Simulation Theory according to Dilbert

[John V]

Why do they do that, in your opinion?

They enjoy it and they get paid for it.

[Cyberman]

They enjoy getting paid for doing their job badly and risking being caught out?

[John V]

They enjoy getting paid for doing their job badly

No. They either ignore the discrepancies with genetic approaches, disagree with them, or rationalize it in some other way.

and risking being caught out?

They have tenure.

[Cyberman]

They still have to show their work.

[Mister Agenda]

Stupidest thing I have read all week, and it's been one of those weeks...And since reconstructions can't be perfect, they are all equally reliable, so we should trust your scriptures just as much as we trust anything else about the past. Of course, that means we should also trust everyone else's scriptures equally with yours, except not, because reasons...If only there was a method that would allow us to determine which reconstructions of the past have a higher probability of being better approximations of what really happened than others....

What you are saying is that when there are rival theories none of them are true. Or in other words, since we cannot be certain about everything we don't know anything. Talk about fallacies. I seriously question your logical judgment.

I seriously question your reading comprehension.

---

When scientists have competing theories, they settle those disputes in a lab...

I have never heard of anyone digging up a new fossil in a lab, have you?

Deliberately obtuse, or accidentally?

---

You do understand that one of the most basic tenets of science is it's claims/ideas/theories are all falsifiable, and that's how science works, right? 

And that's why paleontology isn't science. It doesn't make risky, falsifiable predictions.

You literally just gave an example of paleontology making a risky, falsifiable prediction.

[John V]

You literally just gave an example of paleontology making a risky, falsifiable prediction.

If you're referring to tiktaalik: not at all. If they didn't find anything (and IIRC they didn't on the first trip or two), they could blame the incompleteness of the fossil record. When it turned out it was younger than actual tetrapods, they just noted that intermediate species don't necessarily die out. They heralded it as good evidence when it seemed that way, but they had their outs ready if they needed them. That's how it goes with evolution.

[Mister Agenda]

You literally just gave an example of paleontology making a risky, falsifiable prediction.

If you're referring to tiktaalik: not at all. If they didn't find anything (and IIRC they didn't on the first trip or two), they could blame the incompleteness of the fossil record. When it turned out it was younger than actual tetrapods, they just noted that intermediate species don't necessarily die out. They heralded it as good evidence when it seemed that way, but they had their outs ready if they needed them. That's how it goes with evolution.

Tiktaalik prediction falsified, yes or no? OF COURSE if it's falsified it's for reasons, no matter what is falsified in any field whatsoever.

[John V]

If you're referring to tiktaalik: not at all. If they didn't find anything (and IIRC they didn't on the first trip or two), they could blame the incompleteness of the fossil record. When it turned out it was younger than actual tetrapods, they just noted that intermediate species don't necessarily die out. They heralded it as good evidence when it seemed that way, but they had their outs ready if they needed them. That's how it goes with evolution.

Tiktaalik prediction falsified, yes or no? OF COURSE if it's falsified it's for reasons, no matter what is falsified in any field whatsoever.

Falsified, yes. Risky, no - they had outs.

[Mister Agenda]

'Explanation' is not a synonym for 'out'.

[Brian37]

Why do they do that, in your opinion?

Because those evil paleontologists sank the Titanic, killed JFK and beamed Christians up to the mother ship and anal probed them. It's true, I saw it on Fox News.