Embarrassing Evolution proofs

[xianghua]

What you think is not important, as you have demonstrated time and again that you have no clue what you are talking about concerning this subject.



See? When you say stuff like this, you only show your ignorance on the topic.

you only show your ignorence actually. but you are welcome to beleive otherwise.

 

[xianghua]

Find me a mammal next to trilobites.

in this claim they will claim for "anomaly" and thats it. or for convergent evolution or for unknown geological process etc.

 

[Speedwell]

in this claim they will claim for "anomaly" and thats it. or for convergent evolution or for unknown geological process etc.

No, you are making up a lie and putting it into the mouths of scientists.

 

[xianghua]

Go ahead, try it.
Find me a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.

so if we will find that say orangutan shared more ervs with human then human with chimp evolution is false? (because chimp suppose to be colser to human and not orangutan). this is your prediction?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

in this claim they will claim for "anomaly" and thats it. or for convergent evolution or for unknown geological process etc.

A single fossil wouldn't be sufficient if there was the likelihood or even possibility of it being misplaced due, for example, to geological processes.

However, an important part of the scientific method is replication - if other examples of this apparently out-of-time creature were found in strata with the same dating at other sites, it would be a serious challenge to evolution.

 

[majj27]

Find me a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.

so if we will find that say orangutan shared more ervs with human then human with chimp evolution is false? (because chimp suppose to be colser to human and not orangutan). this is your prediction?

ProTip: Orangutans are primates. It may help to actually put the goalposts firmly in the ground somewhere: running about willy-nilly with them must be tiring.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so if we will find that say orangutan shared more ervs with human then human with chimp evolution is false? (because chimp suppose to be colser to human and not orangutan). this is your prediction?

Orangutans are primates...

 

[xianghua]

ProTip: Orangutans are primates. It may help to actually put the goalposts firmly in the ground somewhere: running about willy-nilly with them must be tiring.

it doesnt matter since chimp suppose to be closer to human. so if we will find such example it will be similar to a case outside primate group (say a dog).

 

[xianghua]

Orangutans are primates...

i well aware about that. see above.

 

[xianghua]

A single fossil wouldn't be sufficient if there was the likelihood or even possibility of it being misplaced due, for example, to geological processes.

However, an important part of the scientific method is replication - if other examples of this apparently out-of-time creature were found in strata with the same dating at other sites, it would be a serious challenge to evolution.

no since you can always claim for unknown geological process or convergent evolution.

 

[majj27]

it doesnt matter since chimp suppose to be closer to human. so if we will find such example it will be similar to a case outside primate group (say a dog).

Yes it does, because you aren't actually responding to what the DogmaHunter said: you're substituting your own, completely different issue.

Which is, as I said:

Look, if you want a discussion where we just respond to things that nobody has said and answer questions we make up in our heads randomly, that's fine. It'll just be very hard to follow and will mostly be useful for giggles.

 

[majj27]

no since you can always claim for unknown geological process or convergent evolution.

Yeah, right here you've basically argued that since someone got shot yesterday, we all got shot yesterday. That's a really bad argument.

 

[DogmaHunter]

in this claim they will claim for "anomaly" and thats it.

Nope.

Mammals next to trilobites will falsify evolution. There's no way around that.

or for convergent evolution or for unknown geological process etc.

Nope.

 

[majj27]

Nope.

Mammals next to trilobites will falsify evolution. There's no way around that.

Well, assuming that they are next to each other because they died in a geologically very short period of time to one another. Just dropping a trilobite fossil and a mammal fossil next to each other during an earthquake is another thing entirely.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if we will find that say orangutan shared more ervs with human then human with chimp evolution is false? (because chimp suppose to be colser to human and not orangutan). this is your prediction?

I want to say "yes", but I suspect you are going to link to several studies that employ different ways of measuring it and then completely misrepresent them and try to score intellectually dishonest points in that fashion.

So I'm gonna go ahead and say "no" and just stick to my initial challenge:
find me a non-primate with which we share more erv's then with primates.

 

[xianghua]

That's a problem for your 'argument'; you can't predict specific results of evolutionary processes, only that each stage has a selective advantage over the previous stage in the environment of its time.

But the main problem for your 'argument' is that cars do not constitute breeding populations...

take a motion system for instance. any motion system need at least several parts to work. so such a system cant evolve stepwise. right?

 

[xianghua]

Why not? The biggest difference is that aircraft engines are air cooled and automobile engines are water cooled, but there are some automobile engines which are air cooled. Right after WWII an engineer named Preston Tucker was trying to get a car into production. Because of delays in manufacturing engines he actually used war-surplus air cooled aircraft engines in the cars. Made about fifty cars that way and they worked fine.

ok. but its not small steps. you cant just add one part and get it work as a plane engine.

 

[majj27]

take a motion system for instance. any motion system need at least several parts to work. so such a system cant evolve stepwise. right?

Wow. Way wrong. That's an irreducible complexity argument that has been THOROUGHLY junked.

If you're going to crusade against evolution, it may help to know what evolution actually is, as opposed to what a creationist tells you it is.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

no since you can always claim for unknown geological process or convergent evolution.

The point of requiring more than one site would be to make the coincidence of both specimens encountering the same displacement in different contexts unreasonably remote - unless there was evidence supporting coincidental displacement at both sites.

Convergent evolution could not produce a creature with the identifying traits of a descendant lineage earlier than the common ancestor of that lineage. For example, a creature with features of later mammals before the earliest known common ancestor of mammals.

Convergent evolution produces broadly similar traits in broadly similar niches (e.g. bird wings, bat wings), but the detailed anatomy is very different, not to mention the genetics because the lineages are different.

 

[majj27]

ok. but its not small steps. you cant just add one part and get it work as a plane engine.

The Wright Brothers did. Several times in fact.