Reliability radioactive carbon dating
The answer to naledi’s timing carries some big implications.
If the naledi fossils receive a date of three or so million years, then they could remain in the running for a possible missing link between ancient apes and modern humans.
After all, it’s not like time is a substance that science can directly probe.
Paul Dirks from Australia’s James Cook University led the study, published in the online technical journal Why six methods?
(Ham et al., page 72.) As with Assertion 1, Assertion 2 fails to account for the tree-ring calibration which is a routine part of modern radiocarbon dating.
Although no convincing argument for a change in the speed of light over time has been made, the question is irrelevant to the validity of tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon dates.
If scientists really trust any single method, shouldn’t that one suffice?
The need to compare so many different methods on various samples is just the first of many difficulties with scientific attempts to assign ancient dates to objects.
The characteristics of the chemical contaminant are also important.But researchers gave the remains a much more recent age, unseating naledi from any evolutionary hopes.How did they determine an age for the remains or the flowstones discovered around them?There are two basic types of water filters: particulate filters and adsorptive/reactive filters.
Particulate filters exclude particles by size, and adsorptive/reactive filters contain a material (medium) that either adsorbs or reacts with a contaminant in water.The principles of adsorptive activated carbon material.