The problem is that science deniers like yourself have insulated yourselves with ad-hoc adjustments to reject any evidence you don't like.
You are projecting.
Upvote
0
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.
It all depends on how robust that theory is and how well insulated it is from potential falsification via such ad-hoc adjustments.
That's what science is all about. Changing your beliefs/explanations to match the evidence. Not the other way round.
Predictions are for the future. Presumably you will agree that we will continue to find and dig up fossils, yes?
The predictions is that you will never find a rabbit in the cambrian layers.
That nobody every found such a thing in the past doesn't mean that nobody will ever find one in the future, wouldn't you agree?
It's not just rabbits in the cambrian off course. We can make millions of such predictions.
Not really. It would be a huge problem. It would expose that the theory is in error somewhere.
Off course, the facts of evolution wouldn't change because of such a find...
Uncovering fact X wouldn't make facts A, B and C magically disappear...
DNA would still mutate.
Mutations would still be inherited.
There's nothing complex about it. It's just comparing sequenced genomes and putting them into a diagrame based on DNA matches.
Every time this is done, we get a hierarchical tree. A tree that is completely consistent with comparative anatomy, the distribution of species, etc.
Are you aware that these days, it's not even humans doing the comparing? It's computers. You can feed those processes 2 or more sequenced genomes from random organisms and the process will generate a diagram. And it matches every single time.
I'm gonna quit here. I'm starting to get dizzy from reading such ignorance drivel.
That's what science is all about. Changing your beliefs/explanations to match the evidence. Not the other way round.
If you acquired more evidence regarding something you believed would you not change your position?I couldn't agree more. That's why Evolution is not science.
If you acquired more evidence regarding something you believed would you not change your position?
If you thought there were ten people present at the party but later found out there were twenty people would you continue to believe there were only ten people there?
lifepsyopThat's what science is all about. Changing your beliefs/explanations to match the evidence. Not the other way round.
I am really puzzled here. All science changes to fit the evidence, that is what science does. Where is the gripe? I truly don't understand.I couldn't agree more. That's why Evolution is not science.
If you acquired more evidence regarding something you believed would you not change your position?
If you thought there were ten people present at the church but later found out there were twenty people would you continue to believe there was only ten people there?
lifepsyop .. is what bhsmte is saying true?If holding onto a belief, was psychologically more important than acknowledging reality, then he likely would believe only 10 people were there, because he needs to.
Not even if it's enough to slap him in the face?Lifepsyop is, among other things, a geocentrist. Evidence isn't terribly important to him.
So, why is it different for evolution?
Such predictions are based on the observation of the fossil pattern itself.
Like I said, take the Cretaceous/Paleogene and dinosuars/mammals relationship. Evolution theory makes zero predictions as to why major mammal groups could not have begun evolving simultaneously or even before the rise of dinosaurs. But since that is the pattern that was found, Evolution accommodated it.
Of course evolutionists can now "predict" that certain patterns will hold,
This is because ToE is built on a metaphysical worldview, and not the rigid prediction-falsification criteria found in real scientific theories.
Like I said, if a fossil pattern had emerged where major taxa groups appeared in different rock layers, than the ToE would have been developed around that pattern.
The Cambrian explosion is another obvious enigma where many body plans "poof" into existence.
The problem is that science deniers like yourself have insulated yourselves with ad-hoc adjustments to reject any evidence you don't like.
There is nothing vague or mysterious about the mechanisms of evolution.
1. Natural selection
2. Genetic drift
3. Gene flow.
Some consider sexual selection to be separate, but I normally include it under natural selection.
We cannot make predictions about details because we often do not have enough information to do so. There are predictions, that the theory makes, however. For example, the theory predicts that the next genome that is sequences will fall within the nested hierarchy of life.
The theory predicts that if a new antibiotic, or pesticide is utilized that resistance to that compound will evolve, even in species that do not have any resistance, etc.
There is nothing that is a "perfect fit" to anything.
And is this incorrect? Is the fossil record not incomplete?
The reptile-mammal transition is very well recorded in the fossil record, primarily because mammal-like reptiles ruled the terrestrial ecosystems on earth for hundreds of millions of years. It is so well recorded, that we have fossils of species with both a reptilian and a mammalian jaw joint at the same time. There is a reason why they are called "mammal-like reptiles."
Bats don't fossilize very well.
I couldn't agree more. That's why Evolution is not science.
Such predictions are based on the observation of the fossil pattern itself. NOT Evolution theory.
Evolution theory makes zero predictions as to why major mammal groups could not have begun evolving simultaneously or even before the rise of dinosaurs. But since that is the pattern that was found, Evolution accommodated it.
Actually nothing would be exposed. A different evolutionary history of mammals would be proposed, that's all. Maybe some bigger gaps but that's okay.
And bats themselves have left fossil
I'm talking about what committed believers think those mechanisms can do.
There is no objective nested hierarchy of common descent, though, if that's what you were implying.
But evolutionists believe in untold billions of imaginary intermediate creatures, and in this case an incomplete fossil record just becomes an inexhaustible rescue device for a lack of evidence.
Okay it sounds like you do not understand that your "well-recorded transition" is only a subjective interpretation.
However, as I was saying before, this "transition" could also be interpreted as an independent convergence of different lineages towards certain mammalian traits. This would be invoked if, say, mammal groups tended to appear in lower rocks than that jaw "transition".
And actually, it is meaningless to ToE that this 'evolving body-part' "transition" is even in a stratigraphic order. If it was out of order, you could just say that it is evidence that a more primitive trait happened to fossilize before a more derived trait. Care to comment?
This is also an example of that vague magical force that evolutionists make natural selection out to be. Though they have no clue why NS would even begin to favor gradually morphing a jawbone into an ear-bone, they are positive it happened because NS can do anything.
Sorry but things far more delicate than bats have left plenty of fossil evidence. And bats themselves have left fossils, so there is no good reason that populations of billions of alleged bat intermediates could not have fossilized.
DogmaHunterlifepsyop I am really puzzled here. All science changes to fit the evidence, that is what science does. Where is the gripe? I truly don't understand.
Because the central creation story of Evolution is not open to change with evidence.
He didn't say that bats didn't leave fossils, he said that bats don't fossilize well.
Soft things like bats CAN fossilize, but it's rare. The bigger and harder something is, the more likely it's going to at least partially fossilize, so it's not a surprise that small and soft things don't fossilize that often.
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?