Fallacies of Evolution

Another cherry picked quote, with the context deleted, to show the dishonesty of the poster. You really don't have any scruples, for your ideological agenda, do you? NO science. NO facts.. not even arguments.. just ad hominem, deflections, distortions, & caricatures to promote a phony narrative. At least we know the ideology of this person.. leftist to the core, with all the stereotypical attributes.

 

The use of the quote to imply there are no transitionals misstates Darwin's argument, intentionally or out of ignorance.

Darwin was not stating that there was an absence of transitionals but, in fact, stated there were "many links." Instead, he was discussing why there are not more transitionals in an easily read pattern of gradual change. As Darwin correctly noted, where the fossil record does not approach "perfection," it is difficult, if not impossible, to tell by morphology alone exactly where any particular organism would fall within such a graduated series. Thus, such an organism might be classified as a distinct species from either the original or the subsequent ones. However, such organisms, being general morphological intermediates between different forms, as in the case of Archaeopteryx, would, along with other evidence, support an inference of evolutionary change over time through common descent. The fossil record may not be easy to read, but it is not devoid of information either.

 

What credible scientific source/s hold your "opinions" regarding the ToE?

 

I really can't understand why you continue to lie about not receiving any science, facts or arguments. I've given you scientific peer reviewed papers, which you hand waive away.

Your argument always amounts to "nuh uh". You NEVER provide any empirical, scientific evidence to support your baseless assertions. You are repeatedly called out on this, but seem to have no integrity, since you keep right on doing it.

 

I hate lazy people go to the nearest public library and read up on the topic, go to a museum with an appropriate collection and ask the scholars some questions or just go online to reputable sources like this one and read it. Seriously why should we spoon feed you things.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

I point out also just because there are modest gaps in our understanding doesn't destroy the Theory of Evolution its the best and most up to date explanation for how life developed on our planet and constantly being improved upon, its the scientific method and hard work that will lead to closing gaps in our understanding perfecting the theory further.

 

Except I was correct.

No, this isn't what he said. Allow me to quote him once again in his own words and emphasize the
important bits.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is
the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies,
as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. Charles Darwin (1859),
The Origin of Species, p. 280.
​

To use your "out of ignorance" phrase, you're the one at fault. You're trying to make Darwin say
something that's antithetical to what he said. In fact, what you wrote isn't even implied in Darwin's text.
Even his guessing that the "extreme imperfection of the Geological record" may be the problem we
know to this day geology does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and that's a fact that
cannot be denied. You'd think that something would be found to show at least one propagating species
having transitionint to another. Alas, there is nothing.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post; Darwin's statement acknowledged an incomplete fossil record rather than a problem with his theory.
Denying or ignoring the evidence for evolution does not make it go away.

 

What do you have to do to make it appear?
I constantly hear about all this alleged evidence, but nobody ever produces it. Your 'evidence' is an illusion.. a belief that 'evolution is true!', but without any scientific basis.

 

What you lack in facts and reason, you more than make up for in ad hominem and other fallacies. Now, have any evidence for your extraordinary claims?

I was chastising the other poster for their cherry picked, dishonest response. Why would you reply to that? Do you feel you need to be punished, too?

 

You understand it is a demonstrable lie to claim no,evidence has been produced right? You've been given peer reviewed papers that you simply hand waive away. Your arguments contain not a single shred of scientific evidence. You simply state nuh uh. That isn't a valid argument.

 

More lies from the serial dishonest debater. I answer EVERY post with a topical, rational response. I only ignore the hecklers, liars, and thread crappers.. like you. I point it out, every so often, but I cannot prevent it.

 

When are you going to produce any credible scientific sources that agree with your "opinions" ?

 

We, physicists, came up with a theory about the atom. They using this theory, use it to split the atom, and manufactured the atomic bomb. So the theory allowed the first bomb. I think you are wanting something this hard coming from evolutionary biology, a demonstration that makes the macro evolution theory look factual. Yet biologists have not been able to create a new species from an old species, setting aside what they say happened naturally, and using their theory to do it using intelligence, which they claim had nothing to do with evolution at all. Yet even with intelligence, they have not pulled this off. If intelligence cannot pull it off, but it happens naturally.....something smells a bit rotten about this. Oh, but they have a consensus, right? That what they cannot use intelligence to replicate, happened with no intelligence, but naturally. Well, the monkeys in a Kipling novel were asked how they know something is true. The monkeys said that they all say it is true, so it must be true. On biologists remind me of those monkeys.

 

I cannot examine or rebut your arguments and evidence if you do not present them.

Start over, if you want. You are making an extraordinary claim for the origins of humanity and all living things. Many people are skeptical of this claim.

If you cannot provide evidence for this, it is a flawed theory, with no scientific basis. I cannot examine 'no evidence'. I can only examine evidence.

How long will this phony narrative go on? You have not presented a case for the ToE, but have used fallacies, false accusations, and dogmatic assertions. That is not evidence.

 

How long will "your" phony narrative go on?
When are you going to produce any credible scientific sources that agree with your "opinions" ?

- - - Updated - - -

Humans have created (evolved) thousands of breeds of domesticated plants and animals. Bacteria evolving resistances to antibiotics or insects evolving resistances to insecticides happen again and again. The beaks of "Darwin's Finches" evolve again and again with climate changes. No, we can't re-run millions of years of history in the lab to re-create a particular evolutionary history; however, we can replicate fossil finds to confirm previous results and run genetic comparison experiments again and again.

 

It is a demonstrable fact you have been presented with peer reviewed papers, that you hand waive away.

no, you simply make baseless assertions, declaring the evidence provided is wrong, with nothing to support your statement. Your argument amounts to "nuh uh", which is not an argument.

again, it is a proven lie for you to claim you have been provided with no evidence. Why do you keep doing it?

 

You reject my simple analogy that a fifth grader could understand.
You reject the finding of thousands of scientist in many different branches of science.

There can be only one reason. You are a Creationist. You cannot accept evolution because, if you did, you would have to question your fundamentalist religious belief in the Bible. That is something your long term indoctrination will not allow your mind to do.

 

Well, the preachers in the church were asked how they know something is true. The preachers said that they all say it is true, so it must be true.

 

So do you believe you have presented any evidence for a contrary view?

 

I haven't been on here in a while, so I'm just getting back to this post. When each and every living organism starts out as a single set of genes, isn't the only difference between two propagating species the frequency of alleles within those genes?

 

I have asked before and you seem unwilling or unable to answer but just exactly what do you demand as proof of evolution? A detailed answer in scientific terms would be nice but if you can't do that at least a layman descripion will suffice.

 

Nobody is denying or ignoring evidence. In fact the the weak evidence that makes
evolution so hard to accept as a fact.

 

You can't accept the fact that your analogy was terribly flawed. Taking photos of a single species
for many years cannot be compared to finding many fossils of many different species that
aren't related.

Of many different branches of science? Are you kidding me? The discussion is about
evolution.

I don't reject the findings of thousands of scientists, if there are that many, because their
findings are on my side.

Please show me one propagating species that's come into being in the last 100 years. If
evolution is a fact then there should be new species coming into existence at every turn.

This is a red herring that's used by people who's argument is flawed or is failing.
You can't accept the evidence that science provides because it flies in your face.

 

And they remain within that species. They don't become a new propagating species.

 

Are you pointing out that evolution is not proved regarding new species
Or suggesting there is an alternative that you feel is proved
Or at least better supported by the evidence