One thing never evolves into something else!

[Baggins]

There was none given. Only links that stated that micro-fossils existed then, but nothing showing how they'd know that.

Here's how they know it.

Palaeontologists go out into the field to an area with likely looking rocks of the correct sort of age. These rocks are dated using radiometric methods. Then you find a sedimentary rock layer that you believe is likely to contain microfossils - the the case of very ancient rocks this is often a chert. You take your rock samples back to your laborartory.

In the case of cherts you then take thin sections of the rock and mount them on slides and look at them under powerful light microscopes. For other rock/fossil types different preperation methods are used - in the case of organic walled micro-fossils from ancient rocks ( such as acritarchs ) this involves dissolving the matrix of the rock with solutions of concentrated hydrochloric acid and Hydrofluoric acid ( to dissolve all carbonates and sillicates ) the remaining organic debris is suspended in water and put onto slides and viewed through a high powered light microscope.

They study these slides looking for microscopic fossils, and in most rocks (of the correct type ) , even back to the 3,5 BA like the Apex chert in Australia, they find them.

There are a minority of scientists who believe the shapes seen in the Apex Chert are hydrothermal alteration products that simply look like prokaryotes. But the majority position in the scientific community is that they are fossils of primitive life.

Stromatolites are unambiguous microfossil build ups that date from at least 2 billion years ago. They know stromatolites are formed by cyanobacteria because they are still being formed today ( in Shark Bay Australia ). I believe you have already been informed of this.

The simple reason as to how scientists know that there are fossil prokaryotes dating mack more than 2 billion years is through extensive reasearch and comparison.

There are organic particles in rock that look like modern staphylococcus, so the most likely meaning of this is that these are fossils of staphylococcus.

So to sum up:
We know the age of the rock
We examine what it contains
We look for comparisons in modern fauna ( remeber that prokaryotes have altered very little over earth history they are still microscopic sacks of organic material ), and other fossil faunas


This appears to answer your question, but I am sure there will be a reason why it doesn't.

You are profoundly ignorant of many lines of evidence for the theory of evolution and yet you seem to be unwilling to spend a small amount of time and effort in educating yourself using the books and links that people suggest. If you used a percentage of the time you spend on the internet posting wild ad hoc arguments to perform a bit of basic research using public resources on the internet then a lot of your basic misconceptions would be answered. This would not necessarily convert you to the standard scientific position concerning the theory of evolution, but it would make you counter arguments less ignorant.

 

[shinbits]

Here's how they know it.

Palaeontologists go out into the field to an area with likely looking rocks of the correct sort of age. These rocks are dated using radiometric methods.

Sorry.

Uranium-lead ratios are not reliable. Too many variables.

 

[shinbits]

Stromatolites are unambiguous microfossil build ups that date from at least 2 billion years ago.

Okay.

Thank you for posting this. It was very informative.

 

[LogicChristian]

Sorry.

Uranium-lead ratios are not reliable. Too many variables.

Who said anything about Uranium-lead? What about Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon?

What variables make the Uranium-lead ratio unreliable anyway?

 

[Lilandra]

not that you ever said Nuh-Uh.

You just labeled something I took the time to show you "a desperate attempt" and said nice try. Although your rebuttal to the genetic atavism that the children displayed was no it is not dormant genes it is a freak accident. So basically, scientists studied these children's DNA and condition first hand and published their results.

Your rebuttal after looking at a picture is Nuh-Uh it is a freak accident. That is what your argument amounts to.

Aron gave you an illustrated answer about fish/amphibian evolution based on peer reviewed evidence. Your answer "Nice try" again.

I haven't lied about anything. I don't have to. Evidence is on my side.

wow. this is just a lie. You know full well that there are no posts in which I don't explain why I believe like I do. There are no "nuh-uh" posts, as you imply, where I just don't have an answer and, just dismiss by saying "nuh-uh." Find one if you can.

 

[Mallon]

So was I. I felt like I was backing you into a corner and you posted that in a mini-frustration.

Not at all. I'm just telling you what you want to hear.

 

[Baggins]

Sorry.

Uranium-lead ratios are not reliable. Too many variables.

Well what about lead/lead potassium/argon uranium/uranium, Rubidium/Strontium?

what if we use all these methods and correlate their answers and find that they give use very similar results?

What, exactly, are the variables in the U/Pb dating method that you object to.

I assume you don't have a problem with constancy of radioactive decay over time, so where do your misgivings lie?

 

[Tomk80]

Sorry.

Uranium-lead ratios are not reliable. Too many variables.

That's why we use isochron dating preferably.

 

[Edx]

I assume you don't have a problem with constancy of radioactive decay over time, so where do your misgivings lie?

Give him a while, he'll have to go consult AIG and ICR so he can think he knows what you are talking about.

 

[Split Rock]

Sorry.

Uranium-lead ratios are not reliable. Too many variables.

The dating method doesn't really matter. Microorganisms are found through out the geological column. They are found in the oldest rocks, as well as more recent rocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

If it takes millions of years for evolution to happen, why didn't the population die out in oxygen-poor water?

Because these populations stayed in oxygen rich water. However, no other population was spending any time in the oxygen poor environments. Therefore, any mutations that allowed a fish to spend more time in oxygen poor environments would be selected for since they would not have any competition in the new environment. As more fish moved into oxygen poor environments through selectable mutations, the same would be true for their predators. Pretty soon, the ability to escape predators by coming onto land would be a selectable advantage.

Another environment where this trait is handy is in seasonal ponds. This is the type of environment that the lungfish is found. The lungfish uses it's swim bladder for swimming while there is water. When the water dries up the lungfish uses it's swim bladder as a lung to absorb oxygen from the air during hibernation. Interestingly, the lungfish is the closest living relative to terrestrial tetrapods.

 

[Lilandra]

to get to spawning grounds too. Like the salmon. A fish with lobed fins that allowed it to scoot over short obstacles would have a reproductive advantage.

But mostly it is the ability to live in oxygen poor environments like everyone else posted. Like LM says there are living fish with both lungs and gills that live in seasonal ponds that dry up so they move or estivate(kinda like hibernation buried in the mud) until they find another pond. The reason these ponds are oxygen poor is because they don't get an influx of fresh water as often as say rivers or lakes etc.

The ability to breath air and water is a super adaptive advantage to a fish and that is why fish and amphibious salamanders still have this ability.

Because these populations stayed in oxygen rich water. However, no other population was spending any time in the oxygen poor environments. Therefore, any mutations that allowed a fish to spend more time in oxygen poor environments would be selected for since they would not have any competition in the new environment. As more fish moved into oxygen poor environments through selectable mutations, the same would be true for their predators. Pretty soon, the ability to escape predators by coming onto land would be a selectable advantage.

Another environment where this trait is handy is in seasonal ponds. This is the type of environment that the lungfish is found. The lungfish uses it's swim bladder for swimming while there is water. When the water dries up the lungfish uses it's swim bladder as a lung to absorb oxygen from the air during hibernation. Interestingly, the lungfish is the closest living relative to terrestrial tetrapods.

 

[Apos]

So at one time, humans were just as able as other apes to swing through trees with thier arms?

Depends on what you mean by "humans." Strictly, the answer would be no. We don't even call our most recent hominid ancestors "humans" and they couldn't swing like gibbons either.

If it takes millions of years for evolution to happen, why didn't the population die out in oxygen-poor water?

Because as with so many other things, there is no "deadly water" vs. "perfect water." There are all sorts of gradients in between, niches that can be filled by creatures pushing up against the limits of survival.

Too many variables.

Too many variables is a bad thing?

This is what I dont' get about creationists. The thinking is stop and start. You think until you encounter a seeming problem or difficulty in figuring things out... and then you just stop and declare defeat. But scientists proceed: they proceed to find ways to control variables, test assumptions indepedently, overcome these problems. I think, in the end, the difference in behavior is because you already consider the thinking to be done for you, so you are not trying to get anywhere or figure out any new insight like scientists are. You proceed until you discover some reason you can use to quiet the discomfort you feel whenever your beliefs are challenged by evidence, and then, back in your comfort level, you stop.

 

[dad]

Why are you assuming that? Evolution proceeds at varying rates.
....

Good point. Another point is we really don't know how fast it proceeded in the past. After all, how could we?

 

[Mallon]

Good point. Another point is we really don't know how fast it proceeded in the past. After all, how could we?

By studying the fossil record. There have been all sorts of papers written with regards to the tempo of evolution. You should try reading one sometime.

 

[dad]

By studying the fossil record. There have been all sorts of papers written with regards to the tempo of evolution. You should try reading one sometime.

I study the fossil record, and see rapid evolution. Sometimes none at all. If a change or adaptation did occur, it simply indicates changes occured in the world that kicked in God's built in powers of evolution in the creatures.
The question becomes, how long ago was that record actually laid down?
If I assume slow present rates of things, like deposition, and evolution, I would think it took a hec of a long time. This they do. Nothing else, do they do. At all. I don't share their faith.

 

[Mallon]

I study the fossil record, and see rapid evolution.

Where in the fossil record to you see such rapid evolution?

If a change or adaptation did occur, it simply indicates changes occured in the world that kicked in God's built in powers of evolution in the creatures.

What about the fossil record tells you this? What sort of signature did God leave in the evolutionary process that indicates to you that He was involved?
You're starting to sound like a theistic evolutionist...

 

[dad]

Where in the fossil record to you see such rapid evolution?

I see the whole record as rapid, so where in that would I see anything but?! I see most of it laid down in about 1600 or whatever years from creation to flood. So, I think old agers would consider that rapid?

What about the fossil record tells you this? What sort of signature did God leave in the evolutionary process that indicates to you that He was involved?
You're starting to sound like a theistic evolutionist...

One big happy family, I guess.
Here is the quick rundown. All creatures made in Eden (Adam taken there after he was made of course) - including plants and sea creatures in the nearby sea of Eden. Some life created to live at large on unihabitable planet as yet, to help get it habitable. Trilobites, and whatever we see in the early record. The fall, and premature spread of man and beast, and death enters world. Changing earth conditions, and spread of Eden's creatures give us the record we see, as they start to 'appear' in the record. Any evolution is simply creations adapting. For example, as things died more, we need scavengers. The rest is elementary.

 

[Mallon]

I see the whole record as rapid, so where in that would I see anything but?! I see most of it laid down in about 1600 or whatever years from creation to flood. So, I think old agers would consider that rapid?

What about the fossil record makes you think it was deposited during the Flood? How does the Flood explain the multi-layered forests we see in Joggins, NS? How does it explain angular unconformities? Karst deposits? Trace fossils?

The rest is elementary.

Not to me. Please teach me.

 

[dad]

What about the fossil record makes you think it was deposited during the Flood?

No, I said in the 1600 years from creation to the flood, not in the flood. That was when the creatures migrated from Eden. Later in the record, after the flood, again, we would have lots of adapting required in the new world. After all, if just the one family of animals was on the ark, imagine the huge amount of adapting needed!

How does the Flood explain the multi-layered forests we see in Joggins, NS? How does it explain angular unconformities? Karst deposits? Trace fossils?

Again, I am not suggesting flood geology was the culprit. Most of it as I understand it was pre flood.

Not to me. Please teach me.

No problem.