this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
349 points (98.3% liked)
science
14348 readers
291 users here now
just science related topics. please contribute
note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry
Rule 1) Be kind.
lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about
I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’d be much more concerned if a half million year old structure was built by homo sapiens
Curious, why do you say that?
Like others and the article said, it predates when we believe homo sapiens first evolved by a few hundred thousand years.
So if it was built by H. Sapiens either A. We really missed the mark on when we first evolved and we need to go back and really examine our findings, or B. Time travel shenanigans.
Hint: it's pretty much definitely not B.
Or C this thing was dated incorrectly (which still would be my guess tbh).
Dating wood can get really specific, sometimes narrowing down the year structures were built.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
Unfortunately this structure is too old for this method
While radiocarbon dating is limited to about 50k years, there are other methods that work quite well. Potassium–argon dating can be used to date clay layers, but in more accurate for lava flows...
Other than that, you look for soil layers and look for global (or known local) events, then figure a date for those.
There can still be error, but less than you'd think. Tens of thousands of years at this scale, not hundreds.
There is always an error. The important thing (apart from eliminating bias) is to know the magnitude. Radio chronological analysis is well understood and laboratories can reliably report the magnitude of the error (or more specifically the uncertainty) accompanying any determination of age. But news articles rarely publish it.
In this case the age is quoted as "at least 476,000 years" so we can infer a precision estimate of plus or minus 1,000 years.
Certainly an option, and that crossed my mind as well. But in the context of this part of thread, it kind of seemed like we were taking it for granted that the structure was as old as they claim for the sake of argument.
The photo I was talking about. Someone tried to claim it was fake, but dating proved it wasn’t.
They already have fossil footprints on photographic record of h. Sapient and dinosaurs roaming together. I’ll see if I can find a pic to post. There are a lot of fossil records predating what the Bible says happened.
Why?
Homo sapians didn't exist a half million years ago.
As far as we know. Shouldn't be concerning :)
Yes, it should be, because that would double the age of the species.
Why should it be concerning as opposed to, say, fascinating?
Can you explain why that would be concerning though? I would celebrate that richness of history.
Mostly because we’ve been studying H. Sapiens for a long time so being so wrong would suggest a big gap in a dating methodology and the way we’ve tracked human migration of their history.
Yeah but what about time traveling homo sapiens?
Those still don't exist now