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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No. But chances are that soil moves, erodes, gets into anything that might be embedded in it. Don't you think so?
I'm not speaking of dating the earth anyway. Rocks were around a lonnnnggg time before animals were.
Or don't you think so?
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?
Regardless of the area of your expertise, would you say that water was here before lions? How about rocks? Were they here before humans?
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.
Yes to all three based on the overwhelming evidence.
Yes and no.I'm not speaking of dating the earth anyway. Rocks were around a lonnnnggg time before animals were.
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?
And so? That again could alter dating sequences if crashes from outer space occurred.
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."
Again, this is not my area of expertise, thus I can't answer this.
All forms are "transitional" if they survive and reproduce.
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.
OK, so in harmony with the question (OP) what, in your opinion, or that gleaned from scientists, is the latest animal species?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.