Why evolution isn't scientific

[Bungle_Bear]

so if in the future we will find a 50 my old bear fossil you will agree that we can push back bear evolution. right?

I will answer that when you answer my question which you have ignored. Do you agree we cannot push back evolution without evidence?

 

[xianghua]

I will answer that when you answer my question which you have ignored. Do you agree we cannot push back evolution without evidence?

sure. its a theoretical scenario to test evolution claims. can you answer my question now?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but what is a "modern day"? where you put the limit between modern snake and a primitive one?

... okay, that one stumped me. Maybe using modern day wasn't the best for snakes, since what we recognise as 'modern' snakes appear in the Late Cretaceous period. But a clear example of a primitive snake would be a snake that clearly shows the limbs that earlier forms possessed.
But, getting back to the original point, and one you have clearly tried to ignore; a scientist finding a bear, like a Kodiak Bear, fossil in a sedimentary layer older than sediment that would contain a primitive bear fossil would be a problem. But we don't see that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

sure. its a theoretical scenario to test evolution claims. can you answer my question now?

Theoretical scenarios don't mean squat though. I've had theoretical scenarios for Space Marines from Warhammer 40k fighting against Storm Troopers from Star Wars. Theoretics are worthless.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

sure. its a theoretical scenario to test evolution claims. can you answer my question now?

You haven't answered my question. Do we need evidence, yes or no?

 

[xianghua]

... okay, that one stumped me. Maybe using modern day wasn't the best for snakes, since what we recognise as 'modern' snakes appear in the Late Cretaceous period. But a clear example of a primitive snake would be a snake that clearly shows the limbs that earlier forms possessed.
But, getting back to the original point, and one you have clearly tried to ignore; a scientist finding a bear, like a Kodiak Bear, fossil in a sedimentary layer older than sediment that would contain a primitive bear fossil would be a problem. But we don't see that.

but i alrleady showed that we do find more modern forms before primitive one. again take a look at this figure:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...e_tracks_vs_selected_Devonian_fossils.svg.png

so its clearly not true that its impossible for evolution to find a more modern form before more primitive one.

 

[xianghua]

You haven't answered my question. Do we need evidence, yes or no?

i said yes.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

i said yes.

You said sure, it's theoretical.

If we agree that we need evidence, then we can dismiss your theoretical test as it has no evidence. It is not a test.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but i alrleady showed that we do find more modern forms before primitive one. again take a look at this figure:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...e_tracks_vs_selected_Devonian_fossils.svg.png

so its clearly not true that its impossible for evolution to find a more modern form before more primitive one.

Let's show this with a LARGER scale since both your examples are far too small to see.

Question for you: do you have any idea what the phrase 'divergent evolution' means? Because that pic ^ shows absolutely NOTHING of what you are saying.

 

[xianghua]

You said sure, it's theoretical.

If we agree that we need evidence, then we can dismiss your theoretical test as it has no evidence. It is not a test.

its a test since we need to predict what we will find or not in the future.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

its a test since we need to predict what we will find or not in the future.

It's not a test in any way shape or form.

 

[xianghua]

Let's show this with a LARGER scale since both your examples are far too small to see.

Question for you: do you have any idea what the phrase 'divergent evolution' means? Because that pic ^ shows absolutely NOTHING of what you are saying.

what? the tetrapod track fossil predate these missing links between fish and tetrapod. so this fossil is more modern then these fishes and yet it appeare earlier.

 

[xianghua]

It's not a test in any way shape or form.

if so evolution predict nothing and therefore its not scientific.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

what? the tetrapod track fossil predate these missing links between fish and tetrapod. so this fossil is more modern then these fishes and yet it appeare earlier.

EDIT: I am a complete idiot. I misread the graph, since it shows the evolution and placement of the various creatures, including tiktaalik, in the Zachelmie quarry formations.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

if so evolution predict nothing and therefore its not scientific.

Wrong. The questions you are asking are questions that do not predict anything for evolution. They're just questions that you in your ignorance have concocted because you don't understand what you are arguing against and are too lazy to actually learn the science behind.

 

[xianghua]

You realise they're going BACKWARDS from the figure in the bottom left of the picture, right?

what do you mean by that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

what do you mean by that?

Yeah, no, ignore that one. I misread the graph. It only just clicked what it was actually showing. I didn't see the lines connecting the creatures together.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

its a test since we need to predict what we will find or not in the future.

It is neither a test nor a prediction.

 

[Kylie]

so we both agree that 200 my old bear fossil is ok with evolution.

Are you incapable of understanding what I say? Or do you just decide to ignore what I say?

Because I very clearly stated that YOU NEED EVIDENCE. You have provided NOTHING. Your ridiculous fantasies born of your ignorance of science prove nothing.

 

[Kylie]

this is what she said: "You can push it by as much as you want". even if she was joking it doesnt change the fact that we can push any creature by finding a new fossil. this fact alone prove that the creature evolution can be change by fossils and therefore there is no such a thing as "out of place fossil".

I said you can push it by as much as you want PROVIDED YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.

This seems like a difficult concept for you to grasp. If you want to disprove evolution with a 200 million year old bear fossil, then you need to actually produce the bear fossil.