1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

Fallacies of Evolution

Discussion in 'Science' started by usfan, Jan 7, 2017.

  1. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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 & 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, & for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. 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, & other conflicts with factual data.

    I propose a debate, here, for the list above and any others that might come up, to examine this theory that has such an influence on people's worldviews. It is my contention that this is an ideological belief, not a scientific matter. The actual science in the ToE is very minimal.. almost non-existent. So, for a scientific discussion on the ToE, we will need actual, scientific proof that the claims are possible. We will need to see real science demonstrating the mechanisms of change in the genetic structure that is claimed. This is not a comparison of alternate theories, comparative religion, or beliefs about origins, but i'm sure that will be unavoidable. This thread is about the ToE, & the proofs & reasoning behind it. So please make your rebuttals on point & evidenced with facts. You can use a link to source a quote, or a study, but merely posting a link as if it rebuts something is not an argument.. it is just another logical fallacy!

    I also request that science be presented, instead of mere assertions or repeated beliefs. I already know many people believe in evolution very strongly, & will defend it to the death! What i request is evidence. Talk is cheap. Indoctrination is common. Show me the proofs. I have been in many evolution threads that have ended or closed over the years, but these fallacies & arguments have never been rebutted. I welcome a civil, scientific discussion on the subject.
     
    RoccoR likes this.
  2. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,462
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I'll start with the first one. We can discuss the others after we have resolved it.

    The Theory of Evolution can be summarized as the change in allele frequency from one generation to another, which has been demonstrated by scientific methodology. You appear to accept that allele frequency can change over the short term. So what mechanism prevents these small changes from becoming the large changes needed to produce a new species?
     
  3. Calloway

    Calloway New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fortunately, nothing mentioned above changes the Theory of Evolution, much of which has been proven.
     
  4. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ok, you guys are starting out with mere assertions. I already know the beliefs ABOUT the ToE. I'm asking for evidence. Not, 'there is so much evidence, we can't post it all!' Just one bit of empirical evidence that demonstrates the claim.. is that too much to ask?

    Show me HOW a change in allele frequency can add chromosomes, or genes with new traits that were not in the parent organism. Merely asserting it does not make it real.

    The false equivalence of 'small changes add up to big ones,' has to be shown HOW you can cumulatively add up to structural changes in the DNA, when this is impossible to do by any scientific process. Small, horizontal changes are obvious. They are useful in breeding, hybridizing, etc. But NEVER do you get structural changes in the DNA. You NEVER get new traits or added chromosomes. You NEVER jump up or down to another chromosome pair structure. That is an imagined scenario.. an assumption that cannot be verified or observed. It is merely asserted, as you do here.
     
  5. Calloway

    Calloway New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing you said eliminates the theory of evolution. The embryo has a tail. Why isn't it kept? The fetus in the early stages has gills. Why isn't it kept?
     
  6. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    8,518
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's not clear whether you're seeking to discuss the detailed scientific basis behind evolutionary theory or the manner in which it is taught in schools. Your lists seems to focus on the latter - none of it is about evolutionary theory being false, only the manner in which it is taught. If some of the things are happening in schools that would be a problem but it would be a problem regardless of what was being taught.

    It is worth noting that school-level education generally isn't about proving complex scientific fact to the students and will naturally involve an element of assertion. For example, they tell the kids that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, they generally won't do anything to actually prove that fact.

    This is a political discussion forum, not an academic source. If you want a deep understanding of evolutionary theory (which is a wide and deep field of study), I think there are much better places to go for that. If you're determined to discuss scientific specifics here though, shouldn't you start by presenting evidence given you're entire OP is just assertion and belief?

    There are just as many people who will attack it with equal determination. That's why discussions in places like this about it, between the scientifically ignorant (myself included) achieve less than nothing.
     
  7. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,589
    Likes Received:
    594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can demonstrate that I can use my tennis shoes to walk to the store, however, my tennis shoes will not take me to the moon. So it is with "transitions" at the family level and below, for that, Darwin's theory, and its modern equivalents, work quite nicely.
     
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    15,723
    Likes Received:
    636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let me get this straight.

    We should dismiss a theory with massive data to confirm it in order to accept an hypothesis with no data at all, based on the opinions of people that already believe in things shown to be false.

    ....Uh.....Okay.
     
    Guno likes this.
  9. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am not trying to 'eliminate' any theory.. just asking for evidence for it. The reader can then make his/her own conclusion. IMO, the 'embryo tail' is not evidence of anything, except how some organisms develop. I see it as a 'correlation equals causation' argument. You would have to demonstrate that this visual has some kind of bearing on the claim, not just a 'it looks like a fish!' argument.

    Moreover, the embryo does NOT have a tail, or gills. That is just a 'looks like!' argument. Real tails & gills have different genes, development, & function. Attempting to correlate a morphological view of a trait in its development does not make it those traits.

    I put this in a science subforum, where matters like this can be discussed without the political polemy that is common in the rest of the forum. I would also like to point out that knowledge is knowable for anyone who pursues it, & is not limited to an elite academic class. There is nothing wrong with critically examining the claims of someone who professes expertise.. in fact,THAT is the scientific methodology, to challenge & scrutinize the claims. And the more fantastic the claims, the more solid the evidence should be.
    Good example. your 'tennis shoes' are micro evolution, or variability. But they will not make the vertical jump to the moon. That is what the DNA tells us. We do not observe the kinds of vertical, cumulative changes as they are described by the ToE. We only see smaller, horizontal changes that are limited by the DNA.
     
  10. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    no 'massive data' is needed. How about ONE? Show me one example of vertical changes in the genetic code.. adding genes, chromosomes, etc.

    Otherwise, all you have is the argument of authority, assertion, & bandwagon.

    I'm not asking you to dismiss anything. I'm asking for evidence for the claim. You BELIEVE there is evidence, but if you search, you will discover there is not. It is a philosophical construct, indoctrinated into the citizens for a philosophical/political agenda. That is IMO, for the motivation, but lets just stick with science, here.
     
  11. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    15,723
    Likes Received:
    636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You and I have been over this before and regardless of any data provided your opinion remains the same. I have gone into fossil evidence, genetic changes, species adaptation resulting in new versions over time.....basically it is very clear no level of proven and documented information will ever be accepted in your mind. For this reason I no longer attempt to educate you on evolution and rarely interact with you anymore.

    Now would be the time for you to claim victory in debate and try to further goad me with childish comment.
     
  12. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,973
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No you have only made assertions.. declarations of your beliefs as fact. I am asking for evidence... scientific evidence to give credence to your beliefs. You have not 'gone into' all these things, but merely listed them as if saying the words proves something.

    If you don't want to discuss the scientific evidence for your belief system, fine. I'm not making anyone do something they don't want to do. But some might be interested in examining the claims more critically, instead of just believing the indoctrination.

    This is not a 'debate' in a win/lose scenario. it is a discussion over evidence for a theory of origins.. something that should be approached dispassionately & logically.

    What 'proven & documented information?' You have NEVER provided anything like that, just assertions & claims of superior knowledge. Prove it. Show me the evidence, if it is so obvious & compelling.

    I don't care for the childish bickering, or logical fallacies that this subject elicits. I call for logic & science.. evidence & reason.. to discuss something that is the basis for major worldviews. You can dismiss this, or stoop to ad hominem, but that does not answer the question, or serve scientific inquiry in any way.
     
  13. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    33,382
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The OP has tried this before. He handwaives away the evidence provided, so it is pointless to try to engage him.

    Where his position really breaks down is he can not demonstrate the mechanism which prevents small changes adding up to big changes. He simply asserts it can't be done, despite evidence proving it can.

    It's amusing.
     
  14. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,630
    Likes Received:
    631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Specifically, what proof do you want? Do you expect to catch evolution in action?

    Vertical changes in the genetic code? Choose any two closely related animals. We see changes. Again, what do you expect, a video of the change occurring? What would constitute evidence?

    You demand evidence. So state what evidence you will accept, specifically, and how that might be obtained.
     
  15. CyJackX

    CyJackX New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2016
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Down's syndrome.
     
  16. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,589
    Likes Received:
    594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait, that would mean that if I see something that looks like wings on a wagon, that its not a nascent airplane?
     
  17. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    15,723
    Likes Received:
    636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apparently he requires someone ship him a tank with evolving creatures in it as anything short of this is speculation and false scientific evidence.
     
  18. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,462
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I'm trying to give you some evidence, but you have to demonstrate you can understand that evidence. Saying that the change in allele frequency from one generation to another is a "mere assertion" is not the way to do it.

    Baby steps, usfan. Baby steps. First you have to understand what evolution is before you can understand how it happens.

    It has been scientifically demonstrated that each individual human carries about 200 mutations in their DNA. That would be genetic code that didn't come from either of their parents. Since no two humans will have the same mutations, each generation will be progressively different from the one that preceded it. If each generation picks up 200 changes in their DNA, how long do you think it would take for those changes to add up to the difference between species?
     
  19. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,462
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Why are you inventing terms that are not used in biology? What is "vertical change in the genetic code"? DNA is a one-dimensional code, so there is only change.
     
  20. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,630
    Likes Received:
    631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have spent a lot of time debunking debunkers. One of their favorite tricks to demand evidence when in fact there is no evidence they will accept. When pressed to give a specific, clear, and concise answer as to what evidence would suffice, they can't name any. That is a sure sign of a cynic who is playing word games, and not a skeptic, which I strongly suspect is the case here. It is all smoke and mirrors.
     
    ChemEngineer likes this.

Share This Page