Fallacies of Evolution

This thread is a challenge to ToE adherents to support the theory, and that is not done by disproving other theories.

 

That is a dodge. Any reasonable interpretation of the facts assures that we haven't had the science long enough to detect such changes in a species. Beyond that, many different animals have the same number of chromosomes. A bengal fox, a bison, a cow, a goat, and a yak, all have 60 pairs of chromosomes. Are you saying these are all the same animal. And a tobacco plant has the same number as a water buffalo. Is a buffalo the same thing as a plant?

I would say a fox and a wolf are closer than a Chihuahua and a Great Dane by any subjective evaluation, but a fox and a wolf have significantly different chromosome counts.

So give a rigorous definition of differentiated species that doesn't involve words that you make up, or chromosome counts which are not a clear indicator of different species. Biologists use reproduction as the marker for good reason.

 

Do you make the same argument regarding Creationism/Genesis?

• Is there a burden of proof on the supporters of Creationism/Genesis?
• Is the hypothesis of Creationism/Genesis rooted in evidence?
• Is the hypothesis of Creationism/Genesis able to meet all criticism?
• Is the hypothesis of Creationism/Genesis demonstrable?
• Is the process of Creationism/Genesis observed?

 

Why is it that opponents of evolution often refuse to admit that their main objection to evolution is based entirely on their fundamentalist religious beliefs?

People who support evolution come right out and say "I believe in evolution". That includes a lot of Christians.

People who argue against evolution try to come up with sciency sounding stuff like Irreducible Complexity. They try to make it sound like they believe in science, when in fact, the only thing they believe in is their fundamentalist religious beliefs.

If you have a science based theory, other than evolution, as to the origins of humans on this earth, I, and many others, would to hear about. Then we could have a discussion on the relative scientific evidence for the two competing theories.

 

Its not a breeding program in which people deliberately select individuals with the desired trait and cull individuals with undesired traits. Its a program in which evolutionary pressure is used to drive evolutionary changes and the population is left alone to sort itself out.

People claim to understand evolution, I just want them to prove it by creating a microcosm and demonstrating evolution.

 

True, some hypotheses are of the "either A or B" type in which a refutation of A automatically promotes B. But the replacement of the questioned hypothesis is not required as part of the scientific method.

 

You miss the point. I'm not interested in the types of details you are mentioning.

Some claim evolution is the truth, and its a known and understood process. If so, then this entire debate can be ended by placing some creatures in an environment, manipulating the environment as it would be in nature so that evolutionary pressure is put on the creatures, and create a brand new species.

Flies reproduce quickly, so start with flies and evolve them into mosquitoes. Or birds, or a crocoduck. Make it something so obviously a new species that it cannot be questioned. Do that and evolution wins, debate over.

 

duplicate post

 

Why would I apply the process of critical thinking selectively based on my personal bias? That runs counter to the fundamental quest for knowledge and understanding.

Note that a person does not have to believe creationism in order to question (or even reject) evolution. A person can very rationally reject both as being inadequate. Some questions don't have known answers and there is nothing wrong with simply saying "I don't know".

 

The better question, of course, is what the hell this has to do with me, or with anything I said.

Hey, it ain't like a profession of Christianity renders one immune to gullibility.

Yeah, well that might be interesting had I ever done that. Things being what they are...

derail this thread, and divert attention from your failure to rise to the challenge of this thread.

 

Threads like these should be filed under conspiracy theory because scientists have shown, without a doubt, that organisms have evolved from simpler organisms. It is a done deal. At this point, saying evolution is false is like saying the Earth is flat. And no, I'm not going to debate you about it, because it would be a waste of time, you refuse to see the truth. I only put my last post on to help point the undecided/uneducated who happen to see this thread, in the right direction.

 

I have found the key to certain members and their opinions to be considering them as free entertainment and the opportunity to feel somewhat superior when delving into a debate. Any attempt at serious education will become frustrating and possibly lead to reprimand from staff due to escalating emotional reaction....best to just giggle inside and use superior articulation to ridicule them in ways they are not bright enough to recognize.

Think of it as a game.

 

Pardon me....but have you not failed to rise to the challenge of contributing your competing theory several times.

Everyone is still awaiting your input.

 

This is a very basic scientific concept. Anyone with any background in science should know this. It is the claimant of the theory that is tasked with supporting it, not the skeptic's to disprove. Besides, evolution, like other theories of origins, is not falsifiable in the scientific sense.

Three cosmic watchers come upon a planet full of life. They begin to ponder it's origins.
'Obviously, some distant alien planted it here,' says one.
'No', says the other, 'It because of random, unknown processes.'
'Outrageous!' exclaimed the third, 'A supreme being hath done this.'

A scientifically minded person must study the evidence, to see where it leads. Mere assertions and dogmatic beliefs are not part of scientific inquiry.

If you perform experiments to validate a theory, that provides evidence for it. If I do a test, and drop rocks off a bridge, to test the theory that 'sometimes, a dropped rock will go up, not down.' My test can only confirm the theory that rocks go down when dropped. I do not disprove the other theory.

In the same way, I can breed and observe the progeny of multiple generations. They ALWAYS produce the same as the parent, genetically. How can I conclude that living things can change, genetically, based on observable science? I cannot disprove the theory that they can, but all experimentation and observable reality says they do not. Living things are limited by their DNA, and can only vary with the existing variability in the parent organism.

If you have evidence that proves otherwise, please produce it. It would give credence to the theory. The burden of proof is on you, the claimant, not on the skeptic who doubts your theory.

Dogmatic assertions and religious hysteria have no place in a scientific inquiry such as this. You must provide scientific evidence, if you expect empirical validation. Otherwise, all you have is untested beliefs.. philosophical opinions with no empirical evidence.

 

Posts like this make me fear for the future of scientific inquiry. Assertions and mandates pass for empiricism, and any questioning of the status quo is met with cries,'Heresy!! Kill the infidel!'

So, you wish to mandate belief in this theory of origins, and forbid others as myths and conspiracy theories, when you have no evidence that your theory is possible.
You have NEVER provided evidence for this theory. But merely asserted it, or used other logical fallacies.
Based only on your belief, you want to shut down any inquiry or examination of alleged scientific claims of some theory.
It is not a waste of time. It is just too frustrating for you to find evidence for what you believe to be 'proven, without a doubt'. But you are mistaken. You have been indoctrinated into this philosophical construct, as has almost everyone in modern education. A few critically minded, skeptical people have seen the holes in this theory, and point them out. It is a refusal to follow the scientific method, and blind loyalty to an ideology that prevents people from seeing the flaws.

 

10 pages.. over 90 posts. Still no evidence presented. Lynn made the best attempt, with the canid post, though no application or conclusion could be made. All others have been assertions and off topic demands.

So does this mean you have no empirical evidence for what you believe? You can only make strawmen or point to squirrels? If this theory is so plainly obvious, why is there no evidence for it?

 

But evolution IS of the "either A or B" type. When it comes to evolution, deniers rarely offer an alternative. While some do try to argue from the standpoint of Creationism or bogus science like irreducible complexity, most just try to avoid their fundamentalist religious views and go with YOU'RE WRONG -YOUR SCIENCE IS WRONG.

In any case, the current concepts of TOE were arrived at using the Scientific Method. The current concepts of TOE were developed, refined and confirmed over the course of a Century by people in many different fields of science using the Scientific Method.

 

I agree with your last sentence. However, are you suggesting that when it comes to the question of the existence of humans on this earth, that your answer is "I don't know."? That indicates that you have not done very much in terms of a "fundamental quest for knowledge and understanding."

 

The "challenge of this thread" is just a rehash of the old “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,”. All these kinds of questions have been answered repeatedly by people with education and training in the relevant fields of study.

Lay people who accept TOE do not have to be able to answer those kinds of questions, we rely on the knowledge of the people who have received the education and training in the relevant fields of study.

Just like you rely on the knowledge of the people who have received the education and training when you need a kidney transplant or fly across the country in a 747.

So, I'll ask again, why is it that opponents of evolution often refuse to admit that their main objection to evolution is based entirely on their fundamentalist religious beliefs? That's not a derail. It goes directly to the bogus questions posed in the OP. I know you didn't post those questions, but it sure seems that you support them. The question is why. A question you apparently don't want to answer.

 

I already told you you're not going to get detailed evidence of a complex set of scientific theories on a casual discussion board. If you're really interested, try this as a starting point; http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

I reject your assertion that this theory and it's supporting evidence is too complicated to understand. It is not. It is a very simple concept, and should have very simple proofs and evidence.
We don't need an exhaustive treatise on the subject, just list any evidence that this phenomenon can even happen, much less that it did.

 

you've been given the supporting evidence for evolution. Your argument thus far against this evidence is "nuh uh". I provided you a peer reviewed scientific paper supporting evolution. You hand waived this away and claimed nobody has presented any evidence in support of evolution.

You are making a positive assertion that evolution is false. You bear the burden of proof here.

 

you understand people can actually go back and read previous posts in this thread right? You understand I have given you a peer reviewed paper supporting evolution, and that everyone reading this thread has seen that right? You understand stating no evidence has been presented is an easily demonstrated lie don't you?

 

Maybe your misunderstanding of evolution is what makes you feel that a phenomenon evidence shows has taken longer than all of human existence to come about can be duplicated by humanity. I've bred fruit flies under evolutionary conditions. Rather than natural selection, however, in this 90s high school experiment, we selected the red-eyed ones by hand. It was supposed to simulate the London moths and phenotype eradication.

 

Why do you insist on making personal judgements about people you don't know? Why not take at face value the questions of the OP, and engage in honest debate? Why should everyone else believe your conspiracy theory about stranger's secret motivations?