How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[YoursTrue]

So, you must think that the nuclear scientists who use this methodology are ignorant in their own field, right?

No. But chances are that soil moves, erodes, gets into anything that might be embedded in it. Don't you think so?
Plus, as I have been learning, with certain things, a date must be guessed on to begin with.

 

[YoursTrue]

As shunyadragon explained, radiometric dating of rocks has provided a consistent geological time-scale and a coherent history of the Earth from its formation to the present day. If you wish to deny the validity of the ages of rocks obtained from radiometric dating, you have to present evidence that that these ages are invalid. You can't just say, 'Science hasn't proved these dates, therefore they are completely wrong.'

I'm not speaking of dating the earth anyway. Rocks were around a lonnnnggg time before animals were. Or don't you think so?

 

[metis]

No. But chances are that soil moves, erodes, gets into anything that might be embedded in it. Don't you think so?
Plus, as I have been learning, with certain things, a date must be guessed on to begin with.

My area of specialization is not with nuclear physics but is within anthropology. Since they've produced nuclear power, I would suggest that they well know what they are doing.

 

[YoursTrue]

My area of specialization is not with nuclear physics but is within anthropology. Since they've produced nuclear power, I would suggest that they well know what they are doing.

Producing nuclear power is not dating processes of the earth, soil,, what's within including radioactive isotopes, impurities, rocks, and isotopes. And now that you mention it, I'm rather sure <g> that a nuclear bomb or any bomb transfers soil, some more than others, hmm?

 

[YoursTrue]

My area of specialization is not with nuclear physics but is within anthropology. Since they've produced nuclear power, I would suggest that they well know what they are doing.

Regardless of the area of your expertise, would you say that water was here before lions? How about rocks? Were they here before humans?

 

[metis]

Producing nuclear power is not dating processes of the earth, soil,, what's within including radioactive isotopes, impurities, rocks, and isotopes.

You missed the point. There are experts in different areas that deal with nuclear, and the professionals that deal with dating materials do know what they are doing as well as any possible limitations.

Dates are always given in + & - numbers that include the degree of error with at least 90% accuracy.

Regardless of the area of your expertise, would you say that water was here before lions? How about rocks? Were they here before humans?

Yes to all three based on the overwhelming evidence.

 

[Astrophile]

I'm not speaking of dating the earth anyway. Rocks were around a lonnnnggg time before animals were. Or don't you think so?

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that the Earth was a rocky planet for billions of years before animals evolved.

No, in the sense that individual rock formations were formed after different kinds of animals evolved. For example, the Half Dome granodiorite in Yosemite Valley is 87 million years old - Yosemite Valley - Wikipedia . This means that it was intruded about 35 million years after the extinction of iguanodons - Iguanodon - Wikipedia .

 

[YoursTrue]

You missed the point. There are experts in different areas that deal with nuclear, and the professionals that deal with dating materials do know what they are doing as well as any possible limitations.

Dates are always given in + & - numbers that include the degree of error with at least 90% accuracy.

Yes to all three based on the overwhelming evidence.

So I was wondering if you know how much soil is tested in examination for dates. Because I was learning that small particles can be quite different from others in the same setting. So how many granules are tested at a time?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that the Earth was a rocky planet for billions of years before animals evolved.

No, in the sense that individual rock formations were formed after different kinds of animals evolved. For example, the Half Dome granodiorite in Yosemite Valley is 87 million years old - Yosemite Valley - Wikipedia . This means that it was intruded about 35 million years after the extinction of iguanodons - Iguanodon - Wikipedia .

And so? That again could alter dating sequences if crashes from outer space occurred.

 

[YoursTrue]

You missed the point. There are experts in different areas that deal with nuclear, and the professionals that deal with dating materials do know what they are doing as well as any possible limitations.

Dates are always given in + & - numbers that include the degree of error with at least 90% accuracy.

Yes to all three based on the overwhelming evidence.

Wikipedia on definition of hypothesis... "A hypothesis...is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used interchangeably, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory."
There is no testable theory of transitional forms. It's all conjecture when something is said to be a transitional form. The more I see the argument pro evolution by natural selection, the less valid it appears to be. Cannot be tested, it's all presumption based on appearance and possible dating.

 

[metis]

So I was wondering if you know how much soil is tested in examination for dates. Because I was learning that small particles can be quite different from others in the same setting. So how many granules are tested at a time?

Again, this is not my area of expertise, thus I can't answer this.

There is no testable theory of transitional forms.

All forms are "transitional" if they survive and reproduce.

Also, see this that shows observed species change: Speciation - Wikipedia

BTW, where I did my grad work was just one location that has observed species change when experimenting with fruit flies.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, this is not my area of expertise, thus I can't answer this.

All forms are "transitional" if they survive and reproduce.

Also, see this that shows observed species change: Speciation - Wikipedia

BTW, where I did my grad work was just one location that has observed species change when experimenting with fruit flies.

Again, this is not my area of expertise, thus I can't answer this.

All forms are "transitional" if they survive and reproduce.

Also, see this that shows observed species change: Speciation - Wikipedia

BTW, where I did my grad work was just one location that has observed species change when experimenting with fruit flies.

Maybe shunydragon can answer about how much substance is analyzed with radiometric dating concept. But I wouldn't take his word for it either, people make mistakes. So I'll maybe call a local museum curator or something like that. I had a feeling someone would say 'we' are still transitioning...which is why I asked if fetuses of human females are always 'human' in the womb, from start to finish.
I did research on fruit flies for my science class. They're easy to draw. Mutations don't usually last in any species as if transitioning them. Two-headed fruit flies don't become a sustaining brand of two-headed fruit flies that I know about, do you? At the time I drew the little diagram, of fruit flies, I believed evolution was true. As you can figure by now, I no longer do.
Let me put it this way, which I have done before: flies remain flies, no matter mutations; lions remain lions, and Darwin's birds with beaks getting smaller and larger remain birds. There is absolutely no real verifiable evidence to show that fish became landlubbers. Conjecture used by scientists to show/prove that some fish(y) types began flopping around on land and grew, evolved, very very very slowly to sheer landdwellers. it's conjecture, imagination, but, yes, no proof. Not one shred of real-life, real-time, verifiable proof of any sort.

 

[YoursTrue]

My area of specialization is not with nuclear physics but is within anthropology. Since they've produced nuclear power, I would suggest that they well know what they are doing.

OK, so in harmony with the question (OP) what, in your opinion, or that gleaned from scientists, is the latest animal species?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

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?

Since Evolution is change, then, change must have range or limit from minimum to maximum limit, say, from 0-100%, and use that to predict for natural change, like natural dislocations. How many percentage we could expect of a non-intelligently guided gradual change for natural dislocations. For example, from 100% - 0%. 100% dislocated should be the norm as perfect Evolution since intelligence is not being used.

Thus, we can check if species or clad, or kind, is new or old...

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that the Earth was a rocky planet for billions of years before animals evolved.

No, in the sense that individual rock formations were formed after different kinds of animals evolved. For example, the Half Dome granodiorite in Yosemite Valley is 87 million years old - Yosemite Valley - Wikipedia . This means that it was intruded about 35 million years after the extinction of iguanodons - Iguanodon - Wikipedia .

Here's a point for you and @metis and anyone else who cares to look into it -- I was reading about radiometric dating and come across this obvious piece of information for most people: "Despite seeming like a relatively stable place, the Earth's surface has changed dramatically over the past 4.6 billion years. Mountains have been built and eroded, continents and oceans have moved great distances, and the Earth has fluctuated from being extremely cold and almost completely covered with ice to being very warm and ice-free." I won't copy too much of it, but since soil, mountains, the surface of the earth changes dramatically, albeit said to be slowly (sometimes, I suppose, it's slow, sometimes it's fast like a tsunami or earthquake), it seems like estimates can be off when it comes to mixed soil and/or fossils or animals carried along with the erosion and buried or sunken into the land mass. Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)



A fossil can be studied to deter

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since Evolution is change, then, change must have range or limit from minimum to maximum limit, say, from 0-100%, and use that to predict for natural change, like natural dislocations. How many percentage we could expect of a non-intelligently guided gradual change for natural dislocations. For example, from 100% - 0%. 100% dislocated should be the norm as perfect Evolution since intelligence is not being used.

Thus, we can check if species or clad, or kind, is new or old...

I have no idea what you are talking about? It looks like you are making this up as you go. What is 100% change in something? Who knows? Nothing intelligently guided has been established to occur, so there is no possible way to compare guided by intelligence evolution from not guided by intelligence evolution. You are just assuming your premise is fact without benefit of being established as a fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since Evolution is change, then, change must have range or limit from minimum to maximum limit, say, from 0-100%, and use that to predict for natural change, like natural dislocations. How many percentage we could expect of a non-intelligently guided gradual change for natural dislocations. For example, from 100% - 0%. 100% dislocated should be the norm as perfect Evolution since intelligence is not being used.

Thus, we can check if species or clad, or kind, is new or old...

The point is that no one was looking for changes or speciation in bacteria and fungi in culture until recently. Claiming we should have seen it is ridiculous when no one was looking for it. Even now, under 10's of thousands of generations of E. coli, changes have been observed, but they required highly specialized techniques to make those observations. Techniques that have only been available in the last 50 or 60 years. Claiming that we would have seen speciation in bacteria 100, 150, 200 or a 1000 years ago is ridiculous.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, so in harmony with the question (OP) what, in your opinion, or that gleaned from scientists, is the latest animal species?

Are you asking which species is the most recent historically? Answering that would require that we know the history of most species, however, you could get some idea looking at derived characters in comparison to the extant character states of existing species. My guess, based on a very trivial examination of the evidence, is that it is probably whales or deer.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

The point is that no one was looking for changes or speciation in bacteria and fungi in culture until recently. Claiming we should have seen it is ridiculous when no one was looking for it. Even now, under 10's of thousands of generations of E. coli, changes have been observed, but they required highly specialized techniques to make those observations. Techniques that have only been available in the last 50 or 60 years. Claiming that we would have seen speciation in bacteria 100, 150, 200 or a 1000 years ago is ridiculous.

The point is that supporters of Evolution are really ignorant of reality and their theory. If there is change, there must always a limit or range of change, numerically tested and empirically confirmed. But saying that you do not even come up this topic in your head, is a sigh that you are really ignorant of Evolution or reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The point is that supporters of Evolution are really ignorant of reality and their theory. If there is change, there must always a limit or range of change, numerically tested and empirically confirmed. But saying that you do not even come up this topic in your head, is a sigh that you are really ignorant of Evolution or reality.

I realize that you do not understand. I recommend that you go back to school and study science if you are seriously interested to learn about evolution, biology, science and all those things that you do not understand.