|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
Faith writes: The first is that it IS just a theory,... Is there any framework of understanding in science that isn't a theory?
...it really has no hard evidence,... If fossils and how they are distributed among sedimentary layers are not hard evidence for evolution then this thread is your opportunity to make your case. But...
... it is built out of the very sorts of conjectures I've been talking about here, IMAGINED sequences of how evolution between two creatures COULD HAVE HAPPENED. ...calling things names like imaginary is not a way to make your case. You can accuse evolution of being imagined and the other side can accuse the flood of being imagined, and how does that settle anything? It doesn't. Please start talking about the evidence. In this thread, that would be the fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The first is that it IS just a theory, it really has no hard evidence, it is built out of the very sorts of conjectures I've been talking about here, IMAGINED sequences of how evolution between two creatures COULD HAVE HAPPENED. Anyone who writes, "It is just a theory" when referring to the theory of evolution exhibits either a profound ignorance of science and how it works, or a total rejection of the scientific method. The role of theory in science has been explained to you any number of times. I've explained it to you myself, and it would be a waste of time to do so again. So, I'll just say, again, that creationists have absolutely no business even commenting on science and the results it has produced. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Dear Admin,
I believe you are completely misunderstanding the argument here, but I won't continue it if you don't want to allow it after considering my attempt to defend it: The first is that it IS just a theory,...
Is there any framework of understanding in science that isn't a theory? I'm trying to get across that there really isn't any hard evidence for evolution. I know this flies in the face of everything believed here. Other sciences have a lot more than a theory to go on, they do have hard evidence; evolution has only conjecture built on conjecture, which I thought I'd been describing pretty clearly but maybe I'll say it better as I go on.
...it really has no hard evidence,...
If fossils and how they are distributed among sedimentary layers are not hard evidence for evolution then this thread is your opportunity to make your case. Yes it is not hard evidence as I've been saying. It is fossilized creatures embedded in sedimentary layers, that is all it is. It is the apparent sequence which is interpreted as ancient to modern living things that is imposed on it that turns it into evidence. This is not hard evidence, this is interpretation. The only hard facts are the fossils in the rocks. The sequence is an interpretive overlay. And then when the relation between fossils in different layers is described as evolving from the one to the other this is assumed, it isn't proved and it can't be proved. The different bone structures are given and the evolutionary patheways that WOULD need to have been taken are described - meaning they are imagined, purely imagined. There is nothing else that can be done with them. There is no way to know whether they ever happened, it is purely an imaginary pathway. And yet it is put in the language of fact. Because the ToE is believed, though it too is only imagined, imposed on the buried fossils. The order of the fossils is not an open and shut case for evolution at all, they are just buried dead things. The order is SUGGESTIVE, but it's a far cry from hard evidence. This is why the ToE remains a theory. You can do experiments to prove the theory of gravity or electricity or germ theory; evolution has only interpretation, the IMAGINED evolution up the fossil ladder.
But...
... it is built out of the very sorts of conjectures I've been talking about here, IMAGINED sequences of how evolution between two creatures COULD HAVE HAPPENED. ...calling things names like imaginary is not a way to make your case. But this is not name-calling, this is fact, as I've described above. It IS purely imagined, it is purely mental. The pathway from reptile to mammal is purely imagined, it can't be demonstrated, it is nothing but conjecture. This is obvious. So as I was pondering (and praying about) that example I realized that for such an event to have occurred would require many stages of population genetics, and that led me to recognize that population genetics doesn't work that way: first it doesn't make incremental changes from generation to generation: in a condition of reproductive isolation it makes clear DIFFERENT phenotypic variations in many individuals that over many further recombinations can become part of a new look for the entire new population. Then I realized that the basic structure of the animal always remains the same. The dog breeds illustrations are an example. Of course it can be reshaped into the many different breeds but it never stops being recognizably a lizard or a dog or cat or etc. Then I remembered reading that there is a segment of the genome of every species that never varies, doesn't have alleles, is always fixed, and that could very likely explain the retention of the basic structure of the creature through even millions of generations if that were possible. This goes nicely of course with my argument that as new daughter populations are produced, genetic diversity is diminished. If this is true then a million generations of anything on the reptile or mammal level are impossible, and that many might be needed to follow the imagined evolutionary pathway. All these things argue that evolution can't ever become macroevolution, that the reptile ear and the basic reptile structure will not change no matter how many generations it undergoes, that the reptile and the mammal are two completely independent species and the latter couldn't have descended from the former, nor could any species evolve from any other. This is a lot harder evidence than is available for evolution and it makes the case against the imagined evolutionary pathway between the fossil bones that was presented as well as the case against the interpretation that the fossil record in itself demonstrates evolution.
You can accuse evolution of being imagined and the other side can accuse the flood of being imagined, and how does that settle anything? It doesn't. All one CAN do is imagine these things. But the evolutionary pathway idea seems to have lost track of how genetics works, and how it works makes the pathway impossible. Whereas how it works can explain the distribution of living things since the Flood.
Please start talking about the evidence. In this thread, that would be the fossils. The fossils are only evidence that bazillions of living things died and were buried in layers under conditions particularly suitable for fossilization, in a sequence that seems to suggest but cannot demonstrate the idea of evolution from one to another. They aren't evidence for evolution. I think the telling evidence about the fossils is in what I've said above. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
Hi Faith,
I would take issue with many of your arguments, but genetics isn't the topic of this thread, and I don't want to become party to the discussion. I invite other participants to respond to your genetics arguments over at the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread. Your genetics arguments do not bear upon this thread because if we discover that genetics is not the mechanism of change over time it wouldn't prove that the fossil record is not evidence of change over time. It could mean we haven't yet identified the correct mechanism, or it could mean the fossil record really isn't a record of change over time (your position), or it could mean something else. Please take the genetics arguments to the proper thread. In this thread the topic is the fossil record. If you have an alternative explanation for the distribution of fossils through geologic time, or if you have arguments for why it isn't evidence of evolution, then this is the place to discuss them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Edited to move "genetic" PRATTle to Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
See Message 992 on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity for response to the above nonsense. This thread is about fossil evidence and how they show evolution, not about creationist fantasy pseudo-genetics.
Not only does genetics not work incrementally, ... Except we know this is false.
... nor make such just-so changes as those needed to get from the reptilian to the mammalian ear bones ... As evidenced by the many intermediate fossils that are in the spatial/temporal matrix at the right time and in the right place ...
... there is no need to change the reptilian ear, it works just fine. Nature has no reason to make a mammalian ear out of it -- that is, there is no selection pressure involved. No need to make a mammal out of a reptile at all. So why would there be any changes in that direction? Evolution does not work on "need" and you know this (or should by now). It works in incremental steps of improvement built on improvement -- better hearing improves the likelihood of survival, so an ear that hears better is selected over one that doesn't. Just as occurred for eyes and other senses.
ABE: Oh and another thing I meant to include: the basic body structure of an animal is apparently hard-wired into the genome, and so are necessary features like ear design for pete's sake. ... And this is you making stuff up that has nothing to do with real genetics. Stuff that we know is wrong.
... The ear structure is just not going to change and neither is the basic reptile body structure. ... And we know that that is wrong too.
... Genetics varies things like size and shape, whilekeeping the basic body design, fur, or scales in the case of reptiles? color etc. You always get a reptile. You always get a bear, though a small black one or a huge brown one. You always get a dog or a cat. The basic template is in the genome. Huge variations yes but it's always a dog a cat a reptile a bear or whatnot. ... Standard creationist PRATTle. You've been told how cladistics shows descent from a parent population will always be a member of that parent clade. The formation of nested hierarchies is what shows that evolution explains the diversity of life. All mammals have the "basic body design" of the common mammalian clade ancestor population, Huge variations yes but it's always a mammal ... ... which has the "basic body design" of the common tetrapod clade ancestor population. Huge variations yes but it's always a tetrapod ...
Random variation is what genetics actually does when there is no selection pressure. It's the most common way varieties and races form in nature. ... Genetic drift also occurs when there is selection pressure, on traits that are not being selected, but may be taken along for the ride with the gene under selection.
... It's the most common way varieties and races form in nature. ... It is one of the common ways varieties form. Another is via selection.
... New finch beaks. No reason for it, no selection pressure, it's just a variation possible in the genome and when that genetic option becomes more frequent in a population that is reproductively isolated, the finch gets a new beak. Then it chooses a different food that the new beak can handle. Which we know is precisely backwards of how it actually happens.
But then you've got those millions of years in there to make this reptile mammal thing happen. You'd only need those millions of years ... And we know this is false, both in the fact that the evidence shows that the earth IS very very very old, and in the fact that it isn't a matter of "needing" it to be old. That is more creationist PRATTLe.
... You'd only need those millions of years if you kept getting mistakes, unfunctioning ears. Lotta deaf reptile babies then. I guess they just died out or why didn't they adapt to their deafness? ... Except that the intermediate fossils show there was a fully functional ear through the whole passage of transition. So again you are wrong about what the fossils show and about how evolution actually works ...
... It would of course take time to come up with variations that maintain the necessary relation between the bones for a functioning ear. ... And we know that each generation would have functioning ears because evolution works by small incremental changes that alter elements but maintain function. Just as the jaw continued to function as it transitioned from the non-mammalian amniote jaw through a phase that had two jaw joints and then to the mammalian jaw.
... But there's no reason for that to happen even in a billion years. This isn't anything like how breeds form, ... It is precisely how breeds form, because it is how evolution works, gradual modifications from generation to generation within the breeding population:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. Notice how this applies to dog breeds, finch beaks and yes, even therapsid jaws and ears.
... this IS macroevolution and it's impossible. Except that is impossible because it ISN'T macroevolution, just more creationist PRATTle. In the biological fields in general and in the field of evolution in particular, macroevolution is defined as process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life. This is often confusing, especially to creationists, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and within different ecologies. The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations), the processes are known, and thus they are by definition possible. The problem I'm trying to highlight here is that discussions of fossil evolution completely ignore what genetics actually does. Evo theory just goes on and on about how such and such changes occurred over those millions of years without knowing if it is even possible, and in reality it's just not. And curiously, the problem you are actually highlighting is that ignoring evidence combined with ignorance of evolution in general and genetics in particular, leads to false conclusions not based on facts or evidence, but pure imagination, with all the assurance of Dunning-Kruger effect ignorance. When every premise you use is wrong, the conclusions are invariably invalid. Garbage in garbage out. abe: The fact remains that the fossils bedded in the spatial/temporal matrix show just the types of intermediate stages that the Theory of Evolution predicts. Thus they are also evidence for the validity of the theory. The fact remains is that the only response from creationists is the silly PRATTle about them being just another species bedded in rocks with no actual relationship to the fossils before and after. This is a silly argument from a scientific viewpoint because it ignores the shared derived traits of the fossils, the progression of new derived traits from older fossils to younger fossils, just as it ignores the time-line of geographical deposition and the curious consilience of location location location. Curiously, this is also a silly argument from a creationist viewpoint because it requires special creation of these critters for the sole purpose of causing a false trail, created as a joke or a lie, a view of their god/s as jokers. Another case of garbage in garbage out. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : splg Edited by RAZD, : per admin request Edited by RAZD, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0
|
Hi RAZD,
I'm hoping that Faith will eventually respond to my moderator requests and take her genetics arguments to the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread that you revived, which I thought it was a good idea. Faith's post and your response fit better over in that thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Yes it is not hard evidence as I've been saying. It is fossilized creatures embedded in sedimentary layers, that is all it is.
So now you reject the facts that Ned provided earlier. Faith, you're going to have to make up your mind here.
It is the apparent sequence which is interpreted as ancient to modern living things that is imposed on it that turns it into evidence.
Why is it just 'apparent'? You have not made your case here. Please dispense with the arguments by assertion.
This is not hard evidence, this is interpretation.
It is, nevertheless, evidence. Please provide us with your explanation, which you allege to be superior.
The only hard facts are the fossils in the rocks.
And all the other stuff that you deem unimportant, such as the sequential appearance of life forms.
The sequence is an interpretive overlay.
Then refute it. Then explain to us how interpretations are intrinsically erroneous.
And then when the relation between fossils in different layers is described as evolving from the one to the other this is assumed, it isn't proved and it can't be proved.
Then give us a better explanation. This pattern is universal in the fossil record in instance after instance since the earliest forms of life. Explain why it is always there.
The different bone structures are given and the evolutionary patheways that WOULD need to have been taken are described - meaning they are imagined, purely imagined. There is nothing else that can be done with them. There is no way to know whether they ever happened, it is purely an imaginary pathway.
Well, if you want absolute proof, of course we don't have that. It happened in the past. We can only collect supporting evidence. But, if that's your case, then you may as well accept Last Thursdayism. Give me a reason why not.
And yet it is put in the language of fact.
It is the best explanation and there are actually no alternatives. It is a scientific fact. A well-supported fact based on known biological mechanisms and testing.
Because the ToE is believed, though it too is only imagined, imposed on the buried fossils.
Actually, the fossil impose constraints on the theory of evolution. On the other hand we have YEC, which observes no constraints.
The order of the fossils is not an open and shut case for evolution at all, they are just buried dead things.
Okay, give us an example. For instance, you could find for us a mammal fossil preserved in Cambrian rocks.
The order is SUGGESTIVE, but it's a far cry from hard evidence.
No, the order is a conclusion based on the fossil record. As such it can be treated as a hard fact until it is disproven. That hasn't happened.
This is why the ToE remains a theory.
And the problem is?
You can do experiments to prove the theory of gravity or electricity or germ theory; evolution has only interpretation, the IMAGINED evolution up the fossil ladder.
And we can do experiments like predict that a certain fossil would be found in Devonian aged rocks and then go look for it. But, of course, that would never happen, would it? And if it did it would be just a coincidence, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Second, any scientist who does begin to raise questions about the theory is on very shaky ground and knows it. The last thing anyone would desire in that position is being suspected of thinking like a creationist. And there is little in the way of hard evidence to be found on either side of this dispute; you're not going to risk your professional standing on even the very best reasoned argument.
I've thought about this lately and perhaps it would be better discussed in another thread. However, just to comment, I think that what makes a creationist so disgraceful is not their belief in creation, but their repeated use of discredited creationist arguments such as the ones we see here every day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
This *would* make an interesting thread (maybe one exists already). Faith's argument that evolution survives because scientists don't dare upset the status quo *is* a very familiar one from creationists. Faith herself has often made this argument, and so she already knows the rebuttal, but I don't recall discussion ever having proceeded further. If Faith has a response to the rebuttal then we need a thread dedicated to the topic where she could elaborate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes it is not hard evidence as I've been saying. It is fossilized creatures embedded in sedimentary layers, that is all it is.
So now you reject the facts that Ned provided earlier. Faith, you're going to have to make up your mind here. Ned's list of facts is in Message 216. I just read it and have no problem with any of those facts. They are the hard facts; the theory is something else that is imposed on those facts. He did a good job of sticking to the facts themselves.
It is the apparent sequence which is interpreted as ancient to modern living things that is imposed on it that turns it into evidence.
Why is it just 'apparent'? Because it is completely based on the subjective assessment of morphologies. But if you arrange them, say, by DNA characteristics of each species, perhaps how many genes etc, you would have to make a different sequence. The idea of their relative ages is completely imposed on the facts, without evidence.
Then explain to us how interpretations are intrinsically erroneous. They aren't, they could be correct, but they aren't hard evidence and shouldn't be treated as hard evidence. So when a creationist comes along and challenges the interpretation it shouldn't be defended with a wall of assertions that it is as good as hard evidence. It isn't.
And then when the relation between fossils in different layers is described as evolving from the one to the other this is assumed, it isn't proved and it can't be proved.
Then give us a better explanation. This pattern is universal in the fossil record in instance after instance since the earliest forms of life. Explain why it is always there. The order is very suggestive as I keep saying, but it can't be treated as proof of evolution. I don't know why the pattern is so apparently consistent, but when there are other reasons to question the standard interpretation it can't just be taken as fact. And I do often wonder just HOW universal it really is. Once you're convinced it's this ironclad proof of evolution you aren't going to be very open to raising questions about it. Apparently insignificant deviations from the pattern could be overlooked, rationalized away etc. One thing that keeps coming to mind is why each layer/time period seems to be characterized by a dominant kind of life, while former kinds, those in the lower layers, seem to be much less in evidence. I'm not sure how true this is but most representations of the fossil record emphasize the apparent sequence that fits the taxonomic tree and whatever else shares the layer is generally overlooked. Isn't it true that the nautiloids that Steve Austin studied occupy that one and only layer in the redwall limestone? Why wouldn't you see nautiloids above that layer too, or do you? In significant numbers of course. There are billions of them in that one layer, it's THEIR layer, but surely we know the earth was never populated by just one kind of life and the nautiloid is a fairly large complex creature for there not to be an abundance of evolutionary precursors. But where are they? And isn't this a common situation from layer to layer? The dinosaurs supposedly went extinct at a specific point in time so that's the explanation for their nonappearance above the time periods they're associated with. The coelacanth that was once thought to be extinct is now known to be living but IIRC it showed up in the Devonian and then not again until, I forget, the Quaternary?, and that was the end of its fossil record. Why the long gap? Actually gaps plural. Weren't there any coelacanths in between the Devonian and its later appearance, or above that latest appearance? If not why not? It's of course possible to rationalize anything like this away, but I think it raises serious questions about the meaning of the fossil record. Do believers in evolution raise these questions?
And yet it is put in the language of fact.
It is the best explanation and there are actually no alternatives. It's just not right to turn a conjecture into a fact, no matter how convinced you are of it. And it's only with the evolution-related claims that this is ever done too; the other sciences do not do that. As for alternatives it's a bunch of buried and fossilized life forms, that IS a fact. And you can add Ned's list of facts to this if you want. The problem is the interpretation not the facts.
It is a scientific fact. A well-supported fact based on known biological mechanisms and testing. Well, but it's not. What "biological mechanisms?" and what testing?
The order is SUGGESTIVE, but it's a far cry from hard evidence.
No, the order is a conclusion based on the fossil record. As such it can be treated as a hard fact until it is disproven. That hasn't happened. The order is a conclusion based on the fossil record and it is very suggestive but it is a far cry from hard evidence. It's a theory treated as fact, it hasn't been proved and there is no easy way to disprove it so it just keeps on generating imaginary scenarios in the place of actual known facts.
You can do experiments to prove the theory of gravity or electricity or germ theory; evolution has only interpretation, the IMAGINED evolution up the fossil ladder.
And we can do experiments like predict that a certain fossil would be found in Devonian aged rocks and then go look for it. But, of course, that would never happen, would it? And if it did it would be just a coincidence, eh? No, for whatever reason there is a pattern to the fossils so when you understand the pattern you can predict from it where to find more examples of the pattern. I don't know how often your predictions pan out but there's no obvious reason they shouldn't. But that begs the question of the correct understanding of the pattern. The pattern is a fact but its interpretation is still in doubt. It becomes a problem when there are other considerations that call the ToE interpretation of the pattern into question. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm very surprised this would be considered controversial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The order is very suggestive as I keep saying, but it can't be treated as proof of evolution.
(Sigh...) Just another strawman argument. Again. Please show us where anyone (particularly here) says that the fossil record is absolute proof of evolution. The point is that the fossil record is evidence supporting evolution and nothing else that's out there as an explanation.
I don't know why the pattern is so consistent, ...
Let me make a suggestion:
Because the theory of evolution is a robust theory. ... but when there are other reasons to question the standard interpretation it can't just be taken as fact.
Please provide such a reason.
Ned's list of facts is in Message 216. I just read it and have no problem with any of those facts. They are the hard facts; the theory is something else that is imposed on those facts. He did a good job of sticking to the facts themselves.
Then why do you say this:
As for alternatives it's a bunch of buried and fossilized life forms, that IS a fact.
It seems at odds with Ned's post that there's a lot more to it than just a bunch of fossils.
It's just not right to turn a conjecture into a fact, no matter how convinced you are of it. And it's only with the evolution-related claims that this is ever done too; the other sciences do not do that.
I submit that there is nothing wrong with using a well-supported theory as a fact. T In fact, that's what we do. If we treat it as a fact, and it is wrong we find out when it gives us bad results. That hasn't happened yet... Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes it is not hard evidence as I've been saying. It is fossilized creatures embedded in sedimentary layers, that is all it is. It is the apparent sequence which is interpreted as ancient to modern living things that is imposed on it that turns it into evidence. No. This has been explained to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The order is very suggestive as I keep saying, but it can't be treated as proof of evolution.
The point is that the fossil record is evidence supporting evolution and nothing else that's out there as an explanation. But when you say the evolutionary interpretation is a fact aren't you essentially calling it proof? Saying it's a fact that it's a bunch of fossilized life forms doesn't exclude other facts about it.
I submit that there is nothing wrong with using a well-supported theory as a fact. T In fact, that's what we do. If we treat it as a fact, and it is wrong we find out when it gives us bad results. It doesn't look all that "well supported" from here, since it lacks hard evidence. And it's hard to find out it's wrong when it's mostly conjectures. There's something self-validating about the ToE that isn't scientifically kosher.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sorry but if there is anything to your complaint you will have to explain it again. I did say I often forget former arguments. Thank you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024