Fallacies of Evolution

I do agree with Number 10--as well as the others.

Why would you disagree with the assertion that correlation does not prove causation?

 

I may be overestimating but you can probably do the research to demonstrate the fact that the hybrid is real. And the embryo does contain genetic information from both pigs and humans making it a true hybrid created by man.

 

The fossil record does the opposite, as Charles Darwin said. The record does not contain
examples of the transition from one species to another. The fossil record actually shows
that evolution hasn't taken place.

In other words the only fossils that have been discovered are species after their own kind.
There are no fossils linking a propagating species to a different propagating species.
Every fossil is a unique species to itself.

It really doesn't. The fossil record only has samples of species but no transitional
examples. The only connection, or transition, that takes place in evolution is in the mind
of the evolutionist. They must extrapolate what they've found and have someone create
artistic renderings.

The reason is because they can only produce offspring that propagate within their
own kind. When a species goes out of it's species the male is always sterile. The
examples such as Ligers, Tions, Mules, Labradoodles, etc... can't breed within
themselves. The female can produce but only with a male of the original species and
that species will revert to the original.

 

Actually, i'm sure you underestimate me. But i'm ok with that.

I have done a lot of research on this issue, and i see genetics as a big hurdle for the ToE. And, like i said, what is happening with your 'hybrid' is merely gene splicing, such as the glowing cat & other splicing experiments. You would have to present the study, if you think it is more than that, for examination. If it truly is, i would be one of the most excited ones here, for this genetic breakthrough. I'm not sure it has any real significance for the ToE, but it would be an amazing thing, if it is as you say. But, that said, i am a skeptic at heart, & i doubt it is as you believe. Things of this nature tend to be hyped & blown out of proportion by media people, & lose any scientific objectivity. But i will look at it, if you post a link to it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure he is just looking for 'gotcha!' statements. I'm pretty sure he lives in an ecco chamber...

 

I'll simplify it for you.

1. USFAN posted a list of ten items.
2. The heading on the list was: "Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools."
3. Number 10 on that list was: "Correlation proves Causation."
4. USFAN went on to explain: This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

• However, it is not "commonly taught in schools" as part of TOE.
• It is a strawman set up by USFAN.

• Here is what you stated about USFAN's strawman post: "Good Post"
• This indicates that you agree with USFAN's strawman.

I challenged you (and USFAN ) to produce evidence (quotes from a textbook) to show that it was taught.
Neither you nor USFAN have been able to do so. That's not hard to understand. Since there are no textbooks that teach it.

 

Darwin said no such thing.
His statement (circa 1859) acknowledges an incomplete fossil record rather than a problem with his theory.

The "descent with modification" road to humans (or any other group, for that matter) is paved with a sequence of transitional fossils, spaced out in a time sequence reflected in the ages of the fossils found.

 

Again, your point?

 

I have not engaged you since early in this thread, because of deceptive posts like this. You make lame accusations, & only look for 'gotcha!' statements, ignore the points being made, deflect with irrelevant absurdities, & primarily use ad hominem in your replies, as if that refutes my points.

It not only does NOT refute my points, it illustrates them. You provide no evidence, but try to deflect from the topic with your deceptive gotchas.

I have said, & the evidence is clearly there, that not only do schools 'commonly teach' these things, but so do universities, govt sponsored nature shows, national parks, media, entertainment, & just about every human institution in America march in lock step with these fallacies that i listed. The 'correlation does not imply causation' is a perfect example, & i only used it specifically with morphology, which is (and has been) one of the most common arguments for the ToE.

It is the homology argument, that says because things 'look' similar, they must have evolved together from a common ancestor. THAT is the 'correlation' that is assumed, & the concluded 'causation' of evolution. It is a logical fallacy, as unless there is other, more empirical evidence for ancestry, that correlation cannot be made, scientifically. Take canids. The morphology between chihuahuas & great danes might make one conclude that they are different species. But we know them to be canids. They are (technically!) able to reproduce, & they can be followed through the mtDNA & evidenced to be from the same genetic roots. You could 'look' at the wild boar, & the javelina, & suggest the same thing. But just because they 'look' similar, does not indicate descendancy. The javelina is from the peccary family, not suidae. Their genetic structure is different, their metabolisms are different, their digestive systems are different. You can ask hunters, & they will tell you they taste completely different. Before genetics, they were thought to be from the same family, & close descendants. But this was only a homologous argument, which is exactly a 'correlation implies causation' fallacy. This one was corrected, but the general idea of homology is still a central talking point for evolutionary propaganda.

source

In just about every 'edu' site there is this argument of homology, or morphological similarities as 'evidence!' for evolution. But it is, indeed, a logical fallacy. It is a correlation that is used to imply causation. It fits the argument to a T.

So the lame accusation that this is a strawman, or unevidenced, or a 'false statement' is absurd, dishonest, & is a fallacy in itself. It is what i expect from an ecco chamber.. .just repeated lies & distortions to muddy the discussion, or deflect from the topic. Where is the evidence for this theory, if it is so plainly evident? NONE has been provided, just lame deflections, & fallacy after fallacy, proving the point of the OP, that evolution relies COMPLETELY on logical fallacies, & has no scientific evidence.

 

Your argument is ridiculous full stop.

You argue as if Taxonomy is not supported by Phylogenic and Genetic relatedness or the other evidence that we have available. For example, what better evidence that explains ERVs do you have? Scientists do not simply look at things and classify them because they look the same, if they did then they would have forgotten about convergent evolution and just reverted to the Creationist idea that does correlation and causation on an epic scale of dumb with 'Fishy kind, 'Doggy kind' and 'Kitty kind' classifications.

There is no 'Teach the Controversy' here, the correct scientific explanation for diversity of species is ToE. Doesn't matter how big a wedge called God that you want to drive into it, the evidence says you are wrong. Why do you not openly proclaim your Creationism? Are you ashamed of it and think that by trying to sneak it past us in the guise of philosophy that we won't notice?

 

But they have. The study i sourced was one of tracing the mtDNA for a great variety of canids. But it does not 'prove' the ToE, or any link to mutation, or show where these traits originated. Merely speculating that they all came from 'mutations!' is only that: speculation. the only thing we KNOW about canids, & their diversity, is that they were there in the parent stock. Whatever canid ancestor there was had all the traits there to 'create' all the diversity we see today, or at least going back a few hundred years. That was a key point in the study i posted.

Still relying on ad hominem? Still jumping on terminology to attempt to take the 'scientific high road?' I noticed you did not address any arguments, as usual, but deflected with 'terminology outrage', & pretend indignation of some incorrect grammar usage. Seriously?

Shirley, you jest. I'm not going to rebut a video from usa today. That is not evidence, & certainly not any that can be examined in a written forum. If you have an argument for fossilized feathers, post it. Make you claim & conclusion. But a video is worse than a plain link to some .edu site.. at least the written word can be referenced & quoted.. unless you expect me to transcribe the whole video & rebut it line by line.

As far as i can see, we mean the same thing with the term, 'mutation'. BTW, thanks for the topical, rational debate.. it is very refreshing here.

I agree that this is not evidence against evolution, & the study even carries with it the assumptions of the ToE. They are flawed, IMO, but they make them just the same. But the ToE has NO explanation as to 'how' or 'where' the diversity in canids comes from. And, merely saying, 'We don't know how or where this diversity comes from, but isn't evolution wonderful!', does not make a compelling scientific argument. Speculations about future discoveries, or hopeful knowledge doesn't really count in the scientific method. Facts & repeatable evidence is what matters. If it is not explainable, you cannot argue that it will be, someday, & use that as a proof of the claim.

I disagree that the problems of canid diversity is the same as not understanding germs. You can believe that there will be, someday, a smoking gun that shows clearly where the diversity comes from, but it does not aid the evidence for the ToE. It is just 'begging the question'.. you assume the fact of the ToE, then predict future discoveries based on that assumption.

The ignorance about bacteria was a source of another naturalistic view of the universe, that was the scientific status quo, for many naturalists, for centuries. That was the 'spontaneous generation' belief, & until Pasteur's experiments, it reigned as the belief system for origins. It relied on assumptions & assertions, that were eventually debunked by Real Science. IMO, that is what is happening with the ToE, today. Real Science is debunking many of the sacred tenets of this old religion, & one by one, it is chipping at the assumptions of the ToE, & pushing it into the scientific bone yard of superstitious beliefs.

Perhaps there is a mechanism, yet unknown, for evolution. But we cannot use wishful thinking as proof of anything. That is, exactly, what speculation & conjecture are.

I'm not talking about 'great potential', but actual facts. Hopeful monsters have been part of the ToE for a long time, but they do not provide evidence. You cannot claim gene duplication as the source for diversity, or new genes, or any such macro evolution claim. There is nothing to demonstrate this.. it is assumed or extrapolated, based on the PRESUMPTION of evolution, which is a circular argument. There has to be some kind of physical evidence, or mechanism explained, that shows the sequence of events in the change from one genetic structure to another. A duplicated gene does not do this. It keeps the same dna as the other, & mutations cannot make the drastic changes necessary to add chromosomes, or create the extreme diversity in life.

As of now, from everything i have read on the subject, & from the complete lack of anything presented in threads like this, I can only conclude that there is NOT any evidence for this, at all. There is NOTHING to demonstrate that any new traits are the result of mutation, or that mutation can indeed 'cause' new traits to begin with. The jump between genetic traits are HUGE, with thousands & millions of unique genes comprising them. It is very difficult, even under laboratory conditions, to 'fool' an organism with a similar gene, & splice it into another, such as the glowing cats example. But this did not change the cat. There have been no 'new species' created through gene splicing, or stem cell manipulation. We have gotten to the level of manipulating some of the basic building blocks of the DNA, but it mostly shows us how complex the genetic makeup of an organism is.

 

I don't understand your rebuttal. Are you saying that homology is NOT an argument for, or evidence of, the ToE? Your deflections about alternate beliefs are noted, but are irrelevant to this discussion. I listed the 'correlation does not imply causation' fallacy, & showed how the 'morphology' arguments are just that. How does belittling another belief system help defend yours?

Perhaps someday i will start a thread dedicated to examining the scientific evidence for ID, but that is not the topic here. This is an examination of the ToE, & the fallacies used to promote it. I would note that your reply here seems to reinforce that there are only fallacies to support the ToE, with no scientific evidence. Is not bringing up your objections to ID just a deflection? Shooting arrows into the creationist strawman does not provide evidence for your belief system.. it might make you feel better, or gin up some derision for other people's beliefs, but it does not provide any empiricism for your own. You are left with only desperation, based on a straw man full of arrows, to prop up your beliefs. There is nothing empirical about that.

from wiki:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's actual proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

This seems to be the issue, here. You are not addressing the topic, which is evidence for the ToE, but are attacking a strawman, for the purpose of 'winning' an emotionally charged issue. Critical thinking is not the goal, but promoting a narrative, & shooting arrows in a strawman. This is, of course, another logical fallacy, & is more evidence for the claims of the OP.

 

Why are you so ashamed of being a Creationist? Teach the controversy my friend, if you can find one that is.

 

That much is clear and it wasn't a rebuttal because that assumes that you have an argument based in science to start with.

I am going to stop trying to talk science to you because you are not interested and I am going to come across to the ground that you are arguing on which is more about the philosophy of Science. I understand why you want to pretend you argue science but actually argue philosophy because this is better ground for you to argue from a Creationist perspective. Goodness knows that Ken Ham and the like have been trying to wedge their 'Creation Science' into the classroom for years by trying to attack the philosophical basis for the scientific method so why shouldn't you continue the work. So, where are we going to start? You want to discuss the true nature of reality to start with and go down the matrix rabbit hole? How about you ask me if I can know anything for certain if I don't know everything?

 

Good shot! You got several more arrows in that straw man!

You can't 'stop trying to talk science' because you never started! I've only had a few discussions about actual scientific studies, or even concepts. Mostly there has been diversions, deflections, logical fallacy after fallacy, with nothing to address. If you want to talk about creationism, fine.. if you can show how addressing that provides some kind of 'evidence' for the ToE, it would relate. But merely attacking creationism is irrelevant to this discussion. It is, exactly, a 'straw man'.

 

You don't want to talk science, you naysay and hand wave all scientific evidence and fall back on the philosophical basis of the scientific method every time. You want people to specify that science is based upon some underlying assumptions? I won't argue with that but, I will ask you to demonstrate why assuming that reality exists, that we can understand it, that we can model it and that we make predictions with the models is unjustified?

Based upon the totality of your posts in the whole forum, the only reason that I can see for you to cast doubt on those assumptions is to undermine science and try to wedge a conservative Christian agenda into it. You haven't said it but, I believe that what you really want to say is that the only person who can be sure is the person that was there and who knows everything. That person revealed it all to man in a book.

 

Creation is a subject most evolutionists shy from because it destroys their TOE when you ask them how that first life form, that they claim we all evolved from, came to be. I'm not a theist nor do I require one. Evolution is really just adaptation. Adaptation is dependant on the environment. Evolution is not an on going process occuring in every living thing. Where there is little change in the environment, there is no need to adapt or evolve. Sharks are pretty much the same as they have always been to name one. Troglodites, dinosaur and ancient human foot prints have been found in close proximity.
Evolution cannot be proven… that is why they keep referring to the missing link… which they have not, cannot and will not find … because it does not exist. It's a theory. Theories can stop scientific investigation when they are accepted as fact. The true nature of reality can never be known to us.
Why must these discussions always devolve into acrimony? My theory - life forces created the universe.

 

The theory of Evolution is not intended to deal with how life came about. The "Missing Link" is generally brought up by those opposed to evolution and seldom by those who follow it as it is well understood there and a very many missing links that slowly became what we see today.

 

The missng link isn't discussed by evolutionists because it affects the theory in a negative way, same as creation, so they avoid it. It doesn't fit their narrative. Creation must be a part of TOE, there's no getting away from it and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Creation is the nexus of evolution. Without creation there can be no evolution or adaptation. Creation is integral to evolution. You really can't settle the question of evolution without first dealing with creation. Not everything evolves. Dragon flies encased in amber are no different than living dragon flies. Adaptation is actually logical but fails to explain diversity of living organisms IMO. When the question of what did we all evolve from? is asked ...........crickets chirping. Because a body part of one animal resembles a body part of an extinct animal doesn't prove evolution, rather, I think intelligent design. If you have a successful design, say a ball and socket to form a joint, why not use it over and over again, across many species? I'm not claiming God exists because I don't believe He could or would even want to exist, but that's more of a philosophical discussion. But I do believe there is intelligence, of some form, involved with creation.

 

What exactly would you consider more relevant that the ability to combine genes of two entirely separate species.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is simply that man has now created a new species.

 

From your OP:

Show one textbook that teaches Correlation proves Causation. I asked before. You have not responded.

 

Your list is similar to the bogus lists that Creationist sites have published for many years. The interested reader can easily find them...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html
What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution?

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041
The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/top-ten-myths-about-evolution/
Top Ten: Myths About Evolution

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/tools/questions.php3
Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.

 

I noticed. I wondered the same thing.

At least the people at AIG and the Creationist Institute are honest about the basis for their Creationist views.

 

[video=youtube;vNVp5IwQcYc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNVp5IwQcYc[/video]

 

The answer is "We don't know the exact details - yet. We're working on it. But we do know the failed GodDidIt is not the answer. Never has been. Never will be.

How do you explain the existence of humans?

No they are not. There are over 400 different species of shark, each species adapted to their environment.

Care to name your source. Was it AIG?

Theories don't stop scientific investigation. For many years it was accepted as fact that the continents were stationary. Then someone came along with the theory of Continental Drift. If theories stopped scientific investigation, we would still believe that the sun revolved around the earth.

But science is always getting us closer.

How do you explain the existence of humans?

 

Ah, an intelligent creator. Not a god, just an intelligent creator.


If the intelligent creator just created an embryonic universe then how did humans get to exist? Evolution?
If the intelligent creator created humans then that sounds pretty much like Biblical Genesis.

What, in your opinion, did the intelligent creator create?