Why evolution isn't scientific

Kylie · Dec 17, 2018

the iconoclast said:
Thank you for your reply kylie.

It has been noted, you want me to accept an appeal to authority ie your authority which are scientists. This is an excellent example of atheist faith ie do not question evolution and listen to the experts.

Cya soon, you 2 are now my favourites

lol, appeal to authority is not a fallacy if the authority actually IS an authority on the subject.

You sure don't know how to science, and you seem incapable of properly understanding how logical fallacies work.

Kylie · Dec 17, 2018

xianghua said:
you have no idea what you are talking about. you clearly never heard about ghost lineage:

Ghost lineage - Wikipedia

you are wrong. case close.

How in the world do you think this supports your claim that animals can evolve before their ancestors?

Do you think you are capable of being born before your parents?

Kylie · Dec 17, 2018

xianghua said:
why you cant admit the simple fact that your source is wrong? does it cost you any money?

Because it's not. You only make the claim because you don't actually understand how it works, and you've shown no inclination that you actually want to learn.

the iconoclast · Dec 17, 2018

Kylie said:
lol, appeal to authority is not a fallacy if the authority actually IS an authority on the subject.

You sure don't know how to science, and you seem incapable of properly understanding how logical fallacies work.

Hey hey kylie

I disagree, it is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. We both have to agree that it is an authority for the appeal to not be illogical.

Your authority is in scientists, your faith is in scientists and their conclusions. Anyways we will continue soon. Cya soon my faithful atheist.

Kylie · Dec 17, 2018

the iconoclast said:
Hey hey kylie

I disagree, it is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. We both have to agree that it is an authority for the appeal to not be illogical.

Your authority is in scientists, your faith is in scientists and their conclusions. Anyways we will continue soon. Cya soon my faithful atheist.

No. You do not understand how this works.

If your dentist tells you that your mouth pain is caused by wisdom teeth growing in, and he has reached that conclusion because he has got the x-rays showing it, you don't get to say he's wrong because you don't think dentists know the truth about mouth fairies that living in your gums.

But hey, if you wanna make that argument, then I reject you as an expert on any religious matter. Therefore your claims about any religious idea are automatically wrong, and any attempt to defend your own position is just a logical fallacy.

So you've just disproved yourself.

Bungle_Bear · Dec 18, 2018

Bungle_Bear said:
So you say, and others tell you why you are wrong. We can easily settle this disagreement - show us the 100 my old dolphin fossil and let's see who's right.

@xianghua we're still waiting. I think it reasonable at this stage to assume that failure to provide evidence can be taken as admission of defeat on your part. Is that reasonable?

the iconoclast · Dec 18, 2018

Kylie said:
No. You do not understand how this works.

If your dentist tells you that your mouth pain is caused by wisdom teeth growing in, and he has reached that conclusion because he has got the x-rays showing it, you don't get to say he's wrong because you don't think dentists know the truth about mouth fairies that living in your gums.

But hey, if you wanna make that argument, then I reject you as an expert on any religious matter. Therefore your claims about any religious idea are automatically wrong, and any attempt to defend your own position is just a logical fallacy.

So you've just disproved yourself.

Hello kylie

Ive added this reply to the other conversation we are having. Looks like we will be discussing logical fallacies as well, perfect when we consider the challenge is called 'kylies super fun time logic challenge' - why does everything fall in my lap, there ought to be a law?!?! Hehe

Anyways, I will reply to the two posts sometime after the new years, please excuse the delay, im having fun with sfs right now.

Cya soon and please do not take this as offence. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to and your family. Stay safe

the iconoclast · Dec 18, 2018

sfs said:
There is a long history of specific scientific findings being overturned. There is no such history of large, well-established scientific theories being overturned.

Hey hey brother and thank you for taking the time to reply

"Phrenology, while not universally accepted, was hardly a fringe phenomenon of the era. The popularization of phrenology in the middle and working classes was due in part to the idea that scientific knowledge was important and an indication of sophistication and modernity."
Leaney 2006, p. 25.

sfs said:
Extended and placed in a different context,

I might conclude the book of mormon and evolution may have something in common.

sfs said:
yes, but shown to be outright wrong? When has that happened?

Im no expert but i would love to know your opinion, what do you think about the below link?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw0V4NTRb_gWUxFZDGMttLbY&cf=1

sfs said:
Common descent just means that physically, different species descend from a single common ancestor. For example, humans and chimpanzees are descended from a single species that lived something like 7 million years ago.

What was this species that lived 7 million years ago?

sfs said:
As for references, what exactly are you looking for?

If you could provide me with citations of sources of information.

sfs said:
There is a wide range of evidence that common descent is true. You can see one kind of genetic evidence here.

Thank you for sharing that link however the article suggests a 'what if' scenario and one example of testing involves mutations. Are you aware any evidence for positive mutations?

"If shared ancestry is true, these differences result from lots of mutations that have accumulated in the two lineages over millions of years. That means they should look like mutations."

Im curious do pigs and humans share a common ancestor and if so could you direct me it?

Thank you brother

xianghua · Dec 18, 2018

Kylie said:
How in the world do you think this supports your claim that animals can evolve before their ancestors?

Do you think you are capable of being born before your parents?

a ghost lineage mean that a creature can appeare later in the fossil record even if in reality it evolved earlier. this is why the notion that a creature cant appear in the fossil record before its ancestor is wrong. again you can clearly see it in this image:

xianghua · Dec 18, 2018

Kylie said:
Because it's not. You only make the claim because you don't actually understand how it works, and you've shown no inclination that you actually want to learn.

but your source says that evolution cant explain a fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs. do you agree or disagree with that?

xianghua · Dec 18, 2018

Speedwell said:
And taken altogether, near species and far, they form a nested hierarchy.

again: like vehicles

Speedwell · Dec 18, 2018

xianghua said:
again: like vehicles

View attachment 247232

But that tree does not reflect the developmental history of those vehicles. What's the point of it?

xianghua · Dec 18, 2018

Speedwell said:
But that tree does not reflect the developmental history of those vehicles. What's the point of it?

as i said: even if it was it will not prove that these vehicles evolved from each other. so its irrelevant.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Dec 18, 2018

xianghua said:
as i said: even if it was it will not prove that these vehicles evolved from each other. so its irrelevant.

Except that they didn't. The bicycle was created completely independent of the car, as was the airplane.

Kylie · Dec 18, 2018

xianghua said:
a ghost lineage mean that a creature can appeare later in the fossil record even if in reality it evolved earlier. this is why the notion that a creature cant appear in the fossil record before its ancestor is wrong. again you can clearly see it in this image:

You really don't do your research very well.

From the Wikipedia article for Tiktaalik:

Both Tiktaalik's discoverers were skeptical about the Zachelmie trackways. Edward Daeschler said that trace evidence was not enough for him to modify the theory of tetrapod evolution,[32] while Neil Shubin argued that Tiktaalik could have produced very similar footprints[33] (in a later study Shubin expressed a significantly modified opinion that some of the Zachelmie footprints, those which lacked digits, may have been made by walking fish[34]). However, Ahlberginsisted that those tracks could not have possibly been formed either by natural processes or by transitional species such as Tiktaalik or Panderichthys.[25][35] Instead, the authors of the publication suggested ichthyostegalians as trackmakers, based on available pes morphology of those animals.[25] However, a paper published in 2015 that undertook a critical review of Devonian tetrapod footprints called into question the designation of the Zachelmie marks and instead suggested an origin as fish nests/feeding traces.[36] An earlier study in 2012 indicated that Zachelmie trackmakers were even more advanced than Ichthyostega in terms of quadrupedalism.[37] Grzegorz Niedźwiedzki'sreconstruction of one of the trackmakers was identical to that of Tulerpeton.[38][39]

Prof. Narkiewicz, co-author of the article on the Zachelmie trackways, claimed that the Polish "discovery has disproved the theory that elpistostegids were the ancestors of tetrapods",[40] a notion partially shared by Philippe Janvier.[41]There have been a number of new hypotheses suggested as to a possible origin and phylogenetic position of the elpistostegids (including Tiktaalik):

their phylogenetic position remains unchanged and the footprints found in the Holy Cross Mountains are attributed to tetrapods but as a result there are at least six long ghost lineages separating Zachelmie trackmakers from various elpistostegalian and ichthyostegalian species;[25]
they were "late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms";[38][42]

they were "an evolutionary dead-end";[43]

they were a result of convergent or parallel evolution so that apomorphies and striking anatomical similarities found in both digited tetrapods and elpistostegalians evolved at least twice.[44][45][46]

It should be noted that convergency is considered responsible for uniquely tetrapod features found also in other non-elpistostegalian fish from the period like Sauripterus (finger-like jointed distal radial bones)[47][48] or Tarrasius (tetrapod-like spine with 5 axial regions).[49]

Estimates published after the discovery of Zachelmie tracks suggested that digited tetrapods may have appeared as early as 427.4 Ma ago and questioned attempts to read absolute timing of evolutionary events in early tetrapod evolution from stratigraphy.[45]

Until more data become available, the phylogenetic position of Tiktaalik and other elpistostegids remains uncertain.

In other words, people who know a lot more about this topic than you or me have said that there are several possible explanations. Why do you think you know more than them to discount those explanations?

And they are talking about moving a date in the Devonian period 18 million years. When you consider that the Devonian was between 419 to 359 million years ago, this period of 18 million years really isn't that much. It's like saying that in a time period between 1983 and 1988, you know something happened in 1985, but you don't remember what month it was. It is not the death knell to evolution that you seem to think it is.

This has been explained to you many times, and I have just explained it again. That chart is NOT a valid argument against evolution. If you use it again, I will know that you are either ignoring me, incapable of understanding basic reasoning, or being deliberately deceptive.

Kylie · Dec 18, 2018

xianghua said:
but your source says that evolution cant explain a fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs. do you agree or disagree with that?

Trilobites died out 252 million years ago. The first dinosaurs appear to have evolved from their archosaur ancestors about 20 million years or so later.

So, Dinosaurs and trilobites are separated by about 20 million years, and thus they won't be found together.

DogmaHunter · Dec 20, 2018

xianghua said:
and what is the proble, to push back many groups? i already showed that they have no problem to push back many groups in the fish-tetrapod transition. again: problem solved.

No, you claimed that, based on false understandings of a paper.
Then people have corrected you, which you ignored and then repeated your false claim.

DogmaHunter · Dec 20, 2018

xianghua said:
again: like vehicles

View attachment 247232

How many times must your falsehoods be pointed out before it will sink in that they are falsehoods?

Bungle_Bear · Dec 20, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
How many times must your falsehoods be pointed out before it will sink in that they are falsehoods?

You'll never convince him. He knows he's wrong, but truth is not important when you've falsely concluded that eternal life is the reward for dishonesty.

pitabread · Dec 20, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
How many times must your falsehoods be pointed out before it will sink in that they are falsehoods?

At this point never. He has taken up permanent residence in WrongsVille and seems content to live out his days there.

Why evolution isn't scientific

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Defeater of Illogic

Whoot!

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency