Fallacies of Evolution

I have a cat that craps a little every time it sneezes. It's obnoxious to have to get the carpet cleaner out once a week or more to deal with the mess. No, I wouldn't describe him or any other organism as "so perfect."

 

Yes, that's what I was saying when I said a bird's skeleton is similar to a dinosaur doesn't mean it evolved from a dinosaur. It could mean that both skeletons had the same designer (could be God, could be intelligent nature). A dog and a cat have similar bone structure yet I doubt they evolved from the same amoeba. If you have a successful design, it'll be used over and over again. I don't know how many species of animals there are, but I'm willing to bet that many of them have similar body parts. If it isn't broke - don't fix it.

 

You didn't say it explicitly. USFAN posted it as one of ten "Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools." (post #1). To that list you said "Good Post". You picked out the one relating Correlation to Causation. You supported USFAN's statement that:

"Correlation proves Causation" is a fallacy for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.​

USFAN made a completely false statement and you agreed with it. Care to try to duck and dodge some more?

Who? Creationists?



ETA: I notice that USFAN has also been unable to show a page from a text book on any subject that makes the claim "Correlation proves Causation".

 

His alternative facts are the real fallacies.

 

Scientists create the first human-pig hybrid.

On Thursday, an international team of scientists announced it has created the first successful human-animal hybrid embryo, achieving the feat with a human-pig hybrid. The scientists first experimented with growing mouse-rat hybrids, curing a mouse of diabetes by growing a mouse pancreas inside a rat and then transferring the organ back to the afflicted mouse. The team then tried to create a rat-pig hybrid, but the effort failed due to the major genetic differences between the two species. Pigs proved to be the perfect match for humans, however, because the two species have similarly sized organs, making it more likely that a pig could grow functioning human organs. These hybrids, known as chimeras, are controversial, but they could be key to the future of organ replacement by enabling human organs to be grown outside of human bodies and inside of animal ones.

Source: National Geographic, Cell

 

'Basic knowledge?' I would say more like 'basic assumptions' or speculations. Many evolutionists dispute the claims & conjectures of these new 'theories'. For you to claim this is some kind of 'evidence for evolution!' is absurd. It is basing a conclusion on an assumption, not on scientific methodology.

The bolded above is what the ToE hinges on. But this is an assumed process, with NO evidence. You cannot demonstrate that 'new traits' depending on how you define that, are all from mutations. That is merely assumed, with no evidence.

The problem is not terminology, it is the claim being made, often obfuscated by terminology. I can watch any nature show, which is the pop religious programming for the ToE & naturalism. They ALWAYS say how the organism 'developed' some adaptation, or brought about change in itself, like it was an intelligent will process. And, i would venture to say that most believers in the ToE believe something along this line.. ordered by some mysterious entity, or naturally occurring in the organism.

Great statement of faith! and, i tend to agree! But, i lump the current crop of 'religionists' in there, too, & i consider the scientific status quo to be right there, with the religious beliefs of the ToE.

Scientific methodology changed the world. But, we are slowly going back to dark ages mandates, & 'science by decree' from the elites in the status quo. There is not enough science going on, & too much conflict of interest, ego, & turf protection.

This happened on Thursday! Wow! Just yesterday we got a scientific breakthrough! A 'human/pig' hybrid! I found its picture, too!



You did not post a source. Nor arguments. Nor a better description of the study/experiment. You just posted some vague study, & make a propaganda based conclusion, in desperation for 'evidence!' for this lame theory. Go ahead & post the real links to this 'study'. Let everyone see what is actually taking place. It shows the ability to take *some* genes, that are structurally similar to another in a different organism, & splice it into the new organism. I does not 'create' a new organism, or change the structural architecture of the host organism. It merely 'tweaks' a single gene, to fool the organism with another trait. Glowing cats, & other such experiments are common in the modern science of genetics. But it does not aid the cause for the ToE. If anything, it shows how difficult.. impossible, really, such changes can happen. They can't even be forced in a lab, into a
new, viable organism.

 

Rather than simply make claims without backing data, please show us which "Evolutionists" are in dispute of recent fossil findings?
[video=youtube;sQul7clCiLc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQul7clCiLc[/video]

 

It's not an assumption or speculation to see feather imprints around certain dinosaur fossils and acknowledge that some dinosaurs had feathers. It's not an assumption or speculation to find air pockets in every single theropod bone that has ever been discovered and acknowledge that theropods had hollow bones. But like I said, the dinosaur thing should be it's own thread.

You and I have a problem of terminology. At least I do in that a lot of what you post is confusing because of contradictions that I think are caused by a disagreement of terminology. I'm just trying to get us to a baseline of agreement. Here are the definitions, in biology, for mutation and trait (from http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Main_Page):

Mutation: A permanent, heritable change in the nucleotide sequence in a gene or a chromosome; the process in which such a change occurs in a gene or in a chromosome.

Traits: Characteristics or attributes of an organism that are expressed by genes and/or influenced by the environment.

And a new trait would be any characteristic or attribute found in the offspring of an organism that is not found in the rest of the population.

Do you accept these definitions and agree we should use them when talking about the subject?

 

The problems you will encounter with this one are not so much terminology as an alternate opinion of fact. Most of the world uses a standard to evaluate data for validity whereas this one disputes said standard and defines it instead as speculation. Basically there can be no actual debate or discussion of data under these conditions.

 

Just what "completely false statement" did I (supposedly) agree with?

Certainly, I do agree with the point that correlation does not equate to causation. Do you wish to dispute that point?

Say what?

Would you care to elucidate, please?

 

Basically, yes. But i see these terms bandied about in a circular fashion, using definitions to prove the assertions. You still have the unproven claim of a mutation being at the root of all the trait differences in every organism, which is the basic claim of the ToE.

Take canids, which have already been discussed. Where did all that variability come from? If you say, 'mutation', then why were there so many variations all present, all at once, in the canid family, which found expression in a wide range of variability, in a fairly short time? Note the quote from the study:

The domestic dog is the most phenotypically diverse mammal on earth. The large differences in size, conformation, behavior, and physiology between dog breeds exceed the differences among species in the dog family, Canidae (Coppinger and Coppinger 2001; Wayne 2001). Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old (Parker et al. 2004). However, selection acts upon existing variability. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population from where the domestication process was initiated. Furthermore, the time since domestication (at least 14,000 yr; Vilà et al. 1997; Sablin and Khlopachev 2002; Savolainen et al. 2002) seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.
source

You can see from the bolded, that not even evolutionists can explain the diversity in canids. Where did it all come from, in such a short time? Mutations don't work that way, so what is the explanation? The ToE claims that 'traits' come from 'mutations', so they are not incompatible concepts. You don't have traits without mutation, according to the ToE. But, we do NOT see ANY mutations producing what we call 'traits' in living things. Mutations produce aberrations in an existing gene.. they do not 'create' new genes. Any 'beneficial' argument is subjective & definitional, but there are not clear examples of mutations being the engine for trait diversity, as is claimed.

IF that is the claim, THEN some science would be necessary to provide evidence for it. As of now, none has been provided. Mutation is not the savior of the theory, as some believe. It cannot account for diversity, except by assumption.

 

There's nothing circular about this. I'm solely bringing it up to get to a baseline, so that when I say "mutation" and you say "mutation," we both know that we both mean the same thing.

This is a prime example of one of those questions that is explainable, but we just don't know which explanation is correct. That study even mentions a number of possible explanations, such as that several species of wolf were domesticated and ultimately interbred. Citing this against evolution doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That particular question (how is there so much diversity canids?) is being investigated in that study, and will be investigated in others, within an understanding of the principles of the ToE. Using this to argue against the ToE is sort of like going back 200 years and citing yellow fever as evidence against the germ theory of disease. Just because they didn't know exactly which microbe caused it, that didn't mean it countered emerging germ theory. So rather than getting ahead of ourselves, let's go step by step.

I can see the current sticking point is whether a new gene, and therefore a new trait, can come about due to a mutation. Before I get the evidence for this, let's scope out what is necessary to satisfy your skepticism. There's a type of mutation called a duplication, in which a segment of DNA is copied again during replication. If a gene gets duplicated in this way, any further mutations to one of the copies, if the other remains normal, has great potential to produce a new trait. If a study documented this process in an organism (duplication, alteration, new trait), would that lead to you accepting that mutations can in fact cause new traits in an organism? If not, please elaborate on what it would take to convince you.

 

And your point?

 

USFAN posted: "Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.

Number 10, "Correlation proves Causation" is not taught as part of classes in TOE. It is a false statement.

Responding to USFAN's list you said "Good Post". You even referred specifically to #10.

If stating "Good Post" meant you disagreed with the contents of USFAN's list. Then my apologies.

I thought when you stated "Good Post" you were implying agreement with the contents of the list.

 

When you speak of evolution, and appear so pleased...

What in that are you so pleased over?

Was it you believe it proves there is no GOD?
Are you actually familiar with evolution from soup to nuts? Meaning did you study a classic book by Professor Schoph named The Cradle of Life?

Are you agenda driven?

Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

 

So, I noticed that you didn't capitalise 'evolution'. Does this mean you are talking about actual biological Evolution or just the concept of how things in our Universe can 'evolve', in other words you are using it colloquially?

 

Good to see someone on a discussion forum list all the varieties of logical fallacies which exist. I was beginning to think nobody anywhere had even heard of them today!

One thing; I wish you had added the subheading, "Begging The Question" as a subtitle to the "Circular Reasoning" item. Maybe then, some people would actually learn that it doesn't mean, "To beg for a question."!

.

 

Even more impressive would be applying them correctly.

'[*]Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.'

Evolution not, evolution is the normal way to express biological Evolution.

Evolution, is a fact, we observe diversity and we observe variation in alleles.

The Theory of Evolution is our best current explanation for it that happens to be the only game in town that best fits the current known evidence.

The Theory of Evolution did not assume itself it grew from the evidence that amassed when people of all religious persuasions started asking themselves questions about why there is so much diversity.

It is not circular reasoning.

Of course, rather than finding out about the evidence you could just pretend that there are scientific conspiracy theories like 'Taxonomy' and hand wave all the evidence away. Fortunately, scientists don't do this.

Alternatively, we could fall back on superdoopercrevolution to explain how we have so much diversity in less than 6,000 years.

 

I'm only talking about semantics and definitions, William, not usage.

 

The diversity among canids is a group that the TOE should be able to explain in detail of what mutations, duplications that provide the answers to explain the different leg lengths among canids, their coat density, their colors, etc and at least have some records when the offspring appeared very different from the parent population that we determined it was a new breed of canid. I have not come across any documentation that explains this as absolute in fact of its evolution.

All of the different dogs appeared under our supervision as we are all witness to its changes, however it amazes me that no one took the time to document it thoroughly in the last 200 years that would provide the proof.

 

I stated...

my emphasis in the following quote...

I (again) showed the false statement you agreed with...

Now you want to change the topic entirely...

USFAN posted a bogus list of things that are commonly taught in schools. You agreed with his post. I asked for evidence that any of them (especially #10, which you highlighted) are actually taught in schools. You failed to do so. Instead you tried to deny that you agreed with USFAN's false statements.

Now you try to completely change the topic. Don't change the topic. Provide evidence that "Correlation proves Causation" is taught as part of classes in TOE.

 

I know what you mean, it's frustrating that no scientist ever looked at this ever in the history of science...

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1706.full

 

Theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Did the platypus evolve from a duck or a beaver? IMO animal species are too diverse to believe that it all came from the same microbial entity.
If dinosaurs, which are lizards, evolved into birds, then there shouldn't be any lizards, but there are plenty. The old life form should have disappeared in favor of the new life form. That dinosaurs had feathers proves nothing. Similar anatomical structures can be found across many different species of animals.

 

A scientific theory does not mean "hypothesis," "speculation," "unsupported, vague idea," or "something that is particularly doubtful.

 

You have no idea what a scientific theory is do you? Clueless.

Your personal incredulity matters not a jot against evidence.

If humans evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys? Really? People still say this kind of crap?

Convergent evolution, look it up.

Feathers are one piece of evidence, look it up.