Fallacies of Evolution Redux

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChemEngineer, May 9, 2017.

  1. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Originally posted by USFan, a fine American and fine thinker, I shortened this to the peanut butter and jelly of it, as the original thread has exceeded the allowed limit and so has been locked up in Al Gore's safe.
    _____________________________

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


    1. 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.
    2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' 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.
    3. '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 the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
    4. 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 the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
    5. 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.
    6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
    7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution 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
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Correlation proves Causation. 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.

    The ToE has not been demonstrated by scientific methodology, only asserted and claimed. It is, in fact, a belief.. an almost religious belief in the origins of living things. It is an essential element for a naturalistic view of the universe, and for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. (Condescending, hateful jihadist zeal, I might add. - CE) But it is too full of logical & scientific flaws to be called 'science'. It is a philosophical construct, with very shaky foundations. There are many other flaws in the ToE, regarding the dating methods, conjectures about the fossil record, and other conflicts with factual data.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2017
    Iriemon and DennisTate like this.
  2. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    1,088
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do we need a "Redux"?
    The original is Still running at the top of the section with the full 1-10?
    Shall we all repeat ourselves? 100+ pages worth?
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2017
  3. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    4,206
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The original is supposed to be closed due to length. JMo appears to have forgotten to lock it.

    As to why CE would want to restart the thread, I assume it's because he needs to continue to further over compensate for... whatever he's dealing with by adding (or pretending to add) more people to his ignore list. He likes to make a big show of "adding" anyone who disagrees with him.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2017
    VietVet and Derideo_Te like this.
  4. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You cannot reason someone out of a position they have reached irrationally.
     
    Fenton Lum, KAMALAYKA, Dashur and 4 others like this.
  5. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,947
    Likes Received:
    659
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This stinking pile of .... AGAIN?

    Humans and dogs have 84% of their DNA in common
    Humans and cats have 90% of their DNA in common
    Humans and Chickens have 60% of their DNA in common
    Humans and Fruit Flies have 60% of their DNA in common.

    Absent evolution (and God) explain how this can happen.

    Or just stop.
     
  6. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    >snip<
    A prime example of an actual fallacy.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2017
    ecco, Woolley and Derideo_Te like this.
  7. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which response you are clearly incapable of presenting, otherwise you would have.

    See Item #5: 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.
     
  8. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,947
    Likes Received:
    659
    Trophy Points:
    113
    75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin - 57% the same as a cabbage.

    Again, absent evolution (and God) how does this happen?

    Surely there is a reasonable explanation.
     
  9. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    9,768
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How are you defining the line between “small” changes and “large” changes? What is the mechanism that prevents the latter?
    That isn’t taught in relation to evolution any more than it is in any other field (including those directly opposed or contradicting evolution). As with any other professional field though, the evidenced conclusions of the experts in the field are given appropriate credence.
    Again, that isn’t taught in relation to evolution any more than any other field.
    That isn’t taught in relation to evolution at all.
    You seem to have shifted from the “commonly taught in schools” angle. The trash spouted on forums like this don’t make the slightest different to the validity (or lack thereof) of the topics being discussed.
    Again, not relevant to schools, happens in all debates, doesn’t impact the legitimacy of the topics.
    What you described isn’t argument from ignorance but either way the previous response applies again.
    I’ve never seen anyone claim that in any serious debate on evolution.
    It seems to be the same as your “False Equivalence” point. Did you just want 10 items but ran out of ideas? :)
    Again, not taught in schools, not unique to discussion of evolution and doesn’t impact the validity of the topic.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2017
    roorooroo likes this.
  10. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    6,408
    Likes Received:
    395
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    There is ample real evidence for Evolution there are things science will need to find answers to of course but the theory itself is backed up by the fossil record and more vital DNA evidence and for human evolution specific evidence from human and our ancestors cultural advancement in ancient times. And how they expanded and interacted is not hard to understand with sound evidence and common sense. The issue is really is there another competitive theory in science that can be as good as and the same as the current ToE and that is - no. Poking at its weak spots doesn't mean the theory is wrong its just we don't understand those areas well enough with our current levels of science it doesn't mean they never will.

    And an argument from authority is only a problem if said authority figures your using are not respectable experts in their fields of study one should trust a respected Ph.D. in say genetics if they did proper research and its been tested and challenged and was upheld in the DNA ancestry like of modern humans, if the person has the same degree in Engineering doing the same statement has no credibility to me since its out of field.
     
  11. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    12,515
    Likes Received:
    3,544
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean an explanation that all living things have acid in them? Probably the same reason stars have commonalities? The universe is fond of commonality? Seems reasonable to me.

    Physicists say, give us one miracle(the big bang) and we will take it from there, and explain the rest. Biologists say, grant us one miracle(the arise of a self replicating molecule) and we will explain the rest. Not only is it a self replicating molecule, but in it lies the potentiality of not only a single cell self replicating organism, but the potentiality of such biological diversity, ending up in a self aware primate called homo sapiens, that could ask the question you asked. Well, it was after all a miracle that set this chain of events off. That was one helluva miracle, that biologist believe happened by nothing but blind chance. Amazing. No, astronomically astounding. One might say it seems almost absurd to think this was blind chance. But perhaps as the atom is said to be composed of energy and information, the rise of that first self replicating molecule arose because of energy and information. Not blind chance. And that information is essential to get from a self replicating molecule to a self aware primate with the ability to figure some of the mechanics out, but not quite all of it. So, the sharing of dna similarity with a pumpkin is because of information? Sounds reasonable.
     
    usfan and ChemEngineer like this.
  12. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, no, and no. You don't seem to understand that GRAVITY does not have thousands of books and papers refuting it.
    Darwinian evolution DOES, despite the fact that you Darwinists are always comparing "the theory of gravity" to "the theory of evolution." Silly comparison, but Darwinists never hesitate to make it.


    You're not very good at this science. NO "competitive theory" is needed to abandon a weak hypothesis when it fails.
    WHERE is it written that "science MUST have a theory for everything!" Please cite that source here.

    You neither understand science, nor the fallacies of argumentation.
    What the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority MEANS is that EVEN "respectable experts in their fields of study" can be wrong, and simply citing them as true believers does NOT, repeat NOT mean they are right.

    "Respected experts in their fields of study" have been wrong many, many times.

    "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, 1895

    How many more such erroneous proclamations would you like?

    "640K of memory should be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft
     
    usfan and Strasser like this.
  13. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,947
    Likes Received:
    659
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As impressed as I'm sure you are with your ...statements...the truth is you've said nothing. You're requiring of evolution that we know everything back through all of time while you get to say, well, whatever it is you think you're saying with absolutely no evidence to support.

    OK, Acid.

    If a drop of acid over there somehow morphs over 2 billion years into a pumpkin, a fish, a banana tree, and a person, explain the causality without evolution.

    You don't get God and you don't get miracles.
     
    Derideo_Te and Cosmo like this.
  14. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Says the quote-mining king of the science forum.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2017
    Taxonomy26 and Derideo_Te like this.
  15. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    5,503
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    And this is supposed to say we evolved from them? Really? Can you provided evidence
    from the fossil record that shows this to be true? Can you produce evidence the gradual
    transitioning of hominids changing into their species? This should be easier than chickens
    or fruit flies. Of course you can't because there is no such scientific evidence. Yet you'll
    believe we did. Sharing DNA doesn't mean we are related.

    Is there a reason other than science that prevents you from accepting the fact that evidence
    for evolution is very weak and must be manipulated in order to appear to be factual?

    I'm not a creationist. Let's keep this scientific.
     
    Strasser likes this.
  16. digginit

    digginit Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    The "theory" of evolution is no theory. It has been proven in so many ways that only <Mod Edit-Rule 2> would deny it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2017
  17. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We're trying to keep it scientific, it is creationists like yourself that aren't.

    I don't understand why you deny being creationist when your posts are almost copy book of the 'just asking questions' style adopted by creationists. At the end of the day, you can naysay, deny what constitutes evidence and raise the bar to an impossible standard (all creationist MO) but, if you were serious, you'd be getting yourself a science degree and publishing your cold hard evidence that ToE is false. You won't, because you can't.
     
    Derideo_Te and Cosmo like this.
  18. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Repeat
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  19. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    digginit, you clearly don't understand science.

    As proof of this, I will pose two questions for you to answer.

    1. How is it that Ernest Haeckel's infamous "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" fraud persisted until the year 2000?
    Be specific, if you can. Why was it a fraud, universally believed by that "scientific community" you cite so much?

    2. What were the problems with the fraudulent Miller-Urey experiment, and why did it persist for decades despite being
    a fraud?

    There are many, many other frauds related to your beloved Darwinism besides these, but they'll do for starters.
    Show your stuff, please. And be scientific. Don't just call people names if they choose not to march in lockstep with you.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
    Prunepicker likes this.
  20. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

    "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

    "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

    "The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

    "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

    "We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)
     
    Strasser likes this.

Share This Page