Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Even if the Zachelmie tracks were made by a tetrapod that lived before Tiktaalik, they are still Lower or Middle Devonian.
There is no evidence for Silurian, Ordovician or Cambrian tetrapods. However, the animal that made the Zachelmie tracks must have had Silurian and earlier ancestors. Thus the evidence still shows that Devonian tetrapods evolved from Lower Palaeozoic ancestors that were not tetrapods.
they also made a laser scanning and found that its was a real tetrapod. are you trying to claim that its not a real fossils and therefore evolution isnt false?
its doesnt matter. they still "out of order".
what evidence? there is no scientific evidence that a tetrapod can evolve from a fish.
Evolution can say for sure that transitional fossils exist. It cannot say for sure that we will find a particular transitional fossil.
Likewise, when I see all the fossils that line up as evolution expects, then I find it hard to believe a designer kept putting more and more advanced animals out there, popping them into existence out of nothing, until finally it created the zebra.
What is the best explanation for the Ford Mustang? That Ford blueprints advanced with time until they reached the Mustang, or that the Mustang was designed? Could it not be both?
And if the Mustang blueprints evolved with time and the Mustang was designed, then why cannot it not be that the zebra DNA evolved with time and it was designed? Why do the two need to be exclusionary?
So even if you prove the zebra was designed--but you haven't--you will not have proven that the DNA did not evolve.
And yet they have imposed the notion onto generations and generations that this process is true and actually happened. Again a historical narrative made up to fit the pre-supposed theory (oops! hypothesis) is made up (='s science fiction) and we (the innocently inquiring student) is indoctrinated with this story as if it is an established (or "obvious") fact when in fact it is not. Pilbeam admits and discuses how this is sad shortcoming of paleo-anthropology, because the unfounded hypothesis becomes insisted on so much that it takes on the tone of being a law.
Where did they claim that?
And no, I am not. Nothing you have said in anyway shows that evolution is false.
True, but the actual demonstrable fact that he presented showed a creature like Tiltaalik is NOT "transitional" which what we have continually been indoctrinated with. It is not representatibe of a stage BETWEEN fish and tetrapods. So far all we see is development of variation within the same organism and since all evidence ONLY SHOWS THAT and all lab experiments done ONLY CONFIRM THAT then that is what we should teach.
And no, I am not. Nothing you have said in anyway shows that evolution is false.
For example, finding birds below all avian dinosaurs would falsify evolution
its actually was your argument. here is again:
so finding out of order fossil will disprove evolution or not?
Question for you: why is this whole supposed false narrative accepted almost universally by scientists across the world and is only opposed by anonymous people on the internet and people who have zero scientific credentials?
Because they want it to be true and interpret the actual data through the hypothesis, instead of letting the actual data SHAPE the hypothesis (which is what good science does).
Then some make idiot assumptions like this quote from doubtingmerle..."I find it hard to believe a designer kept putting more and more advanced animals out there, popping them into existence out of nothing, until finally it created the zebra" as if that's what educated people who believe in a creator (like Francis Collins for example) actually believe. He really is so clueless.
so where is this borderline actually? 50 milion years? 60? 70?
Warden_of_the_Storm said: ↑
For example, finding birds below all avian dinosaurs would falsify evolution?
No not at all! What it falsifies is the made up story that Archaeopteryx is a transitional BETWEEN reptile and birds. Now it MAY turn out that in the future we MAY find other evidence but for now we must stop indoctrinating and stick to educating. Teach them Archae is NOT a transitional between reptiles and birds and that some people "BELIEVE" that a process like this happened but we have no actual proof.
Then allow for and teach other OPINIONS on the data, and supply their reasoning, and let the students make up their own minds, thus encouraging real critical thinking. Stop telling them what to think and start teaching them HOW TO THINK and we will get a better class of scholars for the future.
Do you at least agree that if we did this we would get that?
But the data is shaping the hypothesis. What you are suggesting scientists do is start WITH the explanation and work backwards.
Also, you haven't actually answered my question as to WHY almost virtually all scientists across the world accept the theory of evolution.
a) I did answer your question very precisely, and
b) That is exactly what happened (and happens) starting a century ago. Yes they begin with the assumption the hypothesis is correct, then interpret the actual evidence though these rose colored glasses. We can see this very clearly in the work of the Leakys in the Olduvau gorge (and elsewhere but this was a whopper for which they got so much acclaim and tons of funding)
Do not forget that scientific data and the explanations "scientists" give us to explain it. are not always the same thing.
I don't know, and for the sake of being actually intellectual, do not take that as an admission that the theory of evolution is wrong because it most certainly is not. It's just an admission that I personally do not know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?