Age constraints for the Trachilos footprints from Crete.

Abstract

We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains
the potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is
characterized by normal magnetic polarity. New and published
foraminifera biostratigraphy results suggest an age of the section
within the Mediterranean biozone MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma.
Calcareous nannoplankton data from sediments exposed near Trachilos
and belonging to the same sub-basin indicate deposition during
calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB, between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By
integrating the magneto- and biostratigraphic data we correlate the
Trachilos section with normal polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272
and 6.023 Ma. Using cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic
susceptibility, we constrain the Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05
Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than previously thought. Some uncertainty
remains related to an inaccessible interval of ~ 8 m section and the
possibility that the normal polarity might represent the slightly
older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and biostratigraphic
arguments, however, stand against these points and favor a deposition
during Chron C3An.1n.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0

On 11.10.2021. 20:04, Pandora wrote:
> Age constraints for the Trachilos footprints from Crete.
>
> Abstract
>
> We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
> sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains
> the potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is
> characterized by normal magnetic polarity. New and published
> foraminifera biostratigraphy results suggest an age of the section
> within the Mediterranean biozone MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma.
> Calcareous nannoplankton data from sediments exposed near Trachilos
> and belonging to the same sub-basin indicate deposition during
> calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB, between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By
> integrating the magneto- and biostratigraphic data we correlate the
> Trachilos section with normal polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272
> and 6.023 Ma. Using cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic
> susceptibility, we constrain the Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05
> Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than previously thought. Some uncertainty
> remains related to an inaccessible interval of ~ 8 m section and the
> possibility that the normal polarity might represent the slightly
> older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and biostratigraphic
> arguments, however, stand against these points and favor a deposition
> during Chron C3An.1n.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0

Interesting, thanks.
Now the molecular clock guys will input big mess into this with their
own abracadabra "estimations", of course. Just to screw the whole
science up, and no other reason.
https://youtu.be/tY8B0uQpwZs

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 11.10.2021. 21:56, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 11.10.2021. 20:04, Pandora wrote:
>> Age constraints for the Trachilos footprints from Crete.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
>> sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains
>> the potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is
>> characterized by normal magnetic polarity. New and published
>> foraminifera biostratigraphy results suggest an age of the section
>> within the Mediterranean biozone MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma.
>> Calcareous nannoplankton data from sediments exposed near Trachilos
>> and belonging to the same sub-basin indicate deposition during
>> calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB, between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By
>> integrating the magneto- and biostratigraphic data we correlate the
>> Trachilos section with normal polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272
>> and 6.023 Ma. Using cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic
>> susceptibility, we constrain the Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05
>> Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than previously thought. Some uncertainty
>> remains related to an inaccessible interval of ~ 8 m section and the
>> possibility that the normal polarity might represent the slightly
>> older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and biostratigraphic
>> arguments, however, stand against these points and favor a deposition
>> during Chron C3An.1n.
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
>
>         Interesting, thanks.
>         Now the molecular clock guys will input big mess into this with
> their own abracadabra "estimations", of course. Just to screw the whole
> science up, and no other reason.
> https://youtu.be/tY8B0uQpwZs

Lol, I am watching this:
First we have one method that says it is younger than 6.4 mya. OK.
The second method says it is between 6.023 and 6.727 mya. This narrows
it down to between 6.023 and 6.4 mya. OK.
Then we have the third method which narrows it down to between 6.023
and 6.272 mya. OK.
Then finally we get to 6.05 mya.
Then come molecular clock guys who say that it cannot possibly be
older than 4.6 mya. Jesus Christ, why science is using this "method" at
all? Are they all gone mad? Or are they all, simply, stupid?

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 12.10.2021. 0:50, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 11.10.2021. 21:56, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 11.10.2021. 20:04, Pandora wrote:
>>> Age constraints for the Trachilos footprints from Crete.
>>>
>>> Abstract
>>>
>>> We present an updated time frame for the 30 m thick late Miocene
>>> sedimentary Trachilos section from the island of Crete that contains
>>> the potentially oldest hominin footprints. The section is
>>> characterized by normal magnetic polarity. New and published
>>> foraminifera biostratigraphy results suggest an age of the section
>>> within the Mediterranean biozone MMi13d, younger than ~ 6.4 Ma.
>>> Calcareous nannoplankton data from sediments exposed near Trachilos
>>> and belonging to the same sub-basin indicate deposition during
>>> calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB, between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma. By
>>> integrating the magneto- and biostratigraphic data we correlate the
>>> Trachilos section with normal polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272
>>> and 6.023 Ma. Using cyclostratigraphic data based on magnetic
>>> susceptibility, we constrain the Trachilos footprints age at ~ 6.05
>>> Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than previously thought. Some uncertainty
>>> remains related to an inaccessible interval of ~ 8 m section and the
>>> possibility that the normal polarity might represent the slightly
>>> older Chron C3An.2n. Sediment accumulation rate and biostratigraphic
>>> arguments, however, stand against these points and favor a deposition
>>> during Chron C3An.1n.
>>>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0
>>
>>          Interesting, thanks.
>>          Now the molecular clock guys will input big mess into this
>> with their own abracadabra "estimations", of course. Just to screw the
>> whole science up, and no other reason.
>> https://youtu.be/tY8B0uQpwZs
>
>         Lol, I am watching this:
>         First we have one method that says it is younger than 6.4 mya. OK.
>         The second method says it is between 6.023 and 6.727 mya. This
> narrows it down to between 6.023 and 6.4 mya. OK.
>         Then we have the third method which narrows it down to between
> 6.023 and 6.272 mya. OK.
>         Then finally we get to 6.05 mya.
>         Then come molecular clock guys who say that it cannot possibly
> be older than 4.6 mya. Jesus Christ, why science is using this "method"
> at all? Are they all gone mad? Or are they all, simply, stupid?

And what is the basic hypothesis for molecular clock? That change
occurs at regular intervals.
I mean, somebody who came with this hypothesis, and everybody who
accepts this hypothesis, they all don't understand the life. And they
are all scientists. I mean, hardly a 6-year old kid would make such a
stupid claim. Where is their brain gone?

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com