About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but there is no proof in science, you and others have said that, and that includes veracity of dating of fossils. Since you just used the word proof to me vs. conjecture, can you show, prove, or demonstrate your beliefs? My guess is -- no, you cannot. And of course, once put in that position, you will just retort more or less that I don't know what I'm talking about and you do. So once again, may you have a good night as time moves on. As the saying goes, and I believe it's true -- tomorrow is another day. Even though the day starts with darkness. Maybe you believe that or maybe you don't. Anyway, I wish you well. OK, you may not use the same words I do, but the implication is clear.

LOL! You need to pay better attention. There is no "proof" because that leads to closed minds. Like creationists have.. Oddly enough they have no evidence.

We have ample evidence. By the standards of a murder trial we do have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". But scientists are willing to entertain even an unreasonable doubt, as long as people can find at least some evidence for their claims.

This is why you need to learn what evidence is.

 

[F1fan]

@Subduction Zone Honest -- you offer nothing other than opinion based on what some believe is "evidence" of "natural selection." The more I read, the more I see it just isn't true. Micro and macro evolution are not the same. But you probably say they are.
Now you have helped me to see the situation for what it is. (Untrue. You don't like the word conjecture...<g> do you...) But I thank you for the extended discussion, showing me that the theory is really unsubstantiated except by opinions. Leaving out the word conjecture as to dates, cave drawings, soil dating, etec. and etc. You've offered no rational explanation just continued opinion and putting me down, and others who don't go along with your theory down, and by explanation I mean explanatory answers with substance. I believed everything they taught me when I was in school about "evolution." Now I realize it's opinion about what scientists consider as "evidence." The sun is shining -- it's the same day even from the night darkness.

So you think scientists are corrupt and all of them are involved in a huge conspiracy? Are you going to the newspapers to expose this massive coverup and deception? You will be famous, and on all the talk shows. Think of the money you will make.

 

[YoursTrue]

Stop using stupid arguments please.

If you ask honest questions I will answer them. But harping on something that you do not understand will not help you. It is also highly dishonest. If you needed more details on why the carbon14 dating was probably the right one you should have admitted to not understanding.

There have been one or two here that have answered respectfully and honestly. That doesn't include you, btw, no insult intended, just truth. So because of your attitude, I won't go on to discuss some other things i've been reading about regarding evolution. But that's ok. Have a nice day, not tomorrow, but today. ;-)

 

[Subduction Zone]

There have been one or two here that have answered respectfully and honestly. That doesn't include you, btw, no insult intended, just truth. So because of your attitude, I won't go on to discuss some other things i've been reading about regarding evolution. But that's ok. Have a nice day, not tomorrow, but today. ;-)

You have been far more rude than you realize. I have been less rude than you have been. You cannot even deal with how you have been rude.

Others have not tried to help you as much as I have. Meanwhile you keep using improper debating techniques. You made false accusations against scientists, a very serious thing. That is why I used the child molestation example. You would have been rightfully angry if someone did that to you. Why do you think that when you do that you can get away Scot free?

 

[Audie]

So you think scientists are corrupt and all of them are involved in a huge conspiracy? Are you going to the newspapers to expose this massive coverup and deception? You will be famous, and on all the talk shows. Think of the
money you will make.

The Grim Spectre of the WWCOSSTDTWOG

 

[Astrophile]

Ok so the fossils are not dated. The surrounding sediment is, right?

No, you are not quite right, and I think that you are confusing the depositional age of sedimentary rocks with the ages of their components. I will try to explain the matter in detail, starting with the difference between sedimentary and igneous rocks.

Igneous rocks (including volcanic ash beds) are formed by solidification of a magma (molten rock). The age of an igneous rock is the time when the magma solidified; it can be determined directly by radiometric dating (e.g. uranium-lead (U-Pb), 40Ar-39Ar or rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) dating) of the rock. Clastic sedimentary rocks (such as shale, sandstone and conglomerate), on the other hand, consist of material eroded from older rock formations.

The geological age of a sedimentary rock (and the fossils that it contains) is the time when it was deposited, for example on the bed of the sea, a lake or a river. This depositional age is, of course, younger than the age of the source rocks that the sediments were derived from. This difference is a matter of the first importance, and it is essential that you understand it. The depositional age can only be determined indirectly, by interpolation, as I shall explain below.

A sedimentary rock formation may contain fragments of igneous rocks or mineral crystals derived from igneous rocks, and the ages of these fragments or minerals can, in principle, be determined by radiometric dating. However, these ages are not the depositional age of the sedimentary rock, and they are not the age that geologists attribute to the rock. Again, it is important that you understand this distinction.

As Subduction Zone and others have already explained, the depositional age of a sedimentary rock formation and the fossils it contains is determined by interpolation, using the radiometric ages of volcanic rocks (such as ash beds) above and below the sedimentary formation. It should be obvious that the sedimentary rocks of a formation were deposited after the volcanic ash bed below it and before the volcanic ash bed above it. I repeat, again as a matter of the first importance, that a sedimentary formation is not dated from the material of the sediments themselves or from igneous fragments or mineral crystals derived from the source rocks.

The fossils in a sedimentary rock were deposited at the same time as the sediments themselves, and therefore after any underlying ash beds and before any overlying ash beds. The fossils are, of course, younger than igneous material derived from the source rocks of the sedimentary formation, but this is not important. As I have explained, the age of any such inherited igneous material is not used as a measure of the depositional age of the sedimentary rock.

I have tried to explain this as clearly as possible. If you still do not understand how fossils are dated, please say so, and I will try to explain it more clearly.

 

[Audie]

No, you are not quite right, and I think that you are confusing the depositional age of sedimentary rocks with the ages of their components. I will try to explain the matter in detail, starting with the difference between sedimentary and igneous rocks.

Igneous rocks (including volcanic ash beds) are formed by solidification of a magma (molten rock). The age of an igneous rock is the time when the magma solidified; it can be determined directly by radiometric dating (e.g. uranium-lead (U-Pb), 40Ar-39Ar or rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) dating) of the rock. Clastic sedimentary rocks (such as shale, sandstone and conglomerate), on the other hand, consist of material eroded from older rock formations.

The geological age of a sedimentary rock (and the fossils that it contains) is the time when it was deposited, for example on the bed of the sea, a lake or a river. This depositional age is, of course, younger than the age of the source rocks that the sediments were derived from. This difference is a matter of the first importance, and it is essential that you understand it. The depositional age can only be determined indirectly, by interpolation, as I shall explain below.

A sedimentary rock formation may contain fragments of igneous rocks or mineral crystals derived from igneous rocks, and the ages of these fragments or minerals can, in principle, be determined by radiometric dating. However, these ages are not the depositional age of the sedimentary rock, and they are not the age that geologists attribute to the rock. Again, it is important that you understand this distinction.

As Subduction Zone and others have already explained, the depositional age of a sedimentary rock formation and the fossils it contains is determined by interpolation, using the radiometric ages of volcanic rocks (such as ash beds) above and below the sedimentary formation. It should be obvious that the sedimentary rocks of a formation were deposited after the volcanic ash bed below it and before the volcanic ash bed above it. I repeat, again as a matter of the first importance, that a sedimentary formation is not dated from the material of the sediments themselves or from igneous fragments or mineral crystals derived from the source rocks.

The fossils in a sedimentary rock were deposited at the same time as the sediments themselves, and therefore after any underlying ash beds and before any overlying ash beds. The fossils are, of course, younger than igneous material derived from the source rocks of the sedimentary formation, but this is not important. As I have explained, the age of any such inherited igneous material is not used as a measure of the depositional age of the sedimentary rock.

I have tried to explain this as clearly as possible. If you still do not understand how fossils are dated, please say so, and I will try to explain it more clearly.

Or. In fewer words, any gold on earth
is at least as old as the solar system.

A gold coin with Ju.ius Caesar on
it is dated to about 2k yrs old.
One with QEIi, less than 70 years old.

Even if it's in like a really old box.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you are not quite right, and I think that you are confusing the depositional age of sedimentary rocks with the ages of their components. I will try to explain the matter in detail, starting with the difference between sedimentary and igneous rocks.

Igneous rocks (including volcanic ash beds) are formed by solidification of a magma (molten rock). The age of an igneous rock is the time when the magma solidified; it can be determined directly by radiometric dating (e.g. uranium-lead (U-Pb), 40Ar-39Ar or rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) dating) of the rock. Clastic sedimentary rocks (such as shale, sandstone and conglomerate), on the other hand, consist of material eroded from older rock formations.

The geological age of a sedimentary rock (and the fossils that it contains) is the time when it was deposited, for example on the bed of the sea, a lake or a river. This depositional age is, of course, younger than the age of the source rocks that the sediments were derived from. This difference is a matter of the first importance, and it is essential that you understand it. The depositional age can only be determined indirectly, by interpolation, as I shall explain below.

A sedimentary rock formation may contain fragments of igneous rocks or mineral crystals derived from igneous rocks, and the ages of these fragments or minerals can, in principle, be determined by radiometric dating. However, these ages are not the depositional age of the sedimentary rock, and they are not the age that geologists attribute to the rock. Again, it is important that you understand this distinction.

As Subduction Zone and others have already explained, the depositional age of a sedimentary rock formation and the fossils it contains is determined by interpolation, using the radiometric ages of volcanic rocks (such as ash beds) above and below the sedimentary formation. It should be obvious that the sedimentary rocks of a formation were deposited after the volcanic ash bed below it and before the volcanic ash bed above it. I repeat, again as a matter of the first importance, that a sedimentary formation is not dated from the material of the sediments themselves or from igneous fragments or mineral crystals derived from the source rocks.

The fossils in a sedimentary rock were deposited at the same time as the sediments themselves, and therefore after any underlying ash beds and before any overlying ash beds. The fossils are, of course, younger than igneous material derived from the source rocks of the sedimentary formation, but this is not important. As I have explained, the age of any such inherited igneous material is not used as a measure of the depositional age of the sedimentary rock.

I have tried to explain this as clearly as possible. If you still do not understand how fossils are dated, please say so, and I will try to explain it more clearly.

Thank you. My main interest is dating fossils considered human. Of the homo sapien variety.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you are not quite right, and I think that you are confusing the depositional age of sedimentary rocks with the ages of their components. I will try to explain the matter in detail, starting with the difference between sedimentary and igneous rocks.

Igneous rocks (including volcanic ash beds) are formed by solidification of a magma (molten rock). The age of an igneous rock is the time when the magma solidified; it can be determined directly by radiometric dating (e.g. uranium-lead (U-Pb), 40Ar-39Ar or rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) dating) of the rock. Clastic sedimentary rocks (such as shale, sandstone and conglomerate), on the other hand, consist of material eroded from older rock formations.

The geological age of a sedimentary rock (and the fossils that it contains) is the time when it was deposited, for example on the bed of the sea, a lake or a river. This depositional age is, of course, younger than the age of the source rocks that the sediments were derived from. This difference is a matter of the first importance, and it is essential that you understand it. The depositional age can only be determined indirectly, by interpolation, as I shall explain below.

A sedimentary rock formation may contain fragments of igneous rocks or mineral crystals derived from igneous rocks, and the ages of these fragments or minerals can, in principle, be determined by radiometric dating. However, these ages are not the depositional age of the sedimentary rock, and they are not the age that geologists attribute to the rock. Again, it is important that you understand this distinction.

As Subduction Zone and others have already explained, the depositional age of a sedimentary rock formation and the fossils it contains is determined by interpolation, using the radiometric ages of volcanic rocks (such as ash beds) above and below the sedimentary formation. It should be obvious that the sedimentary rocks of a formation were deposited after the volcanic ash bed below it and before the volcanic ash bed above it. I repeat, again as a matter of the first importance, that a sedimentary formation is not dated from the material of the sediments themselves or from igneous fragments or mineral crystals derived from the source rocks.

The fossils in a sedimentary rock were deposited at the same time as the sediments themselves, and therefore after any underlying ash beds and before any overlying ash beds. The fossils are, of course, younger than igneous material derived from the source rocks of the sedimentary formation, but this is not important. As I have explained, the age of any such inherited igneous material is not used as a measure of the depositional age of the sedimentary rock.

I have tried to explain this as clearly as possible. If you still do not understand how fossils are dated, please say so, and I will try to explain it more clearly.

Furthermore, I'm not so sure how long those sedimentary rock formations were there by each layer before fossils were deposited on that layer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you. My main interest is dating fossils considered human. Of the homo sapien variety.

Homo sapiens are very recent. Why are you trying to understand the dating of Homo sapiens?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Furthermore, I'm not so sure how long those sedimentary rock formations were there by each layer before fossils were deposited on that layer.

What? This is unclear. I do not know what you are asking here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

(I used to love to read anthropology books in my spare time in college. I found it fascinating.)
So, regardless of our--humans--makeup, it has been said many times by those who profess to know that writing has entered the picture only within the last 5,000 years. So here is my point regarding the natural selection in this area, mankind of the homo sapien kind is said to have been in existence for 200,000 years. So now it is obviously reasonable that when "homo sapiens" first appeared, they probably didn't know much more than whoever their predecessors were in the sense of writing, keeping records, making shoes, clothing, etc. Would you agree with that as an assumption? (And, of course, are their predecessors really known?)

It seems you are looking at writing as if it is a part of biological evolution. This is incorrect. It is more cultural then anything else. A homo sapiens of 4000 years ago is biologically pretty much the same as one from 50.000 years ago.

The main difference between them is culture.
Hunter - gatherer nomads had no use for writing.

The advent of writing pretty much follows closely after the "discovery" of agriculture and homo sapiens settling down in one area, creating settlements and giving up the nomadic lifestyle.

This creates a situation where for the first time in history, people started "owning" more stuff then they can carry. The idea of "property" arose. Agriculture also introduced the idea of stockpiling food and rationing. Trade with other tribes / settlements took off also.

All this quickly ends up in a need to keep records and track of things.
Then comes "engineering". The building of tools and ever more complex structures. All of which are also served with keeping records and making plans and stuff.

So the development of writing really simply goes hand in hand with a lifestyle of settling down in one spot and staying there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK. which leads me to a few more questions. And the reason I ask is because no matter how I figure it, there is no finding of actual evidence from that UCA to gorillas and hominids and humans. But genetically they are not the same because -- gorillas remain gorillas, humans remain humans. And I still want to find out more about genetics. Racial characteristics and differences are not the same as those between gorillas and bonobos.

if gorillas would produce non-gorillas, or if humans would produce non-humans, then EVOLUTION WOULD BE FALSIFIED

I pointed this out to you only a bazillion times before.
How many more times before it will sink in?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, where is the evidence of a Common Ancestor that is said yet to be "unknown" that burgeoned out branches or species or types such as gorillas, monkeys, bonobos, chimpanzees and, of course, hominids. Where is the "evidence" of a Common Ancestor?

DNA.

Humans and the other great apes (and all other mammals, etc) sharing ancestors is a genetic fact

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was thinking about this. The problem in my mind is that the theory goes against what the Bible says.

That is indeed the only "problem" here.
The "problem" with evolution exists entirely and exclusively in your own mind, in that it contradicts your a priori faith based beliefs.

That's it. That's the only problem that evolution triggers in your head.

Ignoring your a priori faith based beliefs (=a rational thing to do) and this "problem" evaporates.

Your "problem" with evolution is akin to a believer in gravity regulating undetectable graviton pixies having a problem with Einstein's relativity.

The problem exists ONLY in your head.

.but again, horses remain horses for the most part, don't they?

As evolution predicts, yes.
if horses would produce non-horses, evolution would be falsified.
Gazillionth time that that is pointed out.

Somehow, I doubt it won't be the last time either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just so I understand, in other words, you believe one species can evolve to more than that, and eventually the offshoots cannot interbreed.

That's not a belief. That's a fact.

Look up ring species for real-time examples of just that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, I understand that it says a new species that does not interbreed with other once-related birds occurred. Here again I will say that while it is interesting, they are still birds

if birds would produce non-birds, then evolution would be FALSIFIED

. And this also can be used for evidence about the animals on the ark, that it didn't take that long for variances within species to occur (I won't use the word kind now because I'm still not sure of the validity (differences) of these things).

No, it can't.
First, your silly ark story would not only require "super duper evolution"... it would require mega-super-duper-insanely-fast-evolution on steroids and emfetamines to the point of utter absurdity.

It would require upwards of 20 speciation events per day to achieve the amount of diversification we observe today.

It's utterly bonkers.

Next, it would also mean there are MASSIVE genetic bottlenecks in ALL species dating to the same period just a few thousands years ago, and those simply DO NOT EXIST.

There are fairy tales that are more plausible then that silly ark story.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do understand the concept of evolution.

If you did, people wouldn't have to point out the absurdity of you saying "BUT THEY REMAIN BIRDS / GORILLAS / FISH / ...." every other post.

Someone who says such things thinking they are making a valid point against evolution, clearly has no working understanding of even only the basics of evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

oh boy...

Ok here it is, Hebrews 3:4
"For every house has a builder, but the one who built everything is God."

It depends on your concept of what everything is. Another day, though, for that. Meantime, the complexity of DNA and other structures shows me that there is/must be a higher power. With intelligence.

Complexity is not an indicator of design.

What you do there, is textbook argument from awe / incredulity / ignorance.

 

[Astrophile]

OK. which leads me to a few more questions. And the reason I ask is because no matter how I figure it, there is no finding of actual evidence from that UCA to gorillas and hominids and humans. But genetically they are not the same because -- gorillas remain gorillas, humans remain humans. And I still want to find out more about genetics. Racial characteristics and differences are not the same as those between gorillas and bonobos.

There is strong evidence that our ancestors of about 2-5 million years ago belonged to the genus Australopithecus. As these ancestors evolved into the genus Homo, did they remain australopithecines? If so, we ought to be classified as australopithecines. If not, what becomes of your assertion that gorillas will always remain gorillas and humans will always remain humans?