I'm not too familiar with this method of dating, however, it has to do with the constant change called racemization. Racemization change over time due to temperature. Can somebody please explain how this method is use to determine the age of fossils? Here is an article that shows a racemization chart.
So it seems that's these changes makes this method useless. How would you explain to someone that say "since the change of this constant is exactly what allows the elapsed time to be determined." Is this true? And how do they know?
I see. Thanks for clarifying that to me. Can you please basically explain the contamination process that it go through? What does it mean when people say "how do you know the fossils aren't contaminated"? Thank you.
quote:If you want to test the reliability of a dating method, naturally you want to test it on objects of a known date. In the case of racemization, that would involve testing it on objects which have been dated historically (for example a book which is known to have been published in a particular year); or against objects which have been dated by dendrochronology; or against objects which have been carbon-dated. For the tests to be meaningful, the dating methods you're testing it against must be reliable.
So that mean racemization is dependent on other methods that can be reliable. How does that solve the overlapping that are in the AAR testing itself within the error bound?
Can somebody please basically tell me why Jeff Bada made an error in his methodology for dating California skeletons using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) back in 1983? He was the guy that came with a new way of dating fossils - Amino Acid dating. Here is the article:
quote:Bada did not use AMS (a form of radiocarbon dating). He used amino acid racemization. He dated eleven early California skeletons and came up with very old dates.
Others disputed those dates. Finally, Taylor dated those eleven skeletons using AMS dating and established that they were not nearly as old as Bada claimed. These younger ages were more in keeping with the archaeological data.
I am not sure of the exact reasons for the errors in these AAR dates, but most archaeologists don't bother with AAR now, using the radiocarbon method instead, as that has been shown to be reliable.
Right, i see now. Bada's view were incorrect and the errors are rather large up to 50% which is fairly narrow. But in general, i heard that there are better dating methods out there that can confirm this one? Do you happen to know? Thanks!
quote:Confirm which one? AAR is prone to errors and none of the archaeologists I know use it. It has not been confirmed by radiocarbon dating, as the Taylor article I cited above shows. (I have a copy of the article at the office, and have met the author on a number of occasions.)
Well i heard that this method does support other dating methodologies that are sound. If you have many different methods of measuring that work on independent principles, and they all come out to values within error bounds of each other, then this indicator that they are sound methods. Is that true? hrmm...