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.
-_- I said genetics have to match the fossil record.
Obviously no meeting our expectations does not equate to evolution being wrong
And I explained how you're wrong. They don't have to match in any specific sense.
That's what I've been saying. Evolution theory is designed to be able to absorb contradictions... purely in a way that servers to insulate the theory from potential falsification.
An evolutionist is like a weatherman predicting that there will be weather.
Yes, they do, how do you not get that? If baboons were more closely related to us than chimps, it isn't reflected in the fossil record, and evolution as a theory would be very close to being disproven. The only way it wouldn't be is if a transition fossil was discovered as a case of convergent evolution.
But order matters too: a fossil of a mammal predating the first amphibian would wreak the theory. A fossil of an amphibian predating any bony fish would wreak the theory. Evolution can be disproven, it just so happens that nothing like that has been found.
I already refuted this. If you disagree then address my initial response.
Okay, let's go with this.... so you're basically saying given the supposed 550 Million Years of animal life on Earth, you're predicting that a mammal can only appear within the last 400 million years or so. (after the first amphibians)
My, that really is a stunning level of specificity.
Sadly, you won't be able to do much better than this kind of extreme vagueness. The more specific you try and get, the more you will be shown that Evolution theory fails to predict it.
Sir, the theory was used to predict the location, age, and traits of a fossil that had never been seen before. It can be very accurate.
Okay, let's go with this.... so you're basically saying given the supposed 550 Million Years of animal life on Earth, you're predicting that a mammal can only appear within the last 400 million years or so. (after the first amphibians)
My, that really is a stunning level of specificity.
First - as PS is pointing out, there is a lot more to it than that.
Second - it included the type of mammal, such as the fact that rodents will only be found in the last 80 of those 400. Multiply that by group after group, and the level of specificity is even more powerful.
Third - even if one were to naively take your simple 400/550 (= 0.73), that's for every single mammal fossil - of which there are many tens of thousands. So the odds of this by chance are = 0.73^30,000+, which is as close to zero as one can get.
That's obviously not "moldable" - quite the opposite of an infinitely stretchable idea like the flood "sorting" the fossils.
In Christ-
Papias
First - as PS is pointing out, there is a lot more to it than that.
Second - it included the type of mammal, such as the fact that rodents will only be found in the last 80 of those 400. Multiply that by group after group, and the level of specificity is even more powerful.
Ok good. Now you can be the first evolutionist ever to explain how Evolution predicts when rodents will evolve in the history of life on earth. (or any other mammal groups for that matter.)
The reason you can't do this, is because Evolution makes no such specific prediction. If early paleontologists had discovered a pattern of rodent fossils appearing 200 million years ago, then the narrative would have been written that this was the time period when natural selection pressures led to the evolution of rodents.
Evolution can't predict rodents will evolve ever... much less at what time.
Evolution theory simply adapted to the fossil record ad hoc. It does not predict anything specific.
-_- Tiktaalik is exceedingly specific.
Ok good. Now you can be the first evolutionist ever to explain how Evolution predicts when rodents will evolve in the history of life on earth. (or any other mammal groups for that matter.)
Refuted above. Feel free to address my response to Tiktaalik.
Specific of what?
Specific in regards to being predicted to exist based in evolutionary theory. Location was predicted perfectly, age was predicted within acceptable error, traits were predicted with great precision. It is more astounding that predicting the specifics of a battle that occurred in ancient human history that had all records lost and physical evidence yet to be discovered down to the number of links in the armor of both sides, and predicting where to find a perfectly preserved body from the war that matches the predictions.
You refuted nothing. The point was that Tiktaalik was what they expected to find, where they expected to find it. If evolutionary theory has no real predictive power, how did it make a prediction that turned out to be true? Was it a lucky guess?
Try reading and addressing my response. I explained it clearly.
Can it give an exact date? No. And I don't think anyone ever said it could. But it can tell us, for instance, that we should never expect to find mammals before repitiles, because mammals evolved from them.
It can tell us that the oldest snake fossils we find should have primitive legs, because snakes are unique among reptiles in not having limbs.
It can tell us that the oldest turtle fossils we find should have underdeveloped shells and beaks, because turtles are the only reptiles with these traits and would have to evolve them if they share ancestry with other reptiles.
These are predictions that turned out to be true. They didn't just happen to be that way.
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?