How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Neither does it have any answers for extra dimensional goblins.
So what?

 

[shunyadragon]

"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

At times missing the mark does not detract that C14 dating is not accurate 'when used in coordination with other daring methods.' Also dating with C14 is based on redundant sampling and related research and sampling, It is often the case that C14 dating results are indeed found in error when compared to other dating methods.

I am not sure where you are going with, but the evidence for evolution and the geologic history of the earth dating of fossils and other evidence for the hundreds millions of years is dates by other dating methods.

 

[shunyadragon]

Never intended, lol, but statements of assumed dates are not underlined with caveats stating the dates may not be accurate. Never intended...
I'm learning -- ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
"The group theorizes that large errors in carbon dating result from fluctuations in the amount of carbon 14 in the air. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field would change the deflection of cosmic-ray particles streaming toward the Earth from the Sun."
I doubt I'll ever have the education you have, nevertheless -- you're helping me to learn, and so I hope you read the NY Times article about how scientists are theorizing large errors in the dating process. (oops...)

Again, again and again . . .

At times missing the mark does not detract that C14 dating is not accurate 'when used in coordination with other daring methods.' Also dating with C14 is based on redundant sampling and related research and sampling, It is often the case that C14 dating results are indeed found in error when compared to other dating methods.

I am not sure where you are going with, but the evidence for evolution and the geologic history of the earth dating of fossils and other evidence for the hundreds millions of years is dates by other dating methods.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I'm quoting from the article, but I do believe the writer mentions the scientists by name. What is it you want to question?

The dact that C14 dating is not used alone for dating even for organic materials less than 40,000 years old. Also C14 dating has been refined over the years, and yes, correlated with other dated methods.

 

[shunyadragon]

Never intended, lol, but statements of assumed dates are not underlined with caveats stating the dates may not be accurate. Never intended...
I'm learning -- ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
"The group theorizes that large errors in carbon dating result from fluctuations in the amount of carbon 14 in the air. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field would change the deflection of cosmic-ray particles streaming toward the Earth from the Sun."
I doubt I'll ever have the education you have, nevertheless -- you're helping me to learn, and so I hope you read the NY Times article about how scientists are theorizing large errors in the dating process. (oops...)

The article is not availablr on line. I question the qualifications of the author. Please provide the name of the article author. Though it is a layman's opihion and not a scientific research article,

 

[shunyadragon]

Please continue reading posts, especially from NY Times. But since I didn't quote from what I read, I'm working on that rather than writing from memory.

Your selectively citing articles to justify your religious agenda.and not responding to the fact that C14 dating is NOT used alone and is correlated with other dating methods.

Actually Potassium-Argon dating is often used withC14 and a preferred dating method in many cases.

 

[shunyadragon]

"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

C14 is not the only dating method used by archaeologists.

 

[YoursTrue]

You should listen to the SCIENTISTS.

When have I presented a scientific opinion which I have not backed up?

If you can't explain in your own words what is in a backup scientific opinion then don't bother answering. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your selectively citing articles to justify your religious agenda.and not responding to the fact that C14 dating is NOT used alone and is correlated with other dating methods.

Actually Potassium-Argon dating is often used withC14 and a preferred dating method in many cases.

Regardless of how it is used, it is now questionable as a reliable source. I suppose you missed that.
I have generally posted articles from unreligious based sources for those like you, such as National Geographic and Science based magazines. I intentionally avoided pro-creation sites because I know you're so against those who believe in the power of creation regarding life on earth. The last one was called to my attention, yet it didn't really matter because the substance of research was there. Sorry if you don't like that. And when I ask you a question, instead of giving me a link rather than quotes, along with your supercilious attitude and insults -- again -- please don't bother. And if you can't answer questions about the terminology, then again, don't bother because in that case soimeone would think you don't know what you're talking about while you go into your usual diatribe calling me willfully ignorant. have a nice day.

 

[Wandering Monk]

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?

How about number of genomic mutations?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How about number of genomic mutations?

Do you mean duplications?

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, let's get this straight...

Your evidence is on a non-science site, built to promote the personal views on the Bible of Tim Mahoney, a politician/businessman who has no qualifications in science and whose views about the Bible contradict the opinions of the vast majority of modern Biblical scholars. Additionally, the article itself was written by a creationist who has no other credits to his name other than he co-wrote the movie that the website was intended to promote.

Once again, show me the actual science.

Here is something you might want to consider:
"LIFE appeared on our planet more than 3.5 billion years ago and consisted exclusively of microbes for the next 3 billion years. Then, about 539 million years ago, everything changed."

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-lifes-big-bang-never-happened/#ixzz7TNOVX0VT

So do you believe the above statement as to when life began on the earth? If so, why? Or of course, if not, why?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm surprised you've never heard the term "creationist" before. I take it you are fairly new to religious discussions like this?

Your first statement was rather presumptuous...I have heard the term many times and have asked for the person using it to define it with little results, thus I am happy to see how you define it, thank you..I'll get to that hopefully. Do you object to the term "evolutionist" in reference to a person like yourself who believes in evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not a lie, but they are presenting it in a way designed to deceive people who do not understand. They also make it sound like once they correct for this, all the dating techniques will have to be completely thrown out, whereas it's far more likely that we're just going to have to adjust some date ranges by a few percentage points.

Scientists already know about the issues that can affect carbon dating results, and they are able to correct for them. Your source makes it sound like the scientists have no idea at all, or that they do nothing to correct for them.

I didn't get that from the article(s) reporting this finding. The scientist quoted was apparently not misrepresented as far as I see or discerned from the situation. It certainly can lead to further research about "atmospheric" changes (God forbid I used the word sunlight there...oops, what a mistake! ) affecting dating analysis. But it certainly comes into the picture when dating with accuracy at least some historical events categorized in the past by scientists in the Levant region of the earth. Yup. It does. But thanks for conversation as well as your more respectful attitude.

 

[YoursTrue]

In any case, when you cite something as evidence, please take a moment to do a bit of a check. Who is the author? Do they have any relevant qualifications in the field they are talking about? answering these questions will give you a better idea if the source you are citing is actually worth citing.

May I ask what journals and/or scientists you read and respect? Thank you. (With names and titles of journals as well as scientists, thank you again.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is something you might want to consider:
"LIFE appeared on our planet more than 3.5 billion years ago and consisted exclusively of microbes for the next 3 billion years. Then, about 539 million years ago, everything changed."

Read more: The bizarre plant-like animals that say life’s big bang never happened | New Scientist

So do you believe the above statement as to when life began on the earth? If so, why? Or of course, if not, why?

Creationists often mischaracterize the Cambrian explosion. Often they outright lie about it. There were two major developments of life during, before, and after the Cambrian. And creationists are not totally to blame. Until recently we did not have good evidence of multicellular life before the Cambrian. Now we do.

Soft bodied life takes very specific conditions to fossilize. In the Ediacara formation in Australia those conditions were met. And quite a few examples of soft bodied life were found. You may have heard the claim that Cambrian life sprung from nothing. Now we know that is not true. And once paleontologists knew what to look for such fossils were found elsewhere in the world.

 

[Bird123]

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

It's been years ago this was done. I think NOVA had a show on it. It has to do with genetic markers passed down through females. As I said, lots of DNA testing of a lot of people all over the world. Further, there were so many wonderful people willing to help.

Since it was so long ago, it would take time to hunt it up. Feel free to search for yourself or choose to ignore everything I said. It's always been in your hands.

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

 

[Tiberius]

If you can't explain in your own words what is in a backup scientific opinion then don't bother answering. Thank you.

What in the world are you going on about?

I asked you to show me a time when I presented a scientific opinion that I have not supported.

 

[Tiberius]

Here is something you might want to consider:
"LIFE appeared on our planet more than 3.5 billion years ago and consisted exclusively of microbes for the next 3 billion years. Then, about 539 million years ago, everything changed."

Read more: The bizarre plant-like animals that say life’s big bang never happened | New Scientist

So do you believe the above statement as to when life began on the earth? If so, why? Or of course, if not, why?

I accept it as accurate because there is EVIDENCE to support that claim.

 

[Tiberius]

Your first statement was rather presumptuous...I have heard the term many times and have asked for the person using it to define it with little results, thus I am happy to see how you define it, thank you..I'll get to that hopefully. Do you object to the term "evolutionist" in reference to a person like yourself who believes in evolution?

I don't like it, since it suggests a level of faith that simply isn't required for science. But I've come to accept that I will be described using that term.