Why evolution isn't scientific

[TagliatelliMonster]

the a rgument is that since a car need at least several parts to be functional its also true for living things. can you show why its not true?

Yes.

Cars are manufactured.
Life develops and evolves stepwise.

The pathways towards the incricaties of the internal systems, is thus entirely different and can not be rationally compared in an analogy in terms of how those systems came to be... since they come about in radically different ways.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

the a rgument is that since a car need at least several parts to be functional its also true for living things. can you show why its not true?

It's not a valid argument as it stands (it's not really an argument at all, it's an assertion), but I have no problem with either cars or living things requiring several parts.

If your point is just that both cars and living things need several parts in order to function, why have you been wasting our time with gibberish posts for the last couple of years?

Incidentally, to make a valid argument of your assertion, I think you need a false premise (which makes an unsound argument):

P1 - Functional things need several parts (false premise)
P2 - A car / living thing is functional
C - Therefore a car / living thing has several parts

But even if it was valid and sound, it's not saying anything interesting. Maybe you'd like to try again.

 

[bhsmte]

this is a self replicating car so its indeed subject to the processes of biology.

Show us one.

We will wait patiently.

 

[pitabread]

no. i talking about a car with wheels and engine you know...

Cars with wheels and engines are not alive.

Again, you seem confused about living versus non-living things. You really need to figure that out if you want to talk about biology.

 

[dad]

When you can do something more than insults based on word play, lemme know. Until then, I've got better things to do with my time.

Sorry if it is a shock to your system that there are many many beliefs besides your own.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Greetings and salutations my new friend

Sorry but I do not make friends with people who ignore an fairly easily understood post:
You need to learn what the fallacy of argument from authority actually is ...

The scientific consensus is different. Using a consensus is a way that a layperson can trust science. A group of scientists use their expertise and evaluate the evidence for and against a scientific theory. If the majority agree that the evidence supports the theory then it is foolish for a layperson to disagree. Consider having an illness and going to 100 doctors. 97 say you have A and this is the treatment for A. 3 say you have B and this is the treatment for B. Which treatment do you take? The rational, reasonable action is to follow the scientific consensus.

P.S. The numbers reflect the scientific consensus on global warming: over 97% of climate scientists say that the evidence is that global warming exists and our CO2 emissions are the primary cause. A layperson asking about evolution would find a much greater consensus among the appropriate experts.

 

[RealityCheck01]

whats one example that should convince me re evolution?

The question is a bit silly, the iconoclast, because it suggests that you have forgotten what you have learned in high school about evolution. Or that you do not know about Google or Wikipedia . Or that I can read your mid and knoww hat you would find "convincing".
An answer is remember what you read in your high school biology textbooks which should have good evidence about evolution (maybe not in Texas!).
An answer is Google 'evidence for evolution".
An answer is evolution.

Scientific theories are built on bodies of evidence. There is occasionally a single item of evidence that makes a scientific theory obviously correct. This is not the case for evolution otherwise Darwin's books would have been a few pages long!

If you are being honest then 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. The Scientific Case for Common Descent is a good place to start. My personal "one example" that convinces me is Prediction 4.5: Molecular evidence - Endogenous retroviruses. This is easy to understand. There are viruses that insert their DNA randomly into host DNA. That can happen in germ line cells (sperm or ova) and become part of the genome of a species. Two species that share a set of ERV get that set from a common ancestor.

ETA: You also need to read other replies to your posts and not ask basically the same question again.

Here you go.

Welcome to Evolution 101!

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

whale evolution

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

You have not done this but there is a rather nasty tactic that I have seen from cranks in other forums of asking every poster in a thread the same question. It is nasty because they are trying to waste peoples time with questions they probably know the answer to. They also go on about any trivial differences between the replies in order to further waste time.

 

[RealityCheck01]

incorrect but you are wlecome to believe it.

This is repeating your false understanding of a paper, xianghua, as corrected several times.
The post as you can see here evolutionists have no problem to push back many species at once is a not cited Wikipedia image that has no species being pushed back. It is a figure with some key Devonian body fossils in relation to the Zacheime tetrapod trackways. That "push back" is a lie is clear from the figure you included in the post because it arrows showing a date range of the 7 fossils with no "pushing back" arrows.

Your posts stating that there is "pushing back" in Figure 5 are wrong.
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

Figure 5 | Phylogenetic implications of tracks. a, Phylogeny of selected elpistostegids and stem tetrapods, based on refs 10, 12, 19 and 20, fitted to Devonian stratigraphy. The grey bar indicates replacement of elpistostegids by tetrapods in body fossil record. b, Effect of adding the Zachełmie tracks to the phylogeny: the ghost ranges of tetrapods and elpistostegids are greatly extended and the ‘changeover’ is revealed to be an artefact. Pan, ...

 

[Kylie]

this is a self replicating car so its indeed subject to the processes of biology.

It is not subject to the processes of biology because it isn't biological.

 

[Kylie]

Sorry if it is a shock to your system that there are many many beliefs besides your own.

I am fully aware that there are many different belief systems apart from the one I hold.

The difference between us is that I judge the validity of a belief system on how well it bears up against reality. You judge them on how well they match your own beliefs. Only one of us will get accurate results, and it ain't you.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...yet no scientists does this in any DNA test to prove relatedness.

An ignorant assertion, Justatruthseeker, because it is well known that DNA tests do show "relatedness". Scientists compare DNA to give a "family" tree for the apes that matches the tree we get from the fossil record, etc.

If you want to honestly learn about evolution then 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. The Scientific Case for Common Descent is a good place to start.

 

[RealityCheck01]

its a problem for evolution since evolution need small steps.

An ignorant "problem for evolution" fantasy, xianghua. Basic biology is that there are small steps in evolution - mutations, etc. !

 

[RealityCheck01]

if you will remove a part of a tipical complex biological system it will not work. so it cant evolve unless all the parts are in place.

The irreducible complexity idiocy from xianghua, who knows that if you remove parts from a flagellum then you get a working complex biological system! That was one of the IDiots abysmal ignorance about biology - that a biological system always has the same function.
Evolution of flagella
Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

 

[RealityCheck01]

because it cant evolve stepwise like evolution required.

A lie that evolution requires "stepwise" evolution because xianghua knows about the not stepwise Evolution of flagella
Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

 

[RealityCheck01]

let me put it this way: if we had a self replicating molecule, do you believe that it can evolve into something like a car?

An abysmally ignorant question from xianghua.
A self replicating molecule is not life or biological .
A car is not life or biological .

 

[RealityCheck01]

i talking about a self replicating car. with wheels etc. ...

An irrelevant "self replicating car. with wheels etc" delusion from xianghua. This is a car. Cars do not self replicate. The least deluded version of this "car" would be an imaginary bacteria that had wheels.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

this is a self replicating car so its indeed subject to the processes of biology.

Could you please give us the definition of biology that you are using? In this reality a car is not subject to processes of biology. Once we have a clue about your alternative reality we may be able to help.....

 

[dad]

I am fully aware that there are many different belief systems apart from the one I hold.

The difference between us is that I judge the validity of a belief system on how well it bears up against reality.

You have not the foggiest clue of what reality even is actually. You simply refer to your baseless belief system as 'reality' in a cheap and crass attempt to elevate fables from the so called science fantasy factory.

 

[pitabread]

You have not the foggiest clue of what reality even is actually.

This coming from someone that can't define their own epistemological basis.

 

[dad]

This coming from someone that can't define their own etymological basis.

Yes, it was Babel. That was when languages came to exist.