Fallacies of Evolution

Until you can agree to my stipulation any discussion cannot be considered debate.

 

Yeah, well that ain't how I roll, so deal.

Guess no one should be surprised that an evolutionist atheist is sanguine about building an argument on a false premise.

Not really, no.

And of course I never said or implied otherwise.

Then it divorces itself from any understanding of human nature, which means it has nothing intelligent to say about human origins.

who the hell cares

Yeah, well I ain't talkin' to them, I'm talkin' to you; and clearly whatever you do understand, isn't worth understanding.

 

you understand that I gave you a peer reviewed paper on evolution right? and you keep hand waiving it away and claiming nobody gave you any evidence. You understand this is a provable lie right?

"nuh uh" isn't an argument.

Care to address the research?

 

You got that right..



So you reject the arguments in the OP, & won't debate along the lines requested, but instead make your demands on how you will 'debate' this issue. But you don't really list any demands, or 'stipulations', so how is this a debate? This is how it should go:

• I provide a premise.
• You rebut that with facts or evidence.
• I answer your rebuttal with more facts & evidence.

But you don't want that. You want me to 'kneel before Zod!' with some kind of irrational redefining of what evidence is, & lame deflections. Why am i not surprised? This is all you ever offer when i've 'debated' you. You have not been an honest debater, but use distortion, deflections, & insults for your 'logic'. I do not see any future in our discussions, as this is all you have ever given me.

 

You can take any species and compare it to another one and find a similar chromosome banding pattern. Now if you would explain it by telling us what is the function of that particular chromosome that is shared between species is maybe people would be able to understand it.

 

In any discussion, argument or debate it is always important to ascertain the motivations of the parties involved.

This isn't my first discussion with TOE deniers. Invariably, there are two types of deniers:

• Those who openly admit their fundamentalist religious beliefs and argue against TOE from the standpoint of the truth of Genesis. They assert things like the Grand Canyon being evidence for the great flood, etc. I disagree with these people, but I respect them for their honesty.
• Those who feebly try to make sciency sounding arguments. They post silly lists of questions that science cannot answer, even though science has answered them over an over. They state that there is raging disagreement in the scientific community, when there isn't. They ignore the overwhelming evidence supporting TOE.

What they have in common is a fundamentalist religious belief in the truth of the biblical account in Genesis. The former openly admit it. The latter never address it, even when asked specifically.

Again...
If your theism is a Fundamentalist belief that the biblical account in Genesis is true, then yes 'Your theism is blinding you to the evidence of evolution!' If a person fervently believes in Genesis, that person must fervently deny TOE.

Let's see if I'm right.
USFAN, do you believe that the biblical account in Genesis is true?

 

I am getting tired of repeating myself to irrational, unscientific hecklers, who only want to deflect & distract from the topic. If you do not want to participate in a scientific discussion about this subject, don't. But you don't have to thread (*)(*)(*)(*) on the topic to ruin it for everyone else. So if i ignore your continued heckling, or do not respond, that is why. I welcome a civil, SCIENTIFIC discussion on this topic, & request that off topic deflections, personal attacks, & logical fallacies be taken somewhere else, where they are more appropriate.

 

..sigh..
I don't demand you tell me all of your philosophical beliefs.. that is irrelevant to the discussion. I have answered your questions about my personal beliefs about origins, which you dismissed. You are merely heckling the thread with off topic demands that are irrelevant to the debate. If you have nothing topical to contribute, why keep thread (*)(*)(*)(*)ting on this one? Why must i bow to your demands & be bullied into making a false admission, just so you can gloat? Seriously? This is 'debate' to you? I'm tired of your irrational, unscientific banter & childish demands. Either post something topical or shut up. You are merely thread (*)(*)(*)(*)ting & heckling to attempt to ruin any civil discussion on this subject.

 

you do not want a discussion, scientific or otherwise. If you did, you would address the evidence that has been provided to you. Like the peer reviewed paper I provided, which you hand waived away.

"nuh uh" isn't an argument. Try addressing the evidence presented, with evidence of your own. Not baseless denials with no supporting documentation, evidence, or peer reviewed empirical data.

 

I am trying to find out what kind of demonstration of evolution could satisfy all requirements of Battle3 or usfan. As far as I can tell, such a demonstration must not include any kind of "historical evidence". This includes:

- The fossil record to reconstruct what life forms populated earth at what time
- A comparison of genetic material between life forms to see whether and how they're related
- Vestiges and other examples of "strange engineering decisions" that make sense under the assumption of common descent

Furthermore, all changes observed by humans in both microorganisms and multicellular lifeforms are at this time too small to make it above your macroevolution threshold.
If I misunderstood your requirements, please correct me.

Since the theory of evolution predicts that large changes are the result of an accumulation of many small changes over a large number of generations, direct observation takes more time than we have. One approach to solve this issue would be to manipulate time itself in some way. This is not really a biology related solution and probably very hard to do in practice. Alternatively, a reduction in generation time by a large factor would be very useful. Something like 3 orders of magnitude or more for microorganisms and 6 orders of magnitude for complex multicellular organisms might be a good goal. I have no idea how biochemical processes could be sped up by such a large amount.

That's about all I can come up with right now. Maybe someone else has a better idea? It's important to note here that the direct manipulation of genetic material is of no use to address this issue. Even if someone is able to create a completely different new species in the lab using some form of genetic engineering, that achievement would be unrelated to the theory of evolution.

I found this review of what's actually going on in experimental evolution lately, if anyone is interested. It's not quite as spectacular as my unrealistic suggestions.
http://evolution.unibas.ch/ebert/publications/papers/01_papers/2012_Kawecki_TREE_ExpEvo.pdf

 

No it is not. but maybe, the ToE is part of a marxist/darwinist agenda of indoctrination. You want to provide evidence that the ToE is a credible scientific theory? Like some actual evidence? Nobody has provided anything up to now, so why should you be any different?

22 pages of hysterical attacks, logical fallacies, irrational demands, & deflections, and not ONE bit of empirical evidence offered to support this alleged 'theory' of origins. I find that incredible. I know there isn't much for evolution, but i thought at least someone would want to tackle a scientific discussion..

 

At thread The Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything

1. Nov 26 2015, 07:51 AM #26
usfan
>snip<
Life is a tiny speck in a vast universe. It is unexplainable, & impossible to replicate by any natural means. the mere existence of life provides evidence for a supernatural explanation of the universe, not a naturalistic one.

 

I haven't rejected any evidence presented. There has been nothing presented!

If you want to bring up the fossil record, vestigial organs, or any arguments for evolution, go for it! That is what i was expecting, on starting this thread, but am surprised that i haven't gotten even that.. for 22 pages & counting.

You can hide behind time, but that merely shows the assumptions of your 'theory'. You don't really observe it, but you assume it to be happening. You assume 'accumulation' of changes adding up to big ones, but we can't observe it, or explain how it overcomes the genetic hurdles within each organism.

You can follow the diversity in some organisms, such as the canids mentioned earlier. The mtDNA provides a road map of descendancy for each of the branches of this tree. They are obviously all related, & since many, if not all, of them can interbreed, you have the same genetic makeup. Any 'speciation' is arbitrary, & is based on morphological differences, not genetic ones.

IF you could manipulate the genes & force 'new' species, or vertical changes in the genome, i would call that evidence. I would not quibble that it is done in a lab, as just showing it to be possible would be a breakthrough. But this has not been done... not for lack of trying, as they have been trying to do this for over 100 years. Oh, you can replace a 'similar' gene with one that is close, to get a glowing cat, or some other anomaly, but this is not a change in the genetic structure, or a proof of macro evolution.

 

you understand that this is a proven lie right? I've quoted the same peer reviewed paper st least 5 times now and you keep hand waiting it away.

"Nuh uh" isn't an argument.

 

The premise is that a person with a fundamentalist religious belief in Genesis cannot accept TOE. You have a fundamentalist religious belief in Genesis. Care to deny it?

Sure you did. Remember this exchange:

You implied that, since Einstein believed in god, that science allows the concept of the supernatural.
Einstein didn't and science doesn't.

You also ignored this. Einsteins own words, in a letter he wrote, in his own handwriting...

I'll add that to your long list of non-responses.

Everyone who understands why anyGodDitIt must be excluded from any scientific analysis. Some people would be OK with allowing religious beliefs into science as long as it was only their religious beliefs.

Well, you were the one making false statements about how science works. I knew you wouldn't take my word for correcting you. That's why I showed you that quote from Berkeley so you could see for yourself that you were making false statements about how science works.

In all honesty, I knew you would dismiss their views also. That's what many fundamentalist religious people do when the very core of their faith is challenged - ignore science, deny science.

Would you like to finally admit that you believe the Genesis account for the existence of humans on this earth?

 

Except all the evidence that has been presented and you've rejected, lol

 

The point is that, as your responses to my questions showed, you will never accept that the science exists by any standard. If that was ever going to be a possibility then you would not have evaded my questions. The point of them was to show if it was even worth doing a card trick in front of the dog and,a sit always turns out, it wasn't.

 

That is why I asked usfan about 'deep time', 'historical science', 'observational science' etc and that is why usfan evaded the questions.

 

Do you accept that the fossil record and vestigial organs are scientific evidence? How about ERVs?

 

Everyone in this thread has attempted to "Do That" and all data which has been vetted and verified is dismissed by yourself as tainted by the hand of ZOD and unacceptable regardless of the FACT it is established as reality by thousands of individuals across the globe. For this reason did I stipulate the terms which you so blatantly and pathetically ignore as non existent.

All I can say is...Nevermind....I offered.

 

Since it was brought up, i'll address it.

Don't vestigial organs prove evolution?

We better define them, first.

From Wiki:
"Charles Darwin was familiar with the concept of vestigial structures, though the term for them did not yet exist. He listed a number of them in The Descent of Man, including the muscles of the ear, wisdom teeth, the appendix, the tail bone, body hair, and the semilunar fold in the corner of the eye. Darwin also noted, in On the Origin of Species, that a vestigial structure could be useless for its primary function, but still retain secondary anatomical roles: "An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.... [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object."

They are basically organs or other parts that don't have an apparent use, that are assumed to be 'vestigial' remnants of evolution. It is a logical assumption, that if evolution were true, there would be 'leftover' remnants from a previous incarnation.

Robert Wiedersheim, in his book 'The Structure of Man' (1887), claimed there were 87 vestigial structures, which indicated evolution. By the 1920s, Zoologist Horatio Newman quoted Wiedersheim as saying there were 'no less than 180' vestigial structures.

Now, had we stopped there, & just stamped the 'settled science' decree on it, we'd still be living in the turn of the last century, medically & scientifically. But these declarations were not sufficient to truth seeking scientists, who challenged the pop views of the time.

Here is what an evolutionist said about vestigial functions in 1980:

"The 'vestigial organ' argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist (in this case a certain function), since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically. The best we can do is to state that despite diligent effort, no function was discovered for a given organ. However it may be that some future investigator will the discover the function. Consequently, the vestigial organ argument has as a premise, either a statement of ignorance (I couldn't identify the function), or a scientifically invalid claim (it does not have a function). Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational or experimental science.

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution." source

Many of the structures once thought 'vestigial' in the past, have since been discovered to have a very real & significant purpose.

" ..Jeffrey Laitman, director of anatomy and functional morphology at New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and president-elect of the American Association of Anatomists.

History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman said.

"People say, You can remove it and still live. But you have to be careful with that logic," he said. "You could remove your left leg and still live. But whenever a body part is moved or changed, there's a price to pay." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs_2.html

Now, even the more radical proponents of evolution do not pitch the 'vestigial organ!' argument. It is not a valid argument for evolution, because it is not a valid argument for anything. The more we study anatomy, the less evidence there even is for 'vestigial organs'. Everything has a function or purpose, even if we do not understand it. It is, as Scadding said, an 'argument from ignorance'. 'We don't know what it is, so it must be leftover from evolution!' But this is not only flawed reasoning, but it is flawed science, that experimentation & education has corrected, for the most part. Unfortunately, many people still cling to this refuted argument, with its flawed science. They still believe that vestigiality proves evolution. The only 'proofs' and 'arguments' for evolution are leftover from early last century, & most, have been left behind in the dustbin of scientific discovery.

IMO, evolution will join this 'fact' as more is discovered from genetics. Not only is the basic premise of evolution untestable, it is impossible, scientifically, & collides with everything we know about genetics. The DNA is a narrow road, with high walls, & organisms can only reproduce along the parameters of their existing variability. They do not jump over the wall & become something else, nor do they create new genetic information for complex traits. They vary WITHIN their genetic parameters, only. That is observable, repeatable science, & has not been refuted.

 

I agree with Mr. Scadding to some extent. He also writes the following in the paper you quoted.

While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument given above asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution.

I guess I'll agree with that for the sake of brevity. There are far more interesting things to discuss in your post, usfan.

Yes, vestigial (or the less special homologous) organs don't prove evolution. The logic here, and in science in general, goes like this. If the theory of evolution is true, then we expect to see homologous organs. In that case, seeing homologous organs is called evidence. On the other hand, not seeing homologous organs would mean that the theory of evolution is falsified. As it turns out, homologous organs exist in abundance. It is very important to realize at this point that this does not mean that the theory of evolution has now been shown to be true. Why? There could be all sorts of other reasons for homologies to exist. For example, let's say that a higher being created life. Like any good engineer, that being probably reused parts that have already been shown to work well. The end result: Homologous organs.

You must know something that I don't. While my ignorance doesn't surprise me anymore, in this case, it's amazing! If your claim is true, the theory of evolution is completely falsified. Can you point me to your source for your claim that DNA is a narrow road with high walls that makes it impossible to create new genetic information? I'm most interested in the actual mechanism that prevents this. A claim that only variation within certain genetic parameters has been observed is not good enough here. Why? I would have to quote the bold part of your previous post.

Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational or experimental science.

 

Scadding's paper which claims that vestigial organs do not provide scientific evidence for evolution was published in a minor, eclectic journal and refuted soon after it initially came out.

 

Since you didn't name the author of your quote, I followed the link. There I saw it was authored by:

S.R. Scadding
Departuent of Zoology
Uni-versity of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Received August 14, i980; March 9, 1981
​

Following up a little more I found this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/scadding.html​

Vestigial organs and structures provide strong evidence for descent with modification. (See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (2.1): Anatomical vestiges.) As such, creationists frequently have used their bag of tricks in attempts to discredit the evolutionary evidence that vestiges provide. Quote-mining is a classic creationist technique where the views of some "authority" are misrepresented to make it sound as if they meant something they did not intend. In other instances, creationists simply cite people who were wrong and ignore the counter citations that demonstrate the error. One such example is the use of a 1981 paper written by developmental biologist, Steve Scadding, and published in the journal, Evolutionary Theory. In that paper, Scadding argued that vestigial organs offered no evidence for evolution other than the evidence they already provide as examples of homology.

An Irregular Journal:

Before we turn to the paper itself, we must make a note about the journal that published it. The irregular journal, Evolutionary Theory (more recently known as Evolutionary Theory and Review) was not your typical scientific journal. It specialized in presenting eclectic and unorthodox papers dealing with the evolutionary half of biology. Its peer review was not as stringent as other journals...

The fact that Scadding (1981) appeared in such a journal definitely raises questions about any argument using it as the lone reference. This is not to say that Scadding was wrong because he published in Evolutionary Theory, but it does explain why it was published with its major flaws. It also explains why Scadding (1981) appears to be the only published scientific paper that creationists have found that questions in toto whether vestigial structuress are special evidence for evolution.

Scadding's Errors Were Corrected:

Scadding (1981) does not exist in a vacuum. Evolutionary Theory published a reply to it by Bruce Naylor the next year and a subsequent reply to Naylor by Scadding. If creationist scholarship was not already questionable enough, the failure to note that a subsequent paper raised objections demonstrates the poverty of their position. If they were not aware of Naylor's response, they are guilty of poor scholarship. On the other hand, if they were aware of it, then they are guilty of misrepresentation.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, creationists who use Scadding (1981) to support their contention that vestigial organs are not evidence for evolution are using a paper published in a minor, eclectic journal that was refuted soon after it initially came out. They cite someone who was wrong as "proof" that they are right. As such, it is another example of poor scholarship performed for the sake of pseudoscience.​

In conclusion, creationists who use Scadding ... are using a paper published in a minor, eclectic journal that was refuted ... They cite someone who was wrong as "proof" that they are right. .. it is another example of poor scholarship performed for the sake of pseudoscience.


Did you really think no one would check up on the nonsense you post?