How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[Subduction Zone]

I have read that carbon-14 dating is used along with carbon-12 dating as well. Not that I understand the process, perhaps you do. I'll look for the NY Times article.

No. there is no "Carbon 12 dating". Carbon 12 is not radioactive. C14 is. C14 decays into N14. What is measured in C14 dating is the amount of C14 versus the amount of C12 in an object. Since the C12 does not change in amount but the C14 does it is referred to as carbon dating or carbon 14 dating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Frankly since you espouse the theory and I have questions about it, and there are things I don't understand but statements about it are made, I would think you would be happy to explain. In possibly simple terms. But if not -- ok...

Do you realize that there is endless scientific evidence for the theory of evolution?

 

[shunyadragon]

I have read that carbon-14 dating is used along with carbon-12 dating as well. Not that I understand the process, perhaps you do. I'll look for the NY Times article.

Moooo! Plop!, the New York Times Article is a mees, not Carbon 12. I need the author; name. IT IS NOT a scientific reference.

One corresponding [with C14] dating method is the Potassium/Argon dating of clays in pottery and other inorganics associated with human activity and sedimentary strata.

K–Ar dating - Wikipedia

Potassium–argon dating, abbreviated K–Ar dating, is a radiometric dating method used in geochronology and archaeology. It is based on measurement of the product of the radioactive decay of an isotope of potassium (K) into argon (Ar). Potassium is a common element found in many materials, such as feldspars, micas, clay minerals, tephra, and evaporites. In these materials, the decay product 40
Ar is able to escape the liquid (molten) rock, but starts to accumulate when the rock solidifies (recrystallizes). The amount of argon sublimation that occurs is a function of the purity of the sample, the composition of the mother material, and a number of other factors. These factors introduce error limits on the upper and lower bounds of dating, so that final determination of age is reliant on the environmental factors during formation, melting, and exposure to decreased pressure or open-air. Time since recrystallization is calculated by measuring the ratio of the amount of 40 Ar accumulated to the amount of 40 K remaining. The long half-life of 40 K allows the method to be used to calculate the absolute age of samples older than a few thousand years.[1]

The quickly cooled lavas that make nearly ideal samples for K–Ar dating also preserve a record of the direction and intensity of the local magnetic field as the sample cooled past the Curie temperature of iron. The geomagnetic polarity time scale was calibrated largely using K–Ar dating

 

[Tiberius]

I have read that carbon-14 dating is used along with carbon-12 dating as well. Not that I understand the process, perhaps you do. I'll look for the NY Times article.

It's looking at the ratio between the two.

Carbon 14 will change over time into nitrogen. Carbon 12 does not. Since we know the relative amounts of Carbon 12 and C14 in the environment, we can compare the amount of each and use that to determine how long it has been since the sample stopped taking in carbon from the environment.

 

[Tiberius]

Frankly since you espouse the theory and I have questions about it, and there are things I don't understand but statements about it are made, I would think you would be happy to explain. In possibly simple terms. But if not -- ok...

My point was that if you were eager to learn, you wouldn't just come in here and demand to be taught. You'd also be doing some learning by yourself.

 

[metis]

Just again i was thinking...I do think, you know... And we're also talking about species. Darwin wrote about species and didn't he seem to classify organisms according to lookalikes?

Ya, we can't go by lookalikes. Instead, it's can a pair produce fertile off springs.

 

[shunyadragon]

We are discussing evolution. So according to what I read, many believe homo sapiens or humanoids (?) had a common denominator among those they call apes. Yet nothing has been ascertained in that respect. And yet I am still concerned about dates.

The problem remains that you lack the knowledge to understand the fossil and genetic evidence for the evolution of humanoids and life in general over periods of millions of years.

Your selective over emphasis of C14 dating does not consider the fact that many fors of radiometric dating and other dating methods that are used in coordination to date the billions of years of the history of the evolution of life, and the history of our earth and the cosmos.

 

[shunyadragon]

I wanted to note the references concerning the dating of the human occupetion of the Levant region and in particular the Megiddo and Beth-Shean sites, Yes the dominant human activity in the Levant is Iron Age communities, but the Megiddo and Beth-Shean were late Bronze Age cities.

 

[YoursTrue]

The connection between the change and diversity ovrt time of species all throughout the history of life is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence In more recent research comparative genetics called.. Genomics, confirms the evolutionary relationship over time.

Please show the research you're talking about.
Furthermore, here is a question -- if you can substantiate it or answer it with facts. What did the first mammals evolve from, and how do you know?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please show the research you're talking about.
Furthermore, here is a question -- if you can substantiate it or answer it with facts. What did the first mammals evolve from, and how do you know?

Wow, that goes back a ways. They would be likely classified as "reptiles" if seen today but they are not today's reptiles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The classification of animals that our common ancestor with reptiles was in were the amniotes. They split up into synapsids, which eventually led to mammals and sauropsids which led to reptiles, dinosaurs and of course birds.

Amniote - Wikipedia

And that is known through the fossil record.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem remains that you lack the knowledge to understand the fossil and genetic evidence for the evolution of humanoids and life in general over periods of millions of years.

Your selective over emphasis of C14 dating does not consider the fact that many fors of radiometric dating and other dating methods that are used in coordination to date the billions of years of the history of the evolution of life, and the history of our earth and the cosmos.

So what is pre-historic man in the form of "humanoids"? Also, what is the proof used to date those billions of years? I am not saying there were not billions of years -- understand? -- but I am asking for -- proof. In the form of explanatory facts.
Facts, please. I mean if you're so sure of your facts I would think you'd be happy to explain. Anyway, whether you insult me or not, I must say you not only have not convinced me of your conjectures as being 'right,', but have proven what some say about those who do not believe in anything to do with creation and will put down anything to do with those who do not agree. Take care...I don't expect a cogent honest answer from you anymore but again -- take care, and these discussions have at shown me that you really can't explain. Beyond conjecture of classifications. Bye again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what is pre-historic man in the form of "humanoids"? Also, what is the proof used to date those billions of years? I am not saying there were not billions of years -- understand? -- but I am asking for -- proof. In the form of explanatory facts.
Facts, please. I mean if you're so sure of your facts I would think you'd be happy to explain. Anyway, whether you insult me or not, I must say you not only have not convinced me of your conjectures as being 'right,', but have proven what some say about those who do not believe in anything to do with creation and will put down anything to do with those who do not agree. Take care...I don't expect a cogent honest answer from you anymore but again -- take care, and these discussions have at shown me that you really can't explain. Beyond conjecture of classifications. Bye again.

When you are talking the history of mammals it is only hundreds of millions of years. And we know absolute dates through radiometric dating. C14 is a type of radiometric dating, but it is not the only one. There are other methods that work for older samples. Before that we only had minimum estimations. For example there are strata that have hundreds of thousands or even millions of annual layers. You can count the layers individually or count in a few areas to get an average number of layers per unit measure and extrapolate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Our recent ancestors are also known through the fossil record. And it is pretty decent up until the point that we left the forests. Forests are terrible environments for preserving fossils so we do not tend to get them from there.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please show the research you're talking about.
Furthermore, here is a question -- if you can substantiate it or answer it with facts. What did the first mammals evolve from, and how do you know?

Waiting . . . The author of the New York Times article

You do not have educational background to even understand the evidence, and your religious agenda precludes any effort on your part to make the effort.

Earliest mammals article on your educational level: Rise of Mammals Article, Mammal Evolution Information, Facts -- National Geographic.

google genomics and do your own homeworks. I am tired of spoon feeding the intentiona ignorant with a religious agenda.

Your selective citations out of context and no scientific journal articles to justify your objections to C14 dating reflect a severe problem on your part of not trying to understand science as science.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's more likely that along the ape line around 6 or 7 million years ago there was a divergence of what eventually became what we call "Homo" and the rest of the ape line, and this is also supported by the genome evidence. However, this is not "proof" but are indications of let's say a "good possibility".

Considering you're talking to someone who believes that God had a distinct hand in forming life and continuing it in its various forms, not saying that some organisms did not interbreed and eventually formed organisms that lost its previous bearers due to migration, perhaps, if you understand what I'm saying -- but am still saying that I believe God formed the heavens and the earth, including animals and humans and plants and fishes. With that in mind, what do scientists say is the distinct forebearer of the ape series?

 

[shunyadragon]

So what is pre-historic man in the form of "humanoids"? Also, what is the proof used to date those billions of years? I am not saying there were not billions of years -- understand? -- but I am asking for -- proof. In the form of explanatory facts.
Facts, please. I mean if you're so sure of your facts I would think you'd be happy to explain. Anyway, whether you insult me or not, I must say you not only have not convinced me of your conjectures as being 'right,', but have proven what some say about those who do not believe in anything to do with creation and will put down anything to do with those who do not agree. Take care...I don't expect a cogent honest answer from you anymore but again -- take care, and these discussions have at shown me that you really can't explain. Beyond conjecture of classifications. Bye again.

Again your intentional ignorance of the sciences of evolution precludes my ability to answer your questions because you do not do your own homework.

I actually have seen this article in the New York Times before, and I believe it written by a non-scientific journalist with an ID agenda.

Again, again and again . . . there is no such thing as 'proof' in science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Waiting . . . The author of the New York Times article

You do not have educational background to even understand the evidence, and your religious agenda precludes any effort on your part to make the effort.

Earliest mammals article on your educational level: Rise of Mammals Article, Mammal Evolution Information, Facts -- National Geographic.

google genomics and do your own homeworks. I am tired of spoon feeding the intentiona ignorant with a religious agenda.

Your selective citations out of context and no scientific journal articles to justify your objections to C14 dating reflect a severe problem on your part of not trying to understand science as science.

First of all, I'm not objecting to carbon-14 dating. I'm saying they may not be accurate, according to -- ?? -- -- scientists.
Waiting for your put-downs as usual -- but here is the name of the author as I see it: Malcolm W. Browne. Title of article is:
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING, and was written way back in 1990. Waiting for your put-downs once again, my dear Shunya.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again your intentional ignorance of the sciences of evolution precludes my ability to answer your questions because you do not do your own homework.

I actually have seen this article in the New York Times before, and I believe it written by a non-scientific journalist with an ID agenda.

Again, again and again . . . there is no such thing as 'proof' in science.

OK, the NY Times article you claim was written by a journalist with an ID agenda, you say? (wow.) So did he lie when he quoted the scientists, you think? OK, yes -- we're getting finished, you and I. Take care once again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Considering you're talking to someone who believes that God had a distinct hand in forming life and continuing it in its various forms, not saying that some organisms did not interbreed and eventually formed organisms that lost its previous bearers due to migration, perhaps, if you understand what I'm saying -- but am still saying that I believe God formed the heavens and the earth, including animals and humans and plants and fishes. With that in mind, what do scientists say is the distinct forebearer of the ape series?

Why believe that God had to have a hand in it all of the time? That implies that God is incompetent. You might change your attitude a bit and say that evolution tells us how God did it.