Fallacies of Evolution

The ability of the resulting organism to reproduce, obviously - never mind that anyone who achieved such a goal would make Josef Mengele look like Albert Schweitzer by comparison.

 

Let me state, unequivocally, that I am quite unaware of any textbooks in America that teach that correlation proves causation.

Do I need to repeat that?

Or did you fully understand it?

I do, however, agree with the assertion that some people confuse mere correlation with causation; and that this confusion is sometimes reflected in these textbooks.

Is that sufficiently plain?

 

And the ability to reproduce would prove exactly what.

 

Well, how do you explain the existance of birth defects?

 

USFAN did not assert that "some people confuse mere correlation with causation".
He asserted that "Correlation proves Causation" is "commonly taught in schools" in an attempt "to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy".

To which you responded "Good Post".

 

Why should I respond to your question when you ignored all my questions?

 

The biggest problem I have with evolution is that I don't understand it. And if I don't understand it, how can other people understand it.

That's why it is wrong.

 

By that brilliant logic I can saw a car and motorcycle in half and weld the halves together to created a new vehicle. It's a manmade creation. In fact it kinda goes against your own point. Intelligent beings created this "new species."

 

Shhhh, don't tell everyone!

I think that usfan thinks that we wouldn't notice this.

 

And to which I posted a quote from an .edu site, clearly asserting the homology argument, and which I also asserted there to be much more, since it is ALWAYS given as a 'proof of evolution!' in any discussion about evolution.

And, since the homology argument is clearly a 'correlation implies causation' argument, your repeated accusations are absurd and unfounded.


And, in my reply, I reaffirmed my perception of you, as a duplicitous, dishonest debater, who ignores the topic, deflects with irrelevant absurdities, illustrates the point of the OP, & basically craps on the thread with self absorbed flagellation.

 

What, notice more deflections & more logical fallacies? I point them out a lot, already, but you guys flood the thread with them so I can't respond to them all.

 

Wait a sec here...are links acceptable now, or do you still think they are supposition and bogus?

 

Your posts are loooong. I missed the ".edu" site you posted. Perhaps you could post it again.

 

**sigh**

Read the post.
I posted a quote, directly from the site, AND a link to the source. That is what i have asked for, not naked links with no point, no quote, & no meaning. I was asked for evidence for my claim that the ToE is taught using 'correlation implies causation' arguments, which it does, with the homology argument. I will point out that i provide evidence & logical arguments for my positions, not just fallacies & assertions, as do most of the hecklers here.

Are you taking the position that evolution does not make the 'homology' claim of similarity of morphology being evidence for the ToE? That was my point, & the argument in the OP. Rebut that, if you are trying to refute the OP, instead of deflections & other logical fallacies used to try to discredit my arguments.

..still waiting. VERY little of what can be called 'evidence' for this theory. Lots of evidence for the claims of the OP, that of logical fallacies being used to support the ToE.

So how about it? No scientifically minded people here? No one who wants to tackle the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the ToE? I have plenty of logical fallacies, which support the OP. But how about some Real Science, from allegedly logical, intelligent people? There is plenty of heckling from the peanut gallery, & irrational fools bleating on about deflections & diversions. But if the ToE is so plainly 'settled science', as many have claimed, where is the evidence? What basis do you have for this belief?

It is NOT science, it is a religious OPINION. It should not have even been posted in the 'science' subforum, given the responses here. I have only heard declarations of faith, for the most part, and precious little in the way of scientific evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

And, since you can't understand it, empirically, you only have faith that it is true.. there is nothing 'scientific' to support the assertions. Therefore, it is a religious claim, with no empirical evidence.

 

One of the central argument FOR naturalism is TIME. It has been asserted many times in this thread, as 'evidence' for the ToE. They theorize that evolution happens so slowly that you cannot see it, & that is why we cannot observe it happening. They will point to diversity WITHIN a life form as evidence that things change, & by tossing in millions of years, ASSUME that these small changes in traits add up to big ones. In this thread, i have pointed out the flaws in this reasoning. It is scientifically impossible for life forms to vary as they theorize, because of what we now know about genetics. The huge jumps between genetic structures do not allow the slow, incremental changes they suggest. Even if you assume 'millions of years', it does NOT provide a mechanism to allow the jumps in the genetic makeup of a species.

But lets keep it on time. How do the naturalists 'know' that the earth & universe is millions or billions of years old? They don't. They ASSUME it. There is NO verifiable, testable, or quantifiable method to measure dating for these time frames. They are all fraught with assumptions & speculations, then declared as 'scientific fact'. But what are these 'methods'? I'll list a few:

1. Seasonal rings.
We can 'measure' the age of a tree by its rings, so this same logic is used in some glaciers in Greenland, which they declare to be 123,000 years old. Some in antarctica are measured & declared to be 740,000 yrs old. But the central problem with these calculations are the assumption of uniformity. They ASSUME that the earth has always been as it is now, & there were no mitigating circumstances that might have laid down multiple layers in a short time. But we observe evidence of very tempestuous times in the earth's geography. How can we even theorize uniformity? Plate tectonics, volcanic activity, massive flooding, moving glaciers, constantly changing upheaval in the earth's surface makes assuming annual uniformity of ice deposits impossible. There are too many variables to assume that.

2. Radiometric dating. This is done by taking the half life of an isotope, which can be measured by extrapolating backward in time, to when it was full. Greenland seems to be a popular hangout for the old earth disciples, & it was here they 'discovered' rocks they declare to be 1.3 billion years old. They make this assumption thusly:
1. Potassium-40 is trapped in molten lava, & has a half life of 1.3 billion years.
2. Potassium-40 decays into argon-40.
3. by measuring the content of both in the rocks, you can extrapolate their age.
They use other radiometric dating, including uranium & carbon-14 in the same way.
But this, too if full of assumptions:
1. The countdown started at full. If some isotopes are trapped in molten lava, or laid down in a strata, how can you assume it began at full strength?
2. The decay rate is assumed to be constant. Why? How can this be assumed? The universe is full of drastic changes, passing asteroids, solar & weather changes, magnetic fields, & constant change in the earth's surface. It is a pretty wild assumption to theorize uniformity in deposits or decay of anything.
3. Often, samples taken a few feet apart in a test setting produced wildly different measurements.
4. The amount of the original parent & daughter isotopes in a specimen are unknown. How can you assume 100% parent at the beginning, & 0% daughter isotope? How could that even have happened, in an ancient, ever changing, big banging world of exploding matter?
5. Dating methods are constantly producing impossible results. They pick & choose the ones that 'fit' within their assumed time frame, & toss out the ones that don't. A diamond, for example, is allegedly billions of years old, as is coal. But some have been measured to have carbon-14, which would have completely dissipated according to their own time frame. But problem evidence is just dismissed, while the 'evidence' they like is embraced.

3. Speed of light & expanding universe.
Here the argument is that we can see light coming from millions of light years away, so it must have taken millions of years for the light to get here. They also theorize an expanding universe, a la the 'big bang'. All of matter was once, somehow, compressed into the size of a pea, or such, & suddenly exploded. Some scientists have measured this expansion rate, assumed it to be constant in time & space, & declared the age of the universe.
1. If the speed of light is absolutely constant (a big assumption) AND the universe is expanding uniformly (another big assumption) the times should match. They don't, unless you juggle them.
2. There are other possibilities than a 'big bang', & assumed expansion.
3. This presumes light & the expanding universe as a constant. Einstein has suggested some 'relativity' into the mix, which makes these assumptions faulty.

4. Strata. This one is not bandied about as much, but is slipped in from time to time. If a fossil is found in a strata, it is declared to be a certain age, depending on the strata it is found in. But how is the age of the strata determined? By the fossils found in them. They use the conclusion to prove the premise! The assumptions of the age of the strata date the fossils, & the types of fossils date the strata. It is all declared dates, with no empirical methodology to produce it. It is merely circular reasoning, another logical fallacy.

Other problems:
1. Earth's magnetic field.
The magnetic field of the earth has been measured to be ~1400 yrs. If you ASSUME uniformity, the strength of the field would be too powerful if you go back more than 10k yrs or so, & would have vaporized everything on the planet, having the heat & energy of a magnetic star. To solve this, the old earthers suggest 'flipping magnetic poles'. Somehow, for no known reason, & by no known mechanism, the magnetic fields reverse themselves from time to time. They demand uniformity in all their other dating methods, but want some leeway with the magnetic field.
2. Atmospheric helium. When some isotopes decay, they release helium-4. If we assume a zero starting point (as they do with all other radiometric dating processes) then we can measure the helium isotopes in the atmosphere, & extrapolate backwards to when it started. The calculations yield less than 10k yrs, not millions or billions.

There are a lot of problems with the dating methods, & declaring millions & billions of years dogmatically as 'fact' is a disservice to the scientific method, & is a return to 'science by decree'. Dating methods are too variable, & based on too many assumptions. It is part of the religion of evolutionary naturalism, & is based NOT on scientifically proven facts or valid theories, but decrees & mandates: Assumptions & Assertions. It is just like the 'science' of times past, when the earth was declared to be flat, the sun revolved around the earth, & that life spontaneously arose from non-life. It is a mandated & indoctrinated belief, with no scientific evidence.

Thinking people with a basic understanding of science & the scientific method should not be fooled by these pseudo scientists. They deceive gullible people with their bluffs & dogmatic declarations, but there is no scientific evidence for the dates that they propose. None of them can stand under scrutiny, & should be classified as speculations, not trumpeted as scientific fact. These phonies do the same with other factual disciplines. They promote global warming, which has no basis in scientific reality, & is just a political agenda masked in pseudo science terms. They distort economic numbers & fiscal matters. Truth, facts, & evidence are just propaganda tools, & have no meaning to those promoting some ideological narrative. Evolution & naturalism as origins is the same thing. It is pseudo science jargon, presented in an intellectually titillating way, delivered with smug arrogance, masked in techno babble, but with NO empirical, scientific basis. It is a religion.. a philosophy about the origins of life. It has no scientific basis.

 

Okay....so if I post a quote and a link followed by an explanation defining the data presented you will at least read it and comment on what is presented?

"Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

The evolution that eventually created the Whales found today has been traced backward through fossil evidence and backed up by the anatomy found in current living creatures. The lag bones still found in whale carcasses match closely those of fossilized and extinct animals.

 

1. I never said there was a God. And no - no one has ever proved that there is no God.Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

SCIENTISTS have ‘confirmed’ the existence of God after proving a mathematician’s theory which suggests that there is a higher power.
Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations.

In 1978, mathematician Kurt Gödel died and left behind a long and complex theory based on modal logic.
Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University, who ran the calculations along with Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, told Spiegel Online: "It's totally amazing that from this argument led by Gödel, all this stuff can be proven automatically in a few seconds or even less on a standard notebook.

“I didn’t know it would create such a huge public interest but [Gödel’s ontological proof] was definitely a better example than something inaccessible in mathematics or artificial intelligence…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/756870/proof-of-god-kurt-godel

2. I'm not afraid to say I don't know.
3. Sharks adapted to their environment and created new species - I think I said the environment causes adaptations. But a change in one colony of sharks did not change the rest of them so that's not evolution.
A colony of lizards gets trapped in a cave without light, the lizards lose their eyes, that is not evolution, the rest of that lizard species still have eyes.
4. You'd rather attack the source than to be challenged by the science.
5. Just proves science is often wrong yet you accept theory as an article of your faith in science. Science is your religion.
6. No science is not getting closer to solving creation. That's a claim you can't back up.
7. I can't explain the existence of humans yet - but I'm getting closer.

 

The universe.

 

Viability. When you cross a donkey with a horse you get a mule. Mules are sterile. The whole existence of muledom would cease in 20 years if we didn't continue to cross breed.

 

Perfect. Why has it taken you 55 pages & several threads to figure this out? No, i believe you knew all along what i was asking for, but knew you were in over your head, & the only useful tool at your disposal was ad hominem & poison the well.. and maybe a few straw men.

Alright. I'll examine the claims, & look for the 'evidence'.

1. but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. Asserted. There is no evidence for this, other than assumptions & speculations.
2. ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Asserted, with no evidence. HOW do you 'know' these were 'ancient relatives', except by assuming they were, by the ToE? That is merely circular reasoning, again, using the premise to prove the conclusion.
3. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Asserted, with no evidence. HOW do you 'know' these were 'ancient relatives', except by assuming they were, by the ToE? That is merely circular reasoning, again, using the premise to prove the conclusion.
4. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial. You call this 'evidence'? They are just assertions, with no empirical evidence for the conclusion. They are assumed events, after the assumption of the ToE. There is nothing empirical presented here, nor even any suggestion as to HOW these transitions could happen. This is all assertion after assertion, based on nothing but assumptions. There is nothing scientific about this link, or the quote.

All the dates, all the claims of descendancy are based purely on homological or morphological speculation, that one might 'see & believe' a morphing from one organism into another, if you look hard enough, & hold your tongue in just the right way. But scientific evidence? Nada. Zip.

This is just the 'logical fallacy' of 'correlation implies causation' of the argument of homology, in the ToE, that you and a vocal few have insisted were 'Evidence!' for the ToE. It is not evidence, it is a fallacy. Just because you can imagine a morphing of one creature into another, & you believe strongly that they descended from each other, does not provide evidence for this phenomenon. You must have something empirical, not just imagination & belief. That is how Real Science works.

 

I came upon this very interesting quote from David Suzuki, one of the pioneers in genetic research. It is from 2000, but the principles are the same. Ironically, he believes in most of the progressive agenda.. climate change, evolution, etc.. and he misses the application to his own discipline.

When I graduated as a geneticist in 1961, I was full of enthusiasm and determined to make a mark. Back then we knew about DNA, genes, chromosomes, and genetic regulation. But today when I tell students what our hot ideas were in '61, they choke with laughter. Viewed in 2000, ideas from 1961 seem hilarious. But when those students become professors years from now and tell their students what was hot in 2000, their students will be just as amused.

At the cutting edge of scientific research, most of our ideas are far from the mark - wrong, in need of revision, or irrelevant. That's not a derogation of science; it's the way science advances. We take a set of observations or data, set up a hypothesis that makes sense of them, and then we test the hypothesis. The new insights and techniques we gain from this process are interpreted tentatively and liable to change, so any rush to apply them strikes me as downright dangerous.

No group of experts should be more aware of the hazards of unwarranted claims than geneticists. After all, it was the exuberance of geneticists early in this century that led to the creation of a discipline called eugenics, which aimed to improve the quality of human genes. These scientists were every bit as clever, competent, and well-meaning as today's genetic engineers; they just got carried away with their discoveries. Outlandish claims were made by eminent geneticists about the hereditary nature of traits such as drunkenness, nomadism, and criminality, as well as those judged "inferior" or "superior." Those claims provided scientific respectability to legislation in the US prohibiting interracial marriage and immigration from countries judged inferior, and allowed sterilization of inmates of mental institutions on genetic grounds. In Nazi Germany, geneticist Josef Mengele held peer-reviewed research grants for his work at Auschwitz. The grand claims of geneticists led to "race purification" laws and the Holocaust. ~ David Suzuki

But they still persist in furthering the narrative that living things can make vertical jumps in genetic complexity, adding chromosomes & traits out of thin air. But the ToE is nothing more than sci fi fantasy.. a theory that has been the fodder for many wild stories & movies. Everything from stories about mutants, x-men, islands of dr Moreau, etc, are based on the assumption of simple, easy acquisition of new traits in living things. The only trouble? Reality does not support it. Mutations are negative, & spell doom in just about every living scenario. You do not get 'new' traits, just deformed & messed up old ones. But this does not deter them! No! They keep the false narrative alive, by pounding the drum of propaganda & not allowing the most basic question to this preposterous idea: How? There is NO mechanism, NO observation, NO repetition, & NO WAY that this can happen, today, yesterday, or a million years ago. ..Yet they dogmatically assert it as proven fact. This is the new progressive science. It is nothing like the discovery mentality of the enlightenment. It is mandated truth, crafted to fit within an ideological agenda

 

why do you pretend you haven't been given evidence, when anyone is capable of searching this thread and seeing you've been given the evidence you are asking for?

Would you like to try and tackle the peer reviewed paper I provided for you about 20 pages ago, that you keep ignoring and hand waiving away?

 

everything in your post is a baseless assertion. You've provided no scientific evidence to support your assertions, nor any peer reviewed scientific papers.

"nuh uh" isn't an argument.

 

hand waiving and saying "nuh uh" isn't an argument. Where is your empirical evidence proving the provided citation wrong?

 

Nevermind...at least I tried.