but we do find gears in nature:
This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg
so nature is unexpected.
-_- you missed my point entirely. There's no reason to think a wristwatch of flesh would ever develop. That physical shape lends no help to survival and has no natural precedent. Why would being able to tell time demand a watch-like structure when chemical time cues already exist in nature?
Likewise, an organism made of fire is also not plausible. Or are you going to say "nature is unexpected, you can't eliminate the possibility entirely so I'm going to act as if the information you present doesn't matter". Because that attitude gets you nowhere.
but it predate the first fishpod. so it indeed break the hierarchy. like my jet example.
-_- no, that just means that the "fishpod" is a part of a deviating branch and that organisms like it also existed much earlier. Consider lungfish: nothing stops intermediate forms from persisting long after they first appear. The modern lungfish obviously is not transitional between modern fish and amphibians, but that doesn't mean an ancient lungfish wouldn't qualify for that as well. However, toss a rabbit in there and the entire hierarchy is absolutely destroyed.
But hey, you like to act as if the theory of evolution exclusively has wiggle room to adjust to new information. Do you think atomic theory would be disproven if it was found that the masses of protons, electrons, and neutrons were off by 25%? Would that make atoms not exist? No. Heck, what if an additional type of matter that has 4 different types of charged particles in it was discovered? Would that mean standard atoms stop having their properties? No.
The potential to be amended over being outright disproven exists for all scientific theories. Stop being so salty about evolution. Also, your source is National Geographic. I've already told you that it's not a reliable source.
by the same logic: if human evolve from a rat-like ancestor ( lets call it 0) about 70my ago, then even a 50 my fossil of human will make no problem for evolution.
No, because evolution has limiting factors on its speed. That is, mutation rates can only be so high.
and we can stiil claim that human evolve from an ape-like ancestor even that the first ape (lets say about 30 my)appeared after the first human.
-_- if the first ape was human (remember, humans are apes), our genes would reflect that. That is, humans would be genetically closer to all other mammals than any other ape was. This is not the case. I am tired of your ceaseless, empty claims that evolution can work around any hypothetical situation.
This is the end of me tolerating it.
You can claim that evolution could work around these situations all day every day, but guess what? The situations you outline do not exist. There is no self-replicating car. There is no biological watch. There is no 50 million year old human fossil. You don't see me trying to discredit Christianity by saying "What if Odin exists, what now?" If your only contention with a theory is hypothetical situations you THINK would cause problems, you need to seriously rethink your views. I shouldn't actually have to find evidence that would disprove evolution in order to get it through to you that the theory can be disproven.
