Why evolution isn't scientific

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but i already showed here other case that is very similar to this theoretical bear case. and as we have seen- no problem for evolution. so the bear case isnt different.

Except you didn't. 18 million years, geologically speaking, is nothing. In terms of a clock, it's not even a second. Your idea however can only work WITH evidence.

 

[xianghua]

Except you didn't. 18 million years, geologically speaking, is nothing. In terms of a clock, it's not even a second. Your idea however can only work WITH evidence.

100 my is also nothing (geologically speaking). so i see no difference from 20 my vs 100.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

100 my is also nothing (geologically speaking). so i see no difference from 20 my vs 100.

Then that's your problem.

 

[Speedwell]

but there is no such a way to prove such a situation even if it was real. this is why evolution isnt testable.

It can't be proven. That's not the way science works. It's up to you to find evidence which will dis-prove the theory. That's how science works--it's based on inductive logic. Confirming evidence does not "prove" a theory it only confirms it, and the theory is then held provisionally until evidence comes along which contradicts it.

Do you have any real evidence that a species is been found to have existed before its supposed precursor? That is the evidence which will "test" the theory of evolution.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

but its irrelevant to the question if evolution is scientific or not.

Your 200mu old bear is, indeed, irrelevant. So why do you keep harping on about it?

 

[Kylie]

but i just showed you that evolution can explain everything. this is the problem.

No you didn't. Evolution could NOT explain 200 million year old bears, since if there was a 200 million year old bear fossil, it would contradict everything else evolution (and a whole bunch of other sciences) tell us.

Handwavium may exist in your strawman of evolution, but it doesn't exist in reality.

 

[RealityCheck01]

but i just showed you that evolution can explain everything. this is the problem.

You are still wrong, xianghua.
People agree that finding a Precambrian rabbit would be something that evolution could not explain. This is the simple fact that a modern mammal cannot appear in the fossil record before mammals existed.
Evolution cannot explain a Precambrian rabbit bear.
Evolution cannot explain a Precambrian rabbit human being.
Evolution cannot explain ~5,415 species of modern mammals appearing in the Precambrian .
There are around 9 million species and any of them would be unexplained by evolution if we found evidence of them before the class existed.

Thus evolution cannot explain everything and there is no problem.

 

[RealityCheck01]

the tetrapod fossil appear before the missing links between tetrapods and fishes. so its out of place.

Still wrong, xianghua, as explained to you before.
There are no new tetrapod fossils. There are disputed trackways that some scientists attribute to tetrapods, a few to Tiktaalik and others think they are not trackways at all.

Tetrapods are a group of many species. Fishes are many species. There are multiple possible species that can be a transitional species between a species of fishes and a species of tetrapod. Tiktaalik is the first transitional fossil between fishes and tetrapods that we found. It may be that it is actually the first transitional fossil between fishes and tetrapods. If the trackways are accepted as evidence of earlier tetrapods then Tiktaalik becomes a later transitional fossil between fishes and tetrapods.

These are not "out of place" fossils.

ETA: In case you do not think that this has been explained to you before, read post 622.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but its irrelevant to the question if evolution is scientific or not.

yes, your fantasies and what-if's are irrelevant to the question if evolution is scientific.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but there is no such a way to prove such a situation even if it was real. this is why evolution isnt testable.

Every time somebody says that evolution isn't testable, I lol

 

[DogmaHunter]

but i already showed here other case that is very similar to this theoretical bear case. and as we have seen- no problem for evolution. so the bear case isnt different.

You have never given any example that posed a problem for evolution, that is true.

 

[xianghua]

It can't be proven. That's not the way science works. It's up to you to find evidence which will dis-prove the theory. That's how science works--it's based on inductive logic. Confirming evidence does not "prove" a theory it only confirms it, and the theory is then held provisionally until evidence comes along which contradicts it.

Do you have any real evidence that a species is been found to have existed before its supposed precursor? That is the evidence which will "test" the theory of evolution.

i already gave here several examples like in the whale case and this tetrapod one:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

 

[xianghua]

No you didn't. Evolution could NOT explain 200 million year old bears

what is the problem? just push back bear evolution. problem solved.

 

[xianghua]

If the trackways are accepted as evidence of earlier tetrapods then Tiktaalik becomes a later transitional fossil between fishes and tetrapods.
.

this is the problem. any fossil can be fit with evolution. later or eariler.

 

[VirOptimus]

this is the problem. any fossil can be fit with evolution. later or eariler.

Is this some kind of performance art?

No, they cant, as has been repeatedly explained.

But there are no such fossils as the ToE is correct.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

i already gave here several examples like in the whale case and this tetrapod one:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

This has been explained to you many, many times so you know you are making a dishonest claim. It is not really acceptable behaviour to continue making this claim. Pleased desist.

 

[Kylie]

what is the problem? just push back bear evolution. problem solved.

You do realise that evolution doesn't actually work like that?

I mean, this has been REPEATEDLY explained to you. It's starting to seem that you are just deliberately ignoring it now.

 

[xianghua]

You do realise that evolution doesn't actually work like that?

actually evolution work exactly like that. this is why its not science.

 

[Roland Pires]

It can't be proven. That's not the way science works. It's up to you to find evidence which will dis-prove the theory. That's how science works--it's based on inductive logic. Confirming evidence does not "prove" a theory it only confirms it, and the theory is then held provisionally until evidence comes along which contradicts it.

Do you have any real evidence that a species is been found to have existed before its supposed precursor? That is the evidence which will "test" the theory of evolution.

 

[Kylie]

actually evolution work exactly like that. this is why its not science.

No it doesn't. You don't know enough about evolution to explain how it works.