Talk:Dendrochronology is suspect because 2 or more rings can grow per year

From EvoWiki

To Bensaccount and Ian Pitchford: The article I cited: Lammerts (1983). "Are the Bristle-cone pine trees really so old?" Creation Research Society Quarterly V20 #2: 108-115, was written by Dr. Walter E. Lammerts, not Duane Gish. The survey article, [1] by Duane Gish, summarizes Lammerts' paper. That link is NOT the paper citation. The research that Lammerts did and reported is not restricted (by any external means) from any expert. The 7100 years mentioned in both articles was the length of the dendrochronology series at that time (of reportedly overlapping trees) NOT the maximum lifespan of a bristlecone pine. The oldest known living bristlecone pines, reported by Lammerts, "are assumed to be about 4600 years old." As to the "up to 5 percent ... rings missing," how was that determined? Was it the amount of missing rings postulated to make disparate bristlecone dendrochronoligies overlap? (Visions of circular reasoning ....) As for the referenced old plant [2], if you read the creosote bush abstract (11,000+ years old ...), you will see that the oldest part of the bush is missing. It is conjectured to be that old, but what is there is much younger. Wdanwatts 01:25, 3 Jun 2005 (BST)