Talk:Evolution/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Radiometric Dating

Did I miss something? When has anyone ever received an absolute conclusion from radiometric dating? Uranium, potassium argon, carbon - all of those methods produce approximate results at best. Do I have to go out and find the info, or can we just agree on this one? Salva 20:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think what is meant by "absolute" is not that the number of years is exact, but that the age is measured in years rather than reference to a geological event. -- Temtem 21:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Absolute dating as opposed to relative dating. Relative dating is dating based on strata. Absolute dating is dating based on some external measure - e.g., radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is based on phenomena known outside of the system in question. You can thus date a rock independently of its relative position. Guettarda 21:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dates are approximate in that radioactive decay is a random process, so we can be 95% sure that rock X is between 1.1 and 1.2 million years old, (say) and maybe 98% sure rock X is between 1.0 million and 1.3 million years old. If you know any statistics you'll be aware that this isn't particularly unusual. And yes, you absolutely need to cite your sources. Dunc|☺ 21:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I have a couple of quotes here from random texts that might help:

"A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago!"

-Antarctic Journal Vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971 p.211

"A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of homosapiens "Erectus" was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years, a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans."

-Leslie Kaufman, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (Dec. 23,1996), p. 52.

"Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old."

-Earth and Planetary Science Letters, pg. 6-47 & 55.

If there is another word we could use there, that would be fantastic. Absolute is extraneous and slightly misleading to our readers. A few suggestions would be approximate or estimated or possible, or anything else that may come to mind. Salva 22:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. "Absolute" is the correct word. "Exact" might be misleading.
2. The seal issue is perfectly logical and a known issue with ¹⁴C dating - fossil carbon enters food chains in the Arctic/Antarctic as it erodes from the land. It's a curiosity, not a surprise, and something that is taken into account. The carbon was most probably fixed 1300 years ago.
3. According the Evolution_of_Homo_sapiens#H._erectus H. erectus lived until 70k years ago. Not sure what the current time frame for H. erectus extinction is, and Newsweek isn't a scientific publication, but this doesn't mean that there is a problem with the dating system.
4. You need to fix the ref on the Etna thing.
5. This should be at Talk:Radiometric dating. Guettarda 22:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolute is not the same as exact or more technically, precise. Absolute is just the opposite of relative. E.g., 2:41:34 PM is absolute vs. "3 hours, four minutes, and twenty-seven point five seconds ago" is relative. Both are precise (exact). I also agree that this discussion belongs over at Talk:Radiometric dating. siafu 22:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This talk should be here because it pertains directly to a possible change with the evolution article.
• If absolute is the correct word, then perhaps you should also specify which of the word's 10 definitions is meant in the statement

...and their absolute age can be verified (with) radiometric dating.

• In science, isn't the word "precise" the proximity between several measurements and "accurate" the proximity to the true measurement? If this were true, then the accuracy of the results of RM dating is still unknown, and the precision of RM dating is extremely poor, judging by the irregularities of all correlative past measurements.
• Subject matter is distorted by saying such things. Why would you want to confuse readers like me in such a way that leads me to question the integrity of the article? Why is there any need to go off onto tangents with word usage? Regards, Salva 23:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is really necessary, but what about the following edit?

and their absolute (non-relative) age can be verified with radiometric dating.

-- Temtem 23:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be so much trouble to say and their approximate age can be verified with radiometric dating.?? I think we're being pretty liberal with just that! Salva 00:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support the use of "absolute" as it stands in the article. I do not believe I've ever seen "absolute" used as a synonym for "precise" or "accurate". The use of "absoute" is appropriate, in my opinion, as it is used precisely as intended, to show that this determination is not relative. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva: unless or until you can present us with evidence that indicates that a) radiometric dating is not only "off", but that this view is accepted by the scientific community at large (wikipedia is not a venue for original research; discussion of this point should be done on the radiometric dating talk page), and B) that this affects its use in the article on evolution (this article), I don't think we have reason to change it. Radiometric dating is exceptionally precise, given the scale on which it operates (millions of years), and as far as we are able to determine, accurate. Distinguishing absolute in thee article as "non-relative" seems redundant to me, but if you are that confused by it then I suppose there may be enough demand to clarify it. siafu 00:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me - no one here is the official spokesperson of the world's scientific community. There are scientists that know how unreliable RM dating is. I just gave you three examples above - do you need more than that? I'm not trying to do research - I'm telling you what has been researched and you are opposing science, because now you are being presented with a problem and are completely disregarding the scientific method. Science is supposed to be progressive, not obstinent. Now religion, on the other hand, is a different story... Salva 00:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the examples you gave only have to do with the accuracy of radiometric dating. As stated above, the word "absolute," as used in this article, does not imply anything about accuracy. It's only used as an antonym of "relative." Perhaps you'd like to start an article on criticisms of the accuracy radiometric dating, but that's not really the issue here. -- Temtem 01:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Salva, repeatedly stating that your opponents are "opposing science", inquiring if you have to go out and find the info (of course you do, that's how this works), and claiming that those who disagree are "ignoring" facts or methodology does not substitute for an argument, and it verges on personal attacks in being inflammatory. As for your three sources; it doesn't appear that any have stood up to scrutiny. #1 is relevant to the specifics of Antartic ice and the carbon frozen within it. #2 is especially memorable with the recent discovery of hominids that very much resemble H. erectus living in that time frame in Indonesia (never mind that it comes from Newsweek). #3 is fine by me; an active volcano should give unusual results with K-AR. Additionally, it would be a good idea to refer to more than one sentence: if you look in the archived discussion for this page you'll find a beautiful example of what happens when quotes are taken out of context. Nobody is claiming to be the "spokesperson" for the scientific community; that doesn't mean we can't find out what the consensus is, which has been done, and is by and large reflected on the page attached to this talk. Regardless, it seems pretty clear that you're not going to be able to gather a consensus in your favor here, so further finger pointing is not going to serve anyone (especially not you). If you want the world to believe and understand your different (currently minority) views on evolution, you should probably start in academia and then bring it here, not vice versa. siafu 01:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It's unbelievable how many assumptions you are making here. You have no idea who I am, where I am from, or what my educational background is. What if I told you that I had a M.S. degree in environmental science from the University of Missouri-Columbia? This is a personal attack because you are attempting to inferiorate me by targeting my education. How do I know that you are educated? Will you give me your word? What if I gave you my word?
• This conversation went off on a tangent, once again, because one word seems to be a threat to your sacred theory.
• I would love to provide further research about RM dating inconsistencies. Give me a little time and you will all have them. Regards, Salva 01:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you even said yourself that RM dating was effected in areas with volcanic activity and in Antarctica. Does this mean that they are only valid when applied to dating layers of strata? This is almost funny to hear from someone who claims that they are educated! Please, I am not trying to attack you, but you are being sooo incoherent and stubborn about something sooo clear. Salva 01:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old."

-Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." --O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,"

-American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54

More Bad News for RM Dating

You want some more? How much is it going to take? But yes, "maybe the snail's environment adversely effected the amount of carbon it contained," or "oh, that's just from the American Journal of Science. They probably biased their research against evolution." No, really - I think saying that RM dating gives an approximate calculation is the more feasible thing to say. We don't want to give any wrong ideas - such as that RM dating proves evolution, do we?? Salva 02:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva, I really believe you are getting sidetracked here into a debate about the accuracy or desirability of radiometric dating. That wasn't the issue you first raised, which was whether the word "asbolute" was appropriate. In the context of this article, the word is used in a technical sense to mean "the opposite of relative." This is somewhat apparent because the word is used to contrast radiometric dating with dating based on strata level--a relative method of placing a date. The issue, therefore, is not whether radiometric dating is a useful proof of evolution (though you may want to write about this elsewhwhere). The issue is whether the technical meaning of the word "absolute" used in this article is obvious enough to the lay reader to stand on its own, or whether it needs to be explictly defined as "non-relative" in the article. -- Temtem 02:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall making any assumptions about your education. I don't recall making any clear claims about my own education. It would probably be smart on your part, then, to refrain from saying things like "This is almost funny to hear from someone who claims that they are educated!". I also don't recall saying that any of the publications you cited were biased one way or another. Newsweek is not, however, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and as such is not appropriate as evidence in any argument about science (this should be self-evident). The quote you've gathered from the American Journal of Science reads, to me at least, to in fact be supporting the validity of RM-- "Radiometric dating would not have been possible", meaning it clear is possible. As far as the snails, I don't know. Maybe you should present the rest of that paper so that we can clearly see what's being asserted there, instead of just one sentence?

Knowing that the possibility of putting this to rest is nil, I'll just point out that, strictly speaking, the fact that radiometry is an "approximation" is hardly news, nor does it significantly affect radiometric data. It is quite simply a fact of measurement that approximations are used; every measurement made with any tool is an "approximation", and radiometry is no different. Taking your temperature on a mercury thermometer is an approximation simply because it's impossible to tell the difference between 98.6000001 and 98.6000002 with your eye. It doesn't make it inaccurate, or even imprecise given the scale. As such, it's not misleading to cite radiometric dating as "absolute".

However, I do think I said above that it wasn't serving anyone to drag this out here, and I'll have to hold to my own advice. Clearly, I've been trolled, but I've satisfied my need to explain. Have fun. siafu 02:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As this discussion has shifted to the accuracy of radiometric dating and no longer concerns absolute versus relative ages, I think it would be appropriate to continue it at Talk:Radiometric dating. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, that is not neccessary - I will do the best I can to keep the conversation on track. The problem that I have here is that "absolute" is much too strong a word to use for describing the reliability for radiometry to be used as proof for the age of rock layers. If you are going to say absolute, then perhaps you should include a sidenote that says something like

Radiometric dating methods have been known to produce flagrant and very inaccurate results, especially with substances presumed to be much older, but nonetheless, evolutionists claim that the ages of the rock layers can be determined by this single source. Absolute is used as a technical connotation in this case, and is meant as the opposite of relative.

Why you need to be so vague about this, I really don't know, but if you insist, then that's one of the alternitives that I see for the word. The point is this: most people who read this article to become informed about the theory of evolution are likely not going to be scientists. Wouldn't it make sense to give them the right idea? Because I'm pretty sure that if you look in a dictionary, the word "absolute" does not have the meaning that you have proposed, and therefore is a connotation in this case. Poetry uses a lot of connotation, but a science article should not be poetic in any way - straightforward and unambiguous. Salva 16:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolute \Ab"so*lute\, a. [L. absolutus, p. p. of absolvere: cf. F. absolu. See {Absolve}.] 3. Viewed apart from modifying influences or without comparison with other objects; actual; real; -- opposed to {relative} and {comparative}; as, absolute motion; absolute time or space. [1913 Webster]. Graft 18:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestion of "exact", "perfectly accurate", or "reliable" appears to be absent from the definition of absolute. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's the full entry from Webster's on "absolute."

Main Entry: ab·so·lute Pronunciation: 'ab-s&-"lüt, "ab-s&-' Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English absolut, from Latin absolutus, from past participle of absolvere to set free, absolve 1 a : free from imperfection : PERFECT b : free or relatively free from mixture : PURE <absolute alcohol> c : OUTRIGHT, UNMITIGATED <an absolute lie> 2 : being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint 3 a : standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements <the absolute construction this being the case in the sentence "this being the case, let us go"> b of an adjective or possessive pronoun : standing alone without a modified substantive <blind in "help the blind" and ours in "your work and ours" are absolute> c of a verb : having no object in the particular construction under consideration though normally transitive <kill in "if looks could kill" is an absolute verb> 4 : having no restriction, exception, or qualification <an absolute requirement> <absolute freedom> 5 : POSITIVE, UNQUESTIONABLE <absolute proof> 6 a : independent of arbitrary standards of measurement b : relating to or derived in the simplest manner from the fundamental units of length, mass, and time <absolute electric units> c : relating to, measured on, or being a temperature scale based on absolute zero <absolute temperature>; specifically : KELVIN <10° absolute> 7 : FUNDAMENTAL, ULTIMATE <absolute knowledge> 8 : perfectly embodying the nature of a thing <absolute justice> 9 : being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships <an absolute term in logic> <absolute music> 10 : being the true distance from an aircraft to the earth's surface <absolute altitude> - absolute noun - ab·so·lute·ness noun

As the first definition is "perfect," I can see how there might be some confusion. -- Temtem 19:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I can also understand the confusion. Answer's long page of definitions gives only a single one that really states "absolute" as being the opposite of relative, and that's way down in an Encyclopedia entry about philosophy. The rest of the definitions have to do with purity, or un-questionableness.

Add to this confusion the fact that the standard for radiometric dating is actually to define dates relatively: x million years before present.

While I think the article is correct in it's use of "absolute", a qualifier such as (e.g. not relative) could do no harm. — Asbestos | Talk 19:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, this is an absurd debate. We're not here to coddle people who lack the requisite reading comprehension skills. There IS an effort to do exactly that, over at the Simple English Wikipedia. Go there if you'd like to continue this farcical dispute. In this article, the meaning is absolutely clear. Observe:

Nevertheless, fossil evidence of prehistoric organisms has been found all over the Earth. The age of fossils can often be deduced from the geologic context in which they are found; and their absolute age can be verified with radiometric dating.

Readers are required to deduce meaning from context all the time; this is not unreasonable, and we shouldn't have to include a five-sentence disclaimer every time there's some remote possibility of ambiguity. Graft 19:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[Edit conflict - I was going for exactly the same quote. Guettarda 19:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)]

Use another word besides absolute, please. I agree with Asbestos, but if you are still absolutely sure about the ability for RM dating to achieve a unanimous absolute in all measurements, then I suggest you check the latest research. ;-) Salva 20:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm finding it very hard to avoid breaking the "No personal insults" rule, here. If you have an issue with the accuracy of radiometric dating, then PLEASE take it up there: Talk:Radiometric dating. Don't fight proxy wars here. If you're willing to lend actual weight to your claims, I'm sure others will be happy to entertain your ideas. Graft 20:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop avoiding the conversation, Graft! I gave you quotes, I gave you the link to a research paper...what more do you want? There is an issue with the accuracy of radiometric dating - it NEVER produces ABSOLUTE measurements. How is a billion years an absolute measurement for the age of a certain rock layer?! Do I hear circular reasoning blowing in the wind? Isn't that how fossils and rock layers were dated in the past and are usually dated today? Please do us all a favor and scroll up the screen to the 5 or 6 quotes that I gave - all with legitimate and authentic sources. That is SCIENCE. SCIENCE has shown that RM dating is not always reliable. SCIENCE does not ignore NEW OBSERVATIONS. We have a very evident problem here with our communication. You seem to think that:

1. I am against science (so this must include physics, atmospheric science, anatomy, physiology, psychology, sociology, political science, and countless other fields.) Does anyone else think that telling someone they are against science is slightly oxymoron? Let's get this straight for the record - telling a person that they are against science is inappropriate, false, and arrogant. So don't do it.
2. I am attacking someone personally. (WRONG)
3. Going over these points again and again and again is achieving something - WAKE UP and face the facts.

Now, are we ready to get back on track? Salva 20:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls (The good sheik is probably ignorant of the evidence. Even more likely, he is so hopelessly biased that no amount of evidence would impress him...). Dunc|☺ 20:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] There appear to be two issues here

1. Not understanding the meaning of the word "absolute".

It isn't the "biggest" word in this article, let alone in Wikipedia.

1. Not believing that radiometric dating works.

To this end a few 20-30 year old articles are cited, without context, using a personal website as a reference. A 20-year old problem with ¹⁴C dating based on the fact that some freshwater desert molluscs incorporate "old" bicarbonate. People aren't stupid - you can adjust for these things. Bomb carbon had all ¹⁴C dates screwed up for a long time - which is why if you read archaeological literature they differentiate between calibrated and uncalibrated dates...a huge nuisance if the material isn't available to recalibrate, the type of thing that you really would want to cover up, if there really was this huge conspiracy that creationists fantasise about. But that's why there are stable isotopes - so you can determine whether you are looking at organic carbon or bicarbonates. The literature is out there. Rather than waste everyone's time cherry picking "problems", why not take the time and look at the literature, educate yourself about the context of things, and then, if there really is a problem, bring it up. And believe me, if you brought up real problems, if you presented well-researched ideas, people would be interested. If you actually have the interest in truth that you claim to have, you should stop repeating information that is designed to deceive. There is a reason that context matters. Guettarda 20:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dunc's right. No point arguing with a fanatic. "How can I tell that the past is not a fiction designed to explain the difference between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind". I'm done (yeah, I said that before). Guettarda 20:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"How is a billion years an absolute measurement for the age of a certain rock layer?!" Because it is not relative; not saying newer than the such-and-such layer but before the such-and-such meteor hit. For instance, saying the Earth is bigger than Mars is a relative size; saying it is about eight thousand miles in diameter is an absolute size. The amount of precision or accuracy is irrelevant. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what do you propose differentiates an absolute measurement from an approximate measurement? Salva 01:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An "absolute" measurement can be either approximate or exact. It isn't necessarily one or the other. -- Temtem 02:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

For example, compare "the boy is 4 years, six months, two days, and 3 hours old" with "the boy is between four and six years old." Both are "absolute" measurements, even though the first is comparatively "exact" and the second is comparatively "approximate." A non-absolute, or relative measurement, would be expressed as "the boy is two years, 1 day, and 3 hours older than his sister" or "the boy is between 1 and 3 years older than his sister." Both of these measurements are not "absolute," even though the first is exact and the second is approximate. -- Temtem 02:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Temtem. "Absolute" and "approximate" refer to different qualities. A real-world example might be using a spectrophotometer to measure unknown concentrations. You would be able to say that your sample A was a little more concentrated (say, 1.2 times) than the standard; sample B was a lot more concentrated (6.52x), and sample C was less concentrated (0.82), but these are all relative (even though they may be quite accurate). Once you determine the (absolute) concentration of the standard (say, 0.3 mol/L), you can then determine the absolute concentrations of the samples. Or the example (as I understand it) in geology is that by themselves, rock layers only give relative ages: items buried in this layer are newer than items in the layer below them. This is relative. If you have another system, such as radiometric dating which determines absolute (not relative) ages, then you can get absolute ages for the items. This applies regardless of the accuracy of your method of determining dates. Does this make sense? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For a similar use of the terms 'relative' and 'absolute' take a look at relative pitch and absolute pitch. — KayEss | talk 05:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the best way to understand absolute is to track down its deeper meaning. Absolute is a way of measuring things. Absolute is also a temperature scale. The temperature scale is measured in Kelvin(K) after Lord Kelvin. Lord Kelvin lived in the UK. Queen Elizabeth also lived in the UK. Queen Elizabeth is also a boat. Boats are in the sea. Fish are in the sea. Fish have fins. The Fins fought the russians in world war 2. The russians had a communist government. Before that they had an absolute monarchy. Since their absolute monarchy was lined up against a wall and shot with nothing around them, we can see that absolute is a way of measuring things with nothing around it. I hope that clears things up. --Ignignot 15:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)