Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
Lots of problems w/ that link.
If you follow the link you provided, you can see that the tree-rings don't line up very well at all. They are only marginally comparable. Then follow the link to the page that discusses the 'extension' process where pieces laying around, from peat bogs and old buildings are used and you get a much better idea of how unreliable tree-ring dating really is. There is at least as much variability and human interpretation in tree-ring dating as in anything else.
Finally, how was C14 dating modified based on tree-ring chronologies? Any at all?
Finally, how was C14 dating modified based on tree-ring chronologies? Any at all?
Tree ring dating is normally done using standing dead bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of southeastern California.
By dating the rings in 10-year increments you establish a calibration curve.
Nope. You would just assume that the related species 'lost' that particular gene.
Evolution is unfalsifiable since the 'fact' that it occurred is assumed 'a priori'.
Doesn't matter where it occurs.
Points were, the 'extension' process and human interpretation.
Since you did not address those points, I assume that you recognize they are fatal to the claim.
Oh yeah, and the point about whether C14 was modified as the result of this 'sychronization' w/ tree-rings.
Where is that process so that we can see where the variability lies? Could be all over the board, like the 'geologic column'.
Ooops! Reading comprehension again. They aren't "the same". They're just less different than the typical genes are (between species with that degree of evolutionary relationship).
bookmark
You seem to want to make radiocarbon dating into some kind of second-rate guesswork. That is not accurate.
I have been working with radiocarbon dates for some 25 years, and know a bit about the process. I'll trust the professionals I work with and the study I have done.
Bye.
Such as......?
The only alternative I hear is Creationism or the Theory that the Earth is riding on the back of a huge turtle, both of which are "matters of faith".
Global warming is not junk science. It is a fact. What is at issue is the WHY. I believe the world is warming because of the natural cycle of the sun - not because of man's activity. But to say the climate is not getting warmer is like an ostrich sticking his head in the sand.
The ice sheet at the North Pole has been growing thinner over the past 20 years. That is a fact. The REASON it is growing thinner is what is open to debate.
Even worse.
If the genes are 'less different' than typical, then they are 'highly conserved'. If more different, then they aren't 'highly conserved'.
Don't see how this helps your position.
Except that the observations (aka facts) are also consistent w/ a created biology that is in decline.
Therefore the 'evolutionary' interpretation has no unique basis and is not as strong as adherents would propose.
You are aware that fossil reworking and overthrusting are invoked to explain away out-of-order fossils.
Of course you are.
Yeah, for the guy who thinks that labs are 'measuring dates' rather than extrapolating C14 data, it's probably best that you drop the subject.
Speciation, genetic load, sexual reproduction, deleterious mutation, DNA error-correction schemes, diploid genetic structure and triplet-codon coding structure.
All either evidence of decline or features designed to resist decline.
In the case of sexual reproduction, DNA error-correction schemes, diploid genetic structure and triplet-codon coding; these all significantly *slow* the possibility of any putative 'evolution' and fall heavily on the side of conserving existing information.
The data says life was created. Evolution is the result of a faulty first-premise called 'commitment to naturalism'.
Now, naturalism is fine if you are dealing in the technical areas of science. It does not work once you cross over into the metaphysical realm. Evolution is metaphysical naturalism and is invalid.
Well, for one thing, even if a gene is highly conserved, you can still measure evolutionary relationships independently of that by using the "third base pair wiggle". (In most cases the third base pair in a DNA codon is redundant in terms of coding the appropriate amino acid in the resulting protein, so changes in it are relatively unconstrained.)
In any case, this variability in gene evolution rates helps in many ways.
For instance it generates more testable predictions for evolution. If we find a gene that's highly conserved in both fish and humans, for instance, it should also be highly conserved in any animal more closely related to humans that fish are, for instance chickens. Similarly if a gene is NOT conserved in both chickens and humans, then it should also not be conserved in fish. Finally humans and chickens should share numerically more conserved genes than either does with fish. (All these predictions appear to have borne out, btw, in the research described in the article!)
Even better, these deductions from evolution (common descent) provide useful information for other areas of biology. If evolution (common descent) is true, and if genes, as deduced by comparisons between species on the assumption of common descent, evolve at different rates, THEN THERE MUST BE A REASON. (If "goddidit" then no reason is necessary, and therefore inferences from such reasons or mechanisms are unavailable.)
So if we find genes that vary very little across wide phylogenetic distances, then the functions of the proteins coded by such genes must also be highly constrained visa vis their primary sequence (the linear sequence of amino acids). This information can very useful in analyzing the functions of such proteins, and in analyzing the metabolic functions they're part of.
Many, many more inferences are possible. For instance say we find a gene that is very similar among almost all vertebrates, except say Birds. Again, if common descent is true then there must be some reason for this. This automatically clues us in that the biological process associated with this gene must be different somehow in birds. It's either become less constrained or there has been a functional shift. (And then we can look at comparisons within birds to see which of those explanations is more likely.)
pingin' myself
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.