Fallacies of Evolution

You do not seem to be able to differentiate between assertions and evidence. You have ONLY posted assertions, with an occasional irrelevant link. You have presented no arguments and no evidence.

Show me. Post ONE evidence for this theory. You have not posted any.

 

Just because an underlying concept is (or appears) simple doesn’t mean the detailed explanation of how it works is. Regardless, the link I directed you to presents things in a simple fashion at the outset so if you believe that is all that is necessary, it should be sufficient for you.

 

You seem to not understand that I provided you a peer reviewed scientific paper supporting evolution.

You understand stating no evidence has been presented is an easily demonstrated lie don't you?

You understand stating no evidence has been presented is an easily demonstrated lie don't you?

 

Unfortunately, Humans did not document every breeding pair of canines that marked that generation to produce offspring that did not look like their maternal line in previous generations. We assume it was deliberate when in truth most breeds evolved from us moving them to different continents where climate and their diet directly affected changes in appearances with those canines. So in truth, Humans did not engage in deliberate, intelligent, purposeful manipulation of canines throughout most of its history.

The two processes are NOT very different at all. The environment must be able to support the living biota and we could not define that biodiversity if they never existed. Many of the dog breeds we define today would never have existed without the Human environment that enables them to live. There is no need for an intelligent guiding hand since life is basically a web where for life to exist all the pieces must fit together in order to exist. The term random and or deliberate +still has boundaries of what it can change and still remain viable to produce the next generation.

 

There is posted evidence throughout this thread which you completely ignore in favor of repeating a request for more data to ignore...You sir are a troll and extremely irritating in your purposeful ignorance. The evidence presented thus far would convince even a fourth grade student and I am left to assume you cannot compete with said child in intellect.

 

This is just an example of variability, or micro evolution. You are not changing the genetic structure, or adding traits. You are actually reducing variability by limiting the traits to the ones you select.

This does not provide evidence for the ToE.

And instead of worrying about someone else's understanding, why not just make your points without personal commentary?

 

Why do you keep repeating this false narrative? You think this justifies your ad hominem?

 

No not maybe at the biological level, but the appearances of canines have many different physical traits that we determine as breeds. The truth is at the biological level, the genes that determine our species only consist of a handful of genes while the majority of genes consist of the micro biota that lives within us.

 

So you would rather believe in your religious version that a GOD just created every creature from scratch into existence?

 

I am not arguing comparative religion. This is a scientific thread, requesting scientific evidence for a particular theory.
Why is religion constantly brought up by evolutionists? Is it because they know that evolution is inherently religious?

 

I'm not worried. What's misunderstood is that there isn't a separation between 'microevolution' and the theory of evolution. The former is a fundamental part of the theory. Indeed we can experiment with 'adding' traits through genetic mutations just by introducing radiation to our flies. It's not an experiment I've done personally. I understand that the mutations in such an experiment have proven to be heritable. For darwinian evolution, you'd only need to separate the distinct populations you've made.

That's your challenge. Please explain what mechanism prevents genetic change as observable in such an experiment. Explain why you conclude that the evidence of heredity between mammals, for instance, is not valid evidence of common ancestry in the way that DNA is useful in indicating as much. To simplify that, how is it that we can tell you are the product of your parents, but the same evidence that shows that you are the product of primordial mammals is not valid?

 

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

Louis Pasteur performed an experiment debunking the popular theory of 'spontaneous generation'. He was not tasked with replacing it with something more plausible, but was only concerned with the SCIENCE of the theory.

That is how science works. It is not a filter from which to view philosophical opinions, or religious beliefs. it merely discovers facts, & applies it to real world situations.
The problem is when pseudo science takes precedence over the scientific method, & beliefs or political agendas are promoted as 'scientific proof!' when none exist. That is a disservice to real science, but it is the world we live in today.

 

I did not read the link. I will only reference a link if it is directly connected to a point you are making, or are using it as a proof. Posting a link is not an argument, or evidence. It is like saying, 'read a book', presuming superior intellect & demeaning the opponent. It is not an honest debate, but a mere tactic of ad hominem. If you don't understand the issue enough to explain it, even with a quote from a link or some sourced evidence, you should not be debating this topic. You should educate yourself, first, so you can.

 

Here is a repost from another thread, regarding canidae. I have updated it some with new commentary.
Dogs are common human companions. We have domesticated & bred them for centuries. Here are some interesting facts & studies about dogs, & their genetic base.

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/16/8/990.full

This is a study by evolutionists, with the assumptions of evolution dispersed throughout. They even quote Darwin. I'll try to define the problem as they present it.

1. All of the variety of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs old.
2. Fact: Selection acts on EXISTING variability. It is not created on the fly, & is assumed to take thousands or millions of years to come about.
3. ALL of this variability EXISTED in the ancestral wolf/parent.
4. the recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such variety.

You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA:

As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line. The canid ancestor preceded the wolf, the dog, & the coyote, as well as other canid not listed. I have seen them in other genetic studies. But all this does is PROVE descendancy, and shows the variability to be INHERENT in the genes. It was not created on the fly, or mutated over millions of years. So postulating evolution as an explanation of the canid species is flawed. It did not happen as the ToE suggested, & there is still no mechanism for 'creating' variability. And the assumption of genome additions or subtractions are absurd. That cannot happen at all, yet it is assumed as fact. It is a myth, based on conjecture, flawed assumptions, & faulty science. It is a RELIGIOUS opinion, nothing more. It is a lame attempt to tack a 'science' label on a speculative, philosophical opinion of naturalistic origins.

Nothing in the canidae family demonstrates evolution. all you have is variability WITHIN the family, branching out to dead ends or current canids. There is NO indication they branched into another genetic type or evolved into horses, owls, or apes, or anything. They are canids, have always been canids, & will no doubt be canids in the future.

Any speculation that they were once another genetic type, or were the ancestors of something else are merely that: Speculation. There is no evidence to support this theory, only cutesy drawings with imaginary scenarios.

This is evidence. It is not evidence for evolution, imo, but it is a study by scientists about the genetic line of canids, which were mapped & summarized in this study. I have shown how it does NOT support the ToE, but just the opposite. Canids have stayed canids, even if they varied slightly from the parent stock. Variability was lost, as the family branches extended. This is factual reality. You cannot show from this study any conclusion of structural genetic changes.

 

That alone is a false statement. Some breeds go back to 2000 BC. So why should anyone bother reading further?

 

you are disputing the study.. read the parameters, before making a 'gotcha!' statement..

Context. This was about the study they made, with the breeds they selected. they did qualify the statement with 'probably'.

 

So, I have some questons for you.

1. Based upon the evidence, do you accept that deep time has been demonstrated independently in several branches of science such that denying it would be irrational?
2. Do you accept that there is a universal scientific method such that 'historical' and 'observational' science are redundant terms?
3. Do you understand what a scientific theory is and that falsification is a cornerstone of the scientific method?
4. Do you understand that Evolution is a fact and the Theory of Evolution is our best explanation of the facts (the only explanation that fits the current data)?
5. Do you understand that Evolution happens to existing populations, not individuals and that it attempts to answer the question of the origin of the observable diversity of species, it does not attempt to answer the question of the origins of life itself?

 

If you believed in the scientific method, then you would never call a skeptic a "denier". The scientific method, and a scientific mind, will recognize that people never have full understanding even when we think we do, and the inevitability of current theories being displaced is shown throughout history. By using the term "denier", you imply the Final Truth is known. Evolution is far from proven, there are many questions unanswered.

The scientific method is a method, it is a process to follow in order to insure a type of personal and peer review. Following it does not mean you automatically reach the truth, people still end up going down a dead end.

 

I did not state that I do not have an opinion, I wrote that "a person" can reject all proposed hypotheses - in such a case, the person can have a deep understanding of all of the proposed hypotheses yet still say "I don't know". Since my part in this thread sideline is related to the application of the scientific method, my personal opinion on evolution was not relevant.

 

My understanding of evolution is not the point. If the supporters of evolution want to end this debate for good, then do an experiment to prove beyond any doubt that evolution is the Truth. If it takes 30 years, so what? Evolutionists have argued for over 100 years, and the issue is still not resolved. Time to stop talking, time to do a conclusive proof. If it cannot be done, then that says something about the maturity of the theory of evolution.

Your experiment does not count because you did not let natural selection act, you applied your own assumptions about natural selection and then acted upon the population. What I suggest is to allow a manipulation of the environment, and let the evolutionary process work on its own.

 

Humans most certainly bred canines for specific characteristics. You mention people "moving them to different continents" and that the change in environment resulted in changes in canines.

Think about your comment. The canines did not moved to those continents on their own, they were moved by people who used those canines in beneficial ways. The deliberate breeding had already begun, certain canines had been selected and breed for specific traits, then the people took the canines with them when they moved. Your post actually affirms my argument.

 

You completely misunderstand the whole premise. People that accept the Theory of Evolution (soon to be the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis) do so on the basis that it is the best current explanation we have for Evolution; there simply is no other game in town. Saying that it needs to be proven is moving the goalposts, a fallacy because science never actually proves a theory however, the evidence for the current Theory of Evolution is such that it would be irrational to say that it is not the closest approximation to the truth that we have.

It sounds to me like you assume that science can only be observation in the present moment, that is also a fallacy. Laboratory experiments like the one described are a piece in a body of evidence that includes observations of the past that all points towards the theory. I will add only one further thing, falsifying the current Theory of Evolution does not default to God did it.

 

Great way to look at it!

 

Would you want a doctor that ignored germ theory for the four humors? Would you hire a chemist that thought that the only elements were Earth, Air, Fire and Water? Would you want a physicist who didn't believe in Relativity and Quantum Physics to work on a nuclear power plant?

Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It is the ONLY theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth. There is nothing even close. As for having no evidence for evolution, there is over 100 years of it. My first post on this thread has a link to the books that show this proof.