Why evolution isn't scientific

[46AND2]

so you cant disprove the claim about finding a creature with more ervs that are shared with human than with apes then.

I'm sorry...you have to deal with the hierarchy, because that is what we observe. It is a major contributor for why ERVs are strong evidence for common ancestry--indeed, it is an essential part of that evidence. As I have said from the beginning, the ERVs cannot be deleted in the pattern required for your "solution" to work.

Finding a non-primate creature with more shared ERVs than primates is a clear violation of the hierarchy, and therefore violates evolution.

Too bad you all can't find one, eh?

 

[Speedwell]

on the other hand- you never explained how evolution can evolve a complex biological systems.

Not in the last week or so on this particular thread, no. Do we have to explain it to you every time you raise the question?

 

[tas8831]

i already did it many times in this forum:

(image from https://microbeonline.com/bacterial...ortance-and-examples-of-flagellated-bacteria/)

or this one:

(image from Flagella and Cilia: Structure and Functions (With Diagram))

or this one:

(image from VCAC: Cellular Processes: ATP Synthase: Advanced Look: Synthesis)

or this:

(image from June Newsletter: Kinesin Motor Proteins and Neurodegeneration)

Stylized diagrams are not evidence for IDcreation, nor is your inability to understand why those things are NOT the evidence you seek.

 

[Kylie]

Ditto for my 8-year-old neighbor?

Yup.

Would you tell a piano virtuoso that he hit the wrong key playing Chopsticks, if he hit the wrong key playing chopsticks?

Maybe he's transposing it to a different key.

If not, and he hits an E when the music clearly shows a D sharp, then yes, I would point out that he hit the wrong note.

You know what they say about music. If you don't C#, you'll Bb.

Or would you say, "I don't have the capacity to answer that, as I don't have any idea whatsoever about music theory; but it sounded wrong."

Actually, I would never say that, as I have been playing piano since I was a little girl and I am quite good at it.

Evolution sounds wrong.

And it sounds wrong because it is wrong.

Yeah, that's a lousy reason for concluding something is wrong.

Most people say that it doesn't matter if you swap doors in the Monty Hall problem, that it's gonna be 50/50. When you tell them that they have better odds if they swap doors, they often disagree, because it sounds wrong.

When you tell them that a hammer and a feather fall at the same speed in a vacuum, they often disagree because it sounds wrong.

When you tell them that 0.999... is exactly equal to 1, they disagree, because it sounds wrong.

But each of those things is right.

But of course, since you don't know anything about evolution, you aren't really in a position to judge how it sounds, are you?

And it is wrong because, for one, it goes against the Bible.

The Bible is wrong. Not because it sounds wrong, but because it disagrees with demonstrably true facts about the universe. The universe and the Bible disagree, and you'll have to work very hard indeed to convince me that the universe is wrong.

Nuff said.

Yeah. The claim that something is wrong because it disagrees with something that you've just been told is true is a very convincing argument...

 

[Kylie]

Dunno -- never had it tried.

Why not?

My Father told me.

Then it's obviously true and thus you should have no problems showing me.

 

[Kylie]

Sure,

Then do it.

and you can too since ONLY Humans (descendants of Adam) post. We inherited our superior intelligence, which is like God's Genesis 3:22, from our first parents. No animal posts because they don't have the intelligence necessary to post. Amen?

Wait, when you say post, do you mean post things on the net like we are doing now?

 

[Kylie]

so if i will show you will admit that evolution is false according to your criteria?

I just want to see if you have made it up or have ignored an explanation for it.

 

[Kylie]

so where is the limit that we can push the first mammal?

Are you forgetting that it's a gradual change, there's no single moment when there was no mammals and then BANG there was suddenly a mammal a second later?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so where is the limit that we can push the first mammal?

Ask a paleontologist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

evolution for instance cant explain how a complex systems evolved by small steps

That's funny, since that happens to be exactly what evolution explains

. id can

"the designer dun it", is not an explanation.

evolution cant explain how we found spinning motors in nature

Except that it can.

. id can and so on.

"the designer dun it", is not an explanation.

 

[xianghua]

Stylized diagrams are not evidence for IDcreation, nor is your inability to understand why those things are NOT the evidence you seek.

so a motor isnt evidence for design. right.

 

[xianghua]

I'm sorry...you have to deal with the hierarchy, because that is what we observe. It is a major contributor for why ERVs are strong evidence for common ancestry--indeed, it is an essential part of that evidence. As I have said from the beginning, the ERVs cannot be deleted in the pattern required for your "solution" to work.

Finding a non-primate creature with more shared ERVs than primates is a clear violation of the hierarchy, and therefore violates evolution.

Too bad you all can't find one, eh?

fine. lets go with your scenario. as i said- we can just change the phylogeny. so we will get something like this:

 

[DogmaHunter]

so a motor isnt evidence for design. right.

This is a motor:

You're engaging in an equivocation fallacy.

Not that you didn't know that, because it has been pointed out to you time and again. But what else is new, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

fine. lets go with your scenario. as i said- we can just change the phylogeny. so we will get something like this:

View attachment 240191

That won't work, since this wouldn't match the pylogenies obtained through other, independent, lines of evidence. Like comparative anatomy.

It's almost like you really have no understanding of the various lines of evidence and how they all converge on the same answer.

 

[xianghua]

I just want to see if you have made it up or have ignored an explanation for it.

but you said that : An out of place fossil would be something like a rabbit in the precambrian - a fossil showing features that are shown evolving in later species.

so before i will give you such a case i want to be sure what do you mean by that. if i will show you an example of say 12354 instead of 12345 you will agree that evolution is false in this case or not?

 

[xianghua]

"the designer dun it", is not an explanation.

its like saying that if we will find a watch- "the designer dun it" isnt an answer.

 

[xianghua]

That won't work, since this wouldn't match the pylogenies obtained through other, independent, lines of evidence. Like comparative anatomy.

It's almost like you really have no understanding of the various lines of evidence and how they all converge on the same answer.

thanks but you are wrong. before i will explain why i want to hear 46and2 answer first since he is the one who made the claim.

 

[xianghua]

Ask a paleontologist.

so you dont have an answer. thanks.

 

[xianghua]

This is a motor:

this is a motor too:

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

 

[DogmaHunter]

its like saying that if we will find a watch- "the designer dun it" isnt an answer.

And it isn't.
It's a bare claim.