Fallacies of Evolution

Notice the graphic from the aforementioned link. This is EXACTLY an argument of homology, or the 'looks like!' similarity. There is nothing empirical offered for these speculations, but they are merely visually based, 'that could have happened!', assumptions. You can read through the entire link, & the ONLY argument they have is one of visual morphology.. the idea that since they 'look' similar, or one might 'imagine' one morphing into the other, that must be it. The speculation becomes a dogmatic declaration of fact, when there is NOTHING empirical offered to suggest such a transition.

So how can you have the absurd accusations of point #10, that there is 'no correlation implies causation fallacy in any textbook!', when it is clearly constantly presented as the main argument FOR the ToE. IMO, it is the constant dull roar of indoctrination, from within the ecco chamber, that deafens you to any rational, objective examination of the claims, from a scientific viewpoint. That is also the source of the irrational, hostile reactions of 'kill the infidels!! Any who blaspheme the Darwin should not be allowed to live!!' Rationality dies in an environment of indoctrination. The ToE is merely indoctrinated religious belief, with no empirical basis.

 

hand waiving away all related evidence such as the fossil record, genomes, experimentation etc and stating "nuh uh". You have provided no empirical evidence, or peer reviewed scientific papers to support your assertions.

 

I understand your dilemma. You look & look, believing there is 'tons & tons' of evidence, & you find out it is all assumed & asserted.. there is nothing, really, of substance for this theory. It is too easy to point out there was nothing empirical in your link, but it was all 'looks like!' based conjecture. That is not evidence, & certainly not empirical.

But even with the obvious dearth of evidence, some posters insist on claiming scientific superiority, when there isn't any science presented? Why is that? Why the constant deflections, repeated lies, diversions, ad hominem, & other logical fallacies? It only shows me the depth of the indoctrination, that some are so invested in, that they cannot see reason, facts, or obvious reality.

I've tried.. really tried, to keep this logical & scientific, against insurmountable opposition. I don't think you really tried, here, with a lame quote from a site that offered no empirical evidence, but only assertions. How could you think this would fool anyone?

 

you have done no such thing. You keep making baseless assertions, hand waiving away evidence, and stating "nuh uh". You have not provided a shred of empirical evidence or a single peer reviewed scientific paper supporting your assertions.

 

This is all you have. It is all you have ever had, for years, on this topic. You never post any arguments, or present evidence, or contribute anything to the discussion, but crap on the thread, & fling ad hominem like poo. It should be clear to any why i don't bother replying to you most of the time. And even when i do, it is mostly to point out the absurdity & fallaciousness of your 'arguments'. I have no interest in bickering with irrational, fallacious fools. Don't expect a reply, if this is all you have.

 

Apparently you do not, I will however try to clarify it for you.

My problem here involves attempting to provide information to and explain reality to an individual who obviously lacks the neural function to grasp even minimal concepts of standard scientific processes, has a block that prevents accepting the concept of time, refuses all verified data that disagrees with preconceived mindset, and is by every definition I can envision something of an internet troll.

 

well, that of course is a lie. I gave you a peer reviewed paper, which you steadfastly refuse to address.

see above

it's not all I have, nor all I've given. I gave you a peer reviewed paper. You ignore it. I keep calling you out for hand waiving away evidence, making baseless assertions with no evidence to support them, and summing your argument up as "nuh uh".

You of course can't deal with any of this, and we both know why. I will keep right on pointing it out though.

 

But what will the ability to breed prove in terms of the theory of evolution is the question asked.

 

Someone who doubts the Theory of Evolution please post exactly what in their mind would constitute proof of the theory. I personally see endless proof that is the most logical way of explaining the origins of the many species that occupy the planet but apparently what constitutes proof to me doesn't work for everyone so please specify just exactly what you believe is required.

 

Researchers have discovered the earliest known ancestor of humans - along with a vast range of other species.
They say that fossilised traces of the 540-million-year-old creature are "exquisitely well preserved".
The microscopic sea animal is the earliest known step on the evolutionary path that led to fish and - eventually - to humans.

key words earliest known, so this must be numero uno - wrong

The researchers were unable to find any evidence that the animal had an anus, which suggests that it consumed food and excreted from the same orifice.

They couldn't find a butt hole so it must not exist - cause they couldn't find it

Until now, the deuterostome groups discovered were from between 510 to 520 million years ago. These had already begun to diversify into not just the vertebrates, the group to which we and our ancestors belong and animals such as starfish and sea urchins.
Because they looked so different from one another, it was difficult for the scientists to determine what an earlier, common ancestor might have looked like.

Proof that scientists are using 'it looks like' to determine heredity.

The researchers say that its most striking feature is its large mouth, relative to the rest of its body. They say that it probably ate by engulfing food particles, or even other creatures.

So they claim it's the first creature but it had a large mouth with which it used to eat other creatures. Hmmm. It's the first creature all by itself in the world and it's hungry, but wait..............there's an even smaller creature that it uses it's large mouth to eat. Hooray......mankind has been saved.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38800987

Well the food particles it ate had to be organic to have any nutritional value so whether it was a vegetarian or a carnivore, there were organisms alive for it to eat and yet it was the first creature on earth. Seems like the only tool they used was a microscope. Circular reasoning for sure and pure speculation.

 

That a new species exists.

 

Missing link is a non-scientific obsolete expression..Since evolution doesn’t predict a “missing link” it is total nonsense.
Evolution is blithely unconcerned with the precise method by which living things came to be, whether that is abiogenesis, panspermia, creationist poofing, or some other method as yet unconceived.
Is there irrefutable evidence of an Intelligent Designer?
Kindly get back to me when that miracle takes place.

 

I know creation is ignored and I stated why. I never claimed there was irrefutable evidence of anything. That's your straw man, other wise known as a tap dance. It's like an equation A + B = Y to a creationist.
Same equation to a TOE person =Y. We just want to talk about the Y. Who cares about A+B. We don't need to know the values of A and B to solve for Y.

 

Insistence on using such an argument only does more to highlight your lack of subject knowledge concerning evolution.

 

So then you will accept Darwin?

 

I noticed one thing with this thread. The faithful have lots of faith. And if you question this faith, they tend to get just a little bit nasty, and name call in one way or the other.

If only evolutionary biologists could find the mechanism for macro evolution at the genetic level, and finding it could replicate it by using intelligence which they claimed was never a factor to begin with, usfan would have to acknowledge it. But it looks like he may never be presented with this most basic thing. The genetic mechanism that would show the extrapolation they have made of the fossil record to be a factual extrapolation.

Perhaps the only real fact here is we understand micro evolution, the adaptation of a species to enrvironmental changes, and think something like this must be responsible for macro evolution. Between adaptation and mutations, given enough time, new species arise. What is missing is the mechanism and how it takes place. Why is that not been discovered? Remember this supposedly happened without intelligence at all being involved, for there is no place for intelligence in this way of looking.

 

Then I suppose we understand that poster differently.

It is my understanding that he believes that it is "commonly taught in schools" that that which, to some people, looks like mere correlation, must instead be causation.

But I think that it would be a mistake for either one of us to speak for him.

So why don't you ask him just what he meant?

 

Who is the we you are referring to? Are you referring to the people who have post graduate degrees in genetics, who have worked in the field of genetics for years and support TOE? Or you referring to you and your fellow Creationists?

By "naturalists" you mean scientists from many different fields of specialization including, but not limited to: physics, geology, astronomy, astro-physics, biology.

How does plate tectonics work on your short time frame?

Yep, all those physicists are in on the plot to ram evilution down the throats of mankind.

The Creationist web site Answers In Genesis https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/does-distant-starlight-prove-the-universe-is-old/
has a 3500 word article on this very subject. The cover all your points and many more.

At the end they state their honest conclusion:

Admit it USFAN, you are a Young Earth Creationist.

 

No one has ever proved there are no psychic snowflakes.
No one has ever proved the universe was not created Last Thursday.

What's your point?

Let's parse the introduction to the article: (emphasis in the original)

Then it continues in smaller typeface but still with caps:

Notice we've now gone from "Proving God" to "confirming God".

Next:

Oh wait, it was a mathematician’s theory that they proved.

A theory that makes a suggestion.



WOW! That's convincing. Even more convincing is that the Express, which you used as your source is not even listed in the ten best newspapers in London. In other words, you got your scientific proof information from a third rate tabloid.

 

Good post. But for me, the argument for the ToE does not require an atheistic worldview. It is a 'theory' on the origin of species, & can work with either an atheistic or theistic world view. Most theists, i would argue, believe in the ToE... not because they have convincing proof of it, but because it was zealously taught & indoctrinated in every human institution. It is not a conflict with their theism, because they just figure, 'Oh. So that's how God did it.' So this thread is not about 'atheism vs theism', although the atheist IS always an evolutionist. But for the theist, there is no intellectual or psychological investment in the ToE, so he can scrutinize it with more objectivity.

I do agree with your point that if the ToE could be demonstrated, I (and everyone else!) would have to acknowledge it. And, like other theists, i would have no problem accepting it, given the level of evidence & science behind it. But i don't see that. I see no mechanism presented. There is no evidence that this happened, or could happen. It is merely a religious assertion, by deluded ideologues. I do see the unfortunate & unintended consequence of finding fault with the ToE.. atheists have no basis for a naturalistic view. They are left adrift in a sea of hopeless despair, with nothing to cling to, but only wishful thinking that there is no god. But the Big Questions have no answer, now, as the Savior for their faith is dead, & has not risen from the grave. They can only descend into absurdity, and avoid science altogether, or, if they can get the power, perhaps they can mandate submission to this ancient religious belief, & fool people long enough for another naturalistic theory to come along that will hold water better than the last 2.

..and as a side note, some posters here use 'Creationist!!' like it is some kind of pejorative. But even most evolutionists believe in a Higher Power, or a God, Who created all things, & kick started evolution. IOW, there are many creationists who believe in evolution, & many atheists who do, too. But there are not many atheists who believe in creation, as any involvement from a deity kind of ruins their ideology.

So the argument for that is not 'Creation, or Evolution?' but should be 'naturalistic origins, or intelligent design?' Because it is the Source of origins that is the question, not the method used to bring it about. That is why i consider all the 'creationist!!' slurs to be irrelevant to the discussion, because EVERY theist is a creationist, in some way. The only question for him is 'How did God do this?' If it was by macro evolution, fine. That would explain some things. But i see so many holes in this 'theory' that my (and many others') scientific minds cannot just swallow it & pretend it tastes good. It is crap. It stinks. It makes me sick. It has NO scientific evidence for the most basic claim it makes, but is shrouded in techno babble to fool the uninformed.

Still, this is not the topic in this thread. it is an examination of the fallacies of the ToE, as it is presented in modern society. it is flawed, at the most basic level, & has no scientific basis. The attempts to muddy that reality with deflections about religious beliefs about origins are irrelevant. I point it out every now & then, but i get tired of saying the same thing to the same old hecklers, all the time.

 

I accept the science. It developed and progressed over centuries. Its progress is the accumulated knowledge of tens of thousands of scientists in many different fields.

On the other hand, you challenge the findings of these scientists. What do you use as a basis for challenging science?

Yes, science is often wrong. Scientists believed the size and shape of the universe was unchanging. Then they developed better instruments and realized the universe was expanding. Scientists believed the placement of the continents was unchanging. Then they developed better instruments and realized the continents were constantly moving.

What's your point?

I accept many things in science. I accept that the Laws of Gravity & Motion as explained by Newton are accurate for the world I live in. I accept scientific theories for other things.

I do not accept the theory that the speed of light has changed over to past 6000 years. This is a theory posited by some Young Earth Creationists.

You are obviously wrong. I do not believe in any gods. If you are trying to imply that I worship science you are wrong again. I accept science. Just as you accept the science that went into building an airplane that you flew in.

I asked because you stated "I never said there was a God". OK, well, maybe it's time to say what you believe. If you don't accept evolution, that pretty much only leaves GodDidIt as an explanation for the existence of humans on earth. Which is it?

 

my emphases in the following quotes...

You are correct. No one has actually seen or experienced a kutchicetus morph into a rodhocetus over the course of millions of years.
Yipee!


I wish there was an easy way to determine how many times you use the word "empirical" when arguing against TOE. I'm quite sure you know the correct definition of the word "empirical". I'm also quite sure you use the word "empirical" to try to make your arguments sound scientific. In essence your arguments are no different than "Nobody ever saw a monkey evolve into a human".

 

Empirical evidence, is based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience, that such a phenomenon can happen, did happen, & is happening, via some mechanism.

There is none. There is NO mechanism that demonstrates HOW this alleged transition in the DNA takes place. It is only asserted & assumed. This is not ONLY a logical problem, but a scientific one. There is no evidence that this is possible, & all of observational science says it is not.

You merely created a straw man fallacy for my arguments, which were nothing like you described.

NOBODY has seen or experienced any mechanism that allows or forces such a genetic transition. THAT is the argument, which is dodged by giving supplication to time, which is thought to have magical power to change things beyond the limits of their DNA.

I'm sure the number of times i use 'fallacy' is a lot, too. And, since this another fallacious argument, i can only conclude that the premise of the OP is correct, & that there is no empirical evidence for the ToE, but it relies completely on logical fallacies.

And, my arguments ARE scientific. I look at the facts. I examine the evidence. I demand empiricism, not fake science or gobbledygook. I don't hide behind obscure, undefined terms, but present the arguments & facts plainly. I wish that favor would be returned, & there could be a rational, scientific discussion on this subject, but it has never happened, & i doubt it ever will.

You ignored the points of logic & rebuttals i made over the 'evidence' presented, which is also to be expected. You only reinforce my perception of you as a dishonest, duplicitous debater, with no facts, no reason, & no evidence. You have fallacies, & are good with those, as you show here. But you do not offer rational, scientific based posts. I'm not sure why.. perhaps this is your 'pet doctrine' for the promotion of leftist ideology.. perhaps you are too invested in your atheism to dare to question the Holy Doctrines of naturalistic Belief.. perhaps it is something else.. i don't know.

 

I see no rebuttal for any of my points, just ad hominem, ridicule, snarky comments, & irrational response. I clearly listed several alleged 'evidences' for the long time periods that many here demand, for evolution to work. You merely dodge them with a 'poison the well' fallacy.

If you want to have a scientific, logical discussion, you have to present science & logic, not fallacies. How about presenting facts or evidence to support YOUR view, instead of just heckling from the sidelines, & shooting arrows into strawmen of your own creation?

 

Obviously.

Carefully read USFAN's OP.

He states that the concept of Correlation proves Causation is a fallacy. That is true. I agree with that and, apparently, you also agree with that.

Your posts, my emphases...

• 466 The final one (i.e. "Correlation proves Causation") is sometimes known as the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
• 485 Certainly, I do agree with the point that correlation does not equate to causation.

He also states that that fallacy is taught in schools in support of TOE. That is not true. You apparently recognize that it is not true.

Your post, my emphasis...

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

You apparently disagree with the content of his posted allegation.

It's not about speaking for him. It's about understanding what he wrote.

I don't need to ask USFAN what he meant. USFAN is a Creationist. Creationists, TOE deniers, have been posting nonsensical lists like those in his OP, since the dawn of the internet and online forums.


Here is one posted by ...

Rev. Jim Osborne Rev.
True Christian™ Televangelist
Director of Fundraising and Tithing​

... on the Landover Baptist Church* forum

https://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=27806

Well, school's just around the corner and that means millions of Christian students in our country are going to be taking atheist propoganda indoctrination courses a.k.a science classes. Unfortunately, many Christian kids buy into the lies their atheist teachers tell them and start to question their faith. Instead of questioning the reality of seven-day creation or God stopping the sun from revolving around the Earth, question your science teacher instead! Here are ten surefire questions that will leave your teacher stumped!

• If humans evolved from chimpanzees, why are chimpanzees still around?
• The Big Bang Theory proposes that everything in the Universe started from something called singularity which is smaller than an atom. How can you stuff everything in the universe in that? It's hard enough to stuff four suitcases in the trunk of your car!
• If the earth really revolves around the sun, then why when we look at the sun we can see it plainly revolving around the earth? (And if the earth was moving around the sun, wouldn't we all fly off into space?)
• If women were not created from Adam's rib, why is it that men have one fewer rib than women?
• How do scientists know stars are "millions of light years away"? Have they been there and back? Do they have a tape measure that stretchs that long?
• Scientists say all our genetic information is coded on DNA. But DNA is an acid! How can you write information in acid? You can write information on a hard drive, but not a liquid!
• People have been wearing clothes for thousands of years. Why haven't our bodies evolved natural clothes that come out of our skin then?
• If there really are millions and millions of species, then how could have Adam named them all? Obviously, there's not that many species then! (Gen 2:18-22)
• If our brains are just a mishmash of biochemistry, how come chemicals like gasoline or bug spray can't think?
• Einstein said that if you approach the speed of light, time slows down. Once you hit the speed of light, time stops. If that is so, how come light can travel from point A to point B if time is stopped for light?

Don't let your science teacher weasel out of these questions! If he makes some stupid comments like "Well that question is meaningless" or "Evolution doesn't work that way" or "You have a poor understanding of science", don't let him get away with it! He is only trying to buy time because he know he can't answer your questions. Press him and make him answer your questions. That's what a teacher is for...right?​

*Landover Baptist is a website that parodies the nonsense believed by and written by Creationists.