Fallacies of Evolution

If you don't understand even simple terms like "allele frequency" and how it applies to evolution, what makes you think you can refute a whole branch of science? Demonstrate just a little knowledge on the subject, otherwise we'll be here another 150 years.

When what we usually observe are the morphological changes that make one species distinct from another, it can be difficult to follow the myriad genetic changes that are needed for each step. That is why biologists study organisms that reproduce quickly and frequently.

If you're going to claim there is a genetic barrier within DNA, then it is your job to demonstrate what that mechanism is and how it prevents the accumulation of changes. And a difference in the number of genes or chromosomes is not the barrier to reproduction you think it is. Biologist PZ Myers explains it better than I could.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

This is where you really demonstrate your lack of understanding. Just because fruit flies always produce fruit flies doesn't mean they were always fruit flies. Before they evolved into fruit flies they were simply flies, and before that they were simply insects, and before that they were arthropods, and before that just animals. But fruit flies are still animals, still arthropods, still insects, and still flies. Whatever fruit flies evolve into next, they will still be fruit flies.

 

Why would you ask people in a forum for evidence? You can take a course at your local college. You can download books - Google "amazon book evolution". There are thousands including...

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Greg-Krukonis/dp/0470117737

Today, most colleges and universities offer evolutionary study as part of their biology curriculums. Evolution For Dummies will track a class in which evolution is taught and give an objective scientific view of the subject. This balanced guide explores the history and future of evolution, explaining the concepts and science behind it, offering case studies that support it, and comparing evolution with rival theories of creation, such as intelligent design. It also will identify the signs of evolution in the world around us and explain how this theory affects our everyday lives and the future to come.
Today, most colleges and universities offer evolutionary study as part of their biology curriculums. Evolution For Dummies will track a class in which evolution is taught and give an objective scientific view of the subject. This balanced guide explores the history and future of evolution, explaining the concepts and science behind it, offering case studies that support it, and comparing evolution with rival theories of creation, such as intelligent design. It also will identify the signs of evolution in the world around us and explain how this theory affects our everyday lives and the future to come.​

​

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.

 

Since you do not believe evolution led to humans being on this earth, what do you believe led to humans being on this earth?

 

You are merely flooding the thread with ad hominem & ridicule. You have not provided any evidence, or arguments for your theory. My premise stands unrebutted. I will not bicker with deflecting posters, or those who can only use ad hominem. Put up some reason & some science, & i'll respond. I would LOVE to examine any evidence you might come up with. I know the lingo, & understand the claim. Now, show me that you do, and aren't just trying to bluff your way with arrogant posturing.

Before they evolved into fruit flies? Seriously? Another example of circular reasoning? You have NO evidence that fruit flies 'evolved' from or to anything. That is an imagined belief.. a speculation without any scientific evidence.

I will repeat what i have said in other threads. I don't debate links. If you have a point to make, make it. If you want to source your point with a link, fine.. i'll check it out. But merely flooding the thread with alleged links that you believe prove your point is not an argument. It is a deflection. A lazy deflection. If you want to debate the subject, do it. Present your arguments, evidence, & make your points. But links & assertions are not arguments or evidence.

 

Ah, so you believe that everything you've learned in school, or from a nature show, or a disney movie must be Truth, since you can get a book from amazon confirming it. You don't believe in honest examination, or a critical look at someone's claims.. just trust them since they seem so smart & sincere.

I am not injecting any religious beliefs in here, other than the obvious one of the ToE. It is a belief, not science, & it has NO evidence to support it. You may find this shocking, but i challenge you to rebut this. Find me ONE evidence of structural changes in the genome, added genes, new traits, added chromosomes, whatever you imagine is possible with evolution. You will find that there is none. It is an old, 19th century naturalistic theory that is becoming more & more suspect as the science of genetics shows us what is really possible.

Seriously? You want to shut this down because you believe it to be absolute truth? You don't want any debate over AGW, either? Or civil liberties? Free speech? You just want some elitists to declare what the Truth is, & the rest of us must comply & bow in obeisance?

This is a forum debate. It is in a forum dedicated to debate, with a science subforum where topics like this (and exactly this) have been debated for years. Now you want to wave your hand & dismiss it all, since you already have the Absolute Knowledge about this subject?

The intolerance & mandated conformity of the left never ceases to amaze me. They will not even allow a discussion about science.

I submit that the problem is with you. You believe the ToE to be completely settled science, & Absolute Truth. You are greatly mistaken, & only show the effectiveness of modern indoctrination of the educational system. I get that you believe this, but try something different: Examine the evidence. If you're scientifically minded at all, use the scientific method. Don't just swallow whatever they feed you, but question authority.. be skeptical.. challenge the status quo & think for yourself. You will discover a great many thing that you did not know.

 

I will repeat. This is a scientific exercise, requiring scientific methodology. Mixing in insults, ridicule, & avoiding the topic only shows ignorance. Make your points logically, backed with evidence, if you can. I realize this is frustrating, because you believe that there is 'tons of evidence' for the ToE, but when you read books or search for it, there is nothing. You will hear smug assertions, obfuscating terminology, designed to confuse & deflect, & demands to 'trust the really smart people,' as though this is so complex that mere laymen cannot possibly grasp it. But those are merely smokescreens.. dodges to deflect from the impotence of the evidence. That is why you find so much ad hominem in this topic.. it is a religious belief, & is defended with jihadist zeal. It is not simply a scientific theory of origins.. people are way too testy for that.

 

Sure you are. If you spent as much time questioning your own fundamentalist religious beliefs as you do griping and moaning about some aspects of science, you'd be on the other side of this debate.

It is an old 19th Century naturalistic theory that has gained more and more scientific credence as more and more scientific investigation is done. You know that. The only people arguing against it are religious fundamentalists who see it as threatening to their 4th Century theistic ideas.

I didn't say I wanted anything shut down. Ramble on to your heart's content.

Yet here we are. Contrary to what you state you are being allowed to have this discussion.

Do you do that with your fundamentalist religious teachings? Do you challenge them or did you just swallow them whole?

Since you do not believe evolution led to humans being on this earth, what do you believe led to humans being on this earth?

 

If you are reading this thread because you are not sure if evolution is real and you are not caught in the dogma of your religion, I would suggest reading some of the books on this reading list to get a better understanding of evolution. Don't believe random posters on a political forum (me included), go to the source and learn for yourself.

http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/9417.Best_Books_on_Evolution_

 

Still no evidence. No arguments. No facts or logic. Just ad hominem & logical fallacies. Is THAT all evolution is based on? Insults & assertions? That is all that has been given in this thread, where i clearly spelled out the parameters for the discussion. But NO ONE has dared to follow this request, but all are merely illustrating the logical fallacies of the thread points.

You are merely proving my points, with this line of 'debate'. Please support your rebuttals with facts & evidence, if you believe evolution to be grounded in science. Otherwise, you are merely fueling the evidence that evolution is a philosophical construct, with no scientific evidence.

..not pages of links.. not more assertions.. but simple facts. Show me a peer reviewed article with experimentation that provides scientific methodology for this phenomenon. If you cannot, i question your knowledge, & suspect you are either completely ignorant of the subject, & try to get by on bluff & assertion, or you are completely indoctrinated by a flawed belief system that you think is proven fact.

Stick with the premise of the thread. If you want to debate comparative religions, start another thread. This is about science. If you think the facts about this issue are too mysterious & unknowable, and that only distant, unknown book writers can possibly know anything about our origins, then knowledge is dying, & we are going back to the dark ages.

 

The last evolution thread i participated in went over 100 pages, before the mods ended it. They do not let threads go on indefinitely here, but desire new threads, even if it is on the same topic.

How many threads are there on abortion? Terror? Obama? Trump? This is a valid topic for this forum, in this subforum. I submit that those who want to shut it down do so because they are afraid of the truth, & that the impotence of their pet belief system will be exposed as a sham. Is skepticism dead? Is critical thinking a relic of the past? Why are people afraid to examine the things they have been indoctrinated to believe?

 

If you want a debate, address the questions that people ask you. OK. Maybe there were too many things in my post. I'll keep it simple, one question at a time.

 

Start your own thread if you want a different topic. This is about the science of evolution. If you have evidence for this question that evolution answers, by all means post it. But demanding answers for something that is not relevant to the topic is merely a deflection.

 

Humans have manipulated the breeding patterns of canines for centuries that produced so many different physical traits of canines which is why we have so many different breeds of canines. You do not think that nature did the same thing with all other biodiversity since life began? New traits can only come from the reproduction line of descent therefore supporting evolution.

You are here today because every line of descent from the beginning produced the next generation of life. Your line of descent was not considered Human from the beginning of reproduction until recently.

 

Huh? I'm pointing out you do not want a discussion. I'm pointing out you've started an identical thread on this topic a few months back and you hand waived all the evidence provided.

A specific organism, yes. Small changes to that class of organism over time, is evolution.

.
Yes, but your are misrepresenting it.

Not an individual organism. The species.

Evolution.

Except for all the observations, and experiments of course.

Except all the evidence of course.

 

This is what I was talking about. You literally handwaived away his argument, definitions and citations.

You don't want a discussion. And no, your premise does not remain unrebutted. You have a LONG way to go. You literally need to prove the entire field of biology is wrong. You have presented no scientific evidence nor peer reviewed research that does this. "Nuh uh" is not a scientific argument.

 

Then you really should provide a scientific argument, using peer reviewed research to refute the theory of evolution, and the entire field of biology. Your argument thus far has been "nuh uh"

 

Still no evidence. No arguments. Just lame personal attacks & distortions. How many pages will you guys go with this? All i am asking for is a SCIENTIFIC discussion about this theory. What is so hard about that? Provide some evidence, not just ridicule & logical fallacies. I'll wait.

 

The burden of proof is on the claimant. You are the ones claiming the truth of this phenomenon, so you have to provide the evidence.

Science observes that organisms stay within their genetic parameters.. they do not flit about randomly, adding genes, traits, chromosomes, or features that are not in the original organism. This is observable reality. You are claiming something different from this reality, so you have to prove your theory with evidence, not just make demands to disprove it.

I can drop a rock over a bridge for thousands of times, & it will always go down.. that is observable reality. You may theorize that after enough attempts, the rock will fly up in the air, instead of down, then demand that i disprove your theory. I cannot. I can only demonstrate observable reality. The burden of proof is on you to prove the rock can fly in the air & overcome gravity, by some mysterious process. That is the same with evolution. Observable reality says that organisms stay within their genetic definitions, & can only draw upon that that has been passed down to them. You are claiming that new traits, new genes, & new chromosomes can be added, but you provide no mechanism for this, or explain HOW you can overcome the 'gravity' of the DNA, which always reproduces the organism to its parent stock.

So what will it be? More deflections? Ad hominem? Anything but science?

That's it? That is what your beliefs are based on, & that you believe are 'proven fact!'?

 

Hand waiving. Can you give me the link to your peer reviewed paper you've published refuting evolution and the entire field of biology?

- - - Updated - - -

Which is you in this case. Evolution has more evidence to support it than virtually any other theory.

You claim it's wrong. You need to publish a paper, have it peer reviewed, in order to refute evolution.

 

You are deflecting with irrational, non evidenced arguments.. if you have nothing, just admit it. There is no need to keep replying with the same lame points. I cannot 'disprove' a 'theory'. I can provide evidence for or against it, but that is all. I have no evidence for it, & neither do you. You have assertions & dogmatic beliefs, not scientific evidence.

If that is all you have, perhaps we should end this 'discussion' & see if others want to provide evidence for this thread.

I have been very patient, waiting for the parameters of the thread to unfold, but i'm getting tired of the deflections & off topic heckling. Post some science, if you want to debate this thread. Otherwise, why contribute if you have nothing?

 

Pointing out you keep handwaiving away evidence supporting evolution. You need to provide for us your peer reviewed paper which has disproven evolution, and biology.

Let's start with something simpler.........provide a peer reviewed journal which refutes this one......https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1715338/pdf/ajhg00124-0223.pdf

 

Thanks for the topical reply, Lynn. I was starting to wonder..

How do canids prove evolution? IF anything, they disprove it, by showing the diversity WITHIN the parent species, that can be 'bred out' over multiple generations.

You do not demonstrate 'new traits', and even evolutionists have conceded that the diversity among canids were there in the original parent stock.

source

Your last statement is only one of belief. You have no evidence that this is even possible. It is merely declared.

 

I would imagine that at the large scale, we are about to see speciation between some breeds of dogs. Technically, some breeds already qualify as separate species because they cannot reproduce due to mechanics [chihuahuas and Bullmastiffs, for example]. Given that these breeds will no longer mix, it is likely that it will soon [evolution time scale] be genetically impossible for some breeds to mix and produce offspring. To me the interesting question is, when this does happen, how would we know? Might it have happened already?

All modern breeds of dogs can be traced back to the wolf, in recorded history.

 

???????????

 

I replied to this before you asked it. This is a debate between humans, not computer bots. Post your reasoning, evidence, & points. A link can support your claim, but it is not an argument.