Fallacies of Evolution

Thanks for the topical (and civil) reply. Those seem to be rare around here, for some reason.

I was addressing vestigial, which are not the same (at all) as homologies. Homologies are organs or parts that 'look' similar, or have a similar construction, function, etc. You seemed to understand this in your reply, but i thought i'd clarify for any who might not know what it means.

I don't agree that 'not seeing homologous organs' falsifies the ToE. It certainly would be a problem, but not enough to falsify it. I would expect, if the ToE were true, that there would be almost identical homologies between closely related species.. to the point of interchangeability. But that is another topic, & suffice it to say, i consider, as do you, that homologies are a non factor for either 'theory' of origins. Just because all mammals have a heart, or are warm blooded, for example, is no proof of descendancy. There are many morphological similarities between some living things that are completely different, genetically. A javelina 'looks like' a wild boar, but is a member of the peccary family. It is more like a big rat than a pig.

As to your last statement, i stand by the claim that observable, repeatable science has not validated the ToE, thereby giving credence to my bold statement that it is impossible. I cannot prove a negative, that evolution is impossible, scientifically, no more than i could prove that you cannot jump to the moon, given enough tries. All i can say, is by repeated observation, & the uniformity of the offspring of living things, & the limits that the DNA puts on these things, that the claims of increasing complexity, and vertical jumps in the genome seem wildly impossible, & that there is no evidence that it can happen.

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.' I hold this as a better quote for this issue. And while i cannot disprove the claim, scientifically, neither has anyone provided any evidence for it. So my contention (and many others') is that the theory is flawed, fundamentally, & is a belief, only. there is NO corroborating evidence for the theory.

 

Ah, then you claim that vestigiality is 'evidence' for the ToE? Why didn't you say so in the beginning?

I did in fact source the quote. I am not surprised his conclusions were attacked by some, & eventually vilified by T.O., an activist ToE site. So this means you also disagree with Laitman, whom i also quoted from the nat-geo site. And, you agree with Wiedersheim, who believed that vestigial organs were proof of evolution.

I'm not sure why the hostility toward Scadding.. he was still an evolutionist, just didn't buy the vestigial organ line. But just like when someone finds a problem with AGW, the establishment reacts with indignation & chastisement toward anyone who dares to question the sacred beliefs.

What was it about Scadding's conclusion that was false? Why not point out the flaws in his science or reasoning, instead of the typical 'attack the person' style of mandated scientific conformity.

I see no rebuttal to any of Scadding's conclusions, or critiques of his methodology.. just smears about the credibility of some journal, & implications that his methods weren't as good as others.

I quoted him as a reference refuting vestigial structures as 'proof of evolution!' His arguments are sound, & history has backed him up. Laitman, from the nat-geo site said the same thing.

If you want to refute his findings, or his methods, then do so. Critique the science, & find flaws in his methodology. But to merely smear him with phony allegations, & use ridicule & innuendo that since some creationists used his paper to critique vestigial structures, then he must be wrong, or at least beheaded.

I challenge you to find the flaws in Scadding's work.. not just that some evil creationists quoted him, but actual, scientific or logical flaws in his paper. And, btw, T.O. is not a credible site, but a propaganda site, concerned only with their beliefs. They are not above smearing & lying for the sake of their beliefs. I engaged t.o when it was on usenet, many years ago. They are dishonest & unscientific.

Your mocking & reviling tone is most unpleasant, as i'm sure is your intent. I have openly welcomed debate.... pleaded for it. But you have not been an honest debater, & only seem to look for 'gotcha!' statements or something to attack & revile. I will not suffer fools forever, & will stop replying, if you continue this line of reply.

 

Fundamentalism emerged as a response to education and to evolution in particular.

 

If I posted those sections of the TalkOrigins article that refutes Scadding's 1981you would just dismiss it as you did above:

The site did not attack Scadding, it presented some of the errors in his work. In fact, they agreed with some of his findings. You feel that anyone who disagrees with you or your cut and pasted sources is attacking and vilifying.

As to this snippet:

I never called you evil. But are you finally admitting that you are a creationist?

 

Yes, we understand your credulity problem.

What is the basic premise of 'evolution'?
How is that basic premise untestable, impossible and in contradiction with everything we know about genetics?
So, how high is your wall? Are we talking Species, Genus, Family, Order? Or is it more like 'kitty kind', 'doggy kind', 'fishy kind'? Regardless of that, if your wall is what I believe it might be, do you realise that if something jumped over the wall then it would refute common ancestry and falsify the ToE?
What is, 'observable, repeatable science'? You evaded this question before when I asked it in another form.

 

1. 
   
   I think that the idea is that small changes aggregate over time into large changes
   
   
   Kinda like how the Grand Canyon came to be
   Is there a way of conclusively proving that the grand was caused by water erosion... nope
   But otoh it seems foolish to say we have no idea how the Grand Canyon was created because there is no proof... no intermediate stages to its evolution
   
   Do you have an example of scientists offering this sort of proof?
   
   The rest of us may use this logic because we do not have the expertise to independently evaluate this sort of thing ... a whole lot of smart people say that vaccines work and are mostly safe.... and yes, I take their word... of course they could be wrong
   
   There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[18]
   The National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) makes a similar point:
   
   Clearly everybody does not believe evolution ... for various reasons
   Again I ask for a link showing a scientist who uses this form of proof
   
   In fact... if anyone could disprove evolution or come up with an explanation that that better fits the data.... they would become a historically great person... perhaps this is you?
   
   
   It is not an ideology... unless you can experimentally prove it to be so
   
   
   
   Given enough time, lots of apparently improbable things can and do happen.... including the Grand Canyon, and Siamese twins
   
   Probability is just applied mathematics... and it is testable
   You yourself can test how many times you have to flip a coin to get the improbable result of 10 heads in a row
   
   The BASIC CLAIM of evolution is that life forms change over time
   Which claim is exhaustively verified by the fossil record
   That is observable fact
   We have repeatably shown that organisms like dogs and wheat can be changed by selective reproduction
   
   
   That is the best explanation of the observable facts
   And by BEST... I mean that no one including you has proposed an explanation that better conforms to the data
   
   Are you confusing forum discussions with science?
   
   Are you confusing forum discussions with science
   
   
   The way science works is that you try to find the best match between theory and data
   
   At one time accepted fact was that the earth is flat... because that seemed to best fit the data
   And we would still think the earth is flat unless and until someone came up with an alternate theory that better fit observed facts... that is how science works
   
   Therefore the skeptic community should work towards integrating their ideas into a theory that could be tested against the abundant available data
   
   
   You are referring to the process of seeing if data matches the expectation projected from the theory
   To the extent that abundant data matches what theory anticipates... yes that is considered evidence supporting the validity of the theory.
   
   
   

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[18]
The National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) makes a similar point:

 

You consider homologies to be a non factor in this discussion. This is not what I meant to say when I explained how homologies are consistent with both the theory of evolution and creation. When I try to evaluate the merits of a theory, I want to keep track of as many observations as possible. Since most of us have a rather fallible human memory, this often requires meticulous and rather unspectacular bookkeeping. In my book, homologies are now considered consistent with evolution and creation. They're a piece of evidence. A huge amount of pieces of evidence like that, combined with a lack of inconsistencies make for a good scientific theory. Even if our main goal is to compare two competing theories, we should always keep track of all observations and whether or how we had to refine a theory to maintain consistency. Let me give an example why this is important.

I am interested in the flat earth society even though I don't think they're on to something big there. In my humble opinion, it's a good exercise to argue for both sides. A round earth proponent might say that you can see the curvature of the earth by seeing how ships or the sun vanish below the horizon. The flat earther counters by saying that light rays bend upwards, such that it appears as though the ship goes below the horizon. The round earther says that we can measure the radiation of the sun and notice how it's close to constant, implying that the sun is roughly a constant distance away. The flat earther, however, simply replies that while the sun goes around in a circle not too far above our heads, the light is bent away from the vertical in such a way that the radiation remains roughly constant.

In this example, the flat earther is able to give a perfectly fine explanation for both observations. It's even, isn't it? No, if you're keeping track properly, you notice that the flat earther had to refine his theory in two different ways that are now no longer consistent. If the evaluation of those two pieces of evidence was farther apart, you could have easily missed that issue. It's often surprisingly easy to find flat earth explanations for most singular pieces of evidence, which are usually used to show that the earth is roughly a sphere.

I apologize for going off on a bit of a tangent here, but this is the kind of stuff that seldom gets talked about, but is nevertheless important to keep ourselves honest.

Unfortunately, whether something is extraordinary or not is often not much more than an opinion. One of your core claims is that it is pretty much impossible to see a large change in DNA that results in a new species, whether that's done artificially in a lab or through many small intermediate steps. This looks like a most extraordinary claim to me. Let me explain.

I earn my living by designing electronics and writing the corresponding software. One part within that circuit, flash memory, serves as a data storage medium, similar to DNA in an organism. Trapped electrons (or the lack thereof) are the carriers of information in flash memory. Base pairs, the rungs of the ladder within the double helix, carry the information in DNA. Those electrons and base pairs can be arranged in any way we like. Those small physical building blocks are then read out, copied, manipulated, stored again in various ways by a microcontroller in electronics. Enzymes and other complicated cellular machinery operate on DNA in a similar fashion.

When I construct this kind of picture of the inner workings of a cell, I simply cannot see where the wall you're talking about could possibly come in. That is why I asked for a mechanism that explains such a wall instead of being satisfied with a mere lack of direct observations of very complex processes.

As an engineer, who sees how much hard work goes into a fully functioning product that is ready to be sold, I am not surprised that no one has managed to create a new species in a lab. There is a big difference between building a few simple circuits or writing a few lines of functional code and a complete, final product. The main difference is a combination of tenacity and time devoted to the task. Will genetic engineering progress far enough that it one day results in new species being created in a lab? I have no clue whether this could happen within my lifetime. In the long run though, I consider it quite likely.

 

It will.

"Now, for the first time, scientists have shown it is possible to alter that alphabet and still have a living organism that passes on the genetic information. They reported their findings in the journal Nature.
"This is the first experimental demonstration that life can exist with information that's not coded the way nature does (it)," said Floyd Romesberg, associate professor of chemistry at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California.
Medicine can greatly benefit from this discovery, Romesberg said. There's potential for better antibiotics and treatments for a slew of diseases for which drug development has been challenging, including cancers.
The findings also suggest that DNA as we know it on Earth may not be the only solution to coding for life, Romesberg said. There may be other organisms elsewhere in space that use genetic letters we have never seen -- or that don't use DNA at all.







FDA considers three-parent DNA procedure 03:29







How DNA testing can save lives 05:18







Artist creates faces from human DNA 01:33
"Is this alien life? No," he said. "Does it suggest that there could be other ways of storing information? Yes."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/health/artificial-dna-life/

 

It seems some are wanting to turn this thread into a comparative religion thread. A 'theist vs atheist' debate over religious beliefs. That is not my intent, here, though, i enjoy a spirited philosophical debate as much as anyone.

This is a simple examination of the SCIENTIFIC evidence of a theory of origins. That is all. A scientific theory must be able to take scrutiny, & stand or fall on its own merits, not how it compares to other, competing theories. If you want, we could start another thread comparing beliefs about origins, and any evidence for them. I already know how the 'naturalism vs supernaturalism' debate goes, & was trying to avoid the hysteria from that, & focus on the actual science of evolution, instead of being distracted with religious criticisms, as has been done constantly. THAT was what i wished to avoid, while we dispassionately examined the science behind the theory.

But it is a difficult task, separating belief from facts, & ingrained beliefs especially. IMO, the ToE is so indoctrinated into most educated people, that they cannot examine the claims with an open mind, or with a critical eye. My experience in debating this subject on forums only confirms this perception.

I am a theist.. I'm sure everyone knows that. But for origins, i remain an agnostic. I have not seen any compelling evidence to make a scientific conclusion. The facts are there.. there are fossils, planets whirling through space, a perfect combination of elements to support life on earth, & the planet teeming with life. But all of the evidence is circumstantial. We are here, & life is here, but i do not see a valid 'how' for this question. As a theist, i can assume that a supernatural force can be behind this, but for the scientist, the 'HOW?' gnaws at him. No scientist, regardless of their religious beliefs, is satisfied with glib or dogmatic answers. Even if i acknowledge God, i can still be intrigued & obsessed with discovering HOW it came about. That is the root of modern science, anyway. The old monks & early scientists who made most of the discoveries we build upon were not atheists, disproving God & looking for a naturalistic explanation for their origins. No. They were christians, mostly, who wanted to discover HOW God had done this. Most of them said as much.

So as i have said, there is no conflict with theism & science. That is a false narrative promoted by some atheists, who attempt to take the scientific high ground, & define people by their beliefs, rather than by the science of what they say. The atheist who declares, 'there is no god', has no more evidence than the theist who declares there is. These are both statements of faith.. beliefs about the universe, when there is no empirical evidence to compel either belief.

Some atheists dismiss any supernatural explanation as 'sky fairy'. But there is no naturalistic theory with any more credibility than theorizing that a god or aliens did it. Dawkins, a hostile critic of christianity, believes that aliens seeded life on earth. That is fine, as a belief. But there is no more evidence for aliens than for God. So when examining the science, sure, any bias should be taken into consideration, but that bias works both ways. The theist must be careful to examine the science, & not let his religious beliefs color his methodology or conclusions. The atheist must do the same.. critically examining the claims of any theory, & not promoting or glossing over any flaws because it conflicts with his beliefs.

You cannot demonstrate that there is anything more than a belief in a naturalistic worldview. There is no empirical evidence. It is merely a belief system. IMO, any beliefs about atheism are just that: beliefs, which you can argue are non beliefs in a god, but that is merely semantics. You have a belief.. it is in a naturalistic worldview. It is merely prejudice & bias to label one belief, 'science', while calling the other, 'religion'. The 2 are differing, opposing BELIEFS about the universe, with science as an indifferent observer. If you want to claim science as a validator of your beliefs, you must prove it, scientifically, not just rely on the labels, or smears, or unscientific assertions with no empirical evidence.

By 'prove it, scientifically', i mean provide solid, reviewable, empirical evidence. That is how theories are validated or 'proved'... i am not talking about Absolute Truth, as some will jump on me and accuse. I include this as a disclaimer, because i have heard it all before.. the protests.. the nit picking.. the parsing of words & searching for 'gotcha!' phrases. But these are not actions of a seeker of truth, or a scientific mind, but those of propagandists or ideologues.

I challenge you to dig deep & employ the scientific mind. Leave the religious mind & 'defender of the faith' attitude where it belongs, in religious & philosophical discussions. I have constantly called for scientific evidence.. and that is still my challenge.

 

The reason this thread devolves into diatribe would be your adamant refusal to accept the data you keep requesting and either ignore it or dismiss it even if verified by the rest of the world and scientific minds of considerably more education and experience than your own.

 

Right, and like many others, I want to know a few things before I waste any time trying to meet a challenge that you clearly have raised the bar on already so, everything suggests to me that even if any reasonable burden of proof was met then you will raise the bar further. Remember my previous specific questions that you have avoided answering directly? They relate to showing that you understand what science is, that you understand what evidence is and that you actually understand what the ToE is (it is not the 'theory of origins' as you have persistently continued to mislabel it in this thread and, I will add in a way that Creationists quite often do, it is a theory to explain the diversity of species, that is an observable fact).

Before you hand wave it a way, this is absolutely germane to the discussion, I will paste it again below for you so you can track back to it...

 

I got the official email from NWO central this morning, It's the big push for the final global-Marxist-atheist world domination battle next week. Get your men lined up for the final countdown.

 

Oh yeah...the thread also gets derailed by pointless commentary by individuals with nothing else to contribute.

Thanx for the reminder.

 

Comparing TOE to creationism cannot be described as a "comparative religion" discussion. TOE is not a religion. It is also not a 'theist vs atheist' debate since most believers and supporters are also theists. If anything, it is a discussion of science vs. fundamentalist religious beliefs.

TOE, as a scientific theory, has been under scrutiny and has withstood all scientific challenges. The challenges have led to a better understanding of the mechanics of evolution and have also led to confirmation by scientists in many different fields of expertise.

The science behind the theory has been dispassionately examined by scientists for over 100 years. However, it's fair to look at and question the motivations and comments of forum posters on both sides of the issue. When people repeatedly state there is a lack of evidence for TOE and constantly refuse to accept the evidence when it is presented, then one must question the reasons behind the denials.

Beliefs in religious dogma are instilled in people long before they get exposed to an education in TOE. Infants and toddlers are taken to church to hear about Jesus. Four and five year olds are told about Noah and the Ark long before they develop critical thinking skills. By the time these kids are exposed to anything resembling TOE, they already "know the truth" about the origins of man. You are right to use terms like "ingrained beliefs" and "indoctrination". You just apply them to the wrong side of the argument.

Once again you carefully use the phrase "scientific conclusion" as compared to just "conclusion". The origins of man are either natural or supernatural. If they are natural, then TOE is shown to be an all inclusive answer. You state you are a theist and you state you are agnostic. You've been posting in this forum far longer than I have, but I'll bet you cannot show a thread wherein you argued against Creationism. If you are truly agnostic you would be challenging both sides of the argument, not just TOE. That, and many other of your comments, leads me to conclude that you strongly favor Creationism.

You just confirmed my conclusion regarding your self-proclaimed agnosticism.

That is what led led Darwin to do what he did. That is what led tens of thousands of scientists to research all aspects of TOE and come to the scientific conclusions about the validity of TOE.

However, in order to do that, they had to put aside their fundamentalist beliefs in the absolute truth of Genesis. That is also something that all theistic scientists who support TOE do. That is something that people who vociferously argue against TOE refuse to do.

It is a false narrative promoted by Creationists who use terms like "atheistic evolution". Atheists recognize and openly admit that most people who believe in and support TOE also believe in a god. We also recognize that some theists cling to a fundamentalist belief in the truth of Genesis, these are the people who will never accept TOE.

 

All theists, including yourself, dismiss any supernatural explanation as 'sky fairy' except your own version of sky fairy. If you want to entertain the validity of one sky fairy, your Christian God, then why not entertain the validity of other sky fairies. I suggested the god of LastThursdayism, you dismissed it. There is no more reason, from a rational standpoint, to prefer one over the other.

That's a bit of a distortion. A tweet from the horse's mouth...
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/446393255950028801

There is absolutely no evidence for any god. Man invented god(s), in his own image, thousands of years ago to answer then unanswerable questions.

Please provide any evidence for any god.

 

How can anyone argue didactic literature against science and history? Its beyond me. The Jewish sages as far back as Rambam knew the difference. They serve two different purposes.

Christianity does have a history of scholarship believe it or not..

We'd still be stuck in the Bronze Age if every advance in science was pitted against religious mythos.

 

so, will you finally address the numerous peer reviewed scientific papers that have been presented in this thread? Will you provide any peer reviewed scientific papers that support your position, as I and others have done?

Or is your argument going to remain "nuh uh"?

 

I
Why would I have to? I have a rational brain, well educated, and understand perhaps more than you do. At least I am aware of assumptions where you must not be. New discoveries are many times made by the open minds, not the closed ones. With the general public, we tend to see closed minds, which should never be seen in science, yet you see them even there too. The EM drive was never tested because closed minds said it broke natural law and could not work. Yet it did. And it is one helluva discovery which the closed minds in academia held back for years. With your remarks, derogatory, you seem to be one of the true believers in the dogma in science. Or worse. You are arrogant to the point that certainty exudes from your pores. To the genuinely intelligent mind, this is a red flag, signaling stupid arrogance. This is endemic in the atheistic philosophical materialists.

 

It has been impossible to debunk the credible idea that the material universe is created or manifested by something outside of the physical universe. It simply has not been proven by evidence. But then if such an intelligence existed outside of the physical universe it would be impossible to prove for it is immeasurable, if it exists. All that one could find would be an inference as to its existence and even some in science, in physics have entertained this.

But to the OP, all the guy wants is the evidence, experimental evidence, for Macro Evolution. So far he had not been offered such evidence nor will he ever get it bar some experiment in genetics that shows him the solution to the problem. The idea that horizontal evolution, micro, given eons of time would yield macro evolution is just that, and idea, which has been accepted, without experimental evidence, and has become dogma. But one day we may have that evidence, so at least admit all that the evolutionists can do today is issue a promissory note in regards to that hard evidence.

 

You are dodging, the old bob and weave. He does not want to read those peer reviewed papers for non of them provide the simple, most basic evidence science is grounded upon. He wants the believers in macro evolution to provide evidence, from experiments in evolutionary genetics to provide the evidence for macro evolution. He knows they do not exist, but he wants you guys to be intellectually honest and stop the games, and see just what your beliefs are based on. And it isn't hard genetic evidence. He isn't asking for too much. So far no one has been able to admit the fact of the matter. Some of us already were aware of it, as well as being aware that evolutionists have put up a wall against reality.

 

He wants the most basic fundamental evidence. Evidence from experiments, genetics, that show macro evolution. This is missing, and to critical thinkers it happens to be the 800 pound ape sitting in the dark corner, picking his nose. Or at least some evidence on the magical ability of time in regards to macro evolution. What does time do to the genetics other than yielding micro evolution, with its other mechanisms? Can you put a set of cat genes into a dice shaker and shake it for millions of years and shake out a completely different species? As you change the environment in the shaker? What processes are at work here? If we know them, we can replicate in a controlled experiment. And start creating self replicating brand new species. But the trouble is simple. We do not know how these tremendous genetic changes happen. So we say "given enough time" and time then becomes our magician on which our theory of macro evolution rests. It would be absurd to someone who could think without personal beliefs and unrecognized deep philosophical beliefs interfering in the thought processes.

 

Lol. Giving him exactly what he is asking for is not dodging. I provided a peer reviewed scientific paper in support of ToE. His argument against it is "nuh uh".

- - - Updated - - -

And has received it.

 

Who are you arguing with?

- - - Updated - - -

Who are you arguing with?

 

"Macro Evolution" cannot be proven as requested with anything living today by itself and you both know, likely this is the reason yo are so fond of repeating the same impossible request. Even when evolutionary chances take place in bacteria (they reproduce quickly enough to bypass time requirements more complex creatures require) you will change what "Macro" means to deny this as well. For some reason you have no problem with flu shots but, want us to breed a cat from a Dog. You claim documented evolution that produced whales to be cartoons but require no evidence except a painting of your God. You think humans are 6000 yr old mud men even though fossil evidence (and genetic) clearly indicate ancient simian ancestors. There will be no reasoning with unreasonable people.

 

The Dunning-Kruger Effect ensures that those who are the most profoundly ignorant of science continue to reject evolution based on their cartoon understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.