Sure. We have been indoctrinated, since infancy, with the notion of common ancestry. It has been pounded into us for so long, by EVERY complicit, progressive run institution, that questioning it seems blasphemous. But it is a grand hoax.. it tries to promote atheistic naturalism, and despense with the concept of a Creator. But it is merely a competing religious belief, that has used the power of the State to indoctrinate it into the citizens.
I had updated my list of fallacies, used to promote and defend the belief of common ancestry, from a few years back. Here is that list.. Fallacies, not science, are more commonly employed by the True Believers in universal common ancestry: False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in common ancestry!' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in common ancestry, in spite of decades of indoctrination. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible!' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure common ancestry with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that common ancestry is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that common ancestry 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 (phylogenetic tree). Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not. Poison the Well. This is an attempt to discredit a source or argument by association with Hitler, or some other 'bad!' thing. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like!) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often accompany wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence. Righteous Indignation. The pretense of being disgusted with the 'Ignorance!' of those who question the assumptions, beliefs, and science behind the theory of common ancestry. Allusion/Illusion of knowledge. Pretending to have some secret knowledge that only a few Enlightened Elites are privvy to. ..I'm sure there are more..
The absurd pretense by Darwinists that taking lots of time changes statistics is baseless, but you cling to it fanatically. Flipping a coin every second or every thousand years, the odds of heads are still 1 in 2. Whether an amino acid is added quickly or ever so slowly, it's 1 in 20. Can't you ever understand that? Random mutations are NOT a "global supercomputer." Stop the nonsense. No "competing theory" is necessary, ever. There are countless observations all of us experience daily that we cannot explain and don't even care to. That does not eliminate reality. Neo(sic)-Darwinism has been thoroughly discredited by many different means. Still the die-hard Darwinists cling to it like an alcoholic to his bottle. Oh please, stop it. "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong." - Linus Pauling
So what you are trying to tell us is that since nobody directly saw O.J. Simpson commit murder, that its just an assumption.
And yet 98% of scientists believe it. What is this scrutiny you are referring to? https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/
There are countless mutations going on in countless organisms for billions of years. These mutate existing proteins into new ones. Natural selection will select those mutations that increase or maintain functionality. There are also countless possible configurations for functional proteins. Even an individual protein can be coded functionally many different ways. So the odds are really good of functional new proteins evolving.
Yes, that is the mandated belief, imbedded in the citizens from infancy by constant Indoctrination. Unfortunately, there is no scientific evidence for this belief.. it is a religious opinion about the universe, nothing more.
..very ironic.. you do this in your next post! Ok, so it's not exactly, 'everyone believes this!', but by claiming 98%, its pretty close. ..it is still a bandwagon fallacy. Thanks for the helpful illustration.
Take your pick... I'll number them for you.. ..good list of beliefs, but there is not evidence that your conclusions and extrapolations are valid.. just plausible..
Strawman fallacy. I didn't say everyone believes in evolution. I said 98% of scientists. Scientists are experts not the general population or everyone generally. There is a difference between an appeal to authority and an ad populum fallacy. Also, 98% isn't everyone, and I even admit that 2% of scientists disagree. I also never tried to use this fact to prove evolution, only to establish a strong scientific consensuses, as a little bit of context to this unproven claim that there is academic scrutiny.
There are countless mutations going on in countless organisms for billions of years. There are countless organisms in existence right now. Each organisms has dozens to hundreds of mutations. A quick google search can confirm this. Our dating methods confirm the earth is billions of years old and organisms were around for billions of years. Do the math.
You have the 'correlation implies causation!' fallacy going, now! 1. Assume 'millions and billions of years!' 2. Organisms mutate. 3. This proves common descent! The mutations found in all living things do NOT 'create!' genes, traits, chromosomes, and increasing complexity.. aka 'common ancestry' Dating methods are fraught with assumptions, confirmation bias, and cherry picked data.. they are beliefs and speculations, with no hard science to confirm anything. Google is a useful tool for keeping Indoctrination intact. The mere existence of diversity in living things is NOT evidence of common ancestry. Correlation does not imply causation.
Strawman. I based it on radiometric dating, I didn't assume it. You believe mutations happen right? I never once used this claim to prove common descent. I used this claim along with others to show that there are so many mutations that the likelihood of getting a new functional protein is very high. One type of mutation is a duplication mutation. Later mutations can then modify the duplicate to be different than the original. Over billions of years the two genes will begin to diverge as random mutations hit them. So yes, mutations can create new genes. Evidence for this claim? You can use bing if you so choose. I really don't care which search engine you prefer. I never claimed diversity ever was evidence for common ancestry.
I see you are still trying to handwaive away evidence and say “Nuh uh” as your main argument against t evolution, instead of actually providing the science to back up the claims you are making, or refute the mountain of evidence you’ve been presented over the years showing high to be wrong. Lol
This is just confused. There isn't any improper claim of equivalence. There ARE authorities and it IS important to know what they have determined. It's significant to know that evolution is so accepted as to be one of the foundations of all modern biology. It's significant to know that there is no competing scientific theory. To ignore authority would be to pretend that people on this thread are so versed in the topic as to see THEMSELVES as authorities. And, we know for a fact that is false. This is a common misunderstanding of evolution theory. It ignores the fact that there are corrective measures in place, keeping the "monkeys" on track toward positive output. Plus, it pretends that evolution has some goal (such as a work of art) and it does not. No plant or animal was an objective of evolution. Humans were not an objective. You're at least as guilty of this as anyone. So, lets work to end that. No scientific theory has been prove true, because scientific method doesn't have a way of doing that. Science recognizes that humans are imperfect. So even folks like Newton were wrong, without knowing how or why. Science works by proving hypotheses and theories to be false and by evaluating the relative ability of theories to be ueful in further exploration. Nobody has proven evolution to be false and evolution has been FABULOUSLY useful in exploration of biology. Thus it is accepted as a foundational element of all biology. Any scientist is free to become historically famous by proving evolution to be false - or even any significant part of it to be false, or even provide an alternate theory. Nonsense. Phylogenetic trees are important in that evolution predicts them. That's not even slightly circular. In fact, studying this could be one way of bringing evolution into doubt. If reasonable taxonomic trees can't be created, then it would suggest a problem with evolution. Since they can be created, any competing theory would also need have this feature. That's not circular reasoning. Evolution that is not visible? When one species divides to become two separate species the chance of maintaining the same visual appearance over time would be vanishingly small. But, why would "visible" matter? Sure - people shouldn't do these last things. But, I see that on the anti evolution side at least as much, and surely such logic simply gets ignored - or called out. When was the last time that Hitler worked as an argumet? Also, finding correlation is one way to identify where to look for causation. So, one has to be a little careful with charges of that.
Rather than complaining about our education system being overly effective(!?), perhaps you should move on to explain your own competing scientific theory.
..can't do it here, anymore. Progressive indoctrinees are too triggered by any critique of common ancestry, and disrupt the threads with heckling and outrage until the mods close the threads, so they won't have to hear alternate views. They are very accommodating.. Science, in a science subforum? Never!
Well, you came back. You must have something to say! I'm asking for your theory that should replace evolution.
..fair enough.. no time today, but I'll try to compile my model, based on the existing evidence. ..probably best to put it in a separate thread, so hecklers can attack it with relish! (mustard, too!) ..and since it will be presented as 'the beliefs of origins, by usfan,' there should be no reason to censor or infract me for that.
He was found not guilty . Not sure your analogy is the best one to use. Materialistic based science is based upon an assumption. That matter is fundamental . But what if that assumption is false? If it is false processes the mechanisms in micro evolution remain buy the purposeless of randomness and chance is negated. I think there is more involved than materialism will allow. I think the devil is in the details. I think there is tremendous faith involved in the astronomical odds inherit in the appearance of self replicating molecules that had the ability to evolve from that miracle into a conscious being who could understand somewhat his own origins. I think we only are partially correct in this issue.
Everyone knows the jury was definitely wrong about OJ. And we convict people all the time based on physical evidence rather than eye witnesses. In fact eye witnesses can be unreliable in ways that physical evidence isn't.
@ChemEngineer Question: If We Support Endangered Species Aren't We Practicing Anti Evolution ? And #2 Is proof Atavism Happens! Go look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls! Old "Laugh In" joke. Moi
