How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[Subduction Zone]

It's been years ago this was done. I think NOVA had a show on it. It has to do with genetic markers passed down through females. As I said, lots of DNA testing of a lot of people all over the world. Further, there were so many wonderful people willing to help.

Since it was so long ago, it would take time to hunt it up. Feel free to search for yourself or choose to ignore everything I said. It's always been in your hands.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Your claim, your burden of proof. I am betting that you misunderstood what was said.

 

[Tiberius]

I didn't get that from the article(s) reporting this finding. The scientist quoted was apparently not misrepresented as far as I see or discerned from the situation. It certainly can lead to further research about "atmospheric" changes (God forbid I used the word sunlight there...oops, what a mistake! ) affecting dating analysis. But it certainly comes into the picture when dating with accuracy at least some historical events categorized in the past by scientists in the Levant region of the earth. Yup. It does. But thanks for conversation as well as your more respectful attitude.

Okay. Let's say that everything there is correct, and there is some mechanism that is throwing off all the carbon dating results.

How far are the results off?

I mean, is it off by a huge amount? Or is it off by only a little bit? Are the scientists telling us that the sample they thought was from 10,000 years ago is actually from 25,000 years ago? Or is it from 10,001 years ago?

 

[Tiberius]

May I ask what journals and/or scientists you read and respect? Thank you. (With names and titles of journals as well as scientists, thank you again.)

It's not like that.

It doesn't matter what scientist wrote the paper, as long as they are a scientist in the particular field they are writing on.

And it doesn't matter where it is published as long as it's a peer reviewed source.

You can't treat science the way I've seen religion do so many times, with, "Only the opinions of these people are valid."

 

[shunyadragon]

Regardless of how it is used, it is now questionable as a reliable source. I suppose you missed that.
I have generally posted articles from unreligious based sources for those like you, such as National Geographic and Science based magazines. I intentionally avoided pro-creation sites because I know you're so against those who believe in the power of creation regarding life on earth. The last one was called to my attention, yet it didn't really matter because the substance of research was there. Sorry if you don't like that. And when I ask you a question, instead of giving me a link rather than quotes, along with your supercilious attitude and insults -- again -- please don't bother. And if you can't answer questions about the terminology, then again, don't bother because in that case soimeone would think you don't know what you're talking about while you go into your usual diatribe calling me willfully ignorant. have a nice day.

You still have NOT responded to the fact that C14 dating does not stand alone as the dating method, as per references. There are many radiometric and other dating methods that are coorated with C14 dating to come up with reliable dates up to 40,ooo years and other daring methods that date up to millions of years.

The bottomline is your posting selective references based on a religious agenda. I am still waiting for the author of the New York Times article. I do not believe he is even a scientist.

Please respond to this request and the references I cited concerning radiometric dating. Railure to respond reinforces the problem 'you are clueless concerning the science involved and definitely DO NOT know what you are talking about,

No you have not cirted any peer reviewed scientific journal articles concerning the accuracy of C14 dating and the methods of using other dating methods with C14.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

If you can't explain in your own words what is in a backup scientific opinion then don't bother answering. Thank you.

If you cannot cite per reviewed scientific articles concerning the accuracy of C14 dating used in combination with other dating methods.

. . . don;t bother responding.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn't get that from the article(s) reporting this finding. The scientist quoted was apparently not misrepresented as far as I see or discerned from the situation. It certainly can lead to further research about "atmospheric" changes (God forbid I used the word sunlight there...oops, what a mistake! ) affecting dating analysis. But it certainly comes into the picture when dating with accuracy at least some historical events categorized in the past by scientists in the Levant region of the earth. Yup. It does. But thanks for conversation as well as your more respectful attitude.

Still have not responded to the problem where you have neglected the fact that C14 dating does not stand alone and is correlated with other dating methods to confirm historical and geologic dating.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you can't explain in your own words what is in a backup scientific opinion then don't bother answering. Thank you.

The following research on Megiddo the Levant region demonstrated as a true scientific reference that describes how multiple dating methods are used to date the ancient history of the region.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/709576

Radiocarbon-Dating the Late Bronze Age: Cultural and Historical Considerations on Megiddo and Beyond
Mario A. S. Martin
,
Israel Finkelstein
, and
Eli Piasetzky

Abstract
Megiddo, with its tight stratigraphy and well-controlled ceramic typology, yielded more than half of the radiocarbon determinations for the time span of the Middle Bronze II to the Iron I in the southern Levant. Here we present two radiocarbon models for this entire sequence, focusing on the Late Bronze Age—1) for Megiddo; 2) for Megiddo and Beth-Shean—adding a third model for sites which provide results relevant to the Middle Bronze III/Late Bronze I transition. We then discuss the impact of the results on the material culture and history of Megiddo in particular and the southern Levant (and eastern Mediterranean) in general.

 

[metis]

As I understand it from the reports in science based journals, and with which you seem to agree, the determination of dating regarding objects and carbon-14 has changed, and that because of atmospheric changes that may not have been accounted for earlier, that I read in reference to situation regarding tree rings showing details not accounted for earlier. I do not believe I ever said otherwise.

C-14 has a very limited range of years and is perpetually being adjusted.

To put it another way, the scientists who mostly deal with this know what they're doing.

 

[YoursTrue]

C-14 has a very limited range of years and is perpetually being adjusted.

To put it another way, the scientists who mostly deal with this know what they're doing.

I'm not saying they don't know what they're doing but I am saying that I think that mistakes and wrong calculations happen about true dates. But thank you

 

[metis]

I'm not saying they don't know what they're doing but I am saying that I think that mistakes and wrong calculations happen about true dates. But thank you

But mistakes are also made by Christians and others theistically inclined.

 

[YoursTrue]

The following research on Megiddo the Levant region demonstrated as a true scientific reference that describes how multiple dating methods are used to date the ancient history of the region.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/709576

Radiocarbon-Dating the Late Bronze Age: Cultural and Historical Considerations on Megiddo and Beyond
Mario A. S. Martin
,
Israel Finkelstein
, and
Eli Piasetzky

Abstract
Megiddo, with its tight stratigraphy and well-controlled ceramic typology, yielded more than half of the radiocarbon determinations for the time span of the Middle Bronze II to the Iron I in the southern Levant. Here we present two radiocarbon models for this entire sequence, focusing on the Late Bronze Age—1) for Megiddo; 2) for Megiddo and Beth-Shean—adding a third model for sites which provide results relevant to the Middle Bronze III/Late Bronze I transition. We then discuss the impact of the results on the material culture and history of Megiddo in particular and the southern Levant (and eastern Mediterranean) in general.

You know more than I do but I hope you or someone else can answer the following question about the above--what does it mean when it says "yielded more than half of the radiocarbon determinations for the time span of the Middle Bronze II to the Iron I in the southern Levant." Can you explain? More than half, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

But mistakes are also made by Christians and others theistically inclined.

Not saying no. But that doesn't make it equal, does it?

 

[metis]

Not saying no. But that doesn't make it equal, does it?

No, but I far more tend to believe in science than what preachers may say.

 

[YoursTrue]

Still have not responded to the problem where you have neglected the fact that C14 dating does not stand alone and is correlated with other dating methods to confirm historical and geologic dating.

I haven't yet looked at that but you're probably right.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, but I far more tend to believe in science than what preachers may say.

I'm not going to say much about that now but i tend to agree with you in certain matters like that.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not like that.

It doesn't matter what scientist wrote the paper, as long as they are a scientist in the particular field they are writing on.

And it doesn't matter where it is published as long as it's a peer reviewed source.

You can't treat science the way I've seen religion do so many times, with, "Only the opinions of these people are valid."

So please do say where you get your opinions from when you challenge what i say. Names, not categories like *scientists.* Perhaps next time a subject comes up like that.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, but I far more tend to believe in science than what preachers may say.

We are discussing evolution. So according to what I read, many believe homo sapiens or humanoids (?) had a common denominator among those they call apes. Yet nothing has been ascertained in that respect. And yet I am still concerned about dates.

 

[YoursTrue]

C-14 has a very limited range of years and is perpetually being adjusted.

To put it another way, the scientists who mostly deal with this know what they're doing.

To be perfectly honest with you I find it fascinating. However, yes, since I believe the dates or rather timeline given consideration such as "day" in the Bible I want to do more research. When I took chemistry in school I memorized things and did well but it wasn't like I understood them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay. Let's say that everything there is correct, and there is some mechanism that is throwing off all the carbon dating results.

How far are the results off?

I mean, is it off by a huge amount? Or is it off by only a little bit? Are the scientists telling us that the sample they thought was from 10,000 years ago is actually from 25,000 years ago? Or is it from 10,001 years ago?

Frankly, my questions with that relate to the type of substance that was analyzed. But that's to be in future conversations, many in-betweens since you guys are putting up with me more peaceably.

 

[YoursTrue]

I

You still have NOT responded to the fact that C14 dating does not stand alone as the dating method, as per references. There are many radiometric and other dating methods that are coorated with C14 dating to come up with reliable dates up to 40,ooo years and other daring methods that date up to millions of years.

The bottomline is your posting selective references based on a religious agenda. I am still waiting for the author of the New York Times article. I do not believe he is even a scientist.

Please respond to this request and the references I cited concerning radiometric dating. Railure to respond reinforces the problem 'you are clueless concerning the science involved and definitely DO NOT know what you are talking about,

No you have not cirted any peer reviewed scientific journal articles concerning the accuracy of C14 dating and the methods of using other dating methods with C14.

Still waiting . . .

Not every reference I gave has a religious agenda. I purposely tried to avoid a reference in, as the saying goes, God forbid, a "religious" agenda. But I am striving to put only secular reports, certainly not religiously based insofar as I can tell. I didn't realize one which virtually said the same as the nonreligious bases was a religiously oriented site. So in the future, I hope you will explain things I am not understanding from the sources you apparently like. Thank you.