Fallacies of Evolution

We should expect that someone who quotes Benito Mussolini to badmouth free markets would then state that a dominant tendon compared with a recessed tendon "proves" evolution.

I have begun reading Undeniable - How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed, by Douglas Axe

Dr. Axe brings up many brilliant points, one of which is that science is NOT the sole source of truth. Nevertheless, scientists have generally tied themselves to the restriction of materialism, which is to say that matter underlies everything real. We all have preconceptions; we're all susceptible to their influence. Unfortunately atheists and materialists try to pretend otherwise.

"Creationism starts with a commitment to the essential principles of the biblical text of Genesis and aims to reconcile scientific data wiht that understanding. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, starts with a commitment to the essential principles of science and shows how those principles ultimately compel us to attribute life to a purposeful inventor - an intelligent designer. ID authors settle for this vague description not because they want to smuggle God into science bu because the jump from "intelligent designer" to "God" requires something beyond the essential principles of science." - page 48

"For professional scientists to assume that pubic skepticism toward their ideas can only be casued by public ignorance is just plain arrogant." - page 62, 63

"A team of researchers in the culinary sciences recently discovered a revolutionary new soup they call oracle soup, referring to the oracles (mysterious revelations) the ancient Greeks sought fromo their gods. It looks just like allphabet soup - thin broth with little pasta letters and numbers swirling around - but this "soup of the gods" distinguishes itself by what it does, as this experimental recipe shows:

1. Fill a large pot with oracle soup.
2. Cover the pot, and bring the soup to a boil.
3. Remove the pot from the heat, and let the soup cool.
4. Lift the lid to reveal complete instructions for building something new and useful, worthy of a patent - all spelled out in pasta letters.
5. Repeat from step 2 as often as desired." - page 16

 

And we should expect that someone who worships free market economies would also believe other myths.

 

"Worship" is your word, not mine. Putting words into other people's mouths is a favorite but disgraceful tactic of your side, isn't it.
Perhaps you are not aware of the horrors of socialism, worldwide. If you think it's so great, why don't you move to Cuba?
It is, after all, the ONLY country on earth currently ranked as "sustainable." Progressive nirvana, n'est-ce pas?

 

I would discuss it with you if you were to indicate that you actually know anything about the subject.

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

 

Douglas Axe is the director of the Discovery Institute

The Discovery Institute attempts to inject intelligent design creationism into secondary education through the publication of various creationist textbooks such as Of Pandas and People (1989, the subject of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial of 2005). Pandas, written in part by Discovery Institute fellows William Dembski and Jonathan Wells, was re-titled The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems in 2007 - presumably in an attempt to duck the shame attendant on the original name following the Kitzmiller case

The Discovery Institute describes itself as follows:

“”The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders; free market economics domestically and internationally; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership; and the potential of science and technology to promote an improved future for individuals, families and communities.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Douglas_Axe

 

This is the same crap you cut and pasted in the Creationism / ID thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...lligent-design.500938/page-19#post-1067316787

Aside from cut and paste, you really don't have anything.

 

Not true.

Yet not a single shred of evidence of the archaeopteryx gradually transitioning from another
species. It's a complete species of it's own.

Incorrect. Every single species on these sites are complete species. There isn't a single
piece of the gradual transitioning of a species.

True, and there still isn't any evidence of a gradually transitioning species.

This is a cop out. There are no examples of gradually transitioning species. They should be
abundant, yet there are none. Where is the evidence of the so-called ape-human link? There should
be examples walking among us. There are none, nor are there any gradually transitioning species to
be seen in the fossil record.

Yet the evidence is weak at best.

Please, show me the record of gradually transitioning species. All you put up are complete
species of there own with extrapolation that they are connected, while no evidence of a real
connection exists.

Thanks for trying.

 

Really? This is supposed to be hard evidence? It's nothing but extrapolation
with artistic renderings.

Please provide a real example of a species gradually transitioning from or
to another species.

 

Since you know such a transition takes hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years, you know your request is ridiculous to the point of being asinine.

 

1. 
   

You’re asking, how can innovations emerge through a gradual process like natural selection??? In other words, how can a qualitatively novel structure arise through gradual quantitative changes-right???

The whole universe unfolds processes that turn quantitative change into qualitative Novelty.

For example, the incremental process of gravitational attraction turns interstellar dust clouds into star systems.

Everything in the world is the result of a bunch of qualitatively novel properties emerging from an accumulation of quantitative things, including the organisms living on Earth.

 

You would need billions of fossils recording each microscopic change to portray what you are asking. It is not feasible with a fossil record, but is has been studied in labs and by observing changes in contemporary species, which do in fact present change over time. As I've already explained.

Microevolution and macroevolution are the same fundamental process on a different scale. Generational, small alterations lead to bigger change over a very long period of time, which will eventually result in physical changes prominent enough to distinguish the animal as another species. As I've already explained.

The connection between dinstict spevies is apparent due to common physiological features and DNA evidence. As I've already explained.

The evidence has been presented to you multiple times by members of this forum, and yet you reject it because of a logical fallacy that you have manufactured entirelly by yourself, and a misunderstanding of the mechanics of evolution. It is no fault of ours that you choose to disregard the evidence presented to you.

 

"Change over time" is adaptation. Darwinian evolution is the complete construction of the entire tree of life, plant and animal, from one absurd tautology: They survive because they're fit, and they're fit because they survive." It says nothing.

Because of their short lifespans, and the hope of creating new species on an accelerated level, experiments have been ongoing for decades in laboratories around the globe, growing cultures of bacteria and billions of new flies. IF any had succeeded, we would all have heard about it. But all have failed, after the equivalent of a million years or so of fake evolution.

Finally, if Darwinian evolution were so absolute, so factual, so utterly correct, there could not POSSIBLY have been written hundreds and hundreds of books disputing and challenging it. The fatuous comparison to gravity is so overdone. Please find one book disputing "the theory of gravity" before giggling and telling others "go jump off a roof if you don't believe in the *theory of gravity*.

Beginning with such trivial claims as infinite extrapolation leads to impossible conclusions.
A. Animals keep getting faster through Darwinian Brilliance. Before long, they will be breaking the sound barrier.
B. Human brains kept growing because being smart is so really good.
[Really? Then why can't we communicate with blue whales, with the biggest brains of any animal that ever lived?
Why isn't there a correlation between brain size and intelligence?
How can butterflies migrate from Mexico, 3,000 miles, with an infinitesimal brain, if any, while humans get lost with road maps and GPS on paved roads?]

No matter how many times one corrects the misstatements of Darwinists, they always come back with a different spin, but all of their spins have in common two empty claims:
1. They are always, always smarter than you are, and
2. You are stupid, ignorant, know nothing about science, and your mother dresses you funny.
Darwinists can't even *evolve* beyond these two primary, superficial arguments.

 

Would you be good enough to list the titles of a couple of anti-evolution books written by people with degrees in related fields. The only anti-evolution books I have been able to find are written by people like Ken Ham and James Perloff, neither of whom are scientists.

Finally, if Christianity were so absolute, so factual, so utterly correct, there could not POSSIBLY have been written hundreds and hundreds of books disputing and challenging it. What's your point?

 

Animals get fast enough to where most of the species can outrun most of the predators. If all of the species could always outrun all of the predators, the species would eventually run out of food sources. When food sources become scarce, some of the species becomes weak and unable to outrun all of the predators.

See, even your silly little comment shows your complete lack of knowledge

I don't know how your mother dresses you. But, I would have to agree with the rest of your self assessment based on your own comments quoted above.

If you talk like a duck, you shouldn't be surprised that people call you a duck.

 

What do you mean when you say these examples are "complete species of there own?"

 

Change in allele frequency over time is the definition of evolution. Folks who don't accept evolutionary theory draw an arbitrary distinction between "adaptation" and the type of evolution that they don't believe, for whatever reason. And I agree your simplistic misunderstanding of natural selection is a tautology. The theory actually does say something when you take it within the full context. That is to say, the question leading to the concept of natural selection was: why do the members of a population appear to change over time? The answer: as the environment changes, which traits are most beneficial in that environment also changes. Those members with the traits that are more beneficial for the environment are more likely to reproduce, so the frequency of alleles for those traits increases within the population.

There have been results from these studies that support evolutionary theory, yet are rejected by evolution deniers out of ignorance. As for perceived lack of results, there are a number of explanations, not the least of which is that lab conditions tend not to be as selective as nature.

There are books and websites that challenge the idea that the earth is round, and others that challenge the germ theory of disease. Maybe some level of opposition to an idea is a good indicator of the validity of that idea. Whatever that level is, I haven't seen any indication that the size of the counter-evolution side rises to it.

Also, as ecco mentioned, it would be interesting to see how many of the "hundreds and hundreds of books" you claim exist to dispute evolution are written by individuals with relevant educational backgrounds. I only know of a handful written by Michael Behe, who is just proposing his own (deeply flawed) theory.

There is actually a correlation between the size of the brain relative to the body and intelligence. Another measure, the encephalization quotient, provides a more accurate picture of how brain size relates to intelligence. Anyway, while your questions are explainable, the answers don't necessarily lend themselves to a fraction of a forum post. If you're honestly interested, feel free to start a thread on them and we can talk through the explanations.

I find that the claim is usually that the denier is more ignorant of evolutionary theory and biology than those who accept evolution. And my experience has been that the claim is often correct.

 

Oh please, stop it.
The origin of all plant and animal life through the magic of "selection" is what you mean. That is the real definition.

"Allele frequency" - what a strawman that is.

 

Odd that you would complain about the pro-evolution side acting like the other side is so ignorant and then exemplify that ignorance.

 

I take it you subscribe to this stuff


Creation "Science"
Creationists love science! In fact, the word science means “knowledge.” We invite you to dive into the Bible and the scientific evidence with us to gather as much knowledge about God’s creation as you can. You’ll learn about the different types of science and discover facts and logical arguments you might have never considered. When you start with the Bible as your ultimate authority, you’re ready to discover creation science.


https://creationmuseum.org/about-the-museum/

 

"Ignorant" and "ignorance" are YOUR words, not mine. I did not use either of those in my post. YOU did.
Your side ALWAYS does. You pretend to be oh-so-enlightened and intelligent, as if you really were, and furthermore as if that intellectualism makes you right. You are wrong on both counts.

Find "allele frequency" in Darwin's book. Cite book and page. You can't because it isn't there and you misconstrued it completely.
You spin and play word games and call it science. It is anything but. How disgraceful of you. How unscientific of you.

Here is some real science.

This is the only illustration in Darwin's first book on the Origin of Species:


No names, no species. Nothing but letters and numbers.
It hasn't improved much. For a group that pretends there is such abundant evidence, even today there is no branch labeled anywhere in the latest tree of life. Science, not wordplay. Fill in the blanks. There are millions of them and you can't fill in a single one.

 

This is what America is dealing with

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/kooky_christian_lady_gets_all_angry_at_science

 

The subject is Fallacies of Evolution.
Stop trying to derail the thread.
EVOLUTION - talk EVOLUTION, if you possibly can, without bringing all your favorite
distractions.

 

Amen Brother! SCIENCE as it existed 6000 years ago. Anything discovered since then is just made up crap.

 

Yep. There's been no advances in ToE since Darwin. On the other hand, Intelligent Design is a big stop forward from Creationism.



Nah. I lied.