Evolution My ToE

[YoursTrue]

Would you please like to tell us the title of the book and the names of the authors?

What has radioactive dating got to do with the biology of micro-organisms?

There are many phases of life to get involved in, professionally or otherwise speaking. While interesting, I must say I don't have the time to read all the great details in this book. I do have my questions about dating. Right now, aside from the idea that these things just "came about" by themselves, my main question is about the dating process.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's a very big and heavy book, but I got it because I thought maybe it would teach me something. The title is Brock Biology of Microorganisms. The authors went into radioactive dating giving several pages regarding Microbial Diversity, stating that a theme that unifies all of biology is evolution, then discussing the formation and early history of earth. Like I said, it is a huge book. 12th Edition, 2009 Pearson Education. I bought it used, there are later editions, you can look up the authors. Look for Brock Biology of Microorganisms, Pearson Education.

That is a college-level text for use in introductory microbiology classes. Students taking such courses and using that text would have had a fair amount of introductory education in biology prior to taking the course.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are many phases of life to get involved in, professionally or otherwise speaking. While interesting, I must say I don't have the time to read all the great details in this book. I do have my questions about dating. Right now, aside from the idea that these things just "came about" by themselves, my main question is about the dating process.

Even the internet has some good science-based reviews of econometric dating. Wikipedia is not a bad start as a basis for learning about it.

What do you mean "just came about"?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'll try again to see if it makes sense to you. The events in the Bible have not changed for many, many centuries. The Masoretes fastidiously copied down the accounts for a long time, and although no original manuscripts survive of the writings of the prophets, they were copied by the Jews for centuries, they have not changed insofar as I know for the centuries prior to the Masoretes as well. But the theory of evolution does change. Presumably new data arises so questions and new assumptions come into play. So I was thinking about a few things lately. One is about dating. When did calendars begin? Or time tables by the ancients? With gorillas? Or ants? No. Only with humans. What happened before humans started counting time on the "6th day" is clearly not that which was tabulated by humans. The days before that was in God's time. Another is Einstein's theory of relativity, which also relates to time. According to the Bible, and I see no reason to dispute it, no human was alive counting time when animals were created. So God's counting (as Einstein may have indirectly touched on) is not like man's counting of time, which is according to the sun and moon phases relative to the earth and man. (Animals don't need to count time, planting crops, keeping records, memories, and so forth.)
Too bad I didn't speak to Asimov about this when I would see him, but then -- I wasn't a believer then. Anyway, it's possible I can see him again, and hopefully he appreciates what he will learn, which no man can duplicate. Ever.

It is not a valid comparison. As far as I know the works of Shakespeare have not been altered over time either, but that has no impact on a scientific theory. It certainly does not make Hamlet true and the ToE false.

A theory may be falsified by new data that cannot be explained by the theory. This is because we cannot know all the data before formulating the theory with the data we have.

Surely you do not think interpretation of the Bible has remained static for the last 1700 years and that no knew knowledge about It has come to light over that time.

How did you know Asimov? You did not by chance know Robert Heinlein too?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists predict that the whole human race will probably not be wiped out from this virus.

I would not expect that since a large number have already recovered and mortality is not as high as was with the plague.

 

[Astrophile]

It's a very big and heavy book, but I got it because I thought maybe it would teach me something. The title is Brock Biology of Microorganisms. The authors went into radioactive dating giving several pages regarding Microbial Diversity, stating that a theme that unifies all of biology is evolution, then discussing the formation and early history of earth. Like I said, it is a huge book. 12th Edition, 2009 Pearson Education. I bought it used, there are later editions, you can look up the authors. Look for Brock Biology of Microorganisms, Pearson Education.

Thank-you for your post, and for the information in it. Brock Biology of Microorganisms is certainly a big book, amounting to 1058 pages. Looking at the contents list and the index, I see that there is a fair amount about the evolution of micro-organisms. I do not have enough time now to comment on your doubts about radioactive dating, but later I may be able to recommend some books that would provide you with more information on the subject.

 

[metis]

Since we know how to build nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, we well know how radiation works and is or can be used.

However, the one dating technique that must be adjusted periodically is C-14 because the amount of radiation that may reach an organism can vary from year to year. Tree rings are typically used as well as stratification.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank-you for your post, and for the information in it. Brock Biology of Microorganisms is certainly a big book, amounting to 1058 pages. Looking at the contents list and the index, I see that there is a fair amount about the evolution of micro-organisms. I do not have enough time now to comment on your doubts about radioactive dating, but later I may be able to recommend some books that would provide you with more information on the subject.

Yes, I have to say that while it is rather technical (for me), it is still an interesting book. I am sure I cannot read it all -- after all, I'm still reading a biography of Einstein as well as other interesting subjects. Yes, I would like to go over the information about radioactive dating.
BUT! here is a quote from the first post on this thread, and I'd like to know your answer to this:
"I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true."
(Do you agree...?)

 

[YoursTrue]

Since we know how to build nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, we well know how radiation works and is or can be used.

However, the one dating technique that must be adjusted periodically is C-14 because the amount of radiation that may reach an organism can vary from year to year. Tree rings are typically used as well as stratification.

I'm not asking about that -- I'm asking basically how is it that dating can be done like for millions or billions of years ago.

 

[metis]

I'm not asking about that -- I'm asking basically how is it that dating can be done like for millions or billions of years ago.

Radiation is the answer, and we well know how that works. Matter of fact, scientists are analyzing the background radiation from the BB given off 13.8 billion years ago, looking for the general patterns of that expansion (actually two expansions a minute fraction of a second apart). Much is already know from these, and such use of forensics helps us to understand what happened even if it doesn't tell us why it happened in terms of what was the Ultimate cause-- the "Immoveable Mover" as Aquinas called God.

 

[MNoBody]

while all these theories are very learned and fascinating
the thing that has always stood out has been
the anthropocentric stance these theories are all formed from
like a hermetically sealed bubble
with no outside vectors of influence taken into account or consideration at all.
curious but not too mysterious as sense based creatures can only handle what they perceive, and there is far more going on than the rudimentary 5-senses of man reveal, and man has a stunted perceptual mechanism which only feebly for most picks up the 5 basic senses and most don't even believe in any other sensory mechanism other than superstitiously

 

[Polymath257]

Radiation is the answer, and we well know how that works. Matter of fact, scientists are analyzing the background radiation from the BB given off 13.8 billion years ago, looking for the general patterns of that expansion (actually two expansions a minute fraction of a second apart). Much is already know from these, and such use of forensics helps us to understand what happened even if it doesn't tell us why it happened in terms of what was the Ultimate cause-- the "Immoveable Mover" as Aquinas called God.

To be fair, the background radiation is NOT the same as nuclear radiation. The CMBR is an almost perfect black-body radiation, corresponding to a peak in the micro-wave region of the spectrum.

Nuclear radiation, if it is electromagnetic, is usually gamma rays, which are many orders of magnitude more energetic than microwaves. But most radioactive dating is not done with gamma rays because they don't change the isotope of the element undergoing that decay.

Most dating based on radioactivity is either alpha or beta decay. Alpha decay is an emission of a helium nucleus and beta decay happens when a neutron changes into a proton and an electron (with the electron being emitted).

 

[Bear Wild]

while all these theories are very learned and fascinating
the thing that has always stood out has been
the anthropocentric stance these theories are all formed from
like a hermetically sealed bubble
with no outside vectors of influence taken into account or consideration at all.
curious but not too mysterious as sense based creatures can only handle what they perceive, and there is far more going on than the rudimentary 5-senses of man reveal, and man has a stunted perceptual mechanism which only feebly for most picks up the 5 basic senses and most don't even believe in any other sensory mechanism other than superstitiously

Humans may be limited in our direct senses but humans have also been very creative finding ways to look at the world through instruments to measure and translate things we cannot perceive into something we our senses can perceive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As Einstein alluded to, and I paraphrase, it can be good to keep questioning. I am not speaking of looking at things in a microscope, or seeing a star burst through a telescope. That's like looking at a desk or piece of paper. It's there. It's self-evident. Here's the point. When Haeckel's idea of the successive steps in evolution were written in textbooks, students believed them, there was no reason for me and most others to question these things. Including the idea of vestigial organs considered not necessary years ago. Again, I'm not speaking of various unique distinctions of bacteria. Those things are evident.

Just FYI: "vestigial" does not imply "useless" by any means, nore did it in the past to my knowledge.

 

[metis]

To be fair, the background radiation is NOT the same as nuclear radiation.

Yes, and thanks for the correction.

On this, what my point was that it's the measurement of half-lives of the various forms of radiation that is paramount when used as a dating technique. .

 

[MNoBody]

Humans may be limited in our direct senses but humans have also been very creative finding ways to look at the world through instruments to measure and translate things we cannot perceive into something we our senses can perceive.

obviously people think highly of whatever it is they think they are achieving, but this does not appear to be working too well for the species as a whole.

 

[gnostic]

Radiation is the answer, and we well know how that works. Matter of fact, scientists are analyzing the background radiation from the BB given off 13.8 billion years ago, looking for the general patterns of that expansion (actually two expansions a minute fraction of a second apart).

To be fair, the background radiation is NOT the same as nuclear radiation. The CMBR is an almost perfect black-body radiation, corresponding to a peak in the micro-wave region of the spectrum.

Nuclear radiation, if it is electromagnetic, is usually gamma rays, which are many orders of magnitude more energetic than microwaves. But most radioactive dating is not done with gamma rays because they don't change the isotope of the element undergoing that decay.

Most dating based on radioactivity is either alpha or beta decay. Alpha decay is an emission of a helium nucleus and beta decay happens when a neutron changes into a proton and an electron (with the electron being emitted).

Yes.

Nuclear radiation is different to EM radiation, which is what CMBR emissions are, background radiation of EM.

CMBR occurred during the Recombination Epoch (RC), starting about 377,000 years after the Big Bang (BB).

The period or epoch before RC, was the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (or BBN, also known as Primordial Nucleosynthesis) that started 3 minutes after BB and ended about 20 minutes after BB.

This Nucleosynthesis is different from the usual Stellar Nucleosynthesis. With BBN, nucleus formed around hydrogen proton or around bonding of proton & neutron of deuterium atom, or the 2 protons & 2 neutrons of helium atom - BUT no electrons to any of these 3 atomic nuclei. Meaning these atoms were ionized atoms (positive charged atoms) during and after the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

The Recombination Epoch changed not only that, but when electrons bonded with these ionized atoms for the first time (forming stable and electrically neutral atoms, it changed the whole universe.

For starter, the universe was in hot plasma state in all the epochs before Recombination Epoch, so the universe was opaque. With neutral and stable atoms, the universe became transparent.

Meaning photons could now travel freely through space, instead of being re-absorbed by hot plasma.

The electrons bonding with atomic nuclei, released energy and decoupled photons from the atoms. These photons are the cosmic background radiation that emitted in microwave spectrum.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation isn’t nuclear radiation, as Polymath257 pointed out.


Side notes: I have mentioned Stellar Nucleosynthesis. This is a process where a star thermonuclear fuse lighter element (eg hydrogen nuclei) into a single helium nuclei.

Another nucleosynthesis involving a star, when a massive star explodes in supernova, causing helium atomic nuclei to fuse into even heavier elements, like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, nickel or iron atoms. This is known as Supernova Nucleosynthesis.

As you can see, there several different types of nucleosynthesis, but if you want to talk about “formation of atoms” in the Big Bang model, then you really looking at the periods known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and the Recombination Epoch.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, I have to say that while it is rather technical (for me), it is still an interesting book. I am sure I cannot read it all -- after all, I'm still reading a biography of Einstein as well as other interesting subjects. Yes, I would like to go over the information about radioactive dating.
BUT! here is a quote from the first post on this thread, and I'd like to know your answer to this:
"I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true."
(Do you agree...?)

I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

You ought to ask this question of a biologist, not an astronomer. However, I will try to answer the question, by presenting some of the evidence for the descent of all life from a single common ancestor, with the warning that I am not an authority and that you must check what I say against proper biology books, articles and websites.

First, as long ago as 1758, Linnaeus classified living things according to their anatomical structure, and found that they fell into a nested hierarchy: several species united to form a genus; several genera united to form a family; families united to form an order, etc. The same nested hierarchy is found when living things are classified genetically. This nested hierarchical structure of classification is a natural consequence of descent from a common ancestor, but it does not arise from other processes, such as artificial manufacture or from the original existence of many distinct ancestors.

Second, in The Ancestor's Tale (pages 346-352), Richard Dawkins describes Hox genes, which (so far as I understand it) control the development of an animal from a fertilised egg. These genes occur in all the phyla of animals (vertebrates, arthropods, molluscs, annelids, brachiopods, flatworms, etc.) except for sponges and ctenophores; they are similar in all these phyla, and are even arranged in the same order along a chromosome in the different phyla. It is difficult to see how these different phyla could have acquired similar sets of genes (arranged, as I say, in the same order) except by inheritance from a common ancestor.

Third, so far as I know, the genetic code for terrestrial life forms is universal; all known living things use the same four nucleobases (adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine) in their DNA. Again, it is difficult to see how this situation could have arisen unless the universal common ancestor used these particular bases in its DNA.

Of course, during Darwin's lifetime and before the discovery of DNA and genes, the evidence for common ancestry depended entirely on the nested hierarchy of the Linnean classification of living things. However, so far as I understand it, the genetic evidence has completely confirmed Darwin's inference that the endless forms of living things have been, and are being, evolved from a few original forms or from only one.

 

[Astrophile]

I do have questions the book brings up about radioactive dating, which is integral to understanding the concept of evolution.

It's a very big and heavy book, but I got it because I thought maybe it would teach me something. The title is Brock Biology of Microorganisms. The authors went into radioactive dating giving several pages regarding Microbial Diversity, stating that a theme that unifies all of biology is evolution, then discussing the formation and early history of earth. Like I said, it is a huge book. 12th Edition, 2009 Pearson Education. I bought it used, there are later editions, you can look up the authors. Look for Brock Biology of Microorganisms, Pearson Education.

A book about the biology of micro-organisms is only going to be able to treat radioactive dating and Earth history very superficially. If you have questions about radioactive dating, you should look for answers in a specialised book on the subject. I learnt about dating from Arthur Holmes's book Principles of Physical Geology (published 1965). Of course, this book is out of date, but it may still be useful as an introduction. G. Brent Dalrymple's book The Age of the Earth (1991) gives a very detailed description of radioactive dating: there are long chapters dealing with how modern radiometric methods work; the direct evidence obtained from the Earth's oldest rocks, Moon rocks and meteorites; the use of lead isotopes as 'the hourglass of the solar system'; and the indirect evidence obtained from stars and star clusters. Dalrymple's book Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies (2004) is a reduced and simplified, but also partly updated, version of The Age of the Earth. it includes a chapter about the use of isotopic methods in sorting out the formation history of the Earth and meteorites. These books may not answer all your questions, but they will answer some of them. If you read the books, you should be much better informed about the methods of radioactive dating and the implications of their results.

In addition to these books, Principles of Radiometric Dating (published 2017) by Kunchithapadam Gopalan should give a more up-to-date description of the subject. From the contents list, the first chapters look very technical, but chapter 5 and chapter 8-11 deal with methods of dating and their application to meteorites and the Earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

A book about the biology of micro-organisms is only going to be able to treat radioactive dating and Earth history very superficially. If you have questions about radioactive dating, you should look for answers in a specialised book on the subject. I learnt about dating from Arthur Holmes's book Principles of Physical Geology (published 1965). Of course, this book is out of date, but it may still be useful as an introduction. G. Brent Dalrymple's book The Age of the Earth (1991) gives a very detailed description of radioactive dating: there are long chapters dealing with how modern radiometric methods work; the direct evidence obtained from the Earth's oldest rocks, Moon rocks and meteorites; the use of lead isotopes as 'the hourglass of the solar system'; and the indirect evidence obtained from stars and star clusters. Dalrymple's book Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies (2004) is a reduced and simplified, but also partly updated, version of The Age of the Earth. it includes a chapter about the use of isotopic methods in sorting out the formation history of the Earth and meteorites. These books may not answer all your questions, but they will answer some of them. If you read the books, you should be much better informed about the methods of radioactive dating and the implications of their results.

In addition to these books, Principles of Radiometric Dating (published 2017) by Kunchithapadam Gopalan should give a more up-to-date description of the subject. From the contents list, the first chapters look very technical, but chapter 5 and chapter 8-11 deal with methods of dating and their application to meteorites and the Earth.

Thank you.
I know not all who believe in God as represented in the Bible view it in the same way, but please understand that I do not subscribe to the notion that each 'day' of creation is a 24 hour period. It is obviously much, much longer than that, plus the word day is used in a sense of set period of time in the Genesis account, not 24 hours. I'll try to find more information about radiometric dating and look for the books you mention.