How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[Subduction Zone]

I believe there is more precise scientific opinion and information in the following:
Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates | PNAS

Too bad she has me on ignore. I could have told her that they are concerned about an error that makes a difference of less than 1 freaking %. And that only applies to recent dates. This has nothing to do with evolution. No one is concerned about only a 1% date error when it comes to evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Tiberius Maybe I got the idea of sunlight from the following? But -- as for the changes of thinking regarding the dating process by scientists, this goes into that a bit.
"One cause for different levels of C-14 is that there is more of it produced in summer than in winter. Longer days and more direct sunlight means more cosmic rays (that are partially made up of rays of sunlight), which produce more C-14 in the atmosphere. One problem is that the entire northern hemisphere relies on a single standardized calibration curve constructed from measurements of radiocarbon levels in trees from central and northern Europe and North America."
Carbon Dating Errors may Rewrite the Bible’s Place in History - Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy
Interesting article, that's for sure at least as I am concerned.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, I'm quoting from the article, but I do believe the writer mentions the scientists by name. What is it you want to question?

The questions I want to ask are:

What are these large errors in carbon dating? How big are they? How often do they arise? Do we know what the cause is? Can the effect be corrected for?

And I'm not asking you to mention the scientist. I'm asking you to present the actual scientific paper they wrote.

 

[Tiberius]

I'll get more into that later. So things have changed you think, since 1990? Yes, the article was written in 1990. From your answer, I suspect you don't know. Since you say either the problems spoken of in the article were either unfounded, or corrected. But you don't know if the article states the situation correctly, or if the dating process is in serious question, is that right?

Stop avoiding the issue. You can get into it now.

Or are you suggesting that scientists would continue using a method they know is flawed for another 32 years after discovering that it is flawed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The questions I want to ask are:

What are these large errors in carbon dating? How big are they? How often do they arise? Do we know what the cause is? Can the effect be corrected for?

And I'm not asking you to mention the scientist. I'm asking you to present the actual scientific paper they wrote.

She did find the paper. Error rate of less than 1%:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1719420115

The paper appears to be about correcting for that extremely small error.

 

[Tiberius]

Which scientists are you speaking of?

The scientists who actually do the research.

Really, how is it difficult for you to understand this?

If research has been done, I want to hear about it from the scientists who did that research, not from some journalists who gave it a quick skim, probably understood very little of it and then wrote about what they thought it meant.

 

[Tiberius]

I believe there is more precise scientific opinion and information in the following:
Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates | PNAS

Yes, I know.

I've already linked to that article after I did your homework for you back in post 335.

I also responded to it in that same post.

Please try to keep up.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I know.

I've already linked to that article after I did your homework for you back in post 335.

I also responded to it in that same post.

Please try to keep up.

I certainly will. As I hope you will also.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I know.

I've already linked to that article after I did your homework for you back in post 335.

I also responded to it in that same post.

Please try to keep up.

Except that the mention of sunlight has been in at least one article, and since you're the scientist I suppose, and I'm not, I used that expression. Boy I guess was that a biiigggg mistake, lol.

 

[Tiberius]

@Tiberius Maybe I got the idea of sunlight from the following? But -- as for the changes of thinking regarding the dating process by scientists, this goes into that a bit.
"One cause for different levels of C-14 is that there is more of it produced in summer than in winter. Longer days and more direct sunlight means more cosmic rays (that are partially made up of rays of sunlight), which produce more C-14 in the atmosphere. One problem is that the entire northern hemisphere relies on a single standardized calibration curve constructed from measurements of radiocarbon levels in trees from central and northern Europe and North America."
Carbon Dating Errors may Rewrite the Bible’s Place in History - Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy
Interesting article, that's for sure at least as I am concerned.

Okay, let's get this straight...

Your evidence is on a non-science site, built to promote the personal views on the Bible of Tim Mahoney, a politician/businessman who has no qualifications in science and whose views about the Bible contradict the opinions of the vast majority of modern Biblical scholars. Additionally, the article itself was written by a creationist who has no other credits to his name other than he co-wrote the movie that the website was intended to promote.

Once again, show me the actual science.

 

[YoursTrue]

The scientists who actually do the research.

Really, how is it difficult for you to understand this?

If research has been done, I want to hear about it from the scientists who did that research, not from some journalists who gave it a quick skim, probably understood very little of it and then wrote about what they thought it meant.

I understand your point. But then please do tell me why I should believe you about your interpretations and/or findings or scientific explanations? Three things I'm asking here: why should I believe (1) your interpretations, (2) your findings or (3) your scientific explanations without going to the source for those things?

 

[Tiberius]

I certainly will. As I hope you will also.

I have been consistently ahead of you.

 

[Tiberius]

Except that the mention of sunlight has been in at least one article, and since you're the scientist I suppose, and I'm not, I used that expression. Boy I guess was that a biiigggg mistake, lol.

Okay then, please link to that article which mentions the affect sunlight has on the accuracy of carbon dating methods.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, let's get this straight...

Your evidence is on a non-science site, built to promote the personal views on the Bible of Tim Mahoney, a politician/businessman who has no qualifications in science and whose views about the Bible contradict the opinions of the vast majority of modern Biblical scholars. Additionally, the article itself was written by a creationist who has no other credits to his name other than he co-wrote the movie that the website was intended to promote.

Once again, show me the actual science.

Oh, I didn't know that about Tim Mahoney. Or the writer of the article you are referring to. What's a creationist, by the way? Is it the opposite of an evolutionist?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have been consistently ahead of you.

My first out loud laugh tonight. OK, take care --

 

[Tiberius]

I understand your point. But then please do tell me why I should believe you about your interpretations and/or findings or scientific explanations? Three things I'm asking here: why should I believe (1) your interpretations, (2) your findings or (3) your scientific explanations without going to the source for those things?

You should listen to the SCIENTISTS.

When have I presented a scientific opinion which I have not backed up?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Tiberius
But before I sign off for this fascinating conversation, are you saying that the following is a lie?
“We went looking to test the assumption behind the whole field of radiocarbon dating,” Manning said in the Cornell Chronicle. “We know from atmospheric measurements over the last 50 years that radiocarbon levels vary through the year, and we also know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the Northern Hemisphere. So we wondered whether the radiocarbon levels relevant to dating organic material might also vary for different areas and whether this might affect archaeological dating.” Carbon Dating Errors may Rewrite the Bible’s Place in History - Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy
I hope to look for your answer later...

 

[Tiberius]

Oh, I didn't know that about Tim Mahoney. Or the writer of the article you are referring to. What's a creationist, by the way? Is it the opposite of an evolutionist?

I'm surprised you've never heard the term "creationist" before. I take it you are fairly new to religious discussions like this?

A creationist is someone who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account. You can get what's called a "Young Earth Creationist" who believes the world is only about 6000 years old, or an old earth creationist who believes the world is about as old as science indicates it is. Of course, there are many different types of creationist, not just these two, though they tend to be the largest two categories.

In any case, when you cite something as evidence, please take a moment to do a bit of a check. Who is the author? Do they have any relevant qualifications in the field they are talking about? answering these questions will give you a better idea if the source you are citing is actually worth citing.

 

[Tiberius]

My first out loud laugh tonight. OK, take care --

You may laugh if you want, but remember that source you posted in post 340? I'd already posted it in post 335. I'd call that being ahead.

 

[Tiberius]

@Tiberius
But before I sign off for this fascinating conversation, are you saying that the following is a lie?
“We went looking to test the assumption behind the whole field of radiocarbon dating,” Manning said in the Cornell Chronicle. “We know from atmospheric measurements over the last 50 years that radiocarbon levels vary through the year, and we also know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the Northern Hemisphere. So we wondered whether the radiocarbon levels relevant to dating organic material might also vary for different areas and whether this might affect archaeological dating.” Carbon Dating Errors may Rewrite the Bible’s Place in History - Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy
I hope to look for your answer later...

It's not a lie, but they are presenting it in a way designed to deceive people who do not understand. They also make it sound like once they correct for this, all the dating techniques will have to be completely thrown out, whereas it's far more likely that we're just going to have to adjust some date ranges by a few percentage points.

Scientists already know about the issues that can affect carbon dating results, and they are able to correct for them. Your source makes it sound like the scientists have no idea at all, or that they do nothing to correct for them.