Fallacies of Evolution

So no, you can't in any way demonstrate evolution is wrong, as is the entire field of biology.

We both know you couldn't, of course.

Evolution is science. Science is debated with evidence, and through the peer review process. You have been given a peer reviewed paper supporting evolution. Only way you can debate it, or debunk it, is with one of your own. Simply handwaiving away what you don't like doesn't work. Your argument thus far has amounted to "nuh uh".

That isn't an argument

 

Why the hell would I pay for that, given that over a decade on the internet has presented me with no reason to believe such evidence exists?

Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question?

Given that dog breeding by humans is a deliberate act, wouldn't I have to believe nature is capable of deliberation to believe that?

 

Yes, this topic is about the science of evolution. If you disagree with the science of evolution, then you should be willing and able to, at least, state your alternative concept on the origins of man. Then we could compare the scientific evidence of the two "theories".

 

And another one posted the same day here...
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/74391-Fallacies-of-Evolution

 

What is your concept for the origin of humans on this earth? What evidence do you have for that?

 

So, you're after a Crocoduck then?

 

The scientific method does not require a person present an alternative or replacement hypothesis in order to refute another hypothesis.

 

Yea, it kind of does.

 

Not a good comparison. Human's engaged in deliberate, intelligent, purposeful manipulation of canines. Evolution is at best pseudo random, there is no intelligent guiding hand. The 2 processes are very different.

 

It absolutely does not. Google "scientific method" and learn what it is.

In physics, the concept of "ether" is a perfect example of a critical hypothesis being disproven experimentally without providing a replacement hypothesis. "Ether" was the medium that filled the universe, based on that theory the motion of the earth through the ether should have an impact on the speed of light, the Michelson-Morley experiment tried to measure light through the ether relative to the velocity of the earth - it failed, thus showing the "ether" theory was wrong.

The experiments disproved a hypothesis by showing predicted effects were wrong. It did not present any replacement hypothesis. For a replacement, the world had to wait 20 years for Einstein.

 

Of course it does. The only way to disprove evolution, is to show something else caused the variation of species across the planet, and caused new species to come into existence.

 

Not true. Whether we influenced the evolution of dogs is irrelevant. There is no biological difference between natural variations, and variations caused by human intervention.

 

Read all of my previous post.

To disprove a hypothesis, even if it is evolution, it must be shown that something violates the "laws" resulting from that hypothesis. If an effect or process derived from the hypothesis is shown to be incorrect, then the hypothesis is disproven. No replacement hypothesis is required in order to disprove a hypothesis.

There is also a burden of proof on the supporters of a hypothesis. You cannot just create something and then claim its the truth until someone disproves it. The proposed hypothesis must be rooted in evidence, it must be able to meet all criticism, it must be demonstrable, and its process observed and effect demonstrated.

Many hypotheses do not meet all these criteria but are still considered theories and are useful. Evolution is one such hypothesis.

Evolution is rooted in evidence, but it is not able to meet all criticism, it is not demonstrable, and (unless you can breed the aforementioned Crocoduck) so far not been demonstrated.

But its all science has been able to come up with so people claim it must be the truth.

 

It is not a requirement unless you wish to actually ENGAGE in the process. Saying something is inaccurate is simply making a claim without adding anything to the process and refusing to actively pursue said claim is pointless diatribe unworthy of discussion. Unless you bother or are capable of producing an alternative theory the entire experiment dies.
Basically if you have no explanation to be examined you are pissing in the wind and wasting everyones time and "God Did It" is not something that can be evaluated.

 

What specifically constitutes a new species?

You don't need a crockoduck.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't need a new a new theory in order to falsify an existing theory.

 

I read it. There wasn't an alternative theory to evolution in it, nor any peer reviewed papers disproving evolution.

 

While that is accurate you DO need data that disqualifies the theory and this has not been provided. In my opinion this would be because he cannot do so.

 

"Researchers who once assumed evolution required millennia are documenting species adapting in mere decades, or even shorter time frames. Mosquitoes that colonized the London Underground in 1863 are now so different they can no longer mate with their above-ground relatives."
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane

 

The variation itself is not the point. Its the cause of the variation which is the point. Deliberate, intelligent, directed breeding under controlled conditions is a very different process than pseudo random change subject to and influenced by the general environment.

Simply saying that change is possible is not conclusive, you must explain the mechanism and process of change for evolution to be true.

 

That's total BS. Go read post 60.

 

I'm not interested in the gray area of "what is a new species", or in splitting hairs. If you want to definitively resolve the issue, then using evolutionary processes, create a clearly new species. Don't create a new butterfly from another butterfly, that's questionable. Create a Crocoduck, or something that is unquestionably a new species with a different number of chromosomes from the original, different appearance, function, lifestyle.

 

No you did not read my previous posts because you completely missed the subject in your post.

You claimed that in order to refute a hypothesis, a replacement hypothesis must be presented. That is clearly a false claim and violates all of scientific history and practice, not to mention plain common sense.

 

Thanks for this...

What mechanism, moreover, makes the apparent genetic, descendent relationship observed in DNA within 1000+ years invalid over 100,000s of years?

 

Would such a breeding experiment prove evolution or just demonstrate breeding or gene engineering?

 

Hmmm. I'm not so sure. Certainly not in all cases.

Take the hypothesis that the universe is static. How do you challenge that hypothesis without presenting an alternative hypothesis (the universe is expanding) and presenting evidence to support it? I guess you could just keep saying YOU'RE WRONG -YOUR SCIENCE IS WRONG, but that wouldn't be very scientific.

Take the hypothesis that the earth is the center of the solar system. How do you challenge that hypothesis without presenting an alternative hypothesis (the sun in the center of the solar system) and presenting evidence to support it? I guess you could just keep saying YOU'RE WRONG -YOUR SCIENCE IS WRONG, but that wouldn't be very scientific.