Why evolution isn't scientific

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so now you actually admit that even such a fossil will not be a problem for evolution? this is actualy my main point in this thread. and this is why evolution isnt scientific.

Nope, not what she said. There haven't been any fossils found out of place, this is why Evolution is such a solid theory. Everytime a fossil is pulled out of the ground, it is another test against the theory of evolution. Every time we make genetic comparisons and phylogenetic trees from that data, we test evolution. Evolution has been continuously and routinely tested all the time and for the millions upon millions of examples and tests we've made, it hasn't gone against Evolution.

 

[xianghua]

If it couldn't be explained, then yes.

so evolution can explain it or not?

 

[pitabread]

It would certainly cause a rethink. If it couldn't be explained, then yes.

I think we need to be careful about what we're talking about here. Evolution as a theory covers a lot of different ground. Finding a singular out-of-place fossil isn't going to falsify evolution as a whole. Rather, it might call into question the evolutionary time frame of a singular lineage (as per the OP's example).

On top of that, if a singular fossil were found that was really abnormally placed (for example, a modern human skeleton in Pre-cambrian rock), I think most likely it would simply be chalked up as unexplained. Similar to how Piltdown Man didn't really fit hominid evolution, for a couple decades it was viewed as an oddball fossil and many thought it might have been mixed bones from different species to begin with.

Now if we started finding a pattern of out-of-place fossils that would be a different story. Finding numerous examples of modern species throughout the geological column going back to the oldest rocks on the planet would certainly falsify common descent as we know it. But such a pattern doesn't exist.

 

[pitabread]

so evolution can explain it or not?

It entirely depends on what the fossil find is. There are many reasons a fossil could appear to be "out of place". It could be like your example in the OP, simply the evolution of a lineage a bit earlier or later than originally thought (which isn't really 'out of place' so much as a refinement of time lines for the evolution of lineages).

The Earth is also geologically active; layers of rock sift around over time, get exposed via erosion, re-buried, etc. So finding an out-of-place fossil could also be the result of geological activity (and this is something geologists can determine by examining the rock).

So it really it comes down to what specifically we are talking about. There are a lot of different scenarios in which a fossil can appear to be "out of place".

On top of all of that, if a really out-of-place fossil were ever found (say a human skeleton in Precambrian rock) and couldn't be explained, it would be left as just that: an unexplained fossil. To truly overturn the patterns of evolutionary common descent based on the fossil record, you'd need an entirely different fossil record. There would have to be a different pattern of fossils as a whole, not necessarily one single out-of-place fossil.

If the creationist explanation for life on Earth were true and all organisms were created at approximately the same time, we'd expect to see a pattern of fossils that reflected that. Instead, we see a pattern of changes of biological forms over Earth's history: which is explained by biological evolution.

And on top of that, we actually observe these same biological changes occurring in modern populations and have identified the mechanisms by which they occur (changes to DNA). So that part of evolutionary theory would not be falsified since it's something we directly observe beyond just the fossil record.

 

[46AND2]

so far we have seen that your points were incorrect. so lets continue with this one. you said that its impossible according to evolution to get a different genome but a more similar genome in its ervs. so i showed you that its incorrect too since e ven according to evolution there is no problem if a genome will be more different compare to its ervs phylogeny. as we seen- many genes in sharks are actually more similar to human than to other fishes. so evolution has no problem to solve this conflict by convergent evolution or rapid evolution. so this claim is wrong too. can you admit this simple fact before we will continue?

Nah, I've dismantled every one of your arguments already. This is a neverending game. I'd explain to you why this one is just as ridiculous as the previous ones, and then you'd resort to coming up with yet another hilariously incorrect point, because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so finding an out of place fossil will falsify evolution or not?

A truelly out of place fossil would require a serious explanation, yes. Although if you have just one of them, it wouldn't be enough to dismantle a theory that's only grown ever more solid from multiple independent lines of evidence - the fossil record being just one of them, and not even the best one at that...

Now, if you would find a bunch of them, with some kind of pattern that doesn't fit the evolutionary narrative, then you'ld have something.

A singular example and nothing else, is problematic to simply discard 200 years of solid and useful science. After all, all that other evidence doesn't just go away...

So, do you have a truelly out of place fossil, or better yet, a bunch of them?

Not really sure what your point is with pressing this. I mean, let's be serious, it's not like you have such a fossil and have kept it a secret all this time, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

this is what he said: If you find a watch, 'the designer dun it' is simply a proclamation. so a watch by itself isnt evidence for design according to him. its just a proclamation.

You didn't read the rest of his post, did you?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I think we need to be careful about what we're talking about here. Evolution as a theory covers a lot of different ground. Finding a singular out-of-place fossil isn't going to falsify evolution as a whole. Rather, it might call into question the evolutionary time frame of a singular lineage (as per the OP's example).

On top of that, if a singular fossil were found that was really abnormally placed (for example, a modern human skeleton in Pre-cambrian rock), I think most likely it would simply be chalked up as unexplained. Similar to how Piltdown Man didn't really fit hominid evolution, for a couple decades it was viewed as an oddball fossil and many thought it might have been mixed bones from different species to begin with.

Now if we started finding a pattern of out-of-place fossils that would be a different story. Finding numerous examples of modern species throughout the geological column going back to the oldest rocks on the planet would certainly falsify common descent as we know it. But such a pattern doesn't exist.

You're right, I did mean to explain the millions of examples of falsifiable tests to date that evolution has passed with flying colours, but work got in the way and I was hasty in my reply. Thanks for expanding on that!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so evolution can explain it or not?

explain what?

 

[Speedwell]

A truelly out of place fossil would require a serious explanation, yes. Although if you have just one of them, it wouldn't be enough to dismantle a theory that's only grown ever more solid from multiple independent lines of evidence - the fossil record being just one of them, and not even the best one at that...

Now, if you would find a bunch of them, with some kind of pattern that doesn't fit the evolutionary narrative, then you'ld have something.

A singular example and nothing else, is problematic to simply discard 200 years of solid and useful science. After all, all that other evidence doesn't just go away...

So, do you have a truelly out of place fossil, or better yet, a bunch of them?

Not really sure what your point is with pressing this. I mean, let's be serious, it's not like you have such a fossil and have kept it a secret all this time, right?

As I understand Xianghua's line of argument, it is not to falsify evolution as such, but to demonstrate that evolution is unfalsifiable and thus not science.

 

[Kylie]

so now you actually admit that even such a fossil will not be a problem for evolution? this is actualy my main point in this thread. and this is why evolution isnt scientific.

Are you capable of understanding English?

I said that any example that you post will LIKELY have an explanation. This is because I've never seen a creationist try to understand why things are the way they are, they just assume that something fits their narrative and insist that their narrative is therefore true.

Rest assured, if you show me a fossil horse that was found in pre-Cambrian rocks, I will completely agree that it is impossible according to evolutionary theory.

But if the best you can do is those alleged human footprints in rocks alongside dinosaur footprints (the "human footprints have been shown to be dinosaur footprints) or the hammer allegedly found in Cretacious rocks (the Cretacious rocks are near the hammer, the hammer wasn't in them, and the encrusted hammer could have formed in only a few decades), then you'll just be proving my point.

So now that I have told you how I will respond to your claims, I want to see it. Present this fossil evidence you claim to have.

 

[tas8831]

how your phylogenetic tree make any difference to what i said?

How your claim make any difference? How elephant shark problem?

You didn't read your own link, did you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

How your claim make any difference? How elephant shark problem?

You didn't read your own link, did you?

Talking about elephants.... This weekend I saw a picture that absolutely blew my mind.

Last week, I posted up this pic of forelimb bones as compared between various species, to show how every bone is accounted for when tracing evolutionary morphological changes.

Then this weekend, I came accross an article discussing something completely unrelated about elephants. The article included a picture of an elephants back limbs, more specifically how it looks on the inside. It like.... blew my mind.

Looks like a bit of a weird human foot shoved in a boot or something.
It's insane... it's all there... the heel, the ankle, the tows, the small foot bones,....

Amazing.

The forelimbs in turn, clearly look like hands. No heels there...
Couldn't find a cross section from that part though.

But anyway....... I thought that was pretty amazing.

 

[xianghua]

Nah, I've dismantled every one of your arguments already. This is a neverending game. I'd explain to you why this one is just as ridiculous as the previous ones, and then you'd resort to coming up with yet another hilariously incorrect point, because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

so you dont want to deal with the facts. ok. fine .

 

[xianghua]

It entirely depends on what the fossil find is. There are many reasons a fossil could appear to be "out of place". It could be like your example in the OP, simply the evolution of a lineage a bit earlier or later than originally thought (which isn't really 'out of place' so much as a refinement of time lines for the evolution of lineages).

The Earth is also geologically active; layers of rock sift around over time, get exposed via erosion, re-buried, etc. So finding an out-of-place fossil could also be the result of geological activity (and this is something geologists can determine by examining the rock).

So it really it comes down to what specifically we are talking about. There are a lot of different scenarios in which a fossil can appear to be "out of place".

On top of all of that, if a really out-of-place fossil were ever found (say a human skeleton in Precambrian rock) and couldn't be explained, it would be left as just that: an unexplained fossil. To truly overturn the patterns of evolutionary common descent based on the fossil record, you'd need an entirely different fossil record. There would have to be a different pattern of fossils as a whole, not necessarily one single out-of-place fossil.

If the creationist explanation for life on Earth were true and all organisms were created at approximately the same time, we'd expect to see a pattern of fossils that reflected that. Instead, we see a pattern of changes of biological forms over Earth's history: which is explained by biological evolution.

And on top of that, we actually observe these same biological changes occurring in modern populations and have identified the mechanisms by which they occur (changes to DNA). So that part of evolutionary theory would not be falsified since it's something we directly observe beyond just the fossil record.

so how many out of place fossil we need to find to falsify evolution? 10? 50? 100?

 

[xianghua]

explain what?

an out of place fossil.

 

[xianghua]

Rest assured, if you show me a fossil horse that was found in pre-Cambrian rocks, I will completely agree that it is impossible according to evolutionary theory.

so you agree that if we will find a series of fossils like 15234 (5 represent the horse in this case) instead of 12345 evolution will be false in this case. right? again: this is your criteria. i want to be clear about this before i will try to give you such an example.

 

[tas8831]

Talking about elephants.... This weekend I saw a picture that absolutely blew my mind.

Last week, I posted up this pic of forelimb bones as compared between various species, to show how every bone is accounted for when tracing evolutionary morphological changes.

View attachment 241246

Then this weekend, I came accross an article discussing something completely unrelated about elephants. The article included a picture of an elephants back limbs, more specifically how it looks on the inside. It like.... blew my mind.


View attachment 241247

Looks like a bit of a weird human foot shoved in a boot or something.
It's insane... it's all there... the heel, the ankle, the tows, the small foot bones,....

Amazing.


View attachment 241248


The forelimbs in turn, clearly look like hands. No heels there...
Couldn't find a cross section from that part though.

But anyway....... I thought that was pretty amazing.

Cool - I've seen elephant skeletons, but that is an interesting way to look at it. You can clearly see the navicular, talus, metatarsals, etc...

But no - totally separate creations!

 

[pitabread]

so how many out of place fossil we need to find to falsify evolution? 10? 50? 100?

Millions.

I've told you before, for creationism to be true (per the idea that all life was created at approximately the same time) you need a completely different fossil record. Assuming that is where you are going with this line of argument.

 

[Speedwell]

so how many out of place fossil we need to find to falsify evolution? 10? 50? 100?

Quite a few from someone like yourself who can't explain why in-place fossils are where they are.