How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[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.

YOU'RE the one supposed to be so up on science -- so why not give a brief and understandable explanation instead of being so insulting on a regular basis. That's really all you do is insult me. No explanation, just continual insults.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

YOU'RE the one supposed to be so up on science -- so why not give a brief and understandable explanation instead of being so insulting on a regular basis. That's really all you do is insult me. No explanation, just continual insults.

You made the accusation first concerning C14 dating and failed to back it up with scientific references, The real issue is radiometric data of many decaying elements, which are most often used to correlate dating methods of different types.

The following reference goes into considerable detail as to the scientific accuracy of radiometric dating. It is simple to understand at the high scholl level science and English.:

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia.

Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay.[1] The use of radiometric dating was first published in 1907 by Bertram Boltwood[2] and is now the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of fossilized life forms or the age of the Earth itself, and can also be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials.

Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geologic time scale.[3] Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium–argon dating and uranium–lead dating. By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant source of information about the ages of fossils and the deduced rates of evolutionary change. Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.

Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.

 

[YoursTrue]

For @shunyadragon et al -- "Inorganic materials can't be dated using radiocarbon analysis, and the method can be prohibitively expensive. Age is also a problem: Samples that are older than about 40,000 years are extremely difficult to date due to tiny levels of carbon-14. Over 60,000 years old, and they can't be dated at all." How radiocarbon dating helps archaeologists date objects and sites, with carbon-14.

 

[shunyadragon]

For @shunyadragon et al -- "Inorganic materials can't be dated using radiocarbon analysis, and the method can be prohibitively expensive. Age is also a problem: Samples that are older than about 40,000 years are extremely difficult to date due to tiny levels of carbon-14. Over 60,000 years old, and they can't be dated at all." How radiocarbon dating helps archaeologists date objects and sites, with carbon-14.

Science never intended to date inorganic materials by C14 dating. The reference I provided addresses this, Your intentional ignorance of basic science is appalling.

 

[YoursTrue]

More for @shunydragon plus -- "Radiocarbon dating is a key tool archaeologists use to determine the age of plants and objects made with organic material. But new research shows that commonly accepted radiocarbon dating standards can miss the mark -- calling into question historical timelines." Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

 

[YoursTrue]

Science never intended to date inorganic materials by C14 dating. The reference I provided addresses this, Your intentional ignorance of basic science is appalling.

LOL, you're making me laugh. You want proof of my comments by science? I'm giving them ...carbon-14 is not considered as reliable and accurate in many cases any more -- calling into question previous dates. Here's a statement about that -- Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

 

[YoursTrue]

More for dear @shunyadragon who is of course not ignorant -- -- as he calls me -- all I'm doing is reading more recent analysis of research about carbon14 dating. Here we go again -- let's see:
"Radiocarbon dating is a key tool archaeologists use to determine the age of plants and objects made with organic material. But new research shows that commonly accepted radiocarbon dating standards can miss the mark -- calling into question historical timelines." hmm new research...shows ... it calls into question historical timelines -- (isn't that something, shunyadragon? Want to tell me how "ignorant" I am again? (Thanks, by the way for prompting the research into more RECENT science.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Science never intended to date inorganic materials by C14 dating. The reference I provided addresses this, Your intentional ignorance of basic science is appalling.

Your supercilious attitude is noted.
But here's more info about the inconsistency of believing "science" for dating --
Carbon-14 Spiked Worldwide Over 1200 Years Ago, And The Sun Is To Blame
Soo interesting, thank you for prompting me to do further research on the inconsistency of "science" and the situation with more recent discoveries about the dating process.

 

[YoursTrue]

A little more for you, @shunyadragon , enjoy...
"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"
hmm...isn't that interesting?
Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot
I like that -- a "recalibration..." Change the meters...

 

[YoursTrue]

@shunyadragon See 'ya' later -- maybe --

 

[YoursTrue]

Science never intended to date inorganic materials by C14 dating. The reference I provided addresses this, Your intentional ignorance of basic science is appalling.

It would be helpful, shunydragon, to explain what you mean rather than going into your usual diatribe about me -- and even better that you don't just provide links without quoting the relevant parts to show what you mean.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science never intended to date inorganic materials by C14 dating. The reference I provided addresses this, Your intentional ignorance of basic science is appalling.

Never intended???? Your intentional glossing over explanatory details is appalling. I like that one -- "never intended.." lolol...!!!

 

[YoursTrue]

Science never intended to date inorganic materials by C14 dating. The reference I provided addresses this, Your intentional ignorance of basic science is appalling.

Some things make me laugh -- your intentional insult of me is making me laugh, lolol! Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

You made the accusation first concerning C14 dating and failed to back it up with scientific references, The real issue is radiometric data of many decaying elements, which are most often used to correlate dating methods of different types.
...

Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.

I understand your contention. However, science has shown more recently that changes in the atmosphere can and likely does change the previous dates. Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot
It explains that carbon dating is getting a "major reboot." Just for starters, it explains that the "basic calculation assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the environment has been constant in time and space — which it hasn’t." So -- the assumption has been wrong...

 

[metis]

C-14 is adjusted on the basis of using other elements found at the same strata, such as tree rings. Also, we never have made the claim that it was a constant because of a series of factors that could be involved in the level of radioactivity.

 

[ppp]

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.

Why are you bringing up carbon 14 dating with respect to evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

C-14 is adjusted on the basis of using other elements found at the same strata, such as tree rings. Also, we never have made the claim that it was a constant because of a series of factors that could be involved in the level of radioactivity.

As I understand it from the reports in science based journals, and with which you seem to agree, the determination of dating regarding objects and carbon-14 has changed, and that because of atmospheric changes that may not have been accounted for earlier, that I read in reference to situation regarding tree rings showing details not accounted for earlier. I do not believe I ever said otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some things make me laugh -- your intentional insult of me is making me laugh, lolol! Thanks.

Facts should not be insults.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you bringing up carbon 14 dating with respect to evolution?

She may be conflating carbon dating with radiometric dating in general. smh

Too bad that she has me on ignore.

 

[Bird123]

I recall on another venue someone using the fact that in all the time we have been using bacteria and fungi for fermentation we have not observed speciation in those microorganisms. This was offered as evidence against theory of evolution.

Is it?

There is no evidence that ancient cultures making fermented milk products, bread, or beer had any idea what was causing the changes or that there were living things even involved. They were not only not looking, they were unaware of much of what was happening. Species could have evolved or not.

When microorganisms were discovered, no one had any idea of the species that existed, so anything new, even under the nose of the observer, wouldn't have been recognized for what it was. All those species were new to man and until we looked, undescribed. Many remain undescribed. An undescribed species is one new to us, but not necessarily or probably one new to the world. It could be. Maybe not. There is no information to know specifically under those historic circumstances.

Once we described some of them, recognized the role some of them had relating to us--food, pathogenesis, soil production, etc.--and started culturing them, I still do not see a feasible opportunity to know that speciation was occurring. Historically, scientists culturing bacteria, for instance, were doing so for some other purpose and such changes would go unnoticed for much the same reasons as before. No one was looking for these changes and any different species in what was intended as pure cultures could be just contamination.

Only recently--the last 70 years perhaps--have we started looking at this with the intent to discover actual speciation events in a human time frame.

Given that some of the same issues apply to macro-scale life on this planet that they do for microorganisms, much that may have happened probably did unnoticed.

So, it seems that claiming a lack of observed speciation on a human history scale is not good evidence against the theory.

I could go on, but the question remains. How do we know or not whether a species is new to us or new to the world?

DNA is the blueprint which tells all. There was a scientist who wanted to discover where mankind started on earth. This is how he figured it out: DNA randomly mutates. The oldest lines will have the greatest number of these deviations simply because the process has been running longer. This is how you tell when the lines start to branch off.

The scientist discovered mankind first started in Africa, then wandered to Australia, the aborigines. From there it went through Asia, then up and branched going to America then Europe and back down.

Granted, there is much still unknown about DNA. The knowledge that is packed in it is amazing.


We are all Spiritual Beings in our true natures. WE are placed in our physical bodies after birth when long term memories become possible.

Many people get all upset thinking they have evolved from a lower life form. Since we are Spiritual Beings, does it really matter how our physical bodies were made? If it does, it is only your EGO working.

One might want to think one is better than animals, however animals are children of God as we are. We just have more capabilities because we have been on our journey a bit longer.

I say let's let our beliefs go and work at Discovering what actually exists. Genius exists, being able to create it all from a single point. Just like a seed can grow into a giant tree, the universe expands into what we have today and beyond.

God hides nothing. God made the universe in such a way that mankind will be able to understand it all given enough time in study.

I say let's forget about all the beliefs and trying to make reality what we want it to be. Let's Discover what Actually exists then move forward. One is going to find that True Reality will end up so much better than all those beliefs one might want to be the truth.

Beliefs do not matter for we are all going to run into God in the end anyway!! Though we can choose a bumpy road for ourselves, it's going to be Glorious when the journey is done.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!