Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Big Bad Voodoo

Did scientists distorted theory of evolution?

13 posts in this topic

Dating these bones to such an early date completely distorts our picture of our evolution.

"Yet the bones in La Sima, which bear Neanderthal features, are supposed to be 600,000 years old," he said. "This cannot be true."

However, Arsuaga has rejected this analysis. "You can call [the fossils] early Neanderthals or give them another name, it does not matter. I prefer to give a different name." But he admitted the 600,000-year age his team had put on the Sima fossils did look too early. "We are working on that," he said.

http://www.guardian....ma-huesos-spain

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hardly surprising, whenever something new and unexpected happens, the initial reaction is "it has to be wrong", the train of thought is then to prove it wrong and if it's not wrong it has to be right. Case in point, our old friend the platypus, basically it was everything from a hoax to a mutant until it was proven it was a genuine species. Scientists don't accept anything at face value, especially when it slaughters a sacred cow.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists can be as wrong as anyone else. What makes a good scientist or person for that matter is when they can admit they are wrong instead of continuing to mislead everyone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dating these bones to such an early date completely distorts our picture of our evolution.

"Yet the bones in La Sima, which bear Neanderthal features, are supposed to be 600,000 years old," he said. "This cannot be true."

However, Arsuaga has rejected this analysis. "You can call [the fossils] early Neanderthals or give them another name, it does not matter. I prefer to give a different name." But he admitted the 600,000-year age his team had put on the Sima fossils did look too early. "We are working on that," he said.

http://www.guardian....ma-huesos-spain

I can understand why they would use the stalagmite because some of the bones are in it. Also, Stinger says that the guardian completely misrepresented what he said. The problem is that they need more sources to get accurate dating and that was what Stinger basically said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This cannot be true." Same thing people probably told when they start realizing that Earth isnt center of universe.

Why dont they use C14 dating method?

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This cannot be true." Same thing people probably told when they start realizing that Earth isnt center of universe.

Why dont they use C14 dating method?

Because radiocarbon dating doesn't work for organic material of that age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because radiocarbon dating doesn't work for organic material of that age.

Realy. Thats new. So where is a border? How far we can date with c14?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realy. Thats new. So where is a border? How far we can date with c14?

No 'L' that's not new. Radiocarbon dating is only good to c.50,000 BP and possibly 60,000 BP. This is far from the 600,000 BP dating that is mentioned.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No 'L' that's not new. Radiocarbon dating is only good to c.50,000 BP and possibly 60,000 BP. This is far from the 600,000 BP dating that is mentioned.

cormac

Its new info for me. I was sure that we can dated dinosaurs with C14. So when I mentioned dinosaurs how do we date something beyond 50 000 BC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its new info for me. I was sure that we can dated dinosaurs with C14. So when I mentioned dinosaurs how do we date something beyond 50 000 BC?

We can't use C14 on dinosaur fossils as it only works on organic material up to the dates I mentioned earlier. Also, fossils are not the actual bones of dinosaurs but mineralizations (rocks) that have formed replacing the original organic material. C14 can't date rock. Several other methods can be used for dinosaur dating such as Potassium-Argon and Uranium-Lead to name a couple.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't use C14 on dinosaur fossils as it only works on organic material up to the dates I mentioned earlier. Also, fossils are not the actual bones of dinosaurs but mineralizations (rocks) that have formed replacing the original organic material. C14 can't date rock. Several other methods can be used for dinosaur dating such as Potassium-Argon and Uranium-Lead to name a couple.

cormac

Those methods are used to date for example Lucy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those methods are used to date for example Lucy?

The Argon-Argon method was used to date Lucy.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: Learning moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.