Perhaps this will refresh your memory:
FIGURE 4. Movement of water producing the seepage
within the Purslane sandstones.
Posted on 03/10/2004 6:10:11 AM PST by vannrox
Perhaps this will refresh your memory:
FIGURE 4. Movement of water producing the seepage
within the Purslane sandstones.
I've posted this before, something to think about:
Imagine an island with plenty of pasture, water, etc., but no animals. Introduce 100 male horses and 100 female donkeys. Come back in 100 years. There will be no equids.:
Now imagine an island with plenty of game, water, etc. Introduce 100 male great Danes and 100 female chihuahuas. Come back in 100 years. There will be no canids.
Conclusion. Great Danes and chihuahuas are different species.
Indeed it is. The earbones shift from the jaw to the ear during mammal gestation. It was predicted that fossils would be found showing the same movement. They have been.
And just how did the human "evolve" with two missing chromosomes?
See Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes
Carbon is extremely mobile and C14 and C12 have identical chemistry. The ratio of 14 to 12 just depends on how long the carbon took to get where you found it. It was "modern" going in from the atmosphere, but when was that?
At any rate, there's apparently a fairly even noise floor of .24 or so percent of modern carbon in some old rocks. Evidently, the contamination takes time to get into poorly permeable coals. Above that noise floor, performance is unaffected. So it looks like you can date reliably back to about 50 or 60K and then you're down in the noise no matter how good your instrument is. (That's assuming the same noise floor seen in the coals is present in other materials, but I don't have any actual idea.)
Other elements are less mobile than carbon. There are known problems with K-Ar dating (excess argon, for instance), but there are known work-arounds, such as Ar-Ar. A number of techniques allow Isochron Dating. The point is that there's an array of dating techniques for any suspected age range. Most often they will return the same results for a given sample. (There's no reason why that should be so if creationist criticisms on radiometric techniques are correct, and yet that is so.)
So they are both mobile. And as you pointed out the calibrations of carbon with tree rings have indicated variations of C14 levels in the atmosphere over time.
"There are known problems with K-Ar dating (excess argon, for instance), but there are known work-arounds, such as Ar-Ar. A number of techniques allow Isochron Dating."
Read here for problems with Ar-Ar and Isochron dating methods.
How accurate are radioactive dating methods
Most often they will return the same results for a given sample.
The fact is that we don't know how often the dating methods disagree. To many dating results are ruled out and never published because they disagree with the prevailing world view. In fact the article above talks about how bias is built into the system. The labs even ask for an expected age, before they run the tests. You said there were 40 something methods. Yeah, I bet they do find two or three that will coincide with practically every specimen. But unless they published all results even the ones believed to be errant, there is no way to know how prevalent lack of correlation is among the dating methods.
And by such reason if there were female great danes and male chihuahuas which produced viable offspring on another island, then your conclusion would be proved false.
It would be an interesting situation, all the hybrids having to have one breed for the father and the other for the mother. Never heaard of such a thing in nature.
I don't *know* for a fact that they couldn't mate, but it gives me the willies to think about it (either way; size does matter!).
The point was that, assuming for the sake of argument it's impossible because of the great difference in size rather than gross genetic incompatability, ( which I *think* it is), it's an example of recent genetic isolation.
Truly, if we put males and females of both breeds on the island, I would expect them both to breed true, no mutts.
Get me a grant and an island, maybe we can make science history...
This is from peer reviewed writings?
Cordially
Vasek, Frank C.
1980 Creosote Bush: Long-lived Clones in the Mojave Desert. American Journal of Botany 67(2):246-255.
Cordially,
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
2008 bump.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
“Respect for the dead springs from respect for the living; it springs from love for those who lived. It doesn’t take “religion” for someone to care about someone else. All it takes is humanity. Heck, it doesn’t even take humanity.”
Have you read Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book, “Life after Death?” You might find it interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
