Fallacies of Evolution

Try it. Very few here have presented any science. I am not afraid of the truth, but embrace it, regardless how uncomfortable it might be to my dainty beliefs.

 

LOL. You guys just cannot help but to indulge in the personal when the kind of evidence he asks for is something non existent. LOL There is nothing unreasonable in his request. Hard science would have no trouble providing it. Einstein had to wait for an eclipse to provide evidence for his theory. You guys have nothing comparable. So it remains just an assertion, and then biologists agree on a consensus. And they better agree or their academic career is over. Ask Sheldrake.

 

Get back to us when you guys find any "hard science" to use in your arguments.

Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist.

 

Yeah, I get it. That way evolutionists get to claim that any change in a species, however trivial, is evidence of macroevolution.

A permanent transition from prokaryote to eukaryote, or from the latter to a multi-cellular, cell differentiated organism. That would at least evidence the possibility of macroevolution, though of course it wouldn't prove eukaryotes were the ancestors of primates; and if you could accomplish the latter, you'd be something less than a billionth of a percent of the way towards convincing me other primates were the ancestors of Homo Sapiens.

 

No, evolutionists do not claim any change in a species is macro-evolution.

This is much more than just looking for speciation, you are asking for the evolution into another Domain. A domain is the highest level of classification and there are only three domains: Eukaryota, Archae, and Bacteria. Within Eukaryota we see Kingdoms: Animals, Fungus, Plants, and small multi-celled organisms.

Here are the layers of classification:
Domain (e.g. Bacteria, and Eukaryotes), Kingdom (e.g. Animal, Plant, Fungus), Phylum (Animals with spinal chords), Class (e.g. Mammal or reptiles), Order (e.g. Carnivorous Mammals), Family (e.g. Canines), Genus (e.g. Foxes), and Species (e.g. red fox, humans).

The evolution into a new Domain would be the highest level of evolution possible and it would be unreasonable for you to expect it in just a few years. Also even you said this wouldn't convince you of evolution and would only convince you to a billionth of a percent which is basically 0%. So what would convince you?

 

The main topic of this thread is "Fallacies of Evolution" and is what I wanted to mainly address. Discussing the main topic can't be a deflection because its literally the topic of the thread. Do you understand how threads work?

Why are you including online posts by random people as fallacies of evolution? How do you know these people represent evolution? Its the scientists that represent evolution not people on the internet.

Look at your post again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=490664&page=76&p=1067128154#post1067128154

Look at the quotes you highlighted as claims that since everybody believes evolution that means evolution is true:

"the huge body of evidence from the fossil record, genetic studies and its DNA evidence its more than sufficient to demonstrate the supremacy of Biological Evolution and far to much evidence to mention in this thread"
This is only a claim that evolution has lots of evolution not that its true because everybody believes it.

"You will reject any and all evidence for evolution because it conflicts with your fundamental religious beliefs. You know, I know it,m most people here know it."
This is only a claim that evolution is true because of its evidence and that most people here know it has this evidence. It was never claimed that evolution is true because everybody believes it.

"scientists have shown, without a doubt, that organisms have evolved from simpler organisms. It is a done deal."
This claims that scientists have shown that evolution happened not that evolution is true because everybody believes it.

The above posts, are only from people from the internet and don't represent evolution, and so can't be fallacies of evolution. Also they only claim evolution is true because of the overwhelming evidence, not that evolution is true because everybody believes it.

You are the one claiming the fallacies of evolution, so the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to present evidence, when I have already discredited you by showing that you can't even show a single quote from anybody supporting evolution is making the argument that its true because everybody believes it.

Why are you suddenly talking about horses and dogs? Are you claiming that there are no barriers to reproduction either biological, social, or geographical that prevent some canines from reproducing with other canines? Where is the evidence for this?

I think that reproductive isolation doesn't necessarily mean two animals are very different physically or visa versa. Animals that are almost the same can become reproductively isolated if there is a chromosome number change that prevents it. What does this have to do with speciation? Speciation depends on how we define a species and there are a lot out there.

 

And this is handwaiving and stating "nuh uh". You presented no evidence to contradict the study that was cited.

 

You have not rebutted any of my points, but only deflected from the real issue. I have listed some fallacies. You can add to them, or you can show that there are arguments FOR evolution that are NOT fallacies. You have not done that, nor has anyone else, so my premise stands, unrefuted.

I am talking about dogs & horses because they are the topic.. universal common descent, remember?

 

You claimed in the OP that there were fallacies of evolution but it finally turns out this was just a bunch of lies. You have not been able to support your claims by a single quote by anyone, much less show it is an official position of evolution. I won't show you a single evidence for evolution if you don't show me where your accusations are coming from, because if you don't be intellectually honest, what is the point showing you evidence at all, I will be wasting my breath on someone who isn't interested in an honest rational discussion. Makes me think of a certain verse:

Matthew 7
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Its obvious you have never heard an evolutionist say evolution it true because everyone believes it.

So where on earth did you hear this so-called fallacy?
Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi

 

This is absurd. I have listed lots of quotes, & prima facie evidence for the obvious truth that the fallacies i listed are regularly used to promote & defend the ToE, by many people (perhaps everyone?).. posters, .edu sites, textbooks, just about anyone who pitches the ToE. How do they NOT use the fallacies, since they don't have any scientific evidence? You merely brush off my replies, & repeat the same accusations, ignoring my points. You are proving yourself to be another dishonest debater, who uses lies, propaganda, & fallacies to promote your cause, rather than science & evidence. If this is all you have, i will begin to ignore your posts, as i have had to do with others. I'm sure this means nothing to you, & it also means nothing to me. I am willing to engage in an honest debate on the topic, but have no desire to bicker with propagandists or True Believers of a religion.

I have personally heard ALL of the fallacies in the OP used in this debate. If you poll others who have engaged in this debate, i would expect them to concur. I have shown with quotes & links that they are used by promoters of common descent. So i can only conclude you are deflecting from the topic, to try to avoid it. You have no evidence, yourself, & have no arguments, or cannot understand the issue, so you deflect with fallacies, lies, & distortions. That does not bother me, at all. It only confirms to me the COMPLETE LACK of real evidence you have for this lame religious belief, that you defend with such jihadist zeal.

How about it? Want to try using some science to defend your beliefs? Want to take a walk on the wild side, & use logic & the scientific method, instead of leftist deflections & ad hominem? I don't expect you to, because i don't believe you are a scientifically minded person. Many here have exposed themselves as True Believers, with no concept of the science involved. They are merely dupes to indoctrination. These are not free thinkers, with any skepticism or concept of scientific methodology, but are religious bigots, pitching their beliefs with anger & intolerance.

You avoid science, i think, because you know i will mop the floor with you. That is the main reason nobody wants to present anything evidentiary in this thread. I call for it all the time. I challenge the opposition to present science & facts to support their beliefs. But all i get is fallacies. Why are you afraid to address the science? If it is so 'obviously true', why can no one present any evidence? Why are the hecklers in the peanut gallery content to throw poo, leap around, & screech from the sidelines, contributing NOTHING of substance to this debate? Are there ANY scientifically minded people on this forum? I know there are True Believers in a quaint 19th century religion, but is there anyone who can debate the science?

 

What stands "unrefuted" is the ToE.

 

That is an utter lie. I went through each of your examples and showed how each one was an assertion that evolution is true because of its evidence, not that its true because everybody believes it. You misrepresented their statements and now are trying to claim I never responded to you about them when I literally did today.

I will repost how I responded to each of your quotes:
"the huge body of evidence from the fossil record, genetic studies and its DNA evidence its more than sufficient to demonstrate the supremacy of Biological Evolution and far to much evidence to mention in this thread"
This is only a claim that evolution has lots of evolution not that its true because everybody believes it.

"You will reject any and all evidence for evolution because it conflicts with your fundamental religious beliefs. You know, I know it,m most people here know it."
This is only a claim that evolution is true because of its evidence and that most people here know it has this evidence. It was never claimed that evolution is true because everybody believes it.

"scientists have shown, without a doubt, that organisms have evolved from simpler organisms. It is a done deal."
This claims that scientists have shown that evolution happened not that evolution is true because everybody believes it.

The above posts, are only from people from the internet and don't represent evolution, and so can't be fallacies of evolution. Also they only claim evolution is true because of the overwhelming evidence, not that evolution is true because everybody believes it.

You have not given me a single quote to confirm this. The reason I am pushing you for your sources is because I had never heard any of these so-called "fallacies" in my life and have been debating about evolution from time to time for years as a creationist and later as an evolutionist.

I will address each of your fallacies:

They are the same thing just a different quantity because of a difference in time. If a few changes happen every few years, then a lot of changes will happen over billions of years logically. This isn't a false equivalence.

Actually the argument of authority is a universally recognized valid argument. A valid argument can't be a fallacy.

I have never heard an evolutionist say this. Source please.

I have never heard an evolutionist say this. Source please.

This isn't being used as an argument for evolution and really is only bad conduct. I have seen rude creationists on the internet too.

I have never heard an evolutionist say this. Source please.

I have never heard an evolutionist say this. Source please.

I have never heard an evolutionist say this. Source please.

Some misinformed people on the internet do say this sometimes. But I have never heard an actual scientist say this. Or they are only talking about the process of evolution not common descent.

Some misinformed people on the internet do say this sometimes. But I have never heard an actual scientist say this.

Where have I lied about anything? I am not trying to deflect from the topic by questioning your "Fallacies of Evolution" because the topic of the thread is literally "Fallacies of Evolution." I am not going to give any evidence for evolution because its obvious you would rather make baseless accusation again evolution rather than have a rational discussion. Its like trying to play chess is a pigeon.

Where have I lied about anything? I am not trying to deflect from the topic by questioning your "Fallacies of Evolution" because the topic of the thread is literally "Fallacies of Evolution." I am not going to give any evidence for evolution because its obvious you would rather make baseless accusation again evolution rather than have a rational discussion. Its like trying to play chess is a pigeon.

 

This is from his own web site touting his own books (emphasis mine)
http://www.sheldrake.org/books-by-rupert-sheldrake/a-new-science-of-life-morphic-resonance

Please show some evidence, aside from Mr. Sheldrake, that this is true. You must believe the kind of evidence I ask for is something existent. There is nothing unreasonable in my request. Hard science would have no trouble providing it.

 

Quotes from whom? People who disbelieve evolution just like you do?

You have not shown that any of them are used on .EDU sites. You have not shown any of them being used in textbooks to teach ToE.

N O N E !​

 

Perhaps. But you just reading your own posts over and over doesn't count.

Here's my vote: You are wrong and you have been wrong since Post #1.

 

Do you guys really think i will be intimidated by a bunch of unscientific liars & propagandists, desperate to defend their religious beliefs?

I've got the science.... You have ad hominem. You will not win a reasoned debate.

I'll wait. I don't expect the hecklers & irrational devotees to respond with anything other that the usual rage & ridicule. But perhaps there might be someone who desires a rational debate over the science? But for you irrational, unscientific poo flingers.. and you know who you are.. do not expect a response from me. I will not waste my time & thought processes with propagandists & hecklers.

 

Just show one textbook that uses the argument "Correlation proves Causation" to support ToE. Just one. Please. Pretty Please.

 

You have something ,... but it's not science.

 

No, I think that your dishonest philosophical party tricks are transparent and you have nowhere else to go with it now.

 

......Seconded....not only wrong but obviously either trolling or so blatantly ignorant purposefully as to be considered the fool.

 

What science? I've been calling you out for making assertions you can't prove since the first page. I've been directly challenging you to provide evidence supporting your claims. You have dodged every attempt. We both know why of course.

 

USFAN Post #860

So far the vote seems to be 0 (concurring) to 3 (disagreeing). So much for your expectations.

 

I've looked into some of the 'arguments' myself, since many here don't seem to know enough about science to do so. Here is one presented as a 'missing link!' for humans, which is used as a talking point for evolutionary propaganda.

Ardipithecus Ramidus is very interesting, & a good example of trying to manipulate data to prove a theory, rather than letting the data speak for itself. There certainly is no overwhelming evidence for many of the claims & assumptions made by the discoverers of these fossils. It is, in fact, very underwhelming.

1. the dating is circular. It was found in strata that is assumed to be 4.4 M yrs old.
2. The conclusions are still a matter of debate, as many assumptions are made, & gaps are filled with speculation. The papers from 'Science' published in 2009 had the word 'probably' 78 times, & forms of 'suggest' 117 times. These are speculative guesses, not anything that can be construed as empirical science.

"Is Ardipithecus a hominin?—that question will likely dominate the paleoanthropological debate over this fossil taxon for years to come." source

So even with the debate over these fossils not having any consensus within the evolutionary community, evolutionists are quick to trumpet this as a 'transitional species'. That is a pretty bold move, & smells more of desperation & bluff, rather than anything 'scientific'. All you have is an extinct apelike creature. You do not have a complete fossil skeleton, yet they make dogmatic assertions about this find, based completely on assumed dating & fitting it into the evolutionary timeline. This is not proof of anything, except the desperation of evolutionists, & the yearnings of researchers to make a name for themselves.

Not all paleoanthropologists are convinced that Ar. ramidus was our ancestor or even a hominin. source




Here is the artist's drawing and the actual fossils. So many liberties have been taken, & assumptions made, i am surprised any self respecting scientist would go along with this fantasy. I see no compelling reason to embrace evolution on account of this fossil. It is NOT a transitional species, definitively. It can be imagined as such, but that is speculation.

Do you see the same face as the drawing? It seems pretty plain to me the skull of the creature was much more protruded, rather than flat faced like a human. This is artistic license, used for propaganda, not science.

In 1992, the Middle Awash Research Team, co-led by [Tim] White, made a discovery that ended Lucy’s reign. About 75 kilometers south of Lucy’s resting place, at Aramis in the Afar depression of Ethiopia, the team found fossils of a chimp-sized ape dated to about 4.4 million years ago. … The team named this species Ardipithecus ramidus, drawing on two words from the Afar language suggesting that it was humanity’s root species. But skeptics argue that the published fossils are so chimplike that they may represent the long-lost ancestor of the chimp, not human, lineage.

The next field season, team member Yohannes Haile-Selassie found the first of more than 100 fragments that make up about half of a single skeleton of this species, including a pelvis, leg, ankle and foot bones, wrist and hand bones, a lower jaw with teeth—and a skull. But in the past 8 years no details have been published on this skeleton. Why the delay? In part because the bones are so soft and crushed that preparing them requires a Herculean effort, says White. The skull is “squished,” he says, “and the bone is so chalky that when I clean an edge it erodes, so I have to mold every one of the broken pieces to reconstruct it.” The team hopes to publish in a year or so, and White claims that the skeleton is worth the wait, calling it a “phenomenal individual” that will be the “Rosetta stone for understanding bipedalism.” (Ann Gibbons, “In Search of the First Hominids,” Science, 295:1214-1219 (February 15, 2002).)

Now, for 15 yrs the researchers rebuilt & filled in the gaps of the skeleton with their assumptions, & polish the findings so it would be hailed as a groundbreaking discovery of human evolution. Instead of releasing their findings as they found them, we have manipulated data.. polishing the research & releasing only what they want to produce the desired effect. This is finely tuned propaganda, not peer reviewed science.

I have seen this article, and followups, & other studies that use it to support THEIR conclusions in many different media, just in the last few years. Other 'missing links!' have also been trumpeted as 'breakthroughs in science!', but on further examination, all have collapsed under minimal scrutiny, in spite of the longing from evolutionists to validate their religious beliefs. Many frauds & hoaxes have been exposed, which only shows the desperation of the promoters of the belief, rather than the integrity of the science.

Time posted an article, after the Science magazine one from 2009. Here is what they said, after trumpeting it as a groundbreaking discovery.

Deducing such details of social behavior is, admittedly, speculative — and several researchers are quick to note that some of the authors' other major conclusions need further discussion as well. One problem is that some portions of Ardi's skeleton were found crushed nearly to smithereens and needed extensive digital reconstruction. "Tim [White] showed me pictures of the pelvis in the ground, and it looked like an Irish stew," says Walker. Indeed, looking at the evidence, different paleoanthropologists may have different interpretations of how Ardi moved or what she reveals about the last common ancestor of humans and chimps.

But Science doesn't put out special issues very often, and the extraordinary number and variety of fossils described in these new papers mean that scientists are arguing over real evidence, not the usual single tooth here or bit of foot bone there. "When we started our work [in the Middle Awash]," says White, "the human fossil record went back to about 3.7 million years." Now scientists have a trove of information from an era some 700,000 years closer to the dawn of the human lineage. "This isn't just a skeleton," he says. "We've been able to put together a fantastic, high-resolution snapshot of a period that was a blank." The search for more pieces continues, but the outlines of the puzzle, at least, are coming into focus. source

I will agree with the 'fantastic', description. I have read the original study, by Ann Gibbons, & several studies, articles, & conclusions about the study, and am only struck with the unscientific speculations, assumptions, & desperation going on. This is not scientific evidence for human descendancy.. it is an imaginary belief. There are no compelling facts to conclude ancestry, or the dating methods, or any conclusion about social behavior or even how this creature walked. We have no DNA to indicate actual descendancy, just imagined, 'looks like!' morphology. This is EXACTLY a fallacy.. it is a 'correlation implies causation' argument, that attempts to correlate the APPEARANCE of some vague fossils to living human beings, when there is no evidence they correlate at all. To assume these creatures are the 'causation' of humanity is wildly speculative, & without basis.

But in spite of this, the articles, the original study, & every news article about this study hails it as 'proof of human ancestry!'

Thanks to an astonishing series of fossil discoveries, researchers are at last glimpsing our earliest ape ancestors, back beyond 4 million years ago. The finds are shifting attention from the savanna to the woods--and changing ideas about what it means to be a hominid. Indeed, they may end up displacing Lucy, who for 2 decades has stood alone as the first known human ancestor. The faces and many features of these earliest hominids remain shadowy, but their outlines can be discerned, revealing apes the size of chimpanzees that walked upright through African forests. source

This was the summary of the actual study published in 2009. Note the declarative nature of the unproven assumptions.. None of the bolded above have evidence, but are only assumed & asserted. The only 'evidence' being presented here is #6 from the OP:

6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.

There is evidence presented, but it does not apply to the conclusions they suggest. The evidence is there, but it does not compel any conclusion of descendancy. Merely asserting that it does is NOT a scientific conclusion. There are too many unknowns.. too many liberties with the data & 'reconstruction' techniques. Too much manipulation of the data to present a polished, desired outcome. This study, & the surrounding articles are decidedly UNscientific, & smell more like propaganda than science.

 

Get real, your whole argument is that multitudinous iterations of microevolution aggregate to macroevolution.

Cry me a river. You asked what I wanted, and I told you.

Sure, and I'm supposed to take seriously theoretical boundaries imposed by people who don't even know what life is.

Get real, biologists have been able to conduct such experiments for the better part of a century at least.

No, that's not what I said.

How the hell should I know?

 

Your "rebuttal" in the s post consisted of hand waiving, incredulity, and simply stating "nuh uh". You presented no evidence what so ever to refute the scientific paper you were citing.