predictions about what? How they were made? No
How DNA builds specific shapes or organs? No
How a fish turns into a land creature? No
Your predictions mean nothing. All you are predicting is what evidence you want to see. They do not prove one stage of ToE.
You join dots without knowing the way they are joined. You make connections that cannot be witnessed.
You claim ancestry but cannot prove any birth or death is related.
You have static fossils. Dead creatures. With no proof they were successful or failures.
You claim adaptions to environments that have long disappeared.
Something thatâs completely absent from this thread is any alternative proposal.
Sure, we canât prove Cambrian biota evolved from Ediacaran biota. But its the best available idea we have at present. Nothing else even comes close.
Criticising evolutionary processes as being unknown when we can watch them happening leads to an obvious counter-question: What processes do you think occurred instead, and where can we see proof or the evidence for those, either historically or currently?
Itâs obvious that every criticism of evolution you have raised applies at least as much to your own preferred history, and you are being a massive hypocrite.
Unless⌠please describe the steps involved in the origin of mammals, whether from fish or otherwise, including details of any precursors or other ingredients needed. Then demonstrate that the steps youâve described are not just a figment of your imagination, but are actually what happened.
Well, would he have any reason to think they occurred? We hadnât at that time found the iridium layer or the crater.
IIRC when Darwin was writing the geological column had been roughly mapped out and index fossils identified for the various layers, but we didnât have any timescale, and had only examined a small fraction of the Earthâs geology or fossils.
Was there any theory of global abrupt changes for him to reject?
(Iâm not saying there wasnât, only that I canât think of one).
Period catastrophism did exist and was, if anything, more popular than Lyell and Darwinâs extreme uniformitarianism. What the mechanism was for catastrophes wasnât really known, but large floods and desertification were among the ideas around. The K-T boundary having more abrupt faunal changes than a lot of other pairs of adjacent layers was known by then, but whether than meant missing layers or some abrupt global event was uncertain.
Darwinâs guesses for absolute ages of layers were much higher than his contemporaries, and were almost all too high (Quaternary as tens of millions, Cenozoic as a few hundred million, Phanerozoic as 2.5 billion are the specific ones that I remember).
Observations are another perfectly valid way to corroborate or refute hypotheses, and are the standard option for organismal biology, paleontology, astronomy, ecology, etc., etc.
Itâs not as if we can create a few square miles of taiga with precisely controlled conditions and observe how moose behave in each one of these; what can be done is to find and observe.
We make predictions about which mixtures of features we should and should not find in fossils.
The experiment is comparing those predictions to the fossils themselves.
Here are 29 of them:
We can repeatedly compare fossils to the predictions about them, and continue to find new fossils. The physical data from fossils is repeatable which meets the requirement of the scientific method. You donât repeat the hypothesis or theory.
So you canât do it right, and justify what you do.
Okay
That is not an experiment in the accepted sense.
You ae trying to join dots, and making assumptions that cannot be proven or confirmed in any other way
Really into geology arenât we.
How does that help ToE?
Are you claiming that inanimate geology is comparable to living organisms?
You are fishing. And hoping, And seeing what yo want to see.
They could be feather like plants.
You know the period the two creatures lived in. And?
You ae comparing two genetic patterns to each other an deciding what that must mean. It still does not demonstrate your hypothesis in real life.
If God created, thee results would be the same.
You are making wild assumptions based on similarities.
It does not prove that the diagram is correct.
It lived there.
etc, etc.
Thee is always an answer. You may not like, or approve, or agree, but there is always an answer. It boils down to view and assumption. You ore me. I can no more prove God did something than you can that he didnât *Or een existed)
No I shouldnât. Isnât that what you claim?
The trouble is. you have not proven me wrong. . (because it is not about proof)
And you cannot se the ambiguity of this ridiculous comparison>
okay
Been there, looked, rejected. Repetition of failed argument.
It is a shame you cannot see your own dogma and narrow minded view.
Not if they have preserved melanins in the feathers or feather attachment points on the skeleton.
The computer doing the analyses is assuming that parsimony works. Thatâs it. I have written a program to run in PAUP 4.1 to analyze morphological features and output a tree, so I ought to know what the input assumptions of such programs are. All they do is âarrange these so that the with the ones most similarity to each other are closest to each otherâ; the different types are either using slightly different definitions of âsimilarâ or are checking for different types of statistical support.
Under the logic being used here, none of geology, ecology, systematics, taphonomy, or astronomy; and very little organismal biology is scientific or usable. This appears to assume that observational scientific methods are less robust than experimental scientific methods.
Not in the least. Youâre as bad as Adam â he sees âDarwinismâ everywhere, you see âscienceâ everywhere.
Pollsters come to valid conclusions about human behavior based on similarly minuscule percentages.
Of course the difference is that the pollsters work to get random sampling; the formation of fossils is not random.
And just which of those provides a basis for the physical/mechanical and chemical analysis of rocks?
This is sufficiently egregiously wrong I canât resist weighing in.
Itâs fallacious reasoning: youâre confusing an expectation (prediction) resulting from a theory with a foundation for that theory.
You two are talking past each other here â one is saying the equivalent of âYes, nomads often have livestockâ while the other is saying, âNone have been seen that have pigsâ. Or perhaps, one is arguing that we know that buildings get painted while the other is saying we canât look at a given painted building and know who the painter was.
No, theyâre predicting what should be found if the explanation of the evidence in possession is correct. Whether they âwant to seeâ it or not is irrelevant; when a prediction is based on two sets of data that point to the likelihood of a third set, and that third set is later found, that counts in favor of the prior explanation.
Sounds like a response from an insurance investigator who doesnât want the company to pay up.
Youâre engaging in a fallacy. Itâs one the John Lennox mentions regularly, what he calls the âmotorcar fallacyâ â the idea that because Henry Ford produced motorcars then there were no mechanics (the technology, not the people) involved, or as is more commonly done, that because we understand the theory of internal combustion engines then Henry Ford wasnât real.
Itâs a confusion of agent with instrument. âGodâ is as valid an explanation for evolution having happened as the theory claims as it is for the opposite, because God is the agent, not the instrument.
Richard wants you to be playing checkers when the game is actually Deluxe Mastermind.
Huh? Tell that to a geologist!
That describes cosmology, geology, and more.
You make that claim frequently. I canât decide if itâs just bigotry or if itâs projection.
When itâs a scientist, âWhat you want to seeâ is whatever ends up being seen.
)