How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[Astrophile]

So what's the evidence (and I really mean evidence) that fish eventually evolved to become mammals? Evidence -- not speculation.

The first fossil mammals are found in Upper Triassic rocks, which are about 225 million years old. Around 420 million years ago, near to the Silurian-Devonian boundary, there were no mammals or any other tetrapods; the only vertebrate animals were fish, of many different kinds. Since the first mammals must have had Devonian and Silurian ancestors (all life comes from life, remember), and probably vertebrate ancestors, the most likely candidates for these ancestors were fish. To evade this conclusion you must maintain either that the first mammals came into existence by spontaneous generation, or that the Siluro-Devonian ancestors of mammals were invertebrates.

 

[gnostic]

(P.S. dinosaurs, newly discovered big ones in fossils, remain dinosaurs.

If you understood fossils of dinosaurs, you would know they just didn’t exist out of nothing.

Dinosaurs evolved from the earlier Archosaurs (Archosaria).

The species of the archosaur clade have flourished around Early Triassic, so its origin is most likely in the Late Permian period.

Archosaurs evolved from earlier and more primitive forms of reptiles. Most people speak of dinosaurs, but they ignored their origin, because dinosaurs are lot more fascinating than archosaurs, but without the archosaurs, dinosaurs wouldn’t exist.

Certain species of the archosaurs evolved into species in clades of dinosaurs, while others evolved into other species, like that of crocodile species.

So the only living representations of the archosaurs, today, are the crocodiles and birds.

Did you know crocodiles are actually more closely related to birds than they are to snakes and lizards? Lizards and snakes didn’t evolve from archosaur group.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ever hear of "forensics science", which often people are convicted on? For example, fingerprints, dna testing, objects left behind, etc.?

IOW, fossils leave us evidence because they don't come out of nowhere.

I think that dna investigation in forensic science is probably a lot more tell-tale than dna in the theory of evolution, if there is any. Meaning dna in gorillas vs that of humans and figuring how closely connected they are.

 

[YoursTrue]

The first fossil mammals are found in Upper Triassic rocks, which are about 225 million years old. Around 420 million years ago, near to the Silurian-Devonian boundary, there were no mammals or any other tetrapods; the only vertebrate animals were fish, of many different kinds. Since the first mammals must have had Devonian and Silurian ancestors (all life comes from life, remember), and probably vertebrate ancestors, the most likely candidates for these ancestors were fish. To evade this conclusion you must maintain either that the first mammals came into existence by spontaneous generation, or that the Siluro-Devonian ancestors of mammals were invertebrates.

Not really. But since our bases for life are on different levels of belief, I leave the rest up to you.

 

[metis]

I think that dna investigation in forensic science is probably a lot more tell-tale than dna in the theory of evolution, if there is any. Meaning dna in gorillas vs that of humans and figuring how closely connected they are.

That's not how we work, but you have well described your beliefs, or so it appears.

 

[gnostic]

Not really. But since our bases for life are on different levels of belief, I leave the rest up to you.

The reliance on observable, testable & verifiable physical evidence, and on information or data gained from such observations of evidence, are the basis of any scientific modeling (eg the explanatory models & predictive models of a scientific theory).

Evidence are what provide facts to these models (scientific theories), hence factual theories.

That’s not “belief”.

What is “belief”, is when you have no physical evidence to some scriptural stories of miraculous or divine events or some imaginary entities with supernatural attributes or supernatural powers (eg gods, angels, jinns, spirits, fairies, etc) that control natural phenomena or control human behaviour.

Belief in stories, such as those in the beliefs in the Creator, like God or Allah within the creation stories from Bible’s Genesis or from the Qur’an, etc, such “belief” derived from “faith”.

Religious “faith”, is the acceptance of belief being true, without any physical evidence whatsoever; in another word, faith is merely “trust in the belief”, a “personal conviction in the belief”. This is no different from a person having personal views or personal opinions on certain matters.

In this case, the “matters” are faith in belief that god is real, faith in belief that god is responsible for creating this “world” and for creating “life” in this world.

First of all, there re no observable and testable evidence of any god “existing”. You only just believe that he exist, and in the case of Bible, he only appear in stories.

Stories are not evidence, unless you talking about what these stories were written on, eg paper, parchment, vellum, papyri, or inscribed on clay tablets or stone tablets, etc. These books, scrolls or tablets can be examined, tested, dated, analyzed what they are made of, etc.

But stories, and the characters (spirits, gods, angels, humans, etc) in these stories and the narratives, could all be fictional, myths or traditions. Just because they were were written in ancient times, don’t make these stories true in the “historical” or “scientific” sense.

And in the case of the bible, god is based on belief, not on evidence,

• creating Earth at the same time with rest of the universe is wrong and also based on belief, not on evidence,
• day and night happening because god said some words “let there light”, like magic incantation, is nothing more than more false belief,
• creating all kinds of life from nothing are more false belief,
• and creating human magically from dust, is another belief in magic, not in evidence.

The God and creation, flood and the Babel stories are all non scientific and non historical beliefs, and the people in these stories only exist you “believe” in them.

 

[YoursTrue]

The first fossil mammals are found in Upper Triassic rocks, which are about 225 million years old. Around 420 million years ago, near to the Silurian-Devonian boundary, there were no mammals or any other tetrapods; the only vertebrate animals were fish, of many different kinds. Since the first mammals must have had Devonian and Silurian ancestors (all life comes from life, remember), and probably vertebrate ancestors, the most likely candidates for these ancestors were fish. To evade this conclusion you must maintain either that the first mammals came into existence by spontaneous generation, or that the Siluro-Devonian ancestors of mammals were invertebrates.

If the first vertebrates were fish, that kind of goes along with the biblical account in Genesis of fish before mammals, or shall we say, land dwellers. You think the ancients figured this all out by themselves?

 

[YoursTrue]

That's not how we work, but you have well described your beliefs, or so it appears.

You replied that to my comment, which was, "I think that dna investigation in forensic science is probably a lot more tell-tale than dna in the theory of evolution, if there is any. Meaning dna in gorillas vs that of humans and figuring how closely connected they are."
So where is it that you differ? Please explain, if you will.

 

[metis]

You replied that to my comment, which was, "I think that dna investigation in forensic science is probably a lot more tell-tale than dna in the theory of evolution, if there is any. Meaning dna in gorillas vs that of humans and figuring how closely connected they are."
So where is it that you differ? Please explain, if you will.

I would except you're not willing to accept even the basic facts that show there has been and still is an evolutionary process that produces new species that has been evidenced for over and over again. When any religion/denomination/place of worship is used as a set of blinders, then that religion needs to be regarded as bogus, as religion is supposed to enlighten.

 

[Astrophile]

If the first vertebrates were fish, that kind of goes along with the biblical account in Genesis of fish before mammals, or shall we say, land dwellers. You think the ancients figured this all out by themselves?

I don't know; it's an interesting point. However, it may be that the author of Genesis 1 was making humans the culmination of the creation story, so he had the creation of the land animals (including ourselves) on the final day of creation, and water animals and winged creatures were created earlier (on the fifth day). Of course the story is not scientifically accurate - Genesis 1:20-25 has whales and birds created before land animals - but the author was writing a story about creation by God, not a scientific treatise.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know; it's an interesting point. However, it may be that the author of Genesis 1 was making humans the culmination of the creation story, so he had the creation of the land animals (including ourselves) on the final day of creation, and water animals and winged creatures were created earlier (on the fifth day). Of course the story is not scientifically accurate - Genesis 1:20-25 has whales and birds created before land animals - but the author was writing a story about creation by God, not a scientific treatise.

Yes, obviously the Bible was written for and about humans for the most part* (and about God also in relation to man), and it is not a scientific book, but as you have aptly noted, first the ground was prepared for plants, then aquatic life was enabled and then -- landrovers, according to the Genesis account. Moses and previous ones did not use scientific instruments to consider these things.
*It wasn't written for gorillas or birds to read.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would except you're not willing to accept even the basic facts that show there has been and still is an evolutionary process that produces new species that has been evidenced for over and over again. When any religion/denomination/place of worship is used as a set of blinders, then that religion needs to be regarded as bogus, as religion is supposed to enlighten.

What I see now is that instead of explaining a basic tenet of the link you provided (which I read), you are evading the idea that you just can't present "scientific evidence" or writings of scientists as explanation without being able to answer questions about what you're presenting. But anyway -- have a nice evening, so be it, as things are moving along in the world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand what you mean by good possibility yet, I'm wondering if there is any recognizable evolution discernible from something (one organism) into the distinct categories of chimpanzees, gorillas and bonobos. The more I ponder over it, the more wondrous it becomes insofar as the gaps, but importantly to me, the rather distinctive characteristics of manind vs. what might be man's earlier closest considered biological relative.

The actual objective biological difference between a chimp and a human is far less then many like to believe.
Almost all of the features that people used to think were "uniquely" human, in reality are not at all unique.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Humans were already classified as primates by the time Darwin came around.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, for those who agree with the above -- (1) how is evolution evidenced by the fossil record of change in earlier species?

If evolution happened, we expect to see a fossil record with fossils exhibiting an evolving progression.
And that's exactly what we see in the fossil record.

We don't find any homo sapiens in 5 million year old rocks.
We don't find any rabbits in 300 million year old rocks.
We don't find any dino's in 600 million year old rocks.

And we DO find wonderful series of progression within distinct species lineages.
Like for example:

This is exactly what we expect to see if evolution happened.
Thus the fossil record matches the predictions of the theory.
Hence, the fossil record supports evolution theory.

Of interest is the seeming fact that fossils have been discovered from various estimated time periods that either do or do not have a connection with current organisms. (Right?)

Such as?

 

[Astrophile]

So then, while this may seem elementary, are you saying that science does not prove dates deemed to have been ascertained from scientific methods of dating objects, bones, soil, etc.?

Nothing in my responses proves anything, neither does science. It only describes and demonstrates the dating methods that is verified by many redundant and extensive research over the last century that has determined the reliability of comparing many dating methods to come up with an accurate dating of of the history of life, the earth, solar system and the cosmos. C14 dating is actually a minor league player in this arena. The most important and accurate dating method is the K-Ar dating method. The gigantic(?) magnetic properties of the earth are used,, but mostly a second or third dating method.

As shunyadragon explained, radiometric dating of rocks has provided a consistent geological time-scale and a coherent history of the Earth from its formation to the present day. If you wish to deny the validity of the ages of rocks obtained from radiometric dating, you have to present evidence that that these ages are invalid. You can't just say, 'Science hasn't proved these dates, therefore they are completely wrong.'

 

[rational experiences]

In natural life a human sick or animal sick can demonstrate physical body abnormalities whilst not healthy.

Sick when they gain it. Not reviewed.

Then survive.

Survival of the fittest is hence not bodily deformation. It was survival only.

Men said I believe deformation as body change introduced new species.

Motivation is involved as a theist. Self purpose is involved too. Claiming I know the creator. As you already wanted to be the creator.

All scientific man's thesis tried to quote infer they already were. By a claim all substances they owned was within their own body.

Lying.

As separation allowing each form to exist as itself is the law. Anywhere you look.

As the life body isn't the creator the substance is what science researches. You are wrong.

As what rock type do you choose to say origin type of planet earth when earth is known to have converted it's mass several times historic.

The teaching said separation was a natural law.

Science applies conversion destruction isn't separation.

 

[rational experiences]

Second review.

Since when does any type of machine exist as ground rock position by volcanic melt. Type of mass involved with rocks actual presence.

To define I'm telling the truth as a man with just a machine.

Inside machine he reacts a heat like earth melt.

His machine isn't earth.

It's the reaction beyond the no machine exists first in mass as his inferred to the machine is a direct thought machine not life. Which is then themed as a double melt. As man's imposition as a theist studying earths mass.

Motivation was to understand to use a thesis. It is not involved in human position as just a theist. Melt no machine no experiments allowed.

When it should be assessed why it involved status first in any thesis. The self first of just a human motivation.

As man is the consciousness himself.

He lied claiming mass history was the consciousness only because a brain burnt man became the theist.

Natural man never lied...no man is God.

No machine exists to say I'm now studying volcanic mass. As natural I compare by machine experiment as compare to be correct. Can't ever be correct as no machine exists.

Modern science says but I'm theorising from Stone mass to biology to get a reaction thesis by study to make electricity.

It's not about Rock's own history in my new thesis. Lying. As he's been using all earths mass data.

Yet nuclear converting earths mass is by direct machine thought owner position.... Position one man's science is exact placement. Not bio life.

So he can't do science as he doesn't exist himself status. In just science data. Which he does not impose in using facts.

Practice science. From mass he says is then a reaction then electricity.

So if you ask him why he's theorising biology when we have nothing at all to do with machines history or I want a reaction.

His mind status says he's allowed to do whatever he wants. As a self given position.

As just a man applies all science plus numbers terms. So you can only use them once in an earths reactive science position rationally.

As he is after all just a human man and not earths natural history.

Transmitter sciences he is already heavenly using as other machines.

As a man didn't invent my life by a machine. But by bio human sex. You'd have to ask him who does he think he is rationally.

He says he's a doctor scientist another type of scientist.

So he's split his science conscious position. Machines status only.

His machines biology he says conceived human babies.

Yet biology human owns it first. Naturally not his machine theme.

How a machine scientist tries to destroy life on earth by using all sciences.

Father said you factually could state a man is married by his consent to his machine. As he uses no holy conscious agreement about allowing natural life to exist.

 

[YoursTrue]

As shunyadragon explained, radiometric dating of rocks has provided a consistent geological time-scale and a coherent history of the Earth from its formation to the present day. If you wish to deny the validity of the ages of rocks obtained from radiometric dating, you have to present evidence that that these ages are invalid. You can't just say, 'Science hasn't proved these dates, therefore they are completely wrong.'

The problem with radiometric dating as far as I am concerned is that soil moves and can grind into objects laid in the soil. The soil itself isn't the problem in particular about dating. It's what buried in the soil and the calculations as if those objects were there since the soil was.

 

[metis]

The problem with radiometric dating as far as I am concerned is that soil moves and can grind into objects laid in the soil. The soil itself isn't the problem in particular about dating. It's what buried in the soil and the calculations as if those objects were there since the soil was.

So, you must think that the nuclear scientists who use this methodology are ignorant in their own field, right?