Posted on 03/05/2015 7:09:29 AM PST by WhiskeyX
You’re missing some fairly convincing differing methods of radiometric dating of various rock types, thus also, their sequencing within that same geologic column.
Thank you for your short and proper rebuttal.
Now, counterpoint.
How where fossils dated before radiometric dating (I’m assuming potassium-argon) was invented in the 1950s? And did any of the dating done via the radiometric process necessitate scientific revision of the old dates/hypotheses?
where=were, sorry
I was thinking more of radiometric dating in relation to sedimentary rock sequences - which are the predominant beds for fossils - although there are some methods that can be applied directly to artifacts and fossils as well.
Re, “Radiometric Dating” in Wikipedia seems fairly straightforward as to history and mechanics. My only real reservation would be in cross-contamination of numerous minerals composing a given rock type, possibly invalidating that sample. But by the article, these appear to be sufficiently addressed to preclude that as well.
While there doubtless have been some revisions engendered by increasingly accurate geochronological procedures, it seems that their comparisons with other dating methods have held up pretty well overall.
I have a couple of good books on rocks and minerals that compel me toward a bit more research in these areas.
If man has been around the whole time... it kind of makes me wonder if apes didn’t devolve from man...
By accumulating changes in the genome sufficient to differentiate the descendant population from the prior population retaining most of the prior genome’s characteristics.
That is not creating a new species, that changing an existing species perhaps thru natural selection. Where are the "missing links"?
“That is not creating a new species, that changing an existing species perhaps thru natural selection.”
Your “that changing an existing species perhaps thru natural selection” is incomprehensible language.
Yes, changes in the genome which differentiates the successor population from the parent population does create a different species.
“Where are the “missing links”?”
Perished.
The term suddenly appears is more like created than evolved.
Geographic isolation? Mutation?
You’re getting hung up on improper semantics. In the absence to the contrary in the early stages of paleontology it was presumed there was likely to be comparatively long transition time periods between the differentiation of the populations. More recent evidence, however, has demonstrated how at least some populations can suddenly differentiate in only a few generations. The reason/s for the substantial differences in time periods for a population to differentiate is due to the interplay between the exact nature of the change in the population’s genome and how it affects the population’s ability to procreate and survive in its old and/or new ecological niche. Recent evidence has shown that populations under increased stress for survival induces biochemical activities which can in turn rapidly induce biochemical changes to the genome.
In the Andes Mountains of South America there is a population of Humans which have an incredibly high tolerance for the ingestion of the deadly poison, Arsenic. The groundwater in their area of habitation is heavily infused with Arsenic from the volcanic rock. Their ability to tolerate such a dangerous poison has been traced to a change in their genome which provides a biochemical means of more safely assimilating the Arsenic. In a paleolithic setting such a population of Humans could conceivably differentiate into another species of Humans given enough time and geographic isolation from other Human populations.
So, your assumption, “The changes should be gradual...,” is contrary to the factual evidence being discovered in many cases.
“How where fossils dated before radiometric dating (I’m assuming potassium-argon) was invented in the 1950s? And did any of the dating done via the radiometric process necessitate scientific revision of the old dates/hypotheses?”
_____________
Before geochemical dating, the earliest hypothesis was borne on relative stratigraphy. As methods improved, series were improved. We’re getting it tighter and tighter all of the time, as more and more data is collected and different methods are developed.
Wow , evolution is a religion based on beliefs and assumptions that are pretty thin. No, I am not a young earther. I just think Darwin’s theory explains some things but on a whole it is just a theory.
Preposterous.
“Preposterous.”
See Wikipedia:
Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: “to the stone”) is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.[1] The form of argument employed by such dismissals is the argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone.[2][3]
The cichlid fishes in East African lakes is one of a number of examples of rapid speciation. Lake Victoria was dry only a few thousand years ago, yet these fishes have developed into genetically related species in only those few thousand years.
Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. Ad hominem arguments, which dispute the merits of a claim’s advocate rather than the merits of the claim itself, are fallacious for the same reason. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted.
CORRECTION
“Preposterous.”
See Wikipedia:
Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: “to the stone”) is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.[1] The form of argument employed by such dismissals is the argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone.[2][3]
Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. Ad hominem arguments, which dispute the merits of a claim’s advocate rather than the merits of the claim itself, are fallacious for the same reason. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted.
Note:
The cichlid fishes in East African lakes is one of a number of examples of rapid speciation. Lake Victoria was dry only a few thousand years ago, yet these fishes have developed into genetically related species in only those few thousand years.
I was thinking more of radiometric dating in relation to sedimentary rock sequences - which are the predominant beds for fossils - although there are some methods that can be applied directly to artifacts and fossils as well.
Yes, that’s what I meant. You notice I didn’t write anything about using radiometric dating on the fossils themselves, I just wrote that it was used to date them.
While there doubtless have been some revisions engendered by increasingly accurate geochronological procedures, it seems that their comparisons with other dating methods have held up pretty well overall.
That’s not an example.
Science, as we’ve seen in the posted article and in every day scientific work, is often full of surprises. That’s because of its very nature of questioning assumptions and trying to answer those questions.
The structure of DNA was very surprising to Watson & Crick, for example. They were looking for a simple way to describe the origin of life from chemical processes, and got a lot more than they bargained for. So much so, in fact, that Francis Crick proposed panspermia as a way out of his problems with OOL vs. DNA.
If you are correct, there have been no such surprises in dating of geological strata from radiometric dating. That is surprising in itself, and points to other problematic conclusions.
Before geochemical dating, the earliest hypothesis was borne on relative stratigraphy. As methods improved, series were improved. We’re getting it tighter and tighter all of the time, as more and more data is collected and different methods are developed.
Just sit back and science will eventually find the answer we’ve assumed all along, much like the gay gene, the God gene, global warming, autism-causing vaccines, poisonous GMOs, and other noble scientific endeavors.
I noticed you dodged the part where I asked what revisions were made to hypotheses involving rock/fossil dates because of radiometric dating methods.
Re, “Radiometric Dating” in Wikipedia seems fairly straightforward as to history and mechanics. My only real reservation would be in cross-contamination of numerous minerals composing a given rock type, possibly invalidating that sample. But by the article, these appear to be sufficiently addressed to preclude that as well.
Let’s get a better source than Wikipedia.
https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/methods/home.html
“I noticed you dodged the part where I asked what revisions were made to hypotheses involving rock/fossil dates because of radiometric dating methods.”
____
Huge advances in dating methods refine our knowledge all of the time.
But don’t bother responding-I’m done with you. Ignorance can be overcome with study and discipline, but intentional ignorance is insurmountable.
K-Ar is not the only form of radiometric dating.
Ever hear of cross-correlation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.