I was helping (as technical expert, actually working on the job and leading the team "by example", not "by position" as I had way more experience in that field and was most skilled in it, and I was also way older than the rest of team) to write requirements to recruit new programmers to the our team.
I came up with a list of what was really needed, what were good signs as a secondary criterion, and what would be nice to have.
Along other requirements there was a must have: 1 year experience with X technology, preferably: has written some application in it, even simple.
HR translated it to "must have at least 3 years experience with X professionally."
I had objections to this "translation" but was told "you should not care, this is not your problem anymore". OK, I was paid for IT work, not HR work and I had expressed my objections, so I went back to the project.
A couple of weeks after the hiring ad was published, I was called for an interview with a candidate for that position.
Guess what: he did not work with X, had not played with it for longer than a week or two, but he thought that X could be interesting for him. It was his second round (first was with HR). We talked about what he had done so far, what he would like to do, how he would try to solve this and that problem (he said that he would try to google it, look on SE and would try to find some similar example in documentation . . .)
Basically he did not meet ANY criteria from the HR paper and barely touched some criteria from my original list. But he looked flexible, eager to learn and also able to learn. He looked honest and a good person and he wanted to learn to work in a good team.
I was called to two other second round interviews during the next week and we finally hired the first candidate, even if his "score with HR list" was a little less than the other two had. But he was honest, he showed enthusiasm and potential.
And in the end it turned out that he was good part of the team, his lack of experience was not such a problem, as he also did not have to fix bad practices (usual in that field) and so his learning curve to meet all our other criteria was really fast as he had nearly nothing to "unlearn" first.
He was a nice person to work with and when I left some time later, he was as good as anybody else in the team.
So much for MUST HAVE YEARS of practice in HR speak . . .
On the other hand I have read hiring ads which required AT LEAST 10 YEARS experience in Y technology. Good luck with that, as the Y technology was just 3 years old . . . nobody on Earth, even the original developer, could have 10 years experience with Y. Not even 4 years.
So yes, if they asked you to apply, then apply. If you find the interview, the company, and the payment to be right for you, then take the job. If you find that there are too many red flags, do not take the job, there will be another one, and better, somewhere for sure.
Remember -- the interview is a two-sided negotiation: they evaluate you and you evaluate them. If both parts fit, then good. If you do not pass their judgement, they will not hire you. If they do not pass your judgement, then they failed the interview and you will not work for them. It is the basic premise of job interviews.