Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Philosophy is not post-modern (at least not most of it).
My problem with philosophy is the lack of agreement by philosophers on some very basic issues. If science was like that, there'd be no progress at all.
So what progress has philosophy made recently?
Please point me to where someone has said that the "transitional parts do not exist".
I might be missing where it is, but I didn't see that. I tried creationist science sites, and mainstream biology criticising them, but I cannot see where there is someone saying that.
Provide your definition of "progress" as it applies in philosophy.
Philosophy is not science, it does not have the same requirements for progress. It has a different target, serves a different purpose, therefore has different parameters.
You can provide some scientific evidence that science can establish what is real too
without it we do not know if your claim that science can do that is real do we?
Thanks,
They don't acknowledge that such features do or don't exist. They just call tiktaalik a fish (indirectly implying that it only has fish features and that there is nothing out of the ordinary about it) and end the discussion there, without acknowledging the presence of features, such as a neck, which are otherwise only found in land based animals (fish don't have unfused skulls, but tiktaalik does).
By your response, I am lead to believe that you acknowledge that it isn't a matter of subjection, whether or not tiktaalik holds features that are predominantly found in land dwelling animals and are not found in other fish.
Is this correct?
It's how we know. Hypotheses make testable predictions. If these are repeatedly confirmed the hypothesis is then a theory and we know it is correct.
I think they are calling tiktaalik a fish because they think it is a fish. I accept they don't believe it can be a transitional fossil, because their religious convictions preclude believing that they exist. I don't think they are being dishonest, I think they are totally seeing what they believe is there.
I believe you are seeing a transitional form fossil that fits with the expectations of evolutionary theory, so what you are saying is both honest and in keeping with current scientific thought.
People are looking at the same fossil, and not seeing the same thing, because their sense of reality affects what they see.
No one is definitely lying and no one is nuts, human mental capacity is vastly diverse.
No one has to be lying, it can be extremely hard to believe that other people are indeed telling the truth when our strong convictions and beliefs are in conflict with theirs.
It reminds me of these things....mudskipper fish. I think they are really cute.
Mudskippers hang about on land sometimes, most fish don't.
You are describing a part of scientific method, not proving that science is the only way to test reality or know about it.
God could be the way some people know some things.
God (as theists believe in God) is not a scientific concept, that is a fact. It is real.
Whether or not there is a God is a question about reality, and science cannot test it.
It does have some similar features to mudskippers, I agree. Though mudskippers do not have unfused skulls, and they don't have wrist bones and robust girdles, and while some fish have a somewhat flat heads, their eyes aren't on top like salamanders and crocodiles.
Mudskippers are pretty interesting. They spend a very large amount of time out of the water, and they can even climb trees. But when we look at the details, everything is different.
The features that make them like the limbed fish like Tiktaalik aren't homologous; they are merely convergently evolved to do the same things, like whale flukes and shark tails. Mudskippers are teleosts; ray-finned fish. Tiktaalik and similar organisms are sarcopterygeans, lobed-fin fish.
"... that it doesn't have amphibian traits." is exactly what I'm describing when I'm talking about not having credence to the antecedent. Your "antecedent" supporting Tiktaalik being a "transition" is because it has traits in common with both fish and tetrapods... but in no instance has it been scientifically observed or demonstrated through any kind of experiment.From your link
"This find is also important because it is based on a prediction made by evolutionary theory. Around 390 million years ago, the only vertebrates were fish. By 360 million years ago, there were four-footed vertebrates on land. So the scientists looked in a place that was 375 million years old."
"First, many scientists still indicate Tiktaalik was a lobe-finned fish. So the fact it is found among other fossils of fish and shallow-water tetrapods is not all that startling." ~Noble Mouse
You're speaking under the pretext that it doesn't have amphibian traits. Sure regular fish are found in many places in the rock record. But fish with unfused skulls, flat heads, spiracles and robust limbs are not present everywhere in the rock record.
Actually no it wouldn't demonstrate evolution to be false because aquatic fossils are found in virtually every sedimentary rock layer, even high up in mountains... and this doesn't seem to be a problem for evolutionists... so the modus operandi is obviously the pick-and-choose approach--highlighting what is perceived to be an evolutionary sequence and splashing it into headlines across scientific journals.If the first fish with tetrapod features appeared say...in the mesozoic (triassic, jurassic, cretaceous), or the cenozoic, or the cambrian, or the carboniferous, or the permian or the ediacaran or anywhere else in the precambrian, it would demonstrate evolution to be false.
But instead, tiktaalik is where the theory suggests it ought to be.
So no, its not just about one fish being found in a succession of fishes that exist everywhere in the fossil record, as you claim it to be.
You are presenting the informal fallacy of the false dilemma--like if there's a certain set of characteristics present that are shared among multiple life forms then this must [only] mean an "evolution" took place, when in fact there could have simply just been an environment in which fish and tetrapods existed, then were buried and fossilized, with Tiktaalik being in the mix. The fact that fossilized tetrapod footprints have been found as dated 20 million older than Tiktaalik supports that it wasn't where it should have been. But if there is not truly an evolutionary relationship, then finding tetrapod footprints before Tiktaalik is not only a non-issue, but it is expected if not evolutionarily related, and in fact is what is the case.And ive already addressed your second point by simply asking you, what other explanation could there be for how the location of tiktaalik was predicted?
My response, is irrelevant. This is where your reasoning is so bizarre as I've mentioned before--it is as if I, whose background is in Accounting/Finance/Business, can't convince you evolution is not true, then you maintain that evolution must be true. Can you explain your rationale on this? Everything you think you know about biological evolution has been shown to be false by scientists with degrees in fields like biology and genetics, doing extensive research. Darwinian evolution cannot create the new information needed to create an entirely new living organism, as the ID folks put it well, this requires an intelligent agent. Naturalistic/materialistic mechanisms cannot create information, only transmit it once it is created. Literally, leaders in these fields met at the Royal Society in London some time back now and have been calling for looking to new mechanisms to support evolution because random mutation + natural selection don't do it. Far more research and effort has gone into demonstrating this than the simplistic view of "evolution must have occurred because a fossil with certain morphological traits was found in sedimentary rock layers along with other fossils in which it shares these traits". Bearing repeating: Tetrapod footprints were found and conventionally dated to be 20 million years older than Tiktaalik so the more you continue to repeat it was found exactly where predicted, the more you demonstrate the prediction was wrong.Your response is insufficient as tiktaalik isnt just a regular everyday fish. Your response also doesnt acknowledge that if tiktaalik were found in the other 99% of the geologic column, evolution would be proven wrong, but instead tiktaalik is found in the 1% where evolutionary theory predicts that it ought to be.
Everything you think you know about biological evolution has been shown to be false by scientists with degrees in fields like biology and genetics, doing extensive research.
Darwinian evolution cannot create the new information needed to create an entirely new living organism, as the ID folks put it well, this requires an intelligent agent.
Naturalistic/materialistic mechanisms cannot create information, only transmit it once it is created.
Literally, leaders in these fields met at the Royal Society in London some time back now and have been calling for looking to new mechanisms to support evolution because random mutation + natural selection don't do it.
Bearing repeating: Tetrapod footprints were found and conventionally dated to be 20 million years older than Tiktaalik
Yep. Science, by it's methodology, is limited to the physical world. But nothing else we know how to do, works as well as science for that purpose.
"
Actually no it wouldn't demonstrate evolution to be false because aquatic fossils are found in virtually every sedimentary rock layer, even high up in mountains... and this doesn't seem to be a problem for evolutionists.
"
But if there is not truly an evolutionary relationship, then finding tetrapod footprints before Tiktaalik is not only a non-issue, but it is expected if not evolutionarily related, and in fact is what is the case.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?