In eternity, yesterday and today are present as are all moments of time. There, I am the newborn baby and every subsequent iteration of myself eternally.
Rules are rules; the simpler, the more likely true. Fuzzing the rule dilutes it’s power to discriminate. The diluted version just opens the door for speculators to appear as scientists.
One cannot offer a scientific explanation without evidence. With evidence it becomes a theory. Without it, it remains opinion.Freddy:
Yes, the newly elucidated Rossum’s Rule applies. Without actual evidence, it ain’t science.
Except we can easily tell that evolution doesn’t happen at all.
Just refer back to post 317, Noose.rossum:
Except we can easily tell that evolution doesn’t happen at all.
Except your sources are lying to you. Does DDT still work to kill insects? Does penicillin still kill bacteria. No, in both cases the targets have evolved immunity.
I’m my own source, but let’s test your sources.
That would be lack of evidence, not evidence. If I cannot find something, does that something not exist? If confused, just apply the Rossum’s Rule corollary: A non-observation is not an observation.
That would be evidence of rabbits. The movement from the fact of rabbits fossils in rocks to 40 million years old rabbit fossils is indirect. Further, the movement from the speculation that the rabbit fossils are 40 million years old to the wild guess that rabbits did not exist earlier takes you back to the fallacy of proposing non-evidence as evidence.
Of course you can make a prediction, it just not a scientific prediction according to Rossum’s Rule. Actual evidence is required.
Notice that “If…” at the start of your post? With that first word, your statement is logically true. Without that statement it is false.
Correct, what other options do we have if the statement is false, let’s say without the word if?
There’s not much point in questioning the details of evolution if you don’t accept the timescales. Just state your beliefs and be done with it. You asking questions about matters in which you don’t believe. It’s like questioning the aerodynamics of Santa’s sled.
I stole the idea from all the papers I read on evolution, their favourite word is ‘could’.
Any thoughts?
Correct. See the Marbled Crayfish, which I have posted here before. Its parents reproduced sexually; it reproduces asexually. Hence it is unable to reproduce with its parents.
Marbled crayfish is an engineered mutant, and how is it a species if the offspring is a different species from its parent? How many species of marbled crayfish do you know?
No, there would not be much point except that your details are your hypothesis. I merely demonstrate the smoke and mirrors that underpin your claim take you out of the realm of science. It’s OK for you to take a leap of faith but not OK to portray your beliefs as science facts.
I call Rossum’s Rule on Rossum. Got actual evidence for that claim?
As I have explained: mutation and natural selection. Those mutations which worked less well have disappeared from the gene pool by reproducing less, or not at all. Those mutations which worked better spread through the gene pool by reproducing more.
Yes. We have the genetics; effectively a paternity and maternity test. See Lyko (2018).
Engineered? Who engineered it? Where? When? Show us your evidence, or admit you don’t have any by avoiding.