Fallacies of Evolution

You don't get to define "evolution". TOE comprises both of what you refer to as micro and macro. It's a package deal. Either you accept it or you reject it. No splitsies allowed.

 

So if we can't get speciation to happen in a laboratory in a few years it can't happen in nature over millions of years? Labs don't have the diversity of conditions or plenty of time nature does.

 

you are expecting to see some sort of mutant species like a crocoduck. This is a creationist argument and total nonsense. Evolution doesn't predict a mutated half this half that form. It predicts gradual changes, which is evidenced in the fossil record as well as existing species.

 

So you think it matters why nobody knows what speiciation means.

Yer a riot, pilgrim.

Yes, and the theory in question predicts that given enough time, speiciation will occur. Not only is that not testable for lack of a practical time frame, but you've now admitted that you don't even know what speiciation is in the first place, so the "hypothesis" rests on an incoherent premise to begin with.

What you're missing, of course, is that even if you find everything where you expect to find it, all you have is correlation, and no testable causal mechanism.

Why in hell would I defend it for the benefit of someone who claims no one even knows what it is?

You certainly are.

It's not convincing to anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of what a human being is; but of course there is no greater value in the ToE as applied to humans than their dehumanization, so one would expect such understanding to be increasingly rare over the last century or so.

How in Hell are you gonna explain it to anybody when you know neither what speciation is nor what self-awareness is?

No, I'm saying precisely what I said.

That's between them and whoever cuts their paychecks. Here it's nothing but a red herring.

Yes, I understand, given that you can't find fault with anything I said, your need to go the ad hom route. Not my problem.

Clearly I'm not the one who needs help, given the obvious implication of what you said.

 

'geologists believe'
' Physicists, Astronomers and Chemists believe'
Still pounding the fallacy drum? What people BELIEVE is irrelevant to scientific inquiry. Even if it were true, science is not a democratic process, where the majority's beliefs become Absolute Truth.

I do not accept your premise, that Truth is found in a consensus of 'really smart people'. That is flawed reasoning, & will only drag us back to the dark ages, where truth is declared & belief is mandated.

If something is not repeatable & observable, it is outside of the realm of science to confirm it. Something can be an interesting theory, or hypothesis, or speculation, or conjecture, but if you cannot test it, or make predictions based on the phenomenon in question, it has little value to scientific methodology.

I'm sure there are multitudes of 'other possible explanations'. Alien seeding.. rays from space.. punctuated equilibrium.. special creation.. spontaneous generation. Some of these have a natural 'cause', some have a supernatural. But with the origins of life (and the universe) there could be myriads of possibilities. Now, i will grant that among those 'possibilities', there is either an underlying belief or assumption of either naturalism or supernaturalism. That is the binary choice.

But this philosophical musing is irrelevant to the question at hand: Is the ToE a valid 'theory' of origins? How does the science hold up? The implications of this question may not be comfortable, & may in fact be downright inconvenient, to the rest of someone's worldview. That is not the problem of the scientist, who seeks truth for truth's sake. Propping up philosophical beliefs is not the job of the scientist. Factual accuracy, & sound reason are the weapons of choice for those seeking truth & knowledge, & they have often been contrary to the status quo & their preferred belief systems.

No, religious beliefs tend to be mandated, declared, & asserted.. dogmatically. Most of their claims are outside the realm of empirical science. And, that is the state of the ToE, as it is presented today. It is NOT presented scientifically, but fallaciously, as a declared belief, & very dogmatically.

I did not say it was not evidence. I said it is not evidence for universal descendancy. Fossils show no such conclusion. You have to BELIEVE the premise, first, to see the fossils fitting into the theory.

The ToE is EXACTLY the theory of universal descent. It IS the claim, & there is no mechanism for it. The ToE does not explain HOW organisms make these vertical, macro changes, it only asserts it... without evidence.

Your strawman is irrelevant. Your theory is the phenomenon in question. Deflecting with absurd caricatures is a fallacy, & does not provide evidence for your beliefs. Your imagined scenario is no more 'rational' or 'scientific' than your supernatural frog.

If you cannot demonstrate, or provide evidence for this asserted phenomenon, with ANY experimentation, how is it valid as a scientific explanation for origins? It is an imagined scenario, only, with no evidence to support it. It is, in actual fact, a religious belief, beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

On the contrary, there is more genetic evidence becoming available as the years progress. And the physical evidence is a major problem for the ToE. We can follow the mtDNA in many life forms, & trace their lineage & descendancy. But they start abruptly, with no known 'cause'.

'Why do birds, suddenly appear?'.... Karen Carpenter was no scientist, but this is a problematic question for the ToE. And canids.. and felids. We can trace the mtDNA back to a single ancestral canid, for example, but we have NOTHING before that. We have no clue how or why the canid appeared, & no trail to explain their existence.

They show nothing, except variability within their own genetic architecture. They are examples of MICRO evolution, or variability. They are not changing their chromosome pairs, or becoming another genetic type, or making any MACRO changes. You think changes in beak variety changes the basic architecture of the genome?

No, the DNA only changes on the micro level.. slight differences in genes that are reflected in mostly cosmetic differences. Adapting bacteria are still bacteria. They are not 'becoming' anything else. Some bacteria, like e.coli, referenced earlier, are amazingly adaptable, able to survive in a wide range of conditions. But they are still e.coli. They still have the circular dna, & the same basic genes, as other e.coli. They in NO WAY prove or even indicate universal common descendancy. Nothing we observe, over millions of tested generations, has indicated that bacteria ever were something else, or are becoming something else. All we observe is minor adaptations within the basic structure of the genome.

I am the skeptic here, remember? I have made NO religious arguments, & have refuted those that have been made to me, by promoters of the ToE. My arguments are based on science, facts, & observable reality. Pretending to correlate erosion with common descendancy is another logical fallacy. That is a false correlation. Major features in the genome.. chromosome pairs, specific genes.. complex traits.. have easily traced roots, with no explanation as to how they appeared or began. You have no wind or water to provide the mechanism for the changes claimed. You can observe 'genetic erosion', but how does this aid your cause? Where do New Genes come from, or added complexity, if the only thing we observe is genetic erosion? Your correlation with the grand canyon only makes the ToE arguments worse. By correlating weather erosion with genetic erosion, you confirm entropy, & illustrate another major problem with the ToE. Genetic erosion is an argument AGAINST the ToE, not for it.

We cannot see it. We cannot predict it. We cannot see any evidence or mechanism for HOW it could happen, or did happen, or will happen. It is a completely imagined phenomenon. Your belief that 'time' has some kind of magical ability does not have any basis in scientific methodology. If the phenomenon cannot be observed or repeated how does time have any ability to change things? TIME did not 'create' the grand canyon, water, wind, & other physical forces did. Time is only a factor, & not a clearly known one in every instance. It must be established as a factor in any theory.

 

1. I provided some quotes, from posters here, .edu sites, & other links that illustrated some of the fallacies listed in the OP. Your attempt to parse that list, & nit pick each one, demanding evidence for each instance seemed to me to be a deflection, to avoid the glaring error of the lack of evidence, & my premise that the ToE relies on logical fallacies, instead of evidence.
2. My rebuttal was to your link, which 'threw a lot at me'. It did not address a single point, but multiple ones, which i rebutted.
3. No, i don't want to bicker about definitions, vague terminology, deflections from the topic, or other non topical points. I prefer to examine the science of the ToE, to see if it has any basis in scientific methodology, or if it relies completely on logical fallacies.
4. Speciation is a vague term, not even agreed upon by evolutionists. It is not really useful in defining anything. Better to use genetic science to define an organism, with objective evidence for its ancestry.
5. My solution is to stick with science, & let the facts decide. I'm open to speculations as to 'how?' these things happened, but am repulsed by dogmatic declarations to believe assertions.

Great idea! I love dogs! Actually, the canid family is a fascinating study, & i'm glad you brought it up again.

Good points & questions. Here are some of mine.

1. With the canids, there seems to be common descendancy, among the entire phylogenetic tree.
2. HOW the canid came to be is unknown, by any scientific methodology. We can only trace them from the source.
3. I don't know of any other 'forms' with similar 'DNA & biology', only morphology.+
4. The time frames assumed by universal common descendancy are extrapolated & assumed.. they are not empirically based.
5. The fossil record is not necessarily linked to a sequential time pattern. No descendancy or ancestry can be concluded based on fossils. That is an assumption, after the premise of universal common descendancy is established, which it has not been. IOW, it is circular reasoning to date things by fossils, based on times established by fossils.

Here is an earlier post from page 71, showing the canid family tree:

Note that the canid line begins with one or two possible ancestors, then branches out in the hub of the variety of canids seen today. We don't know the morphology of the parent. There is no evidence if it was a wolf, or wolf-like. All we know is it was a canid. We do not have a perfect estimate of the time involved, but are beginning to be able to measure that through the mtDNA, though, like other dating methods, it is questionable. Just like Humans had a single line of ancestry, traceable through the mtDNA, so do canids & other genetic specie/family/types. Presumably, there was a single ancestor that was the source of all. Canids seem to indicate this singularity, as do humans. I am not familiar with in depth studies of other families, so i cannot say, but i suspect & predict them to be the same. That is the beauty of genetics, as it provides hard science for our theories of descendancy. But unfortunately for the ToE, it does not indicate universal common descendancy.

There is no REASON, or evidence, to think that canines are somehow related to some previous life form. Maybe they are, but we have no evidence that this is the case. So there are only speculations as to HOW canids came to be. A naturalistic 'cause'? Maybe. A supernatural 'cause'? Don't know. We do not have enough evidence to make such a conclusion. But for some naturalist to declare, dogmatically, that 'canids came from a previous ancestor!,' is just conjecture.. it is a religious belief, with no evidence. It is no different than a supernaturalist declaring 'God created canids!' We have no evidence for their origin. Perhaps we will, someday, but for now, that is a mystery.

 

Now, now USFAN. Are you really going to play the "BELIEVE" card? Even after you been show, repeatedly, that the word has multiple meanings.


intransitive verb
a : to have a firm religious faith
b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real

transitive verb
a : to consider to be true or honest
b : to accept the word or evidence of


It's a nonsensical tactic you and other theists often use...

Oh, so you just believe your silly science. Well, if it's just a belief, it's probably wrong.​

At the same time denigrating your own theistic beliefs.

 

I believe the above was addressed to me based on...

So, here you go again...

"Quotes from posters here". Really? That is supposed to be evidence to support your bogus OP? That's really desperate.

No, you have not. You have not shown a single scholastic textbook. You have provided absolutely no evidence to support the bogus allegation you made in the OP.

 

all of this is hand waiving and stating "nuh uh" you have provided no evidence what so ever to support your claims.

 

He quoted Darwin's actual words. He didn't make it sound like anything. Your ad hominem here, accusing of dishonesty is a fallacy in itself. Perhaps you didn't know about Darwin's actual views about the fossil record. But just because you were unaware of the quote, does not justify lashing out at the person who brought it.

If you want to debate the science, you should demonstrate evidence that supports your belief in a compelling fossil record, rather than bluff with assertions of something that has no empirical basis.

The clear fact is that paleontology has no compelling evidence for the ToE.. it is all circumstantial, and ONLY useful after you make the assumption of universal common descent. But there is nothing in the fossil record that provides evidence that it did happen, can happen, or will happen.

 

This is you stating "nuh uh". You provided no evidence what so ever to support your claims.

 

...and, as a reminder. Unless there is topical material presented, do not expect an answer from me. I am not interested in the babblings of incoherent fools, whose only apparent goal is to crap on the thread & heckle from the peanut gallery.

Give me some evidence.. sound arguments.. valid reasoning, & i will respond. But i am weary of the hecklers & 'gotcha!' parsers. I'm interested in the science.. & will give thought & consideration to anything that is even close to it.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

 

According to the Biological Species Concept, species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups. By this definition, Darwin's finches are an example of speciation. But this definition is very lax and doesn't address actually not being able to reproduce or actually being physically different.

The most obvious definition of a species is a population that can interbreed with each other but can't produce fertile hybrids with outside species. There are problems with this definition too:
1: Many groups can interbreed but choose not to, so the only way to know they can't is to try to force every suspected species with related species, and this is impractical and expensive, and for some animals impossible.
2: Bacteria are asexual and don't reproduce with each other so we need another definition for them.
3: Some very different species can produce fertile hybrids but almost never do like lions and tigers. Are they the same species?
4: Sometimes group A can reproduce with group B and group B can reproduce with animal C, but group A can't reproduce with group C. There is no way to divide them into species that are can't reproduce but can also reproduce within the species.
5: How do we classify fossilized animals if we can't test whether they can reproduce?
6: What do we do about groups that are virtually the same physically but are from different places and can't reproduce for some genetic reason like a chromosome number difference? Are they different species even though they are the same?

We could instead judge a species on a combination of:
1: Can two groups produce fertile hybrids, will the hybrids be able to have children in the wild?
2: Are the groups physically distinct, how much?
3: Will the two groups reproduce if together? How often?
4: Have we seen hybrids of the two groups, how many?

The problem with the hybrid approach above is that it can be very subjective. Instead of asking for an example of speciation explain to me what kind of speciation you are looking for and exactly what you mean by it.

I don't think the problems we have defining a species is evolution's fault and is instead an example of how it can be hard to divide a diverse set of organisms into separate categories.

In the scientific method you can see if a theory is true even if what it is about is not directly observable. This can be about something that isn't visible like black holes or space-time, or the very small like atoms, or the very distant like distant planets, or something in the past like the dinosaur extinction.

You do this by looking into whether it makes any specific predictions about something we can see and see if these predictions are true. One prediction doesn't prove a theory because its possible it just got lucky and is true for some other reason. So we test many predictions and the more that are confirmed the less likely they all luckily turn out true without the theory being true.

There are strict requirements about what is a valid prediction. If the prediction is very likely to be true if the theory is false then its not a real test of the truth of the theory. If the prediction was used to make the theory and the theory just fits itself to the prediction, then its not a real prediction either. Confirming many testable, falsifiable predictions, make a theory very likely to be true, because if it was false then some of them would fail eventually.

Prediction testing doesn't just apply to scientific theories but also even everyday stuff and religious prophecies as well.

For example, lets say that a religious book predicted 9/11 naming the exact date and twin towers. First off, if the attackers used the prediction for their attack then its not a real prediction, but if they didn't use it then its unlikely the book would be able to name a specific event and location by chance. However if the book predicts some general giant war, this isn't really a prediction because wars happen all the time and could happen if the book wasn't true. If the book predicts something before it was written then that's not a real prediction. If the book predicts the date of a terrorist attack, and it happens, this doesn't prove the book because attacks happen often enough to maybe hit one day by chance, but they still don't happen every day. If it kept predicting new attacks, then if it didn't inspire the attacks the book is confirmed to be good at real predictions.

The theory of relativity predicts space-time and curved space which are things you can't directly see. But it makes predictions about things we can see, for example in a solar eclipse according to the theory in certain cases we can see some stars behind the star and this was confirmed. The theory made many other predictions that were confirmed even if we can't really see physically see space weaved into time and being curved.

So if evolution keeps making falsifiable predictions about the fossil record and they keep coming true, then this is evidence and makes the theory more and more likely.

 

I'm not about to plow through all that drivel. You've admitted you don't know what speciation is; so I leave it to you to figure out why, until that is remedied, your contentions about evolution are worthless.

Oh sure, as if inference were unique to the scientific method, and as if inferences are worth anything when they're untestable.

 

The reason no one has a definition is because a universal definition that is completely objective and can easily be applied to all life both living, fossilized, and asexual doesn't exist. That is the point of my so-called drivel. If you don't believe me then read my post about why we can't, or provide a definition of species of your own. Don't be a hypocrite, if you want to laugh at scientists for not having a good definition, then tell us what is your definition?

Inferences are not unique to the scientific method and are also used to lock up criminals. A thumb print can confirm a murder even if the murder wasn't directly seen.

Evolution is testable because it does make testable predictions, for example, the ordering of the fossil record. You can actually form a hierarchial family tree from comparing the DNA of different animals and match that up to the fossil record. We also see that the fossil record is layered going from cells, to small sea creatures, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to small mammals, to prosimians, to monkeys, to apes, to hominids, and to humans. We also have ordered transitionals for fish-amphibians, reptile-mammal, ape-human, dinosaur-bird, non-horse to horse, and land animal-whale.

If evolution wasn't true we would find transitionals, ordered, and in the right place. There might also be humans for example that got washed to the bottom with fish if there was a global flood messing up the ordering.

 

Do not pretend to school me on Darwin; unless you enjoy looking silly.
And speaking of silly,your blanket dismissal of evidence for the ToE is a joke.
.
The clear fact is that you're simply repeating the same garbage creationists do.
Your schtick is old and tired.

 

I guess I'm just an incoherent fool who crapped on your thread.

Here is an excerpt from a very religious site that falsely attributes fallacious arguments to "evolutionists". The author would have his readers believe this is how evolutionists deal with the data or how they respond to creationism. You went one step further, you stated your list of fallacious arguments were actually taught in schools.

https://www.jashow.org/articles/gue...hn-ankerberg/evolution-and-logical-fallacies/

By: Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon; ©1999
In his book on logical fallacies, Don’t You Believe It, A. J. Hoover summarizes 30 common logical fallacies.[1] Significantly, almost all of them are applicable to how evolution(*)ists deal with the data or how they respond to creationism. Consider a few illustrations.

Hasty Generalization—basing a general statement on too small a sample; building general rules from accidental or exceptional situations. (Microevolution is evidence of macroevolution; origin of life experiments in the laboratory can be extrapolated to the actual evolution of life in the primitive oceans, alleged transitionary forms [Archaeopteryx, Semouria, etc.] prove evolution.)

Begging the Question (petitio principii)—reasoning in a circle, using your conclusion as a premise, assuming the very thing to be proved as proof of itself. (Natural selection; paleoanthropology; geologic record.)

Misuse of Authority—attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to a real or alleged authority in such a way that the conclusion does not necessarily follow. (All competent scientists declare evolution is a fact!)

Misuse of Analogy—trying to prove something by improper use of a parallel case. (Hominid fossils prove evolution.)

Chronological Snobbery (argumentum ad futuris)—attempting to refute an idea merely by dating it, usually dating it very old. (Creationism was refuted long ago.)

Argument to Future—trying to prove something by appealing to evidence that might be turned up in the (unknown) future. (As science progresses, proof of evolution will eventu(*)ally be forthcoming.)

Poisoning the Wells—attempting to refute an argument by discrediting in advance the source of the evidence for the argument. (Creationists are “know-nothings” opposed to modern science; they get their arguments mostly from the book of Genesis.)

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)—substituting force or the threat of force for reason and evidence. (Evolutionists’ intimidation of creationist students and professors.)

Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum)—trying to establish a position by appealing to popular sentiments instead of relevant evidence. (Everybody believes in evolution, therefore it must be true.)

The Fallacy of Extension—attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent’s position, i.e., to attack a “straw man.” (Creationism is only the religious doc(*)trine of a small but vocal minority.)

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact—arguing from “what might have been,” from a past hypotheti(*)cal condition. (The fossil record.)

The Ultimate Fallacy: Pigheadedness—refusing to accept a proposition even when it has been established by adequate evidence. (That evolution is false is established by the law of biogenesis, probability considerations, thermodynamics, etc.)

Thus, Professor Marvin Lubenow is quite correct when he writes, “As one studies evolutionist literature, one cannot help but notice in its practitioners both a lack of logic and an inability to weigh evidence properly. Legal experts have also noted this.”[2] Indeed, when considering the alleged evidences for evolution, weighing the conclusions of legal experts—those trained to weigh evidence—is highly relevant.​

To save you time for your future threads, at this site...

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html​

... is a list of about a hundred more fallacious arguments you can falsely attribute to evolutionists or teachers.

From A to W (you would think would be one starting with Z).

• Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)
• <snip>
• Weasel Wording

 

You are not interested in the science. You keep making the demonstrably false claim that you've not been presented with any evidence. This is a proven lie. When evidence is presented, you hand waive it away and state "nuh uh". You have provided NOTHING to refute the evidence presented. Simply asserting it's wrong, with no evidence to support you, isn't an argument.

 

usfan proscribes to the adage "Do as I say, not as I do".

 

You should care what evolutionists say and especially since you're trying to defend them. I've
already told you what evolutionists define as transitional species. If you're not good with that
then we can't continue this discussion.

Stick to science. That's what I'm doing.

Once again, I'm quoting evolutionists. You're the one making things up, that is, saying things
exist that don't.

Not true. If anyone is sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring evidence it's you.
There is no evidence for evolution. There are only ideas of what "might" have happened. The
problem is that there is nothing to support what "might" have happened.

And for the third time, I don't make up my terms.

 

It's still what evolutionists say it is. A gradual transition of a species into another species.
According to Darwin it should be abundant in the geological record. There is nothing showing
a species doing that. Every single fossil is it's own complete and distinct species.

 

That's what the record says. Not me.

They have the geological record. There's nothing to support a species becoming
another species.

 

Let's start here with the bolded part. You previously said that transitional meant "part of a former and part of a new." So if you didn't make that up, perhaps you can link to an "evolutionist" defining the term that way.

 

You are basically saying that if a fossil belongs to its own distinct species then its not transitional. But transitional forms by definition don't belong to the species it is between, so transitionals belong to their own species, they are just share traits between the species they are transitional between.

So how do we judge if a species is transitional in the fossil record? What requirements do you have for examples that I bring to be valid examples of transitionals?

 

Actually my so-called "nitpicking" is what normal people call wanting evidence. The title of this thread is literally "Fallacies of Evolution" and in the OP you list the fallacies and I am having to drag out of you how you know evolution even claims these things. Its like you don't want to defend the main topic of your own thread, and you are so offended when I ask you to show me that evolutionists claim these things.

I am making it so easy for you and only asking you to confirm one claim right now which is that evolution claims that since everybody believes evolution, that it is true. First off the quotes you presented to confirm this claim are being made only by random people on the internet not by evolution itself, edu sites, textbooks, or actual evolution scientists. So its not a fallacy of evolution, but a fallacy of some uninformed evolutionists on the internet at best.

Second, evolution claiming that everybody believes so it is true is an ad populum fallacy because general people aren't experts. However the quotes you presented say most scientists believe in evolution, which refers to just scientists not everybody, and is an argument from authority which is a valid argument and not a fallacy like ad populum fallacy is. You are literally, misrepresenting, twisting, and doing a strawman of statements by people on the internet and then claiming that this is somehow a fallacy of evolution itself.

And my link talks about examples of speciation, and to know what is an example of speciation, we need to know what a species is. Creationists often have this weird bible "kind" definition so I want to understand what you mean by "species", and then I will show how my source provides one. I want to nail you down to a definition so you don't start changing your definition in order to reject my arguments.