eh....ok....10 to 15 thousand and then I might grant you 20 thousand, but no more.........It is known that the earth's magnetic field is weakening by half every 1400 years. It is also know that the magnetic field is absolutely required to be at certain levels to support life (promote healthy cell interaction/duplication) at all. If it is to great nothing can live. If it gets to weak things begin to mutate and die. This is only one reason why humans will never survive on planets with weak magnetic fields e.g. the moon, mars or planets with very very strong magnetic fields. It has to be just right.....

Humans will never survive on planets with weak magnetic fields???????

Put down your crack pipe, put on your tin foil hat, rub your magic crystals, and leave the thinking to people with more than a mid double digit IQ.

[clearsight]

I bet you are a really cute woman........please do not post a photograph........I would rather just imagine........

[clearsight]

Are you really that conservative or are you just mocking me just like all the other liberals on this blog ???

[orionblamblam]

> The rate of accumulation of lunar or space dust is approximated at 1/8" to 1/4" every 10,000 years. The reason for the large dia. landing pads on the lunar lander was because of the expected depth of the dust on the moon based on the moon's assumed age. Nasa was shocked when they only discovered at the max an average of 1/4" of lunar dust.
There is just to much conflicting science out there to accept that the earth is millions and millions of years old.


Stumbled across a site today that shoots down this lie once and for all:

http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html

"I wrote to the ICR asking about this claim and received a response from Dr. Gish. He sent me a copy of a letter written by the originator of the NASA-document claim, Harold Slusher, in which he cited and quoted from his source, the "1976" NASA document Meteor Orbits and Dust (NASA SP-135, Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics Vol. 2), and used it to support his calculations of the annual influx of meteoric dust onto the earth (214 million tons). After rescaling his figures for the moon, he concluded that a 4.5-billion-year-old moon would have to be covered by a layer of dust 284 feet thick.

"Then while browsing through the NASA documents in the university library (fortunately, we have open stacks), I spotted Meteor Orbits and Dust, pulled it off the shelf, and immediately saw that it was dated 1965! Not wanting to jump to conclusions, especially since it was "Volume 11", and not "Vol. 2", I doublechecked the presence of the quoted passages; they were right there. Slusher had misrepresented the date by 11 years! Upon further examination of the referenced text within the document, I found that his single direct quote was a gross misquotation (on the basis of which he had included one factor), that he had badly misused the basic mathematical procedures for handling that included factor, and that he had included another factor which his referenced text clearly stated did not apply. In all, he had inflated his figures for the earth by a factor of one million (which when corrected yields an infall of a measly 214 tons -- far too little) and for the moon by a factor of 10,000 (which when corrected yields a layer of dust 1/3 inch thick -- far thinner than we found)."


It's quite an entertaining and informative read, and shows how with just a little distortion of the truth, the ID movement and their cronies in the Young Earth field can not only generate a lie, but that the intellectually shoddy and lazy work that the authors in that field do can keep that lie going *years* after it's shown up.

Something honest Christians shoudl really be wary of was pointed out here:
"Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.

"Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both."

[clearsight]

Thank You very much..........will look into this.........

[SlowBoat407]

just like all the other liberals on this blog ???

All together now: "It's not a blog!!!!"