Ah. You have the right answer. No argument, No possible chance of being wrong. It is just so obvious. (Sarcastic font, just in case you didn’t realise)
(but you do know what those mean)
Richard
For all we know, there could have existed a vast number of organisms that weren’t fossilised that could have “qualified” as ancestors of extant life-forms.
Errors. Obvious errors, independent of worldview. Such as incorrect calculations. Or mistakes in citations. Or misspelt names, or using the wrong formulae, or not knowing what continent places are on. Trivial stuff that shouldn’t have been made in the first place and should have been picked up in review if it was.
Like, for example, underestimating the number of organisms that haven’t left fossils by at least ten orders of magnitude, regardless of how old the Earth is. The kind of error that is unmistakeable and inexcusable.
1 Like
We know there were at least 10^20 organisms that existed and died without being fossilised, even under the most restrictive count, for the simple reason that there are more than that many soft-bodied multi-cellular organisms alive right now that are dying without being fossilized.
2 Likes
And he hasn’t the foggiest idea why it might matter. All he cares about is giving the “correct” answer or correcting what he sees as “errors” or “wrongs”.
I wonder what is considered a good percentage to form a valuable or plausible statical sample?
Richard
I’m beginning to think that if you saw a film of a horse running you would claim that each frame was a newly created horse because you have no evidence that the horse moved between the two positions of two adjacent frames.
1 Like
They conflict with reality, not our views. We don’t reject the arguments from Flat Earthers because they conflict with our Globe Earth views. We reject them because they don’t comport with the objective facts in reality.
Let’s play that game.
The Bible says God does not exist:
Psalms 14:1 “There is no God”
You will argue that the Bible doesn’t actually say that, but you only make that claim because it conflicts with your views. You can’t admit that you are wrong.
Your anaolgies appear to be as relevant as someone else on this forum. Amazing what ignorance it demonstrates.
And what reality might that be?
The one you theorise?
Ad hominem. Dismiss the proposer, not the details.
Reject the whole thing because of the people and their beliefs. It wouldn’t be possible to get the right answer from the wrong direction. They are not real scientists.
Have I forgotten anything?
Richard
Given your inability to address it, it seems the analogy is dead on.
The one we all live in.
Just the opposite.
“We don’t reject the arguments from Flat Earthers because they conflict with our Globe Earth views. We reject them because they don’t comport with the objective facts in reality.”
We reject the claims of Flat Earthers because we can go up in a space ship, look back, and see that it isn’t flat.
It didn’t warrant a response. I would not dignify it so.
ToE is not about the world now. it is about the dim and distant past that is beyond your reach or the Scientific method
They re not promoting their view of earth. They are criticising your view of creation. Not the same thing. If the argument is valid, it does not matter who gives it.
Richard
It absolutely is. The theory explains why living species have their specific physical features and specific genetic features. It explains why species are distributed across the globe in specific patterns. It explains why animals fall into a nested hierarchy for both morphology and genetics. It explains why species continue to adapt to their environment right in front of us.
And those criticisms contain claims that don’t match reality.
You just throw in your assertions as if they are all of equal merit and certainty.
S when was the last tie you saw a change bigger than a small adjustment in size or shape? When was the last time you witnessed a change of the magnitude needed to make ToE work?
Assumption and extrapolation. That is what drives ToE (apart from random deviations of a magnitude you cannot define)
It isn’t about transitional fossils it is about the transitions themselves. Without them you have ziltch/ nothing/ nada/ empty theories and conjecture.
Richard
If you think animals don’t fall into a nested hierarchy, then please present the evidence.
You claimed that the theory of evolution is not about the world right now. This is proven false by the use of the ToE to explain the ongoing adaptation of living species.
It’s hypothesis testing, otherwise known as the scientific method.
Then I guess it’s a good thing that we have the transitional fossils.
1 Like
Do you have a memory? Or does your attention span only cover the latest post that you are reading.
You argue like a Pavlov Trained animal that sees a word and triggers the same response automatically whether it is appropriate or not… (As if you have never said it before)
Richard
Animals (and plants, but not rocks) were known to fall into a morphological nested hierarchy more than a century before Darwin came up with the idea of evolution.
The genetic nested hierarchy has been built up from sequenced proteins and genome sections, the data used is largely publicly available for inspection and confirmation, and so is the software for generating the hierarchies.
So where is the lack of merit? Where is the lack of certainty?
1 Like
“Ad hominem. Dismiss the proposer, not the details.”–RichardG
I am glad you see what you do.
If you think that is an appropriate answer then you have just proven it.
Thanks
Richard
Where did I dismiss the proposer instead of the details? Be specific.
In the magical world of imagination.