Why evolution isn't scientific

[RealityCheck01]

and i already showed that they have no problem to push back many groups in the fish-tetrapod transition. again: problem solved.

That is a lie because no transitional fossils between fish and tetrapod have been pushed back as you have been told many times, xianghua.

What was found was disputed tetrapod trackways that left known transitional fossils at the same dates the fossils were dated at. If verified, the trackways show that the known transitional fossils are not the first transitional fossils as suspected since they were found*. They are still transitional fossils between fish and tetrapod. There will be other not-found transitional fossils between fishes and these unknown tetrapod species.

* Think of the tiny chance that the first discovered fossils of a transitional species between many of species of fish and many species of tetrapod are the first of the many possible transitional species. Modern fish have 34,000 recognized species of fish so a guess would be 1 chance in 10,000 !

Still wrong about the disputed tetrapod trackways that can only shift one of many possible transitional fossils between fishes and tetrapods, xianghua, as explained to you before.

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

Ghost lineage - Wikipedia

Insults and ignorance do not help your case, xianghua.
Kylie wrote a basic fact about evolution that people have been telling you for months. Evolution is falsified if we find fossils that have traits that have not evolved before, e.g. the Precambrian rabbit (rabbits are mammals, animals with mammal traits did not exit in the Precambrian) example that has been given to you many times.

This is a Ghost lineage

A ghost lineage is a phylogenetic lineage that is inferred to exist (inferred-existence) but has no fossil record.[1] The process of determining a ghost lineage relies on fossilized evidence before and after the hypothetical existence of the lineage and extrapolating relationships between organisms based on phylogenetic analysis.[2]

We have fossils for the evolution of cetaceans throughout the last 50 million years when they left the land . Your fantasy of 100 my old dolphins will falsify evolution because they could not exist according to the fossil record.

 

[RealityCheck01]

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.

Hey hey the iconoclast . You need to learn what the fallacy of argument from authority actually is.

An argument from authority, (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.[2][3]

It is assuming that an authority is correct because they are an authority, not because of the evidence or argument that they present.

One way science can go wrong is that occasionally the opinion of an authority is accepted (read the example in that article). One reason that science is highly correct is because scientists are taught to distrust authority and reexamine the evidence.

What Kylie is saying is there is a massive amount of well documented evidence in the scientific literature. Scientists knowing the details of that evidence is not argument from authority. It is argument from expertise about the evidence.

 

[RealityCheck01]

a ghost lineage mean that a creature can appeare later in the fossil record even if in reality it evolved earlier.

If you read what you cited then you would know that that is wrong, xianghua.
A ghost lineage starts with fossil evidence and ends with fossil evidence. It is what happened in-between that is inferred from other evidence that does not include fossils.

 

[RealityCheck01]

even in my OP i said how evolutionists "solve" such a problem.

In your OP you were abysmally wrong, xianghua, and the last 5 months have not shown any understanding of how wrong you are.
The OP on Aug 29, 2018 has no problem and thus no imaginary problem was solved.

The OP on Aug 29, 2018 was the total ignorance that finding an earlier fossil of a dinosaur during the time that dinosaurs were abundant somehow makes evolution invalid. If we find fossils for any animal that extends its lineage backward to when it was still possible that it evolved then that is not falsification of evolution.

There is the Precambrian rabbit/bear/whatever falsification of evolution that you still do not understand.

Still wrong about the disputed tetrapod trackways that can only shift one of many possible transitional fossils between fishes and tetrapods, xianghua, as explained to you before.

Recently you do not understand that finding a modern dolphin fossil 100 million years ago falsifies evolution because dolphins evolved 34 million years ago.
Evolution of cetaceans

 

[RealityCheck01]

...so there is no problem for evolution if we will find tomorrow a trilobites with a dino.

Still abysmally wrong about evolution, xianghua. Evolution does not say that a species magically vanishes, especially whenever you imagine it to vanish.

Evolution does not say when a species will become extinct. That would be the insanity of biology predicting the impact of the meteor that probably killed off the dinosaurs! The end of a species is recorded in the fossil record which is incomplete.

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.

Finding a 272 million years old trilobite just says that we did not find the fossils earlier . Even finding a living trilobite would still leave evolution valid.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey hey the iconoclast . You need to learn what the fallacy of argument from authority actually is.

It is assuming that an authority is correct because they are an authority, not because of the evidence or argument that they present.

One way science can go wrong is that occasionally the opinion of an authority is accepted (read the example in that article). One reason that science is highly correct is because scientists are taught to distrust authority and reexamine the evidence.

What Kylie is saying is there is a massive amount of well documented evidence in the scientific literature. Scientists knowing the details of that evidence is not argument from authority. It is argument from expertise about the evidence.

It is assuming that an authority is correct because they are an authority, not because of the evidence or argument that they present.

Greetings and salutations my new friend
Im flattered you went back through mine and kylies conversation.
Thank you for engaging me. Lets explore this, Im curious.

If we are to consider how scientists label evidence, Wouldnt it still be an appeal to authority if a scientist claims the evidence or arguement is factual or certain and suggests it is the case because a consenus said so?

One reason that science is highly correct is because scientists are taught to distrust authority and reexamine the evidence.

So why cant it apply to me? I distrust scientific authority and want to examine the evidence? Your logic suggest i too will be highly correct?

What Kylie is saying

Please excuse me. I would rather kylie tell me what she is saying, unless you speak for her?

is there is a massive amount of well documented evidence in the scientific literature.

That puts me at ease! whats one example that should convince me re evolution?

Scientists knowing the details of that evidence is not argument from authority. It is argument from expertise about the evidence.

So explain how that statement is not defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion.

Also what do you think about the context of what @bhsmte has said.

"I have faith i may win lotto someday, but i trust the lights will turn on, when i flip the switch."

Is this sentence correct?

Cheers my delicious new friend

 

[Kylie]

Try not to confuse dreams of grandeur with waking realty. If the horses refer to beliefs, how would your beliefs be the only horse in some race?

You can believe whatever horse you want is in the race, but the evidence points to only one horse actually on the track. And it's not yours.

 

[dad]

You can believe whatever horse you want is in the race, but the evidence points to only one horse actually on the track. And it's not yours.

Actually if horses are beliefs they are a dime a dozen. Yours is an also ran.

 

[Kylie]

Actually if horses are beliefs they are a dime a dozen. Yours is an also ran.

When you can do something more than insults based on word play, lemme know. Until then, I've got better things to do with my time.

 

[xianghua]

We already have a name for those in the English language. It's called a horse.

no. i talking about a car with wheels and engine you know...

 

[xianghua]

Good for you. It sounds to me like the same argument by equivocation or false equivalence you've been trying to make for a couple of years, and been patiently shown every time that it is invalid and why it is invalid. I'm not biting.

If you have an argument to make, just make it. When you've done that we can tell you what we think of it.

so can you show that what is true for a car isnt true for a living thing in terms of ic systems?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

no. i talking about a car with wheels and engine you know...

That's a manufactured device which is not subject to the processes of biology.

 

[xianghua]

That's a manufactured device which is not subject to the processes of biology.

this is a self replicating car so its indeed subject to the processes of biology.

 

[xianghua]

Even finding a living trilobite would still leave evolution valid.

this isnt what kylie source said, so you are clearly wrong about that. please dont blame me in your own ignorance.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so can you show that what is true for a car isnt true for a living thing in terms of ic systems?

If you have an argument to make, just make it. When you've done that we can tell you what we think of it.

 

[xianghua]

If you have an argument to make, just make it. When you've done that we can tell you what we think of it.

the a rgument is that since a car need at least several parts to be functional its also true for living things. can you show why its not true?

 

[Speedwell]

so can you show that what is true for a car isnt true for a living thing in terms of ic systems?

It doesn't matter. You would still have to show that what you call "IC systems" can't evolve, which you have failed at miserably, over and over.

 

[VirOptimus]

the a rgument is that since a car need at least several parts to be functional its also true for living things. can you show why its not true?

No, your argument is that a made up car that doesnt exist should evolve according to the ToE, non-witstanding that the ToE only explains biological enteties that exist or has existed. But as your made-up example of a biological car somehow has to be designed and therefore cant evolve then the ToE is in error.

Thats... well.. thats someting. But its not coherent or logical or even sane.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

this is a self replicating car so its indeed subject to the processes of biology.

Only in your imagination, which is the only place where such things "exist"