Why evolution isn't scientific

[xianghua]

No.

so evolution isnt science too.

 

[xianghua]

So basically, new tetrapod evidence predates the oldest tetrapod evidence we had previously, but doesn't predate its own ancestors, being fish.

This is why it isn't a problem.
Tetrapods are expected to show up in devonian rock.
The tetrapod tracks are found in devonian rock.

There is no problem.

Got any tetrapods that predate fish? No? Didn't think so.

what is the different between a fossil that predate fishes and a fossil that predate a group of fishes?

 

[xianghua]

Read it slowly and think. Im sure you will eventually get it.

isnt all fishes a group of fishes? read it slowly and think. im sure you will eventually get it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

what is the different between a fossil that predate fishes and a fossil that predate a group of fishes?

I don't understand this question at all.
In any case, it doesn't seem to be a response to anything in the post you are quoting.

I suggest you read my post once more, perhaps with a little more focus this time, and then try again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

isnt all fishes a group of fishes? read it slowly and think. im sure you will eventually get it.

Let me try again with an analogy so simple a 5-year old would understand....

So we have a woman. We'll call her "1".
We have another woman, who's 1's daughter. We'll call her "2".
We have another woman, who's 2's daughter. We'll call him "3".
We have another woman, who's 3's daughter. We'll call her "4".
We have another woman, who's 4's daughter. We'll call him "5".
So, let's add some birth years...

1 gave birth to 2 in 1940​

2 gave birth to 3 in 1960

3 gave birth to 4 in 1980
4 gave birth to 5 in 2000

So here we have.... you guessed it: "12345".
Now... let's assume that somehow, it turns out that 3 has some serious memory problems. 4 finds out that she wasn't born in 1980. She finds out that she was actually born in 1978!

So what do we have here? Ha, still 12345
​

This is the equivalent of your tetrapod tracks.​

​

Now, suppose that 4 would find out that she wasn't born in 1980, but in 1955 instead.​

NOW, we have 12435!!!​

​

NOW we have a problem!​

Because what was believed to be off-spring, actually existed BEFORE the supposed ancestor lived!​

​

THAT would be an "out of place" fossil. Mammals BEFORE reptiles. Reptiles BEFORE amphibians. Amphibians BEFORE fish!​

​

In short: rabbits in pre-cambrian strata!​

​

Good luck with that.​

​

​

(ps: 5 bucks says that you still won't get it, or will pretend to not get it)​

 

[xianghua]

​

NOW, we have 12435!!!

NOW we have a problem!​

and this is exactly what we found. say that all the missing links between fish and tetrapod are the numbers 234. so they between fishes (1) and tetrapods (5). now we find the order 15234. exactly what you described and even worse.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

and this is exactly what we found. say that all the missing links between fish and tetrapod are the numbers 234. so they between fishes (1) and tetrapods (5). now we find the order 15234. exactly what you described and even worse.

No it isn't. Not at all.

 

[Kylie]

so if we will find a bear fossil that is about 200 my old evolution will be false?

Early mammals first appeared in the Triassic, but during the time of the dinosaurs they remained fairly small creatures. It was only after the extinction of the dinosaurs that mammals diversified into the large forms we see today.

If you can show me a fossil bear like a grizzly bear that comes from Triassic rocks, I will take it as evidence against evolution.

But if all you can show me from Triassic rocks are fossils of small mammals, then I won't accept it.

 

[Shemjaza]

Early mammals first appeared in the Triassic, but during the time of the dinosaurs they remained fairly small creatures. It was only after the extinction of the dinosaurs that mammals diversified into the large forms we see today.

If you can show me a fossil bear like a grizzly bear that comes from Triassic rocks, I will take it as evidence against evolution.

But if all you can show me from Triassic rocks are fossils of small mammals, then I won't accept it.

I predict an article about a tiny placental mammal with signs of being a predator and some vague comment about the dentition being more like a modern predator like a bear then like the mouse it more closely resembles.

 

[DogmaHunter]

and this is exactly what we found.

No, it's not.

say that all the missing links between fish and tetrapod are the numbers 234. so they between fishes (1) and tetrapods (5). now we find the order 15234. exactly what you described and even worse.

How about we don't say that and just stick to reality, where we do have sea life older then tetrapods.

 

[xianghua]

Early mammals first appeared in the Triassic, but during the time of the dinosaurs they remained fairly small creatures. It was only after the extinction of the dinosaurs that mammals diversified into the large forms we see today.

If you can show me a fossil bear like a grizzly bear that comes from Triassic rocks, I will take it as evidence against evolution.

But if all you can show me from Triassic rocks are fossils of small mammals, then I won't accept it.

the first bear fossil is date to about 38 my. are you saying that we cant push back bears by about 150 my? if so: where is the limit that we can push back a bear fossil? by 50 my? 100? give me a number please. if you cant give a number- than its not a testable claim- and therefore its not scientific.

 

[xianghua]

View attachment 242997

No, it's not.




How about we don't say that and just stick to reality, where we do have sea life older then tetrapods.

i do stick with reality and you dont. this fossil indeed predate the group of fossils that represent the missing links between fishes and tetrapods. so if we can push tetrapod back we can also push back fishes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the first bear fossil is date to about 38 my. are you saying that we cant push back bears by about 150 my? if so: where is the limit that we can push back a bear fossil? by 50 my? 100? give me a number please.

Why does that even matter, since you acknowledge that the oldest one dates to about 38my?

You seem to be having a habbit of using imaginary evidence to build counter arguments.
You do realise that your arguments are just as imaginary as the foundation you use for them, righh?


In any case, as for your question: @Kylie was pretty clear.
"If you can show me a fossil bear like a grizzly bear that comes from Triassic rocks, I will take it as evidence against evolution."

So if you want your number in context of that statement, all you need to do is look up when the Triassic ended. I could tell you, but I think it would be a good exercise for you to actually look something up for once.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i do stick with reality and you dont.

You do not.
In reality, fossils are showing up in the rock (aka time period) they are supposed to show up in according to evolution.

Tetrapods in devonian rock, with fish predating it. Exacly as expected.

this fossil indeed predate the group of fossils that represent the missing links between fishes and tetrapods.

No, it does not.
Furthermore, it's not a fossil, it's tracks.

so if we can push tetrapod back we can also push back fishes.

Tetrapods weren't pushed back at all. The point.

Tetrapods are supposed to show up in devonian rock.
Your example is that of a tetrapod in devonian rock.

Pushing back tetrapods in a way that would actually be problematic for evolution, would be to find tetrapods in PRE-DEVONIAN rock.

But we don't find that at all, do we?

 

[Kylie]

the first bear fossil is date to about 38 my. are you saying that we cant push back bears by about 150 my? if so: where is the limit that we can push back a bear fossil? by 50 my? 100? give me a number please. if you cant give a number- than its not a testable claim- and therefore its not scientific.

If you have evidence that there were bears around 150 million years before the first bear fossils that we know of, then present it.

Until then, your hypotheticals don't count for squat.

And I will say now that if you can present evidence that pushes the development of bears 150 million years earlier than what science currently indicates, I will take that as evidence against evolution.

Bears evolved to fill a niche that opened up as a result of many things - the extinction of the dinosaurs, changing climate, etc. 150 million years before the first bears were around, the niche that bears would fill was already being filled by other species.

It's like social media. Facebook is very well adapted for social media. If another platform wants to come in and take over the crown as most popular social media, then it either has to be much better than Facebook, or it has to appeal to a different niche.

So we see apps like Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat which have had success because they fit into a different niche. Google+ tried to fit the same niche as Facebook, and it's been driven to extinction. Bears are like Google+. They could succeed, but they had to wait until the dinosaurs (Facebook) was no longer around before it could have any success.

 

[Shemjaza]

the first bear fossil is date to about 38 my. are you saying that we cant push back bears by about 150 my? if so: where is the limit that we can push back a bear fossil? by 50 my? 100? give me a number please. if you cant give a number- than its not a testable claim- and therefore its not scientific.

I think it stretches credibility for a bear to evolve 50my ago... and it's impossible for a bear to have evolved 100my ago.

But this didn't happen and you have no evidence aside from your fantasies.

 

[xianghua]

No, it does not.

simply wrong:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids.

why you ignore a scientific evidence?

Pushing back tetrapods in a way that would actually be problematic for evolution, would be to find tetrapods in PRE-DEVONIAN rock.

so finding a 420 my old tetrapod fossil will falsify evolution because its a pre-devonian rock?

 

[xianghua]

I think it stretches credibility for a bear to evolve 50my ago

so a fossil of bear that is about 50 is ok with evolution. so where you mark the limit?

 

[xianghua]

If you have evidence that there were bears around 150 million years before the first bear fossils that we know of, then present it.

Until then, your hypotheticals don't count for squat.

And I will say now that if you can present evidence that pushes the development of bears 150 million years earlier than what science currently indicates, I will take that as evidence against evolution.

Bears evolved to fill a niche that opened up as a result of many things - the extinction of the dinosaurs, changing climate, etc. 150 million years before the first bears were around, the niche that bears would fill was already being filled by other species.

ok but you still didnt answered my question. where is the limit that we can push back the first bear? you agree that a 40 my old bear fossil is ok, and a 200 my old bear fossil isnt ok with evolution. so there must be a limit where we can push back the first bear. can you give the number please?

 

[DogmaHunter]

simply wrong:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

The middle devonian ha?
So, you find tetrapods in the rock where tetrapods should be showing up. Exactly like we would expect.


This has been addressed and explained to you countless times already.
Why do you obsessively continue to repeat mistakes that have been corrected dozens of times?

age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils

So?

why you ignore a scientific evidence?

I'm not ignoring anything.
Why are you pretending this is a problem?
Tetrapods evolved in the devonian. So we expect to find tetrapods in devonian rock and NOT in pre-devonian rock.

And the fact is that.... we find tetrapods in devonian rock and not in pre-devonian rock.

So.... what's the problem?

so finding a 420 my old tetrapod fossil will falsify evolution because its a pre-devonian rock?

Finding tetrapods in rocks where they shouldn't be would be a problem for evolution, yes.
Got any? No? Didn't think so.