Why evolution isn't scientific

[xianghua]

But if 'something like a car' means a small, human-built, mechanised personal transport, then the answer is obviously 'No' because such things don't evolve - as you've been told too many times.

Try again.

i talking about a self replicating car. with wheels etc. if you think that such a car cent evolve from a self replicating moleule- then why you believe that its possible with a living thing?

 

[pitabread]

if you think that such a car cent evolve from a self replicating moleule- then why you believe that its possible with a living thing?

Do you still not understand the difference between living and non-living things?

What didn't you understand about the first dozen times people answered this question?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

i talking about a self replicating car. with wheels etc. if you think that such a car cent evolve from a self replicating moleule- then why you believe that its possible with a living thing?

There's no such thing as a self-replicating car.

BTW, have you ever wondered why no multicellular creature evolved wheels?

 

[the iconoclast]

I have evidence that my horse is actually in the race. So far it's the only horse racing, so it's guaranteed to win.

Hello kylie my dear

Im still working on replying to your last post, its going to be long!

Cya soon cheers

 

[xianghua]

Do you still not understand the difference between living and non-living things?

i actually did talked about living thing: a car that is able to repliciate itself.

 

[VirOptimus]

i actually did talked about living thing: a car that is able to repliciate itself.

But that is a nonsensical not existing thing.

The ToE only applies to living things that exist (or have existed).

 

[xianghua]

There's no such thing as a self-replicating car.

i talking about a theoretical car now.

BTW, have you ever wondered why no multicellular creature evolved wheels?

im sure that if wheels were exist in nature evolutionists were able to gave it a theoretical explanation.

 

[xianghua]

But that is a nonsensical not existing thing.

The ToE only applies to living things that exist (or have existed).

this is why its called "analogy".

 

[pitabread]

i actually did talked about living thing: a car that is able to repliciate itself.

We already have a name for those in the English language. It's called a horse.

 

[bhsmte]

Hello my dear

Bhsmte - "I have faith i may win lotto someday, but i trust the lights will turn on, when i flip the switch."

What u think?

I think my statement explains itself.

 

[bhsmte]

Hello bhsmte

Please do not take offense. You mean this is the best you can do, ie you prefer to make statements rather than back them up

Cheers my new and marvelous friend

LOL

 

[VirOptimus]

this is why its called "analogy".

But it isnt an analogy, its just stupid.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

i talking about a theoretical car now.

Good for you. It sounds to me like the same argument by equivocation or false equivalence you've been trying to make for a couple of years, and been patiently shown every time that it is invalid and why it is invalid. I'm not biting.

If you have an argument to make, just make it. When you've done that we can tell you what we think of it.

 

[RealityCheck01]

but the evidence is the fossils itself. so if we will find a 100 my old dolphin fossil evolution will be just fine.

Digging yourself deeper into a pit of blatant errors about evolution, xianghua.

If we find fossils for any animal (rabbit, bear, now dolphin and thousands of other species for you to make the same error about !) before it could have evolved, that will falsify evolution. This is the Precambrian rabbit/bear/whatever falsification that you still do not understand.

What you replied to was the impossibility of finding a modern dolphin fossil 100 million years ago because modem dolphins evolved 34 million years ago. That would falsify evolution.
Evolution of cetaceans

If we find fossils for any animal that extends its lineage backward to when it was still possible that it evolved then that is not falsification of evolution. That is your error on your first post on Aug 29, 2018, your repeated error about the many possible transitional species between the many fish species and many tetrapod species and now we have dolphin fantasies. That suggest thousands of more fantasies abut each species to come !
Still wrong about the disputed tetrapod trackways that can only shift one of many possible transitional fossils between fishes and tetrapods, xianghua, as explained to you before.

 

[the iconoclast]

I think my statement explains itself.

Hello friend

I have a marvelous idea

hey @FrumiousBandersnatch. Is this sentence correct?

If i was to say I have faith i may win lotto someday, but i trust the lights will turn on, when i flip the switch, what do you think?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

LOL

Hey hey

Ok.

 

[RealityCheck01]

see how the tracks predate many seemingly "primitive groups"?

Still wrong about the disputed tetrapod trackways that can only shift one of many possible transitional fossils between fishes and tetrapods, xianghua, as explained to you before.

 

[RealityCheck01]

this is a peer review article.

A probable lie that Genetic Analysis Of Coordinate Flagellar And Type III Regulatory Circuits In Pathogenic Bacteria is a peer review article as that article was published in WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment from a WIT book with no sign of peer review.!

WIT does publish peer reviewed journals and they are called journals!

No surprise that IDiots such as S. C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute chose to misrepresents biology as "machines".

 

[RealityCheck01]

read here:

You do not understand what you cite. That article was published in WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment , an "eLibrary" from various sources. That volume of the transactions (73) are the proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design and Nature, not the irrelevant journal in your post. That journal published its 13th volume in 2018 and has exited since 2006 while the IDiot conference paper is dated 2004.

 

[RealityCheck01]

so your source is wrong when its says that evolution cant explain a fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs.

Deep fossils of trilobites/dinosaurs ignorance, xianghua.
This is trilobites. This is dinosaurs. They are not calypterate or other flies which Kylie wrote about in the post you replied to.

The probable "source" in your post:

The fact that you think it's a joke just proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution has been used to make testable predictions in the past, and those predictions were found to be correct.

http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-best-examples-of-predictions-based-on-the-theory-of-evolution-by-natural-selection

Falsifiable Predictions of Evolutionary Theory on JSTOR

There are a few sources showing how evolution makes testable predictions, and the first source gives many specific examples of these predictions and shows how they were later proven correct.