That a different kind of crayfish is discovered means only that it is new in the sense that one has not been discovered before. It is illogical to infer that its progenitors were any different than themselves. More evidence is required.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What’s pretty funny here is that, when @Buffalo brought up the subject of “old paradigms”, @rossum replied “irrelevant!”. You, then, look at his reply and exclaim “irrelevant reply!”
They would be historical science, not empirical science.
And was overturned recently.
Because it is philosophy and no empirical proof exists.
Being incorrect did not make the postulate unscientific. That is my point.
No, it is a hypothesis that explains a very large body of evidence and no alternative has been proposed.
I love it when people say “there is no guidebook” and then turn around and object that basic research is pointless. The most important advances in applied research come from the unexpected things discovered by basic “what is this ever going to be good for?” research.
Well, they’re never going to find those pieces if it is pointless to even look!!
Yep…just like a Horoscope.o_mlly:
Look at just about any pro-evo paper. This is the language you will see:
It is thought
Perhaps
Might be
Could be
Could have
Might have
etc
and on and on…
The empirical findings that are observable, repeatable and predictable are the one’s that count.
That’s all? Just two? That is hardly enough to condemn the theory, which does not rest on those frauds.
And then some…
Empirical evidence has been presented in this very thread at least 200 times, and in none of those times did you engage in a convincing refutation.
What you introduced is the normal process of science refining its theories. What are you hoping to do? Throw doubt on all of science just because the field advances a little? So in order to prove that the Theory of Evolution is not scientific, you only solution is to prove that nothing is scientific!
To gather confirming evidence in other, simpler settings. The advantage of the Galapoagos Islands is that it proved isolation that made evolution easier to observe and analyze.
The thing is that you aren’t the arbiter of questions that ought to interest other people.
That relegates a lot of what Einstein did to a bin other than the “ones that count.”
That would be like investigating one or two claims of a miraculous cure, finding them to be fraudulent, and concluding that all claims of miraculous cures are therefore fraudulent. It is not logical.
Absence of evidence is indicative, and science is happy to use it until evidence does turn up. At that point science will adjust to incorporate the newly found evidence.
No it was not. Do you have a reference to a scientific paper showing that. You need to understand the biological definition of “transitional”. Specifically, time is not of any great importance. Finding a bird dated before Archaeopteryx does not invalidate Archaeopteryx as a transitional. A transitional is defined in terms of sharing characteristics of the earlier clade and the later clade. Archaeopteryx shares traits so it is a transitional.
