How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[Subduction Zone]

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!!

Sorry, but all DNA mutates so you will not see one line with more mutations than others. What you will see are different alleles and it can be very difficult to tell which version was the original if one only has two examples. What often happens are multiple different separations of populations. By comparing the different populations and seeing how much DNA they share and how they differ one can track back to the original. By comparing human life around the world we can get a good idea of the original genotype by seeing what different traits are shared by at least two groups.

 

[Bird123]

Sorry, but all DNA mutates so you will not see one line with more mutations than others. What you will see are different alleles and it can be very difficult to tell which version was the original if one only has two examples. What often happens are multiple different separations of populations. By comparing the different populations and seeing how much DNA they share and how they differ one can track back to the original. By comparing human life around the world we can get a good idea of the original genotype by seeing what different traits are shared by at least two groups.

The scientist traveled all over the world taking samples from many people. This is how he traced it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The scientist traveled all over the world taking samples from many people. This is how he traced it out.

No, you have it backwards. But go ahead. Post the articles that show this.

 

[Tiberius]

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

I've never seen a claim of prophecy (be it Christian or otherwise) that is NOT of questionable quality!

 

[Tiberius]

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 could start by showing us why your claim is right.

You came in here and made a claim - namely, that sunlight alters Carbon 14 in a way that renders carbon dating unreliable. You have provided ZERO proof for this claim.

And yet, you assume the default position is that your unsupported position is correct until it's proven wrong. The burden of proof is on you. You must provide evidence to back up your claim.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Yes, we know.

However, this has NOTHING to do with your claim that sunlight makes Carbon dating unreliable. Please support THAT claim, and do not try to distract us with red herrings like this.

 

[YoursTrue]

You could start by showing us why your claim is right.

You came in here and made a claim - namely, that sunlight alters Carbon 14 in a way that renders carbon dating unreliable. You have provided ZERO proof for this claim.

And yet, you assume the default position is that your unsupported position is correct until it's proven wrong. The burden of proof is on you. You must provide evidence to back up your claim.

I gave many references. Included statements from the articles. I am quoting scientists not making it up that they are changing their thinking about dating because now realizing atmospheric discrepancies. For instance, From Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating
"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." I didn't say it. www.sciencedaily.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, we know.

However, this has NOTHING to do with your claim that sunlight makes Carbon dating unreliable. Please support THAT claim, and do not try to distract us with red herrings like this.

I didn't make it up about atmospheric changes that scientists are now aware that it alters the accuracy of dating and figuring things out.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, we know.

However, this has NOTHING to do with your claim that sunlight makes Carbon dating unreliable. Please support THAT claim, and do not try to distract us with red herrings like this.

Actually I don't believe I ever said that sunlight makes carbon dating unreliable. Or used that expression.but maybe I did, I looked for my initial statement that got this thing started but couldn't find my post about it, although I found some references to recent discoveries of atmospheric changes altering scientific accuracy of dates.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay.

I don't see what this has to do with determining objective fact, however.



And are you listening to and reading the actual scientists?



Then you are wrong.

There is far more to evolution than, "This species looks like that species, so they must be closely related." There is a huge amount of DNA evidence which is best explained with evolution.




The oldest episode is at the bottom. If you want to listen in order, start at the bottom and work your way up.



Actually, my understanding is that you only need a replicating molecule for evolution. You don't need to start with a cell.

So some say. Maybe the molecule came in from outer space?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not being a paleontologist, I only know general information. But the geographic location, the geological strata, dating and description of the fossil and any other relevant information is recorded. The fossils themselves are measured, photographed, and examined. An entire or nearly entire fossil skeleton for vertebrates probably makes the job easier. Fossils are compared and contrasted to existing fossil finds.

To boil it down, lots and lots and lots of observations and comparisons before it can be determined if the fossil is transitional between different groups of organisms. @metis or @shunyadragon may have a better, more detailed picture of some the steps taken to determine anything about a fossil.

If a fossil of an organism shows ancestral as well as derived characters, it is likely to be a transitional form between the ancestors and the later forms that have only the derived or much reduced ancestral traits. That is a generalization from a non-paleontologist mind you.

I'd have to look very carefully at the methods used to date a bone or artifact. Even if discrepancies in dating of carbon14 is considered less reliable than it was. I hope you understand my statement there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can someone remind @YoursTrue that C14 dating has almost nothing to do with evolution?

 

[Tiberius]

I gave many references. Included statements from the articles. I am quoting scientists not making it up that they are changing their thinking about dating because now realizing atmospheric discrepancies. For instance, From Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating
"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." I didn't say it. www.sciencedaily.com

That article does not mention sunlight at all. So I have no idea why you think it's a valid source to support your claim that sunlight affects the accuracy of carbon dating.

Yes, there are issues regarding carbon dating. These issues are known. And the scientists who use carbon dating take them into account so the issues are unlikely to give inaccurate results. That's why they don't use carbon dating to date very young or very old samples, because they know that when used like that the results will not be accurate.

But we are asking you specifically to support your claim that sunlight causes issues that affect the reliability of carbon dating. When asked for support for this claim, you have given us general problems about carbon dating, but you have NOT given any sources that point to how sunlight affects the accuracy of carbon dating.

So I will ask you as clearly as I can:

Please provide a source that shows HOW SUNLIGHT AFFECTS THE ACCURACY OF CARBON DATING.

 

[Tiberius]

I didn't make it up about atmospheric changes that scientists are now aware that it alters the accuracy of dating and figuring things out.

Please provide a source to show that sunlight affects the accuracy of carbon dating.

 

[Tiberius]

Actually I don't believe I ever said that sunlight makes carbon dating unreliable. Or used that expression.but maybe I did, I looked for my initial statement that got this thing started but couldn't find my post about it, although I found some references to recent discoveries of atmospheric changes altering scientific accuracy of dates.

You most certainly did.

>>CLICK HERE<<
​

In that post you said:

I'm not sure, but I believe it is possible that sunlight can alter the inclination of the body. Maybe and maybe not. Not sure if that has been tested. Because, as I understand it, carbon-14 can be altered by sunlight or some form of radioactivity in the atmosphere, eons ago. Meaning that it can seriously alter a dating process.

Emphasis mine.

Please support that claim or withdraw it.

 

[Tiberius]

So some say. Maybe the molecule came in from outer space?

Or maybe the molecule was a combination of a couple of amino acids that were floating around. We had plenty of them, y'know. No need to invoke a claim of, "It came from outer space!" when it's not needed and doesn't answer the question of how that molecule formed in the first place.

 

[YoursTrue]

Or maybe the molecule was a combination of a couple of amino acids that were floating around. We had plenty of them, y'know. No need to invoke a claim of, "It came from outer space!" when it's not needed and doesn't answer the question of how that molecule formed in the first place.

Yes, well maybe --
As noted by the Smithsonian, "Thus young Earth, Ciesla theorizes, was infused with organic molecules fabricated in space. Additional organic compounds, he suggests, could have formed later in Earth’s primordial soup or were delivered to our planet by comets and meteorites."
See? Possibly "delivered to our planet..." The Building Blocks of Life May Have Come From Outer Space | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, well maybe --
As noted by the Smithsonian, "Thus young Earth, Ciesla theorizes, was infused with organic molecules fabricated in space. Additional organic compounds, he suggests, could have formed later in Earth’s primordial soup or were delivered to our planet by comets and meteorites."
See? Possibly "delivered to our planet..." The Building Blocks of Life May Have Come From Outer Space | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

But this is irrelevant to the discussion.

We are talking about what the molecules did once they got here, not where they came from.

If your car has a flat tire, it's useless to discuss whether the car was made in this country or was imported from overseas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I knew it. She is confused about radiometric dating. Every method of course has its own problems. And scientists take steps to deal with them when they arise. But one does not use C14 past 50,000 years ago. Abiogenesis was around 4 billion years ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

That article does not mention sunlight at all. So I have no idea why you think it's a valid source to support your claim that sunlight affects the accuracy of carbon dating.

Yes, there are issues regarding carbon dating. These issues are known. And the scientists who use carbon dating take them into account so the issues are unlikely to give inaccurate results. That's why they don't use carbon dating to date very young or very old samples, because they know that when used like that the results will not be accurate.

But we are asking you specifically to support your claim that sunlight causes issues that affect the reliability of carbon dating. When asked for support for this claim, you have given us general problems about carbon dating, but you have NOT given any sources that point to how sunlight affects the accuracy of carbon dating.

So I will ask you as clearly as I can:

Please provide a source that shows HOW SUNLIGHT AFFECTS THE ACCURACY OF CARBON DATING.

I did not use the scientifically correct terms, as I recalled from the article it was first talking about the atmosphere affecting the carbon14. I said sunlight. So I will go back and work on it, thank you.