• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Footprints oldest evidence of humans in the Americas 23,000 years old

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
First these sediments and the related foot prints are only 23,000 years old far younger than 50,000 year limit for carbon 13 dating, The carbon rich layers between the lighter layers (See picture) can be easily Carbon-14 dated. Other methods are most often used today such as the Potassium/ Argon dating.
OK, I checked somewhat about this, and from one source about this (above as you posted), it says about this, in part: "In a landmark study published on 23 September in Science1, researchers suggest that human footprints from an ancient lakeshore in the park date to between 21,000 and 23,000 years old. If the dating is accurate — which specialists say is likely — the prints represent the earliest unequivocal evidence of human occupation anywhere in the Americas."
(Italics and underlining mine -- but it does leave open questions, saying "if" and "likely." So right now I'll leave it there, because there is more, and I appreciate your effort to explain. Thanks.)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
First these sediments and the related foot prints are only 23,000 years old far younger than 50,000 year limit for carbon 13 dating, The carbon rich layers between the lighter layers (See picture) can be easily Carbon-14 dated. Other methods are most often used today such as the Potassium/ Argon dating.
Another quote, yes I know this doesn't prove anything* BUT --
"Matthew Bennett, a geoscientist at Bournemouth University in Poole, UK, who specializes in the study of fossil footprints. “Every time you uncover something it’s a potentially a different age. Dating is a nightmare.
Dating is a nightmare? Not sure why he said that yet, but I think I might agree with him...::) For several reasons, but until I'm sure I won't add to that comment.
*OK, it proves that dating is a nightmare. Maybe?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Another quote, yes I know this doesn't prove anything* BUT --
"Matthew Bennett, a geoscientist at Bournemouth University in Poole, UK, who specializes in the study of fossil footprints. “Every time you uncover something it’s a potentially a different age. Dating is a nightmare.
Dating is a nightmare? Not sure why he said that yet, but I think I might agree with him...::) For several reasons, but until I'm sure I won't add to that comment.
*OK, it proves that dating is a nightmare. Maybe?
No.

It only means that dating can be difficult.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I'm not sure if the article mentioned what type of method was used to date the footprints. I'll check.

Whether it did or not all academic discoveries and research such as this do multiple methods of dating including counting the individual varves (layers) in the lake deposits, yes, the primary method was Carbon 14 dating of the seeds endorsed by Bennitt.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Another quote, yes I know this doesn't prove anything* BUT --
"Matthew Bennett, a geoscientist at Bournemouth University in Poole, UK, who specializes in the study of fossil footprints. “Every time you uncover something it’s a potentially a different age. Dating is a nightmare.
Dating is a nightmare? Not sure why he said that yet, but I think I might agree with him...::) For several reasons, but until I'm sure I won't add to that comment.
*OK, it proves that dating is a nightmare. Maybe?

Yes there are difficulties in dating foot prints, but modern technology has resolved this in many cases. The basic dating was the seeds in sediments, which also confirmed these are varved lake deposits a very suitable habitat for early humans.

I checked the Nature article, which is the most complete reference, and Bennett does acknowledge the difficulties of the dating methods concerning the footprints, but nonetheless he endorses the dating of these footprints. Incomplete selective citation of references without reading the whole article and understanding dating methods, and the research involved can be a problem

From the reference in Nature.

"In 2019, study co-author David Bustos, an archaeologist and resource manager at White Sands, identified a site on the playa that had tracks that led right into layers of rock-hard sediment. The rock contained seeds of spiral ditchgrass (Ruppia cirrhosa), an aquatic plant that could be carbon-dated to determine the age of the tracks. “That’s the holy grail of trying to date footprints,” says Bennett.

He and his colleagues weren’t surprised when radiocarbon dating by researchers at the US Geological Survey in Denver, Colorado, determined that the seeds were between 21,000 and 23,000 years old, because a previous small-scale excavation had dated the sediment to around the same time. But Bennett says the team knew that claims of human occupation at this age would draw extreme scrutiny."
 
Last edited:

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Footprints oldest evidence of humans in the Americas 23,000 years old
Today, 03:51 PM

Source: Earliest definitive evidence of people in Americas



Earliest definitive evidence of people in Americas


By Paul Rincon
Science editor, BBC News website
Published1 hour ago
Share
_120662000_p1120375.jpg


IMAGE SOURCE,BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITYimage captionThe footprints belonged to teenagers and children who lived between 23,000 and 21,000 years ago

Humans reached the Americas at least 7,000 years earlier than previously thought, according to new findings.

The topic of when the continent was first settled from Asia has been controversial for decades.

Many researchers are sceptical of evidence for humans in the North American interior much earlier than 16,000 years ago.

Now, a team working in New Mexico has found scores of human footprints dated to between 23,000 and 21,000 years old.

The discovery could transform views about when the continent was settled. It suggests there could have been great migrations that we know nothing about. And it raises the possibility that these earlier populations could have gone extinct.

The footprints were formed in soft mud on the margins of a shallow lake which now forms part of Alkali Flat in White Sands.
A team from the US Geological Survey carried out radiocarbon dating on seeds found in sediment layers above and below where the footprints were found. This gave the researchers remarkably precise dates for the impressions themselves.

Reminds me of a headline I saw years ago:

Anthropologist suggest first humans arrived in Ireland about 10,000 years ago. Prior to that, only the Irish lived there.

The Onion
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Reminds me of a headline I saw years ago:

Anthropologist suggest first humans arrived in Ireland about 10,000 years ago. Prior to that, only the Irish lived there.

The Onion

The article was likely written by an Englishman. I'm Irish and the Irish arrived a million years ago and would have rulled the world but unfortunately they invented Irish whiskey.
 
Last edited:

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
The article was likely written by an Englishman. I'm Irish and the Irish arrived a million years ago and would have rulled the world but unfortunately they invented Irish whiskey.

I thoroughly enjoyed Thomas Cahill's book, How the Irish Saved Civilization. Guessing you might have read it?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Now my thinking (or wondering) takes me to how the ages of the deposits are determined. (It's not easy for me to understand...) I have been reading that carbon dating is what is used to determine the age of those things determined to be under 50,000 years old, is that right?
So far this is what I got, and I'd like your opinion about this: (I sure do wish though that I had the internet when I was in school...)
"The approximate age of ancient artifacts can be determined as long as the artifact is not older than 50,000 years. It’s a technique called carbon-14 dating. All organisms that live on the Earth are based on carbon. This would be wood, plants, animals and of course humans." I am assuming so far this also means rock and soil sediment. Here's where it gets interesting, and you as a geologist would give an opinion of this. So before I ask any further, if you care to, can you please give your opinion of the above statement in quotes I got from the following source:
How Scientists Determine the Age of Ancient Artifacts | Actforlibraries.org
I just want to stop there for your thought on that because it does get very interesting after that, and of course, I do have questions which I hope you can help me figure out the answer to.
"While the nature of the physical evidence here is harder to dismiss, the researchers had to ensure the dating evidence was - quite literally - watertight.

A potential complication flagged up by the journal during the early stages of review was the "reservoir effect". This refers to the way that old carbon can sometimes get recycled in aqueous environments, interfering with radiocarbon results by making a site seem older than it is.

However, the team members say they have accounted for this effect and believe it is not significant here.

Prof Tom Higham, a radiocarbon dating expert at the University of Vienna, said: "They've undertaken some checks on the dates of material from near to the footprint location and found that fully terrestrial samples (charcoal) produced ages similar to those of the aquatic species they dated from nearer to the footprints.

"They've also argued, I think justifiably, that the lake must have been shallow at the time people walked there, mitigating the effect of reservoir effects introduced by old carbon sources." The consistency of the results and the support from a different dating technique applied to the site both supported the validity of the results, he added."

Footprints in New Mexico are oldest evidence of humans in the Americas
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes there are difficulties in dating foot prints, but modern technology has resolved this in many cases. The basic dating was the seeds in sediments, which also confirmed these are varved lake deposits a very suitable habitat for early humans.

I checked the Nature article, which is the most complete reference, and Bennett does acknowledge the difficulties of the dating methods concerning the footprints, but nonetheless he endorses the dating of these footprints. Incomplete selective citation of references without reading the whole article and understanding dating methods, and the research involved can be a problem

From the reference in Nature.

"In 2019, study co-author David Bustos, an archaeologist and resource manager at White Sands, identified a site on the playa that had tracks that led right into layers of rock-hard sediment. The rock contained seeds of spiral ditchgrass (Ruppia cirrhosa), an aquatic plant that could be carbon-dated to determine the age of the tracks. “That’s the holy grail of trying to date footprints,” says Bennett.

He and his colleagues weren’t surprised when radiocarbon dating by researchers at the US Geological Survey in Denver, Colorado, determined that the seeds were between 21,000 and 23,000 years old, because a previous small-scale excavation had dated the sediment to around the same time. But Bennett says the team knew that claims of human occupation at this age would draw extreme scrutiny."
That is in part what I'm wondering about, the seeds. Hmm, might they have drifted from another area, and how are they dated? So give or take a few million when it comes to when an area was first lived in by humans? OK, just kidding, rather a few thousand, perhaps. Now I do wonder why Bennett said claims of human occupation would draw extreme scrutiny. Wonder why...at least he expressed himself rather than closing it down. As I'm looking at this, why date the seeds and not the soil the footprints were embedded in? Which makes me wonder about dating cave paintings. Hmm again. Anyway, I don't drink whiskey, but I do drink wine. Maybe I'll have some later. :) Plus I like Irish music. Not to get off the subject, Wild Rover is one of my favs. OK, back to cave painting dating. OK not back to cave painting dating. Back to the seeds on the footprints.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
That is in part what I'm wondering about, the seeds. Hmm, might they have drifted from another area, and how are they dated? So give or take a few million when it comes to when an area was first lived in by humans? OK, just kidding, rather a few thousand, perhaps. Now I do wonder why Bennett said claims of human occupation would draw extreme scrutiny. Wonder why...at least he expressed himself rather than closing it down. As I'm looking at this, why date the seeds and not the soil the footprints were embedded in? Which makes me wonder about dating cave paintings. Hmm again. Anyway, I don't drink whiskey, but I do drink wine. Maybe I'll have some later. :) Plus I like Irish music. Not to get off the subject, Wild Rover is one of my favs. OK, back to cave painting dating. OK not back to cave painting dating. Back to the seeds on the footprints.
Why don't you write the authors with your questions and concerns?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That is in part what I'm wondering about, the seeds. Hmm, might they have drifted from another area, . . . .

No, the sediments are from an inland lake with no outlet to the sea. These are not plants associated with the coast of a sea. They are associated with shallow coasts of freshwater lakes. Even if the could have come from the sea they would be the same age.

Bennett has described the dating as difficult, but NOT that it cannot be done.

and how are they dated?

Primarily Carbon-14 endorsed by Bennett.


So give or take a few million when it comes to when an area was first lived in by humans? OK, just kidding, rather a few thousand, perhaps. Now I do wonder why Bennett said claims of human occupation would draw extreme scrutiny. Wonder why...at least he expressed himself rather than closing it down.il the footprints were embedded in?

ALL scientific discoveries are subject to scrutiny by peer review and other scientists. A new discovery is subject to greater scrutiny.



As I'm looking at this, why date the seeds and not the so Which makes me wonder about dating cave paintings. Hmm again. Anyway, I don't drink whiskey, but I do drink wine. Maybe I'll have some later. :) Plus I like Irish music. Not to get off the subject, Wild Rover is one of my favs. OK, back to cave painting dating. OK not back to cave painting dating. Back to the seeds on the footprints.

The cave paintings are separate issue, which I already addressed
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes there are difficulties in dating foot prints, but modern technology has resolved this in many cases. The basic dating was the seeds in sediments, which also confirmed these are varved lake deposits a very suitable habitat for early humans.

I checked the Nature article, which is the most complete reference, and Bennett does acknowledge the difficulties of the dating methods concerning the footprints, but nonetheless he endorses the dating of these footprints. Incomplete selective citation of references without reading the whole article and understanding dating methods, and the research involved can be a problem

From the reference in Nature.

"In 2019, study co-author David Bustos, an archaeologist and resource manager at White Sands, identified a site on the playa that had tracks that led right into layers of rock-hard sediment. The rock contained seeds of spiral ditchgrass (Ruppia cirrhosa), an aquatic plant that could be carbon-dated to determine the age of the tracks. “That’s the holy grail of trying to date footprints,” says Bennett.

He and his colleagues weren’t surprised when radiocarbon dating by researchers at the US Geological Survey in Denver, Colorado, determined that the seeds were between 21,000 and 23,000 years old, because a previous small-scale excavation had dated the sediment to around the same time. But Bennett says the team knew that claims of human occupation at this age would draw extreme scrutiny."
True that he said carbon-14 dating is the "holy grail" of dating, but he also said that dating objects is a nightmare. Why do you think he said that? And how in reference to this exploration?
Still the seeds (not the footprints) were determined to be between 21,000 and 23, 000 years old. Apparently they went by previous determination of the sediment, dating process of the previous analysis not spoken of there, unless I missed that point. I guess you have given me all the possible answers you can, and -- while guesses are made -- it is estimated based on previous determination of the soil's age (dating process there?) and then I have questions about the dating of the seeds. But thank you for your response.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
True that he said carbon-14 dating is the "holy grail" of dating, but he also said that dating objects is a nightmare. Why do you think he said that? And how in reference to this exploration?

Your misunderstanding Bennett, and misrepresenting him. As far his comment on the specific evidence for these footprints, and NOT that Carbon-14 dating for all footprints. He considered the specific evidence in this case as conclusive as to the dating of the foot prints, Yes in many cases where the dating of footprints by Carbon-14 dating of footprints is very difficult and inconclusive.

You not only need a better education in science, but also in the English language,


Still the seeds (not the footprints) were determined to be between 21,000 and 23, 000 years old. Apparently they went by previous determination of the sediment, dating process of the previous analysis not spoken of there, unless I missed that point. I guess you have given me all the possible answers you can, and -- while guesses are made -- it is estimated based on previous determination of the soil's age (dating process there?) and then I have questions about the dating of the seeds. But thank you for your response.

Your reading too much into the research without a knowledge of science and scientific methods.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, the sediments are from an inland lake with no outlet to the sea. These are not plants associated with the coast of a sea. They are associated with shallow coasts of freshwater lakes. Even if the could have come from the sea they would be the same age.

Can't say I completely understand this. Meaning how did those plant seeds get to be embedded in the tracks. However,perhaps later...

The cave paintings -- again -- perhaps datails later. I thank you for your answers.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Your misunderstanding Bennett, and misrepresenting him. As far his comment on the specific evidence for these footprints, and NOT that Carbon-14 dating for all footprints. He considered the specific evidence in this case as conclusive as to the dating of the foot prints, Yes in many cases where the dating of footprints by Carbon-14 dating of footprints is very difficult and inconclusive.

You not only need a better education in science, but also in the English language,




Your reading too much into the research without a knowledge of science and scientific methods.
I'm sorry, you probably meant to say "You're misunderstanding Bennett," as you wrote above, didn't you? I'm sure since you are so well versed in the English language that was a casual error. It happens.
Before I go, here is one assessment of carbon-14 dating, in part, of course. "Is carbon dating accurate? Only to a certain extent. In order for carbon dating to be accurate, we must know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime." Is Carbon Dating Accurate? (allaboutarchaeology.org)
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, the sediments are from an inland lake with no outlet to the sea. These are not plants associated with the coast of a sea. They are associated with shallow coasts of freshwater lakes. Even if the could have come from the sea they would be the same age.

Bennett has described the dating as difficult, but NOT that it cannot be done.



Primarily Carbon-14 endorsed by Bennett.
Radio carbon dating is used.
 
Top