Why evolution isn't scientific

[xianghua]

Why do you belive so?

because this is what they already did with many fossils.

 

[xianghua]

If it's a prehistoric dolphin with an existing lineage dating back further than 100 million years, evolution would be fine.
If it was the fossil of a modern dolphin found in layers dated to 100 million years, then evolution would be in trouble.
Do you understand this?

why? we can push back all dolphins. problem solved.

 

[xianghua]

First: did you read the abstract? It was published as a thought piece, not as an actual piece of scientific literature.

Second: two papers about ID. Yeah, that's REALLY going to overturn mainstream biology and show everyone that evolution is wrong. (I was being sarcastic)

no no. the original topic was about peer review papers that support id. and we indeed find such papers. case close.

 

[VirOptimus]

because this is what they already did with many fossils.

No they havent, do you understand nested hierarchys? There has never been a fossil that has not fitted into the expected nested hiearchys that the ToE predicts. If there ever was then the ToE would be in trouble.

Now, try to support your claim.

 

[VirOptimus]

no no. the original topic was about peer review papers that support id. and we indeed find such papers. case close.

Case very much not closed, there are no such papers. The ones you suggested do not meet the requirement for scientific peer-review. To say otherwise is to lie.

 

[xianghua]

The fact that you think it's a joke just proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution has been used to make testable predictions in the past, and those predictions were found to be correct.

from your article:

"You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly"

realy? they never heard about "convergent evolution?

or:

"For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap"

they never heard about lazarus taxon?

We can not push a group back to a point where we find the ancestors of that group who had not yet evolved key features of the group

but i just showed you that. here it again:

see how the tracks predate many seemingly "primitive groups"?

 

[xianghua]

No it won't. Evolutionary theory does not have any mechanism in place to explain a 100 myo dolphin.

have you heard about missing fossils?

 

[xianghua]

It is evidence for common descent because common descent predicts that relationships between species should form a nested hierarchy.

but its also true for designed objects:

 

[xianghua]

The ones you suggested do not meet the requirement for scientific peer-review. To say otherwise is to lie.

simply wrong:

Genetic Analysis Of Coordinate Flagellar And Type Iii Regulatory Circuits In Pathogenic Bacteria

this is a peer review article.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

why? we can push back all dolphins. problem solved.

Except we can't just push them all back. If we did, we'd have to push EVERYTHING back.

 

[Speedwell]

but its also true for designed objects:

View attachment 246937

Only when you arrange them in imaginary trees. In the real world trucks were the first motor vehicles; bicycles weren't developed until much later (and aren't powered vehicles anyway) and cars came after trucks as well. It's odd that you put airplanes in with the wheeled vehicles. The first airplanes didn't have wheels so there is no nested hierarchy there at all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

no no. the original topic was about peer review papers that support id. and we indeed find such papers. case close.

Except that wasn't what the original topic was about. The original topic of this thread was about your claim that evolution isn't science because you claim that it can't be tested. As per the OP.
Case still open.

 

[VirOptimus]

simply wrong:

Genetic Analysis Of Coordinate Flagellar And Type Iii Regulatory Circuits In Pathogenic Bacteria

this is a peer review article.

Design and nature? Really? That is not peer-review.

 

[the iconoclast]

Sorry, I've already answered this question. If you answer mine, I may be able to provide a more useful response: what part of what I wrote above don't you understand?

Hey hey brother and thank you. I have no intention of slipping you up so no need to be worried.

Lets say i dont understand common descent. Could you help me understand with examples and references?

God bless you my brother in Christ

 

[Kylie]

from your article:

"You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly"

realy? they never heard about "convergent evolution?

You don't think they mean basic structures like wings, do you? They are referring to specific structures that are unique to calypterate flies. Other non calypterate flies may have similar structures that perform similar functions and may have general similarities, but the details of them are different. Such as how a bicycle wheel is different to the wheel you find on a wheelbarrow which is different to the wheel you find on a car.

or:

"For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap"

they never heard about lazarus taxon?

And of course, there is no possible explanation for this, is there?

Oh wait, of course there's an explanatory mechanism: Sciencespeak: Lazarus taxon

"So why do some creatures seem to blink out of the fossil record only to be revived? There’s more than one reason. The simplest is that the fossil record is not only incomplete, but incompletely-studied. There are fossil-bearing strata that have yet to feel the boots of curious paleontologists, and there are always significant specimens that get overlooked. Not to mention that recognizing living Lazarus taxa is an interdisciplinary effort that requires paleontologists and field biologists to be aware of what the other group is doing. There may be living species that count as Lazarus taxa but haven’t been recognized as such just yet.

Then there’s the nature of the fossil record itself. A species or lineage might go extinct in a given area but persist elsewhere. This geographic problem may be why we don’t have a good fossil record for the living coelacanth, for example. The fish may have clung to existence in deep sea haunts that either didn’t fossilize or have not been discovered yet. And in the case of Lazarus taxa that pop up after mass extinction, it may be that populations temporarily fell too low to allow for a good chance of fossilization."​

but i just showed you that. here it again:

see how the tracks predate many seemingly "primitive groups"?

Oh, this again? No you are just deliberately ignoring people. You have been told MANY TIMES why this is not a valid argument for your position.

If you post something that is wrong, and people explain to you why it is wrong, then you should stop posting it.

If you continue to post it when you have been told it is wrong, either you don't care and just post it because you want to support your view, or you are deliberately ignoring people who contradict you.

And if you continue to post the same disproved evidence to the very same people who already disproved it, they're going to figure you're just a troll.

 

[Kylie]

have you heard about missing fossils?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Let's say there is an underground crypt that has been completely sealed since the year 1920. Is it possible to enter that crypt and find inside it a car that has power steering, air conditioning and reversing cameras? Of course not. You can't just say, "Well, maybe they developed power steering, air con and reversing cameras a lot earlier than we thought."

Let's look at why.

Let's assume that they DID invent those things back in 1920, but no record of them survived. Power steering was then invented again in the early 1950s. But then why would the power steering on the crypt car use the same principles as the power steering invented later instead of using a different technique? Why would the crypt car's power steering have all the signs of having developed from the 1950s power steering?

And what about air conditioning? Sure, air con existed in 1920, but it wasn't in cars until 1933. So why is the air con in the car a small miniaturized version and not the larger versions found in the air conditioners of 1920?

And what about the reversing camera? Why does it use the same sort of screen that is found in modern screens instead of a different pattern of coloured pixels? Why does it use technology that is identical to that found decades later instead of having numerous small differences that would not affect how it works but would clearly indicate a different source?

Of course, we would expect that even if somehow someone back in 1920 DID figure out a way to have power steering, and air conditioning and reversing cameras, they would have done so in ways quite different to the ways we do them today.

So if we DID find such a car, we could possibly explain it if it did things differently, but if it did things the same, then we have a much more difficult question to answer. Because we are no longer asking, "How did they have a reversing camera in the 1920s," we are asking, "How did they have a reversing camera in the 1920s that is identical to the ones we have in 2018?"

 

[Kylie]

but its also true for designed objects:

View attachment 246937

No. Planes are not just highly developed bicycles.

 

[NBB]

Yet another thread in which nonscientists tell scientists how to do their jobs.

Unpopular opinion:
If scientists would be more wise they would acknowlegde God, not say we are a product of matter transforming itself.

 

[VirOptimus]

Unpopular opinion:
If scientists would be more wise they would acknowlegde God, not say we are a product of matter transforming itself. Lets see if i get a funny or op

Science does not deal with god(s) and magic.

 

[sfs]

If scientists would be more wise they would acknowlegde God, not say we are a product of matter transforming itself.

Lots of scientists acknowledge God. Lots don't. In either case, we all do the same science and we really don't need people who don't understand science telling us how to do our jobs.