Hint: Written back in 1990 by a photographer journalist without a degree in science,
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How would we know if a species was newly evolved?
- Thread starter Dan From Smithville
- Start date
Hint: Written back in 1990 by a photographer journalist without a degree in science,
rational experiences
Veteran Member
A human the human is first. Lives exact and is self informed exact. Position one I live I own the human life body presence. Thinker thinking words my position first one is a human.
Owns human's body genesis said and stated to a human by a medical scientist. A human owns their human self.
Now I have to tell you I never needed you to tell me that advice human egotists as first I know I own it naturally. My human life.
So I'm told I have to tell you a living human genesis type is 120 years life in biology.
So any topic not relative to a baby human 120 year genetic biology history life span is fake and evil as human thoughts.
Don't ever use dead themes said humans in any type of living human subject.
From self life attacked by human scientists technology history. Lived and learnt before.
As natural life is a humans natural learning status. And today a lot of humans prove they personally haven't learnt anything about fake human behaviour.
I'm a human I look at an ape. In the apes body conscious type I don't exist. The human. My thoughts say you are dead non existent as the human as advised instantly.
Why human theists were told they are destroyer Satanists. Holy human consciousness is self present and instant. And medical advice was given direct to a human from nature.
And we were told to abide human holiness or be destroyed as humans warnings were about human scientists as egotists.
Meaning ist. Topic and subject chosen by a human only and both topic and subject are no condition human.
Owns human's body genesis said and stated to a human by a medical scientist. A human owns their human self.
Now I have to tell you I never needed you to tell me that advice human egotists as first I know I own it naturally. My human life.
So I'm told I have to tell you a living human genesis type is 120 years life in biology.
So any topic not relative to a baby human 120 year genetic biology history life span is fake and evil as human thoughts.
Don't ever use dead themes said humans in any type of living human subject.
From self life attacked by human scientists technology history. Lived and learnt before.
As natural life is a humans natural learning status. And today a lot of humans prove they personally haven't learnt anything about fake human behaviour.
I'm a human I look at an ape. In the apes body conscious type I don't exist. The human. My thoughts say you are dead non existent as the human as advised instantly.
Why human theists were told they are destroyer Satanists. Holy human consciousness is self present and instant. And medical advice was given direct to a human from nature.
And we were told to abide human holiness or be destroyed as humans warnings were about human scientists as egotists.
Meaning ist. Topic and subject chosen by a human only and both topic and subject are no condition human.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Early mammals evolved from creatures commonly referred to as mammal-like reptiles. They were also called Synapsids. I've already mentioned that group in this thread, and I've also clearly stated that mammals evolved from them.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
After my discussions with you and Mr. Shunydragon and a few others promoting and espousing the veracity of the theory of evolution, my believing what evolutionists say has been diminished. But thanks anyway.
Why?
Where is the flaw in what we have told you about evolution?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
OK, now it's my turn to hope that you find substance in your claims. Bye for now...As the saying goes, I'm beginning to see the light...
Those sources do not quote scientists, except for soundbites. They are written by journalists who often don't properly understand the science they are reporting on.
You have learned nothing if you think the NY Times is a better source than the scientists themselves.
Oh, and given that I've seen you get the answer to something, and then later as the question about it, it would seem that you haven't actually learned from our attempts to provide you with accurate information about evolution. Otherwise you would have listened the first time the information was given to you.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
LOL. After talking with scientists like you, I'll pass.
You're not going to learn anything if you keep walking away from people who tell you that you still have a lot to learn.
By doing that, you only ensure you will remain ignorant of science.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The point I made was not that God didn't make all but what's the process He used? Clearly, the evolution of life forms is a large part of that process.
This link should help: Early Primate Evolution: The First Primates (palomar.edu)
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
When you say "large part," let's be honest -- evolutionists don't even know how it was done. They may make assertions, such as chemical elements bonding, and so forth, but honestly they don't know. I believe that humans produce offspring that vary for the most part, one from the other. Meaning that the differing characteristics of mankind comes from the combining of genes. But this does not prove, or mean, that fish evolved to become mammals.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I looked at the link and wonder how the writers came up with the following statement: "The first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch (65.5-55.8 million years ago)" My question is about the date of 65.5-55.8 million years ago. Any idea?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Could you provide a source to support your claim that we don't know how evolution works?
Because the scientists who actually study it have a very good idea how evolution works.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Do you mean how they determined that age for the rocks?
The statement is correct. They determined these dates by correlating different dating methods from different fossil finds around the world. C14 dating is not used for for organic material that old. As referenced K-Ar dating is the best primary for rocks and other materials correlated with other dating methods described below for rocks associated with organics This article goes into more detail on how dating methods are used.
Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable.
Name of Method Age Range of Application Material Dated Methodology
Radiocarbon
1 - 70,000 years Organic material such as bones, wood, charcoal, shells
Radioactive decay of 14C in organic matter after removal from bioshpere. [Note: In older materials before about ~30,000 years, best correlated with other dating methods like K-Ar for older organic materials,]
K-Ar dating 1,000 - billion of years
Potassium-bearing minerals and glasses
Radioactive decay of 40K in rocks and minerals
Uranium-Lead 10,000 - billion of years
Uranium-bearing minerals
Radioactive decay of uranium to lead via two separate decay chains
Uranium series 1,000 - 500,000 years
Uranium-bearing minerals, corals, shells, teeth, CaCO3
Radioactive decay of 234U to 230Th Fission track 1,000 - billion of years Uranium-bearing minerals and glasses
Measurement of damage tracks in glass and minerals from the radioactive decay of 238U
Luminescence (optically or thermally stimulated) 1,000 - 1,000,000 years
Quartz, feldspar, stone tools, pottery Burial or heating age based on the accumulation of radiation-induced damage to electron sitting in mineral lattices
Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) 1,000 - 3,000,000 years
Uranium-bearing materials in which uranium has been absorbed from outside sources
Burial age based on abundance of radiation-induced paramagnetic centers in mineral lattices
Cosmogenic Nuclides 1,000 - 5,000,000 years
Typically quartz or olivine from volcanic or sedimentary rocks
Radioactive decay of cosmic-ray generated nuclides in surficial environments.
Magnetostratigraphy 20,000 - billion of years
Sedimentary and volcanic rocks.
Measurement of ancient polarity of the earth's magnetic field recorded in a stratigraphic succession
Tephrochronology 100 - billions of years
Volcanic ejecta - Uses chemistry and age of volcanic deposits to establish links between distant stratigraphic successions
Table 1. Comparison of commonly used dating methods.
Radiation, which is a byproduct of radioactive decay, causes electrons to dislodge from their normal position in atoms and become trapped in imperfections in the crystal structure of the material. Dating methods like thermoluminescence, optical stimulating luminescence and electron spin resonance, measure the accumulation of electrons in these imperfections, or "traps," in the crystal structure of the material. If the amount of radiation to which an object is exposed remains constant, the amount of electrons trapped in the imperfections in the crystal structure of the material will be proportional to the age of the material. These methods are applicable to materials that are up to about 100,000 years old. However, once rocks or fossils become much older than that, all of the "traps" in the crystal structures become full and no more electrons can accumulate, even if they are dislodged.
Using paleomagnetism to date rocks and fossils
The Earth is like a gigantic magnet. It has a magnetic north and south pole and its magnetic field is everywhere (Figure 6a). Just as the magnetic needle in a compass will point toward magnetic north, small magnetic minerals that occur naturally in rocks point toward magnetic north, approximately parallel to the Earth's magnetic field. Because of this, magnetic minerals in rocks are excellent recorders of the orientation, or polarity, of the Earth's magnetic field.
Last edited:
Prefered peer reviewed scientific articles.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's been explained to you many times before and the best you can do is to come back with the above nonsense? If we are so ignorant as you're implying we are, then how in the heck can scientists build nuclear reactors if they don't supposedly understand how radioactivity works? How can they produce vaccines if they supposedly don't know how viruses can and do often mutate?
Thus, I find your post above to be very insulting, which should be beneath your dignity as a Christian.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Any idea about what? If it is what I think you're asking, all dating is given within a range of accuracy since no form of dating is perfect. Thus, that date range above is viewed as being at least 90% accurate.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'm asking how do you think or know that "The first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch (65.5-55.8 million years ago)" My question is about the date of 65.5-55.8 million years ago. Any idea how they arrived at those dates?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Sorry about that. I'm not implying you're ignorant, although I've been told often by at least one prominent poster here that I am ignorant again and again. And again, yes, I'm asking how and why, if you know, why the scientists say about the date regarding the first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch (65.5-55.8 million years ago)" My question is about the date of 65.5-55.8 million years ago. Any idea? I don't think evolution (the total theory of) is like producing vaccines
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
While it seems and is interesting about gigantic magnetic properties of the earth, thank you for exposing what you believe or understand about dating process of millions of years in the past. It nevertheless does not prove evolution. As far as I am concerned. But thanks for offering that explanation.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No. Not particularly about the rocks. Rather how did they determine when the first so-called primate-like mammals evolved so many millions of years ago. Shunydragon offered his thought about the dating process. I wasn't particularly wondering about the dating of the rocks but rather the scientificly oriented decision that these primate-like mammals evolved like 50 millions of years ago or so.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The support is that no one has seen actual organisms evolve, move, or shift from one type of organism to another. That's it. There are no photographs of genes building into another type of organism. I know the arguments by now that it takes lots and lots of time and incrementally small changes, but there is no proof of that. And of course, no science has proof, is that right?