Russian Scientists Grow Pleistocene-Era Plants From Seeds Buried By Squirrels 30,000 Years Ago
Wow, that's really cool.
I guess the Young Earthers will doubt the carbon dating used to come up with that 31,800 year estimated age. The seeds must have been buried by the Flood, not squirrels.
7 comments:
I realize that you and I are on a different page on Young vs. Old Earth anyway, and I'm not looking to rehash that. I seem to remember in my public school days that carbon dating was believed to be accurate within 50+- years only to 8 to 11,000 years in the past. How can it give a date of 31,000 years if it can only be relied on to 11,000?
I’m not trying to rehash an old debate, I just don’t see how this could work.
I once asked a similar question in a Christian college of a teacher who was arguing that potassium argon dating methods proved the world was Billions and billions of years old, but who had stated the dating method was only accurate to 2 million years.
Res Ipsa
PS Has google sent you a check yet? I keep clicking the ads but I'm not interested in going to ITT check.
Res Ipsa: "I seem to remember in my public school days that carbon dating was believed to be accurate within 50+- years only to 8 to 11,000 years in the past. How can it give a date of 31,000 years if it can only be relied on to 11,000?"
You already nailed it -- back in your public school days, there was an upper limit that low.
But advances in radiocarbon studies have extended that upper limit to ~50,000 years (and more, in some cases), now.
Part of the problem with accuracy in the past was the limit of recorded history which could be used to accurately calibrate the curves on which the calculations are based. But cross-calibrating them with other methods like dendrochronology (tree rings), ocean and ice core samples, and so on, allows more precise measurements of the ratio of C14 to C12 in the air back then.
I won't speak to the Old Earth/Young Earth discrepancy, though.
"You already nailed it -- back in your public school days, there was an upper limit that low."
If they've "advanced" the technique then that is a valid reason for the numbers. I remember having classes that said X method is good for X number of years and then they said that X method proved something much older than the number of years they said that it would be valid for. That was always a hang up for me, even when I wasn't interested in faith issues.
"I won't speak to the Old Earth/Young Earth discrepancy"
It's kind of pointless to beat that horse. In the end it isn't about science or even to some extent logic, its a faith issue. Both sides can make some interesting cases philisopicaly, but in the end its very hard to change the mind of a "true believer" in either one of the systems.
Res Ipsa
Newer technology is always advancing accuracy in measurement. Just look to the history of measurements of the speed of light, for example: see table on right.
I'm not claiming to be an expert on radiometric dating, but what I have read about it -- from both sides -- satisfies me enough to recognize its validity in most* circumstances.
*Most, because there is always room for anomalies.
Oh, just tweaking you about the YEC'er comment, Res.
I'm not sure what to think about this one. I don't see any reason to doubt the age of those seeds, and I found it interesting the comparison to the control plants from modern seeds, and how there were differences in how they grew. That speaks to me of adaptations, not necessarily "evolution", but changes over time due to environment nonetheless.
Also, there was a study I found a couple of years ago about a new species of weed found in Britain. So for the evolution skeptics, there are a small handful of "new species" that have been found to have developed from other species. I posted about this at Vox's, but NOBODY responded to those comments.
SQUIRREL!
I showed the pic in the article to a women I know who does grass count surveys. (This is a very hard environmental survey, in other words, she’s real good) I asked her about the flower, if she had seen one before and what was it. (I looks a lot like a flower that grows here). She was very detailed in her evaluation. She came to the conclusion that the flower was a sub species of one common in WY. She asked where the pic was from and I let her read the article. She laughed and said it sounded like they wanted more money to fund the project and that no one who knew anything about plants would conclude that it was anything other than a minor variation of an existing plant.
BTW she's an billions and billions of years evolutionist. She doubted the date they gave for other reasons that had nothing to do with the dating method. Apparently there are some things related to the seeds that make it unlikely they will survive for long periods. She was open to the possibility that it could have happened, but skeptical that the researchers would find a treasure trove of “new” genetic material in Siberia. It’s always interesting to see what other people think.
"She laughed and said it sounded like they wanted more money to fund the project"
Well, duh, that's the only reason these scientists publish their work in the popular media. They have to have some way to get paid for digging around for squirrel stashes in Siberian permafrost. The real reason is probably that they like camping in Siberia.
Post a Comment