Re: Study Re-evaluates Evolution of Mammals

On Mar 29, 4:49 am, "derdag" <der...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 28, 11:40 pm, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 28 Mar 2007 19:48:58 -0700,

snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 28, 9:36 pm, "derdag" <der...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 28, 9:50 pm, "snex" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 28, 8:43 pm, "derdag" <der...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 28, 7:53 pm, maximum maypo <max.ma...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<QUOTEhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/science/28cnd-mammal.html>

The mass extinction that wiped out dinosaurs and other life 65
million years ago apparently did not, contrary to conventional
wisdom, immediately clear the way for the rise of today's mammals.

In fact, the ancestral branches of most mammals, including primates,
rodents and hoofed animals, emerged long before the global extinction
and survived it more or less intact. But it was not until at least 10
million to 15 million years afterward that the lineages of living
mammals began to flourish in number and diversity.

[more...]
</QUOTE>

--

max

So much for the KT asteroid.... Maybe evolutionists can morph their
theory again and believe me, it will explain it all!!

this doesnt address the KT asteroid at all, let alone disprove it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yesterday's ToE claimed that reptiles filled most niches and few
mammals were around, they were small, and made it through the event.

This does change the story surrounding evolution, selection pressures,
extinctions and some idiot will use the formless, unboundried Theory
of Evolution as if it had meaning yesterday or today. I'm just some
person who thinks it fit anything and every change, no matter what the
facts are on the ground.

Is that what you are going to try next?

the only thing this study alleges is that mammals took a while to
radiate. as far as im aware, no scientist ever disputed this to begin
with. to me it seems like another screwup by the sensationalist media.
*every* study published that gets reported on in the media is called
"revolutionary," no matter how many scientists already felt that the
results of the study were reasonable.

You didn't actually expect any of the local trolls and loons to bother
checking up on something before they made asses of themselves? For a
good look at what "derdag" is all about, go look at the sheer stupidity
he is practicing to try to justify he's idiotic comments about C14
dating.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxxx Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I learned enough about it to see that my position on C14 hasn't
changed in substance.


Evidently you should have learned more. Then you would see that your
position of ignorance on C14 was based on false assumptions and blind
predjudice.

It looks like a load of horse nuggets. Plenty
of other people who did know more about it than myself feel the same.

Knowing more that you do about it hardly sets a high standard. The
people who actually know about it and use it in their professional
lives do not feel the same about it as you do. They understand both
the strengths and limitations of the method.

Just look at how well C14 results that were "concrete" have just been
screwed by this new study here. They must need to recalibrate their
C14 dating due to this, aye? lol

Recalibration of radiocarbon dating has been going on for decades. The
reason why it has become possible is that in the early days of
radiocarbon dating large samples were needed - as much as 50 grams -
and the cost of tests was very high. I worked in an archaeological dig
in 1968, and the cost of dating a sample of charcoal was £400, a lot
of money in those days and equvalent to more than ten times that at
today's prices. You could buy a new car for £500. Bear in mind also
that the larger the sample, the greater the chance of contamination.

Technology has advanced, and we can now date samples weighing a
fraction of a gram, at a far, far lower cost.This has made possible
the calibration of radiocarbon levels against carbon in tree rings. So
it's acurate, the researchers using the method know the limitations of
its accuracy, it's calibrated using a number of independent dating
methods, and has been show to be reliable.

What do you know that the scientists who actually use the method
don't?

RF


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where is vowel boy? Re: Still no takers for the critique
    ...  research paper in the area of C14 dating or dendrochronology. ... atmospheric levels of C14. ... Why would good data about levels of C14 in the atmosphere at ... various locations and times in the earth's history be a desiderata for ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Radiocarbon dating part II
    ... But it (past atmospheric radiocarbon levels) is testable - that's ... C14 in the atmosphere during the lifespan of any particular creature ... no amount of "calibration" can ... dating mechanisms that allows confidence to be assigned to the method. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Radiocarbon dating part II
    ... But it (past atmospheric radiocarbon levels) is testable - that's ... C14 in the atmosphere during the lifespan of any particular creature ... no amount of "calibration" can ... dating mechanisms that allows confidence to be assigned to the method. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Study Re-evaluates Evolution of Mammals
    ... Just look at how well C14 results that were "concrete" have just been ... radiocarbon dating is no good beyond 50 000. ... to fossils where all the carbon has been replace by other minerals. ... derdag so stipulates that derdag isn't accurate about methods of C14 ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Study Re-evaluates Evolution of Mammals
    ... immediately clear the way for the rise of today's mammals. ... Just look at how well C14 results that were "concrete" have just been ... if you had learned anything whatsoever about C14 dating, ... This new information contradicts every text that delves into ...
    (talk.origins)