Why evolution isn't scientific

[xianghua]

And of course, there is no possible explanation for this, is there?

so your source is wrong when its says that evolution cant explain a fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs. so once again we see that evolution cant be test. see how your own source know nothing about evolution?

 

[xianghua]

No. Planes are not just highly developed bicycles.

as human isnt an highly developed fish.

 

[xianghua]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Let's say there is an underground crypt that has been completely sealed since the year 1920. Is it possible to enter that crypt and find inside it a car that has power steering, air conditioning and reversing cameras? Of course not. You can't just say, "Well, maybe they developed power steering, air con and reversing cameras a lot earlier than we thought."

Let's look at why.

Let's assume that they DID invent those things back in 1920, but no record of them survived. Power steering was then invented again in the early 1950s. But then why would the power steering on the crypt car use the same principles as the power steering invented later instead of using a different technique? Why would the crypt car's power steering have all the signs of having developed from the 1950s power steering?

And what about air conditioning? Sure, air con existed in 1920, but it wasn't in cars until 1933. So why is the air con in the car a small miniaturized version and not the larger versions found in the air conditioners of 1920?

And what about the reversing camera? Why does it use the same sort of screen that is found in modern screens instead of a different pattern of coloured pixels? Why does it use technology that is identical to that found decades later instead of having numerous small differences that would not affect how it works but would clearly indicate a different source?

Of course, we would expect that even if somehow someone back in 1920 DID figure out a way to have power steering, and air conditioning and reversing cameras, they would have done so in ways quite different to the ways we do them today.

So if we DID find such a car, we could possibly explain it if it did things differently, but if it did things the same, then we have a much more difficult question to answer. Because we are no longer asking, "How did they have a reversing camera in the 1920s," we are asking, "How did they have a reversing camera in the 1920s that is identical to the ones we have in 2018?"

again from your own link:

The simplest is that the fossil record is not only incomplete, but incompletely-studie

so if we will find a 100 my old dolphin fossil we can claim that we just didnt found the rest of the fossils yet. problem solved.

 

[Speedwell]

so if these vehicles were also in the correct period of time you will say that they evolved from each other?

What I pointed out in my post is,

1. That your tree is fanciful and does not represent the actual order of development of those objects.
2. Even if it did, the tree does not form a nested hierarchy.
3. There is, in fact, no way to make a tree out of those object which forms a nested hierarchy, whether you have the objects in correct temporal order or not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

everything? including fishes? reptiles? no. just all the groups that is suppose to be related to dolphins. as i said: problem solved.

Which would mean that we would need to push back the evolution of everything else then. Problem not solved.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

i actually refer to a later topic in this thread.

So you're switching topics part way through your own thread. That's not really something that'll make us see you in a good light. In fact, that's the common tactic of someone who has lost the debate in their own thread and want to cover up that fact.

 

[Kylie]

so your source is wrong when its says that evolution cant explain a fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs. so once again we see that evolution cant be test. see how your own source know nothing about evolution?

Do you really think that evolution must be able to explain EVERYTHING that your fantasy conjures or it can't explain anything?

Once again, you show without any doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Kylie]

as human isnt an highly developed fish.

Actually, I could make a very convincing argument that it IS.

 

[Kylie]

again from your own link:

The simplest is that the fossil record is not only incomplete, but incompletely-studie

so if we will find a 100 my old dolphin fossil we can claim that we just didnt found the rest of the fossils yet. problem solved.

No we can't, because dolphins require that EARLIER species had certain traits that the dolphin traits evolved from. If the fossil record shows that the species that first evolved those traits lived LATER, then that is something evolution can't explain.

Once again, you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[the iconoclast]

Of course it shouldn't stop the layman being able to test the ideas of science. In this case, though, the laymen has spent literally years ignoring the actual ideas and responses of scientists and endlessly repeating his own ideas.

Hey hey brother

I would not say ignore, some of us try to be upto date with what is modern. When we consider the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge, what you and i believe now may be redundant in the future.

Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!
Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!

Great. As I recall, I asked you what part you didn't understand in the explanation for why phylogenetic trees are evidence for evolution and you didn't respond. So continue the discussion . . .

Hello brother

The highlighted question below is the substance of my concern with the 'tree of life'... common descent. please see the below my brother

Post #1014.

"Lets say i dont understand common descent. Could you help me understand with examples and references?"

God bless you my brother in Christ

 

[the iconoclast]

But the layman should also recognise that he does not have as much knowledge about the idea he is trying to examine, and therefore he may not be the best qualified to reach a reasonable conclusion about it. The only rational thing he can do is to accept that the people who have studied the idea in depth and who have much greater knowledge about the idea than he has are much more likely to get accurate information and conclusions.

So when the layman's conclusions disagree with the expert's conclusions, the layman should assume that he has made a mistake. He should not assume that the experts are wrong.

Hey hey kylie and @DogmaHunter

Please excuse my absence. I am going to put our conversation on hold for an unknown amount of time. I have discovered another member on cf who is very intriguing and i would like to concentrate on that discussion.

Dont worry, we will continue.

Thank you for your reply kylie.

It has been noted, you want me to accept an appeal to authority ie your authority which are scientists. This is an excellent example of atheist faith ie do not question evolution and listen to the experts.

Cya soon, you 2 are now my favourites

 

[xianghua]

What I pointed out in my post is,

1. That your tree is fanciful and does not represent the actual order of development of those objects.
2. Even if it did, the tree does not form a nested hierarchy.
3. There is, in fact, no way to make a tree out of those object which forms a nested hierarchy, whether you have the objects in correct temporal order or not.

but again: its also true with evolution. many traits appeare in far species too.

 

[xianghua]

Which would mean that we would need to push back the evolution of everything else then. Problem not solved.

and what is the proble, to push back many groups? i already showed that they have no problem to push back many groups in the fish-tetrapod transition. again: problem solved.

 

[xianghua]

So you're switching topics part way through your own thread. That's not really something that'll make us see you in a good light. In fact, that's the common tactic of someone who has lost the debate in their own thread and want to cover up that fact.

i actually still focus in the main point in this thread so its clearly not true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

and what is the proble, to push back many groups? i already showed that they have no problem to push back many groups in the fish-tetrapod transition. again: problem solved.

Except that isn't what you showed! All you showed is that you don't understand science! Case closed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

i actually still focus in the main point in this thread so its clearly not true.

Except you haven't. You haven't even supported your own claim.

 

[xianghua]

No we can't, because dolphins require that EARLIER species had certain traits that the dolphin traits evolved from. If the fossil record shows that the species that first evolved those traits lived LATER, then that is something evolution can't explain.

you have no idea what you are talking about. you clearly never heard about ghost lineage:

Ghost lineage - Wikipedia

you are wrong. case close.

 

[xianghua]

Do you really think that evolution must be able to explain EVERYTHING that your fantasy conjures or it can't explain anything?

why you cant admit the simple fact that your source is wrong? does it cost you any money?

Once again, you show without any doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about.

base on what i have seen above that is a funny statement...

 

[sfs]

I would not say ignore, some of us try to be upto date with what is modern. When we consider the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge, what you and i believe now may be redundant in the future.

There is a long history of specific scientific findings being overturned. There is no such history of large, well-established scientific theories being overturned. Extended and placed in a different context, yes, but shown to be outright wrong? When has that happened?

"Lets say i dont understand common descent. Could you help me understand with examples and references?"

Common descent just means that physically, different species descend from a single common ancestor. For example, humans and chimpanzees are descended from a single species that lived something like 7 million years ago. As for references, what exactly are you looking for? There is a wide range of evidence that common descent is true. You can see one kind of genetic evidence here.

 

[Speedwell]

but again: its also true with evolution. many traits appeare in far species too.

And taken altogether, near species and far, they form a nested hierarchy.