Why evolution isn't scientific

[DogmaHunter]

simply wrong. tiktaalik actually appeare to late, since it appeare after the first fossil evidence for a tetrapod.

This makes zero sense.
The devonian marks the transition from fish to tetrapods.
Tiktaalik is a mid devonian fossil showing features of both fish as well as tetrapods. A prime example of a transitional.

What is the problem?

 

[DogmaHunter]

i actually didnt talked about tiktaalik but about this finding:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

You brought this up before and plenty of people, including myself, went to great lengths to explain to you how this doesn't mean what you claim it to mean.

Now, here you are again, repeating the same nonsense that has already be corrected, refuted and explained to you.


More evidence that you aren't just ignorant. You're willfully ignorant.
Intellectually dishonest even.

I don't understand what you hope to accomplish by insisting on getting it wrong and / or lying about the science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

You conveniently and dishonestly ommitted the most important part of the post. I don't think you missed it, since it was even written in capital letters for extra emphasis.

That part being: provided you have the evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if we can push snake then we can push any snake.

Either your stupidity or your dishonesty, knows no limits it seems.

Ancient snakes are not the same as modern snakes.
I'm really sorry if your mind really is so far gone in religious extremism that you can't even grasp such a simple concept.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if we can push an old species of snake why we cant push a more modern species of snake? you make no sense.

For the same reason that we can push back the birthyear of my great-grandfather to 1880 instead of 1884, but we can't push back *my* birthday from 1980 to 1880.........

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

This seems to be the concept you struggle with most.

As an analogy, where do you put the limit between a child and an adult?
Not so easy to answer, isn't it?

And yet, you won't find anyone who wouldn't be able to tell which one is the child and which one is the adult, if you show them a 5-year old and 40-year old.

But that line gets pretty blurry between ages 15 and 21. And even "15" and "21" was chosen somewhat arbitrarily.

That's the thing about gradual processes like evolution and aging. There is no clear line that divides species from sub-species, or children from adults.

The line is very blurry and more often then not, we'll just use an arbitrary line just for practical purposes.

So instead of a clear line, you rather get a "blurry zone" where it gets hard to say which is which.

Outside of that zone though, not so much. The further out of the zone, the easier it also is to tell. Like with the 5-year old and the 40-year old.


Anyhow, I don't expect this explanation to stick either. I'm actually rather positive that even your very next reply to this post, will already ignore most of what I just said.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

The testing of scientific theories, is something that you do with the help of actual, existing evidence. Not with hypothetical or imaginary evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if so evolution predict nothing and therefore its not scientific.

Among millions of other succesfull predictions, it predicted the finding of Tiktaalik.
It predicted the age, the anatomical feature set and the rock it would be found in.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Or are you suggesting that Xianghua is intentionally ignoring parts of my replies?

That obviously is the case.

Why else would he ommit the following :"PROVIDED YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP" when replying to that post? You even put it in all capitals for extra emphasis.

He just ignored the whole thing and even explicitly removed it from the quote and then responded to the half-quote as if that last part wasn't included.


He had to explicitly do something extra to ommit that part of the quote. When you click "reply", the ENTIRE post is quoted. So he explicetly went into the post and deleted part of it. That's pretty intentional. That's on purpose.

That's the level of (lack of) honesty you're dealing with.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's... that's not what happened at all. Why are you lying?

Because telling the truth would make his religious extremist beliefs crumble like ice on a warm summer day.

 

[xianghua]

That's... that's not what happened at all. Why are you lying?

lying? here from the abstract:

"that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids."

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

so we hvae tetrapod before elpistostegids (missing links between fishes and tetrapods).

 

[xianghua]

Even if that were true (which it isn't), how would that be evidence of your bear?

its evidence that we can push creatures without any problem for evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Because you have no evidence for it!

Show me a 200 million year old bear fossil and I will agree that bears are 200 million years old, AND I will agree that this 200 million year old bear is a seriously problem for evolution.

But you have never been able to do this! You NEVER provide evidence to back up your fantasies and wishful thinking. Your position has NOTHING.

great. so first i showed you an out of place fossil. and walla- no problem for evolution. so a 200 bear fossil will just be solve by the same way- by pushing back bear evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

lying? here from the abstract:

"that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids."

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

so we hvae tetrapod before elpistostegids (missing links between fishes and tetrapods).

/facepalm

The earliest FOSSILS.

Were you under the impression that "oldest fossil" is the equivalent of "very first appearance ever" or something?

 

[DogmaHunter]

great. so first i showed you an out of place fossil.

You did not such thing. And every time you presented something that you claimed was such a fossil, people (some of which are actually paleontologists) corrected you and explained your error.

But you don't seem to care. It seems you don't care about getting it wrong. In fact, you even proudly persist in getting it wrong.

and walla- no problem for evolution. so a 200 bear fossil will just be solve by the same way- by pushing back bear evolution.

The poland track example, is the equivalent of pushing back my birthyear from 1980 tot 1978.
A 200 myo bear fossil would be the equivalent of pushing back my birth year from 1980 tot 1520.

You can continue to pretend as if that's the same thing, but you'll only be missing out again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

lying? here from the abstract:

"that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids."

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

so we hvae tetrapod before elpistostegids (missing links between fishes and tetrapods).

And? Why are you making a deal out of this? This doesn't present a problem for evolution.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie and thank you for your reply Lets have some fun

I know you love a challenge!

I would like to put forward a challenge to you. I propose 'the super fun time kylies logic challenge'.

Logic is reason conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. One must have the quality of being logically or factually sound (.eg to have regard to what is actually the case; in relation to fact.)

Logic must be based on a valid reason or good judgement, weighed on the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I will make a statement.

You can have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ!

What do you think about this statement? (.eg in a logical, sensible way.)

Thank you

I can only have personal relationships with beings that exist. For example, you can have a personal relationship with me because I can provide objective evidence I exist. We can talk on the phone, we can even meet in person. You can conduct all sorts of tests to verify that I am a real person and not a figment of your imagination.

Please provide evidence of this kind that God or Jesus exists.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

its evidence that we can push creatures without any problem for evolution.

No, it isn't. It may be evidence that tetrapods evolved earlier than previously thought, but still within an acceptable timeframe. Now, how does that have anything to do with your hypothetical bear?

 

[Kylie]

great. so first i showed you an out of place fossil. and walla- no problem for evolution. so a 200 bear fossil will just be solve by the same way- by pushing back bear evolution.

Why not just push everything back by several trillion years? You don't seem to grasp the ideas that underlie the concepts you are trying to discuss.

 

[xianghua]

No, it isn't. It may be evidence that tetrapods evolved earlier than previously thought, but still within an acceptable timeframe. Now, how does that have anything to do with your hypothetical bear?

if we will find such a bear we can say the same: "It may be evidence that bears evolved earlier than previously thought". no difference. and what do you mean by "acceptable timeframe"? 30 my? 50? 100?