How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[Tiberius]

@Tiberius So here is a distinct definition of how evolution occurred, and I wonder if and how you agree:
"How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?
The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations"

Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution

You seem to have a misunderstanding.

Those things are not a definition of how evolution occurred.

They are evidences that evolution occurred.

However, I will say that I think they are all good evidence for evolution.

 

[Tiberius]

OK, give an example, please, of a distinct organism that evolved into another distinguishable organism with population.

Evolution doesn't work that way. An individual organism does not evolve. Evolution takes place over many changes because of the small changes that occur when each generation produces the next generation.

 

[Tiberius]

You say that at one point a very long tine ago there was a population of organisms that were the common ancestor of modern fish and birds. Like what?

They would have been rather fish-like, though not the same as modern fish.

I am quite sure many would agree with you. And then to say that the group was split by different selective pressures. OK, I understand the logic but again -- I won't make a statement as to what I think about that -- but you really think that is true?

If you understand the logic, why would you not agree with it? The only valid reason to disagree with the logic is if you have evidence that one of the premises is false, but you've presented no evidence of that.

And yes, I do think that is true. There is nothing which says that it can't happen, and it is easy to come up with many situations that would have caused such differential selective pressures.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What a person is trusting in for eternal life

Atheists don't believe in eternal life.
Neither does science. So not really getting what you are trying to say there....

and what wisdom/truth to rely on and follow in this life.

Yes, knowledge about the world comes from science.
You accept that also. Every second of every day.
Every time you flip the switch to put the lights on/out, when you post a message on the website, when you start your car, when you get on an airplane, when you use your GPS, when you use your cellphone,.....

You trust the scientific theories and processes that makes those technologies work.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Tiberius So here is a distinct definition of how evolution occurred, and I wonder if and how you agree:
"How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?
The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations"

Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution

Overall, I agree. However, those are just how we know that evolution occurred. Not "how" it occurred.
Although I'ld rephrase point 2 as such:

2. the pattern of chemical and anatomical similarities in related life forms

I'ld also add a point 5

5. how all data independently obtained in each of the 4 points above, all converge on the exact same pattern / answer

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, give an example, please, of a distinct organism that evolved into another distinguishable organism with population.

How many times have I already pointed out to you in the past that that is not how evolution works?

Seriously, how many times?

Why do you insist on being wrong and arguing strawmen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, give an example, please, of a distinct organism that evolved into another distinguishable organism with population.

Evolution involves populations. One individual cannot evolve. Your demand is specious.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You trust the scientific theories and processes that makes those technologies work.

You’re talking about knowledge from science which has no answer for life and godly living.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is correct, and the Bible brings that out about various persons who proclaimed faith while others had a condemning or different attitude or faith.

As I was doing some research, I was reading that the atmosphere (sunlight) can greatly alter the analysis that Carbon-14 provides. Anyway, not as an expert, I won't go into it in detail right now, just to mention that I don't find evolution supercedes the Biblical account of creation. While there is certainly evidence that genetic distribution can be similar in terms of genes and DNA, some with this one and more or less with others, I don't find the real evidence (and by that I mean proof, yes -- I know there's no supposed 'proof.') of evolution. It's like a magician. It may appear to be so -- but -- not really. As far as I am concerned.

Your intentional ignorance is compounded above. Please go into detail since you are unethically misrepresenting C14 dating, which by the way is only one of many dating methods when compared ALL demonstrate accurate dating methods. C14 is only used for relatively recent dating of the history.life on earth. Other dating methods are more accurate in dating older than ~50,000 years.

Actually C14 dating is used to confirm many of the dates and events, but not all recorded in the Bible

 

[shunyadragon]

Atheists don't believe in eternal life.
Neither does science. So not really getting what you are trying to say there...

What atheists and theists 'believe' has absolutely nothing to do with science. Science ONLY deals with the objective verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence. Nothing less nor nothing more.

You trust the scientific theories and processes that makes those technologies work.

True, but science is much more than this.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your intentional ignorance is compounded above. Please go into detail since you are unethically misrepresenting C14 dating, which by the way is only one of many dating methods when compared ALL demonstrate accurate dating methods. C14 is only used for relatively recent dating of the history.life on earth. Other dating methods are more accurate in dating older than ~50,000 years.

Actually C14 dating is used to confirm many of the dates and events, but not all recorded in the Bible

You're sad.

 

[Tiberius]

You're sad.

I'd expect that kind of response from a child.

 

[YoursTrue]

They would have been rather fish-like, though not the same as modern fish.

Yes, according to the theoretical assumption. But again -- there is no evidence of DNA changes or organism changes in real time (actual time) demonstrating this. There may be, as I've read, discussions regarding fish flopping out of water and, I suppose, some would suggest eventually somehow they would breathe oxygen and not be able to stay under water permanently, but -- what proof is there that this really happened by small but continual (?) genetic changes?

If you understand the logic, why would you not agree with it? The only valid reason to disagree with the logic is if you have evidence that one of the premises is false, but you've presented no evidence of that.

I understand the logic, but see no proof other than surmise for the changes, let's say, of fish to lions small as these genetic changes are, using, of course, everything in between. In fact, the statement I made that I understand the logic doesn't mean that I think it makes sense. Because fish eventually becoming landrovers by natural selection again -- doesn't make sense to me, considering that such drastic changes such as strictly underwater dwelling fishes then gradually becoming land dwellers, doesn't make sense. Logic tells me it is impossible, no matter how long the process takes, to accomplish this. So, of course, that leads to one conclusion.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'd expect that kind of response from a child.

Sometimes children tell the truth. Shunydragon has done virtually nothing but insult me, which I find is the route of prejudiced people unwilling to consider anything but their own thinking.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, according to the theoretical assumption. But again -- there is no evidence of DNA changes or organism changes in real time (actual time) demonstrating this.

There is a HUGE amount of genetic evidence which is best explained by evolution.

Evidence for evolution (article) | Khan Academy

There may be, as I've read, discussions regarding fish flopping out of water and, I suppose, some would suggest eventually somehow they would breathe oxygen and not be able to stay under water permanently, but -- what proof is there that this really happened by small but continual (?) genetic changes?

We still have creatures today that do this, such as the lungfish, and mudskippers.

I understand the logic, but see no proof other than surmise for the changes, let's say, of fish to lions small as these genetic changes are, using, of course, everything in between. In fact, the statement I made that I understand the logic doesn't mean that I think it makes sense. Because fish eventually becoming landrovers by natural selection again -- doesn't make sense to me, considering that such drastic changes such as strictly underwater dwelling fishes then gradually becoming land dwellers, doesn't make sense. Logic tells me it is impossible, no matter how long the process takes, to accomplish this. So, of course, that leads to one conclusion.

Some fish became amphibians (I've already mentioned creatures like mudskippers which show the sort of stage they could have passed though on their way to amphibianhood). And some of these amphibians became reptiles. Some of those reptiles became more and more mammal like (there are a whole bunch of creatures called synapsids we know as mammal-like reptiles). These became early mammals, and some of these later evolved into cats after the extinction of the dinosaurs, and some of these cats evolved into modern lions.

Do you have a problem with any of these stages? If so, which one? We have fossils of those early fish, of the early amphibians, the early reptiles, the synapsids, the early mammals, the early cats, and so on. I don't see how there can be any basis for you to deny them.

And you think fish became landrovers? I really hope that was an autocorrect or something.

 

[Tiberius]

Sometimes children tell the truth. Shunydragon has done virtually nothing but insult me, which I find is the route of prejudiced people unwilling to consider anything but their own thinking.

Nonetheless, I don't recall seeing you ever back up your claim that sunlight can affect Carbon 14 in a way that renders carbon dating inaccurate.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're sad.

Actually I am very happy!!!!

our intentional ignorance is compounded above. Please go into detail since you are unethically misrepresenting C14 dating, which by the way is only one of many dating methods when compared ALL demonstrate accurate dating methods. C14 is only used for relatively recent dating of the history.life on earth. Other dating methods are more accurate in dating older than ~50,000 years.

Actually C14 dating is used to confirm many of the dates and events, but not all recorded in the Bible;

Your failure to respond based on intentional ignorance with a religious agenda is very sad.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'd expect that kind of response from a child.

ALL of the above are reasons much of the Christian claims of prophecy are questionable and subjective claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually I am very happy!!!!

our intentional ignorance is compounded above. Please go into detail since you are unethically misrepresenting C14 dating, which by the way is only one of many dating methods when compared ALL demonstrate accurate dating methods. C14 is only used for relatively recent dating of the history.life on earth. Other dating methods are more accurate in dating older than ~50,000 years.

Actually C14 dating is used to confirm many of the dates and events, but not all recorded in the Bible;

Your failure to respond based on intentional ignorance with a religious agenda is very sad.

Should I believe you? You offer no substantive information.
And because you refuse to answer with a "scientific" response, showing WHY I'm wrong about the changes in the carbon-14 element, except you continually insulting me -- right now -- continue being happy until whatever eventuality happens.

 

[YoursTrue]

Could be -- yet there are various beliefs among the Bahai faith, and you believe that maybe(?) you'll be transformed into another creature animal or whatever? Yet you believe what you believe.

@shunyadragon here's what it says about prophets in your belief system -- It states that "Baháʼís believe in life after death, holding that the soul is created at the moment of conception and will retain its individuality in an eternal realm."
Hmm in an eternal realm. Science please? Is the above true, since you offer zilch, nothing, other than putting me down continually.