How do you define evolution?

[shunyadragon]

5th time

Quote any scientific reference that I have denied

Or else apologize for your lies and false accusations

The following article outlines that science knows how and why evolution takes place. Based on your previous statements you do not accept thar science knows how and why evolution takes place. Note bold at the end of this article

Do you accept the conclusions of this article?

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions

• T. Ryan Gregory

Introduction

Natural selection is a non-random difference in reproductive output among replicating entities, often due indirectly to differences in survival in a particular environment, leading to an increase in the proportion of beneficial, heritable characteristics within a population from one generation to the next. That this process can be encapsulated within a single (admittedly lengthy) sentence should not diminish the appreciation of its profundity and power. It is one of the core mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the main process responsible for the complexity and adaptive intricacy of the living world. According to philosopher Daniel Dennett (1995), this qualifies evolution by natural selection as “the single best idea anyone has ever had.”

Natural selection results from the confluence of a small number of basic conditions of ecology and heredity. Often, the circumstances in which those conditions apply are of direct significance to human health and well-being, as in the evolution of antibiotic and pesticide resistance or in the impacts of intense predation by humans (e.g., Palumbi 2001; Jørgensen et al. 2007; Darimont et al. 2009). Understanding this process is therefore of considerable importance in both academic and pragmatic terms. Unfortunately, a growing list of studies indicates that natural selection is, in general, very poorly understood—not only by young students and members of the public but even among those who have had postsecondary instruction in biology.

As is true with many other issues, a lack of understanding of natural selection does not necessarily correlate with a lack of confidence about one's level of comprehension. This could be due in part to the perception, unfortunately reinforced by many biologists, that natural selection is so logically compelling that its implications become self-evident once the basic principles have been conveyed. Thus, many professional biologists may agree that “[evolution] shows how everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes” (Coyne 2006; emphasis added). The unfortunate reality, as noted nearly 20 years ago by Bishop and Anderson (1990), is that “the concepts of evolution by natural selection are far more difficult for students to grasp than most biologists imagine.” Despite common assumptions to the contrary by both students and instructors, it is evident that misconceptions about natural selection are the rule, whereas a working understanding is the rare exception.

The goal of this paper is to enhance (or, as the case may be, confirm) readers' basic understanding of natural selection. This first involves providing an overview of the basis and (one of the) general outcomes of natural selection as they are understood by evolutionary biologistsFootnote1. This is followed by a brief discussion of the extent and possible causes of difficulties in fully grasping the concept and consequences of natural selection. Finally, a review of the most widespread misconceptions about natural selection is provided. It must be noted that specific instructional tools capable of creating deeper understanding among students generally have remained elusive, and no new suggestions along these lines are presented here. Rather, this article is aimed at readers who wish to confront and correct any misconceptions that they may harbor and/or to better recognize those held by most students and other non-specialists.




Conclusions

At the very least, it is abundantly clear that teaching and learning natural selection must include efforts to identify, confront, and supplant misconceptions. Most of these derive from deeply held conceptual biases that may have been present since childhood. Natural selection, like most complex scientific theories, runs counter to common experience and therefore competes—usually unsuccessfully—with intuitive ideas about inheritance, variation, function, intentionality, and probability. The tendency, both outside and within academic settings, to use inaccurate language to describe evolutionary phenomena probably serves to reinforce these problems.

Natural selection is a central component of modern evolutionary theory, which in turn is the unifying theme of all biology. Without a grasp of this process and its consequences, it is simply impossible to understand, even in basic terms, how and why life has become so marvelously diverse. The enormous challenge faced by biologists and educators in correcting the widespread misunderstanding of natural selection is matched only by the importance of the task.

 

[leroy]

6
....

Again quote a single reference that I have denied.

 

[leroy]

The following article outlines that science knows how and why evolution takes place. Based on your previous statements you do not accept thar science knows how and why evolution takes place. Note bold at the end of this article

Do you accept the conclusions of this article?

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions

• T. Ryan Gregory

Introduction

Natural selection is a non-random difference in reproductive output among replicating entities, often due indirectly to differences in survival in a particular environment, leading to an increase in the proportion of beneficial, heritable characteristics within a population from one generation to the next. That this process can be encapsulated within a single (admittedly lengthy) sentence should not diminish the appreciation of its profundity and power. It is one of the core mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the main process responsible for the complexity and adaptive intricacy of the living world. According to philosopher Daniel Dennett (1995), this qualifies evolution by natural selection as “the single best idea anyone has ever had.”

Natural selection results from the confluence of a small number of basic conditions of ecology and heredity. Often, the circumstances in which those conditions apply are of direct significance to human health and well-being, as in the evolution of antibiotic and pesticide resistance or in the impacts of intense predation by humans (e.g., Palumbi 2001; Jørgensen et al. 2007; Darimont et al. 2009). Understanding this process is therefore of considerable importance in both academic and pragmatic terms. Unfortunately, a growing list of studies indicates that natural selection is, in general, very poorly understood—not only by young students and members of the public but even among those who have had postsecondary instruction in biology.

As is true with many other issues, a lack of understanding of natural selection does not necessarily correlate with a lack of confidence about one's level of comprehension. This could be due in part to the perception, unfortunately reinforced by many biologists, that natural selection is so logically compelling that its implications become self-evident once the basic principles have been conveyed. Thus, many professional biologists may agree that “[evolution] shows how everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes” (Coyne 2006; emphasis added). The unfortunate reality, as noted nearly 20 years ago by Bishop and Anderson (1990), is that “the concepts of evolution by natural selection are far more difficult for students to grasp than most biologists imagine.” Despite common assumptions to the contrary by both students and instructors, it is evident that misconceptions about natural selection are the rule, whereas a working understanding is the rare exception.

The goal of this paper is to enhance (or, as the case may be, confirm) readers' basic understanding of natural selection. This first involves providing an overview of the basis and (one of the) general outcomes of natural selection as they are understood by evolutionary biologistsFootnote1. This is followed by a brief discussion of the extent and possible causes of difficulties in fully grasping the concept and consequences of natural selection. Finally, a review of the most widespread misconceptions about natural selection is provided. It must be noted that specific instructional tools capable of creating deeper understanding among students generally have remained elusive, and no new suggestions along these lines are presented here. Rather, this article is aimed at readers who wish to confront and correct any misconceptions that they may harbor and/or to better recognize those held by most students and other non-specialists.




Conclusions

At the very least, it is abundantly clear that teaching and learning natural selection must include efforts to identify, confront, and supplant misconceptions. Most of these derive from deeply held conceptual biases that may have been present since childhood. Natural selection, like most complex scientific theories, runs counter to common experience and therefore competes—usually unsuccessfully—with intuitive ideas about inheritance, variation, function, intentionality, and probability. The tendency, both outside and within academic settings, to use inaccurate language to describe evolutionary phenomena probably serves to reinforce these problems.

Natural selection is a central component of modern evolutionary theory, which in turn is the unifying theme of all biology. Without a grasp of this process and its consequences, it is simply impossible to understand, even in basic terms, how and why life has become so marvelously diverse. The enormous challenge faced by biologists and educators in correcting the widespread misunderstanding of natural selection is matched only by the importance of the task.

Ok will you quote any of my claims that you think contradicts anything from that paper?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok will you quote any of my claims that you think contradicts anything from that paper?

Post #351

My point is and has always been that science doesn't have an explanation on how abiogenesis or evolution occurs.

We know these events happened, but we don't know how they happened.

You deny science knows how and why evolution happened. Science has an explanation of how evolution occurs, as referenced in the article.

 

[metis]

Well unless you claim that life is eternal and has always existed (since infinite past) we can afire that abiogenesis at some p
happened at some point

In science, we cannot deny a possibility of divine creation, so no one has to go to the either/or extreme you mention above.

 

[leroy]

Post #351



You deny science knows how and why evolution happened. Science has an explanation of how evolution occurs, as referenced in the article.

Yes science knows how things evolve in the general sense, “an organisms changes and natural selection (or genetic drift) determines if this change will survive and be passed to the next generations”

This general concept is something that everybody knew since long before Darwin .

But when it comes to the details, and the specific mechanisms nobody knows how things evolve,

 

[leroy]

In science, we cannot deny a possibility of divine creation, so no one has to go to the either/or extreme you mention above.

If God created life that would still be abiogenesis.

 

[metis]

If God created life that would still be abiogenesis.

And according to Genesis, life was made from non-life, thus either way there's abiogenesis, and either way we don't know the exact process, nor can we test it.

But regardless of how life may have started, there still has been and continues to be an evolutionary process. The ToE does not hinge on abiogenesis, nor does it negate it.

 

[leroy]

And according to Genesis, life was made from non-life, thus either way there's abiogenesis, and either way we don't know the exact process, nor can we test it.

But regardless of how life may have started, there still has been and continues to be an evolutionary process. The ToE does not hinge on abiogenesis, nor does it negate it.

agree

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes science knows how things evolve in the general sense, “an organisms changes and natural selection (or genetic drift) determines if this change will survive and be passed to the next generations”

This general concept is something that everybody knew since long before Darwin .

No, they did not know long before Darwin. General concept???? Clear as mud. Actually Darwin was the first to propose based on a scientific hypothesis of the evolution of all life from single celled organisms,. and did actual field research to test his hypothesis. He admitted he did not know the specific details, because he did know about genetics. He did outline many of the gaps in his hypothesis that would need further discoveries and research to resolve.


Where was evolution described in the evolution of all living creatures beginning with single celled organisms over hundreds of millions of years?

But when it comes to the details, and the specific mechanisms nobody knows how things evolve,

You're playing unethical word games. As the article cited science knows the specific mechanisms in detail of evolution and in contemporary science and genetics as per the reference. Can you provide a scientific reference that science does not know the how and why of the mechanisms of evolution

Yes, science knows the details of the mechanisms of how and why evolution takes place. What'details' do you propose that science does know concerning the how and why of evolution.

The specific mechanisms of evolution are natural selection based on environmental conditions and change acting on the diversity in the the genetics of DNA with genetic drift.

I have documented your dishonestly, You made a clear and specific statement andi demonstrated that you do not accept the conclusions of the scientific references and texts conclusions that they know the specific mechanisms of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

And according to Genesis, life was made from non-life, thus either way there's abiogenesis, and either way we don't know the exact process, nor can we test it.

This is an arbitrary negative 'arguing from ignorance' view of the science of abiogenesis. The science of a biogenesis is a young, and yes the mechanisms of abiogenesis is are being researched and tested now.

Actually not the subject of the thread,but a new thread can be started to discuss the current knowledge and advances in the sciences of abiogenesis.

 

[leroy]

scientific reference that science does not know the how and why of the mechanisms of evolution

Can you provide a scientific reference that science does not know the how and why of the mechanisms of evolution
.

I have answered this multiple times,

For example “science” doesn’t know *yet* if non random mutation played in important role. There are peer reviewed papers supporting both sides,

 

[shunyadragon]

I have answered this multiple times,

For example “science” doesn’t know *yet* if non random mutation played in important role. There are peer reviewed papers supporting both sides,

Still no reference to support your case. This has been discussed in detail in the past.

Science knows that mutations are not a mechanism of evolution, and whether random or non-random(?) mutations simply provide the genetic diversity of the DNA, which the mechanisms of evolution, natural selection and environmental conditions and change.

Again, again and again . . . the current definition of evolution and the mechanisms do not include 'random.' The reference I provided was clear and specific the mechanisms of evolution are non-random and do not involve nor include mutations as mechanisms.

There is absolutely no evidence that mutations play any active part in the mechanisms that cause the how and why of evolution.

Still no answer to the questions . . .

Where was evolution described in the evolution of all living creatures beginning with single celled organisms over hundreds of millions of years?

Your response reflect that you do have a problem with science, and do not accept the scientific definitions of the mechanisms of evolution as defined in the reference.

 

[nPeace]

OK, good. Now, on to what radioactivity is.

There are three common forms of radioactivity: alpha, beta, and gamma rays. They two main ones we will be interested in are alpha and beta. All are *nuclear* reactions, happening in the nucleus and not with the electrons.

Alpha radiation tends to happen in nuclei that have a lot of protons and a lot of neutrons. In it, the nucleus emits two protons and two neutrons as a single small nucleus, thereby changing itself into a different element. So, for example, U-238, an isotope of uranium, has 92 protons and 146 neutrons in its nucleus. After emitting an alpha particle (2 protons, and 2 neutrons), the new nucleus will have 90 protons and 144 neutrons, making it a nucleus of thorium-234.

Similarly, a Radium-226 nucleus will emit an alpha particle, starting with 88 protons and 138 neutrons and ending with 86 protons and 136 neutrons, which is a nucleus of Radon-222.

Like I said, alpha decay generally happens when there are both too many protons and too many neutrons for a nucleus to be stable. By eliminating two of each, it becomes *more* stable, but may still be radioactive.

Beta decay is a bit stranger. It happens when the number of neutrons is more than is required for stability, but the number of protons is about right. In beta decay, one of the neutrons turns into a proton and an electron is emitted (the beta particle). So, the number of neutrons goes down by one and the number of protons goes up by one.

An example is the decay of thorium-234 above. It starts with 90m protons and 144 neutrons and ends up with 91 protons and 143 neutrons. This is a nucleus of Protactinium-234.

Another example of this type of decay is that of carbon-14. It starts with 6 protons and 8 neutrons. After a beta decay, it will have 7 protons and 7 neutrons, leaving a Nitrogen-14 nucleus.

A third type of decay is called 'electron capture' and is, essentially, the reverse of beta decay: a proton 'captures' an electron surrounding the nucleus and changes into a neutron. For example, Potassium-40 can capture an electron and become Argon-40 OR it can go through beta decay and end with 20 protons and 20 neutrons, giving a calcium-40 nucleus.

One key thing here is that all of these happen in the nucleus, which is very small compared to the whole atom AND is surrounded by as many electrons as there were protons to start with. This means that ordinary chemistry doesn't have an effect on when these decays happen. Putting the atom under pressure doesn't affect the decay. Being hot or cold doesn't affect it (unless it is so hot that ALL of the electrons are pulled away, which can affect electron capture---but the temperatures required are hotter than the surface of the sun).

This is important: each type of isotope has its own rate of radioactive decay that depends on how many protons and neutrons are in the nucleus. The chemical environment, the temperature, the pressure, etc DO NOT AFFECT the rate of decay AT ALL. This has been verified with many different isotopes under a wide range of conditions.

Another important point: the atom before decay is chemically different than the one after decay. This is important because it is the chemical properties that determine what sorts of crystals the atom will join in and thereby what sorts of rocks it will be seen in. We can use this chemical information to know which atoms were NOT there when the crystal solidified: they would have been excluded by the chemical properties of the crystal.

Are we good so far?

Can radiometric dating be wrong, and has it been?

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
Accurate radiometric dating generally requires that the parent has a long enough half-life that it will be present in significant amounts at the time of measurement (except as described below under "Dating with short-lived extinct radionuclides"), the half-life of the parent is accurately known, and enough of the daughter product is produced to be accurately measured and distinguished from the initial amount of the daughter present in the material. The procedures used to isolate and analyze the parent and daughter nuclides must be precise and accurate. This normally involves isotope-ratio mass spectrometry.

The precision of a dating method depends in part on the half-life of the radioactive isotope involved. For instance, carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years, so little carbon-14 is left that accurate dating cannot be established. On the other hand, the concentration of carbon-14 falls off so steeply that the age of relatively young remains can be determined precisely to within a few decades.

Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

radiocarbon dating—the most common chronometric technique in archaeological and palaeoenvironmental research—creates challenges for established statistical methods. The methods assume that observations in a time-series are precisely dated, but this assumption is often violated when calibrated radiocarbon dates are used because they usually have highly irregular uncertainties. As a result, it is unclear whether the methods can be reliably used on radiocarbon-dated time-series.

 

[leroy]

Still no reference to support your case. This has been discussed in detail in the past.

Science knows that mutations are not a mechanism of evolution, and whether random or non-random(?) mutations simply provide the genetic diversity of the DNA, which the mechanisms of evolution, natural selection and environmental conditions and change.

Again, again and again . . . the current definition of evolution and the mechanisms do not include 'random.' The reference I provided was clear and specific the mechanisms of evolution are non-random and do not involve nor include mutations as mechanisms.

There is absolutely no evidence that mutations play any active part in the mechanisms that cause the how and why of evolution.

Still no answer to the questions . . .

Where was evolution described in the evolution of all living creatures beginning with single celled organisms over hundreds of millions of years?

Your response reflect that you do have a problem with science, and do not accept the scientific definitions of the mechanisms of evolution as defined in the reference.

You are just playing semantics

It´s a fact that scientists disagree on the role and relevance of non-random mutations……

There is absolutely no evidence that mutations play any active part in the mechanisms that cause the how and why of evolution.

It´s not a matter of evidence, it’s a matter of semantics and a matter on where do you want to draw the line.

If you want to arbitry draw the line once the mutation occurred, go ahead

Where was evolution described in the evolution of all living creatures beginning with single celled organisms over hundreds of millions of years?

Please reformulate your question, I have no idea on what you mean.

Science knows that mutations are not a mechanism of evolution, and whether random or non-random(?) mutations simply provide the genetic diversity of the DNA

Ok, so at worst I used “bad wording” still semantic games.

It is still a fact that scientists disagree on the role of non random mutations, weather if this is part of “the mechanism” or “the raw material” is just semantics.

Your response reflect that you do have a problem with science, and do not accept the scientific definitions of the mechanisms of evolution as defined in the reference

Still just semantics

this article includes mutation as a mechanism

Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. This section examines the mechanisms of evolution focusing on:

• Descent and the genetic differences that are heritable and passed on to the next generation;
  
  
  
• Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection as mechanisms of change;
  
  
  
  
• The importance of genetic variation;
  
  
  
  
• The random nature of genetic drift and the effects of a reduction in genetic variation;
  
  
  
  
• How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection; and
  
  
  
  
• How different species can affect each other's evolution through coevolution.

But who cares, you arbitrarly set the line at some point (after the mutation) and the author of this article set the line before the mutation.

But this is just semantics, if you think I should use a different word rather than “mechanisms” please let me know which word should I use

 

[Polymath257]

Can radiometric dating be wrong, and has it been?

Absolutely. Just like with every technique, it has to be used correctly. There are precautions that need to be taken and cases that need to be avoided. One aspect of becoming educated about the use of these techniques is learning when *not* to apply them because they will give bad results.

An analogy: looking at a clock to get the time is usually OK, but if the clock is stopped, or is running slowly, it can give bad results.

At this point, I just want to be clear about the basics: what is radioactivity and to note that the *rate* of decay isn't affected by things like pressure, temperature, chemical environment, etc.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
Accurate radiometric dating generally requires that the parent has a long enough half-life that it will be present in significant amounts at the time of measurement (except as described below under "Dating with short-lived extinct radionuclides"), the half-life of the parent is accurately known, and enough of the daughter product is produced to be accurately measured and distinguished from the initial amount of the daughter present in the material. The procedures used to isolate and analyze the parent and daughter nuclides must be precise and accurate. This normally involves isotope-ratio mass spectrometry.

The precision of a dating method depends in part on the half-life of the radioactive isotope involved. For instance, carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years, so little carbon-14 is left that accurate dating cannot be established. On the other hand, the concentration of carbon-14 falls off so steeply that the age of relatively young remains can be determined precisely to within a few decades.

Since we haven't discussed half-lives, this is getting a bit ahead of things. But yes, this is a basic limitation of some methods of radioactive dating.

Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

radiocarbon dating—the most common chronometric technique in archaeological and palaeoenvironmental research—creates challenges for established statistical methods. The methods assume that observations in a time-series are precisely dated, but this assumption is often violated when calibrated radiocarbon dates are used because they usually have highly irregular uncertainties. As a result, it is unclear whether the methods can be reliably used on radiocarbon-dated time-series.

Yes, one of the problems with C-14 dating is the half-life is very short. This means that it is often impossible to use for anything over 50,000 years. There *are* ways to extend this amount of time, but they are expensive and going beyond 100,000 years is impossible for a variety of reasons.

Also, there are other things to be concerned about with C-14 dating that I intend to discuss in another post.

But I want to point out that each different radioactive isotope gives a *different* half-life and thereby a different way to date things.

Are we good so far?

 

[nPeace]

Absolutely. Just like with every technique, it has to be used correctly. There are precautions that need to be taken and cases that need to be avoided. One aspect of becoming educated about the use of these techniques is learning when *not* to apply them because they will give bad results.

An analogy: looking at a clock to get the time is usually OK, but if the clock is stopped, or is running slowly, it can give bad results.

At this point, I just want to be clear about the basics: what is radioactivity and to note that the *rate* of decay isn't affected by things like pressure, temperature, chemical environment, etc.



Since we haven't discussed half-lives, this is getting a bit ahead of things. But yes, this is a basic limitation of some methods of radioactive dating.



Yes, one of the problems with C-14 dating is the half-life is very short. This means that it is often impossible to use for anything over 50,000 years. There *are* ways to extend this amount of time, but they are expensive and going beyond 100,000 years is impossible for a variety of reasons.

Also, there are other things to be concerned about with C-14 dating that I intend to discuss in another post.

But I want to point out that each different radioactive isotope gives a *different* half-life and thereby a different way to date things.

Are we good so far?

If we agree that radiometric dating is another method or tool which is not guaranteed to give accurate estimates.

Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot
A long-anticipated recalibration of radiocarbon dating could shift the age of some prehistoric samples hundreds of years

Radiocarbon dating — a key tool used for determining the age of prehistoric samples — is about to get a major update. For the first time in seven years, the technique is due to be recalibrated using a slew of new data from around the world. The result could have implications for the estimated ages of many finds — such as Siberia’s oldest modern human fossils, which according to the latest calibrations are 1,000 years younger than previously thought.

The work combines thousands of data points from tree rings, lake and ocean sediments, corals and stalagmites, among other features, and extends the time frame for radiocarbon dating back to 55,000 years ago — 5,000 years further than the last calibration update in 2013.

 

[YoursTrue]

5th time

Quote any scientific reference that I have denied

Or else apologize for your lies and false accusations

Don't you understand? He's not going to -- because -- he knows what he knows and knows you don't. (Don't you get it?) And moreover, he is NOT going to explain anything.

 

[Polymath257]

If we agree that radiometric dating is another method or tool which is not guaranteed to give accurate estimates.

Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot
A long-anticipated recalibration of radiocarbon dating could shift the age of some prehistoric samples hundreds of years

Radiocarbon dating — a key tool used for determining the age of prehistoric samples — is about to get a major update. For the first time in seven years, the technique is due to be recalibrated using a slew of new data from around the world. The result could have implications for the estimated ages of many finds — such as Siberia’s oldest modern human fossils, which according to the latest calibrations are 1,000 years younger than previously thought.

The work combines thousands of data points from tree rings, lake and ocean sediments, corals and stalagmites, among other features, and extends the time frame for radiocarbon dating back to 55,000 years ago — 5,000 years further than the last calibration update in 2013.

OK, and that is why I started out by asking if you agree that minor changes are not sufficient to give the amount of error you need to support your position.

So, if the date from C-14 dating is 32,000 years, a mistake of 1000 years is not going to bring the date in line with your 6000 year time scale. In that, it would take an error of at least 26,000 years, or an error of at least 80%. Do you agree with this?

We haven't discussed the specifics of C-14 dating as yet, so we are not yet ready to discuss this particular point.

We first need to discuss some aspects of radioactive decay rates and how they apply to dating things. Then we can look at what can go wrong and how we guard against it.

 

[YoursTrue]

The better question is, why did your God create a bunch of creatures that couldn't survive on the earth "He" created for them?
How come 99.9 of all living creatures that have ever lived on earth have gone extinct, if all of this is so well designed by the God you worship?

OK, well I'm not yet up to the post explaining radiometric dating processes and liability, because that deserves a "scientific" discussion I suppose and I want to go into it as much as possible, but as far as creatures going extinct, I cannot right now answer as far as God a Creator goes, as to why so many went extinct. But that does bring up a good question about Iife and death and the current human species, which I shan't go into now mainly because "I don't know" why they went extinct as far as God the Creator goes.