Fallacies of Evolution

The issue is, what do you accept at proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There have been many experiments showing that evolution is true, but you guys always have an issue with one thing or another.

 

Because a hypothesis is the only one that humanity can come up with does not make it the Truth, or even a good approximation of the Truth.

The accuracy of the hypothesis rests on how well it explains observations and processes, not on whether it is the only game in town.

You assume incorrectly.

I agree, but others do have the attitude that if evolution is disproven then the "only game in town" is that God did it. That's why so many evolutionists defend the theory of evolution so zealously.

 

The concept is simple (but the implementation is difficult). Its obvious the experiments have not shown evolution is true or there would be no raging debate. So do an experiment in which there is no room for doubt. Start with flies in a controlled ecosystem, and using evolutionary pressure and letting evolutionary processes work on their own, create mosquitoes. Do something like that and the doubters of the theory of evolution will quickly fade away.

 

So you're attacking me for not presenting direct evidence yet you're doing exactly the same thing? I can only hope you're trolling. Good bye, good riddance.

 

As far as i can see, these questions are mere deflections from the subject, but i will bite, for now.
1. Deep time? If you are talking about the massive lengths of time that are assumed by the ToE, then i disagree. This is not a matter of 'denying' anything, but living an evidentiary based existence, or to put it scientifically, letting the facts lead the discovery, instead of distorting the facts to fit the theory.
2, I just go by the scientific method. I'm not sure what you mean by 'historical vs observational'. You either observe the science, or you do not.
3. Evolution, like most 'theories' of origins, is not falsifiable.. you cannot disprove it.
4. The ToE is NOT a fact. It is a theory of origins, & has not been verified by any scientific experimentation. It is an imagined scenario, filled with assumptions, belief, & assertions.
5. Yes, that is the theory. Do you have any evidence for this claim, or do you rely only on assertion? And no, the ToE does not claim any correlation with abiogenesis.. it allegedly happens after the mystery of life begins.

These have no bearing on the topic, except for the inserted assertion of 'evolution is a fact!', which is just an assertion, with no evidentiary basis. This thread is still about evidence for the claim, which to now has not been presented, in spite of claims of there being lots of evidence for it, mountains, & that the evidence is beyond doubt. A couple of links have been posted, with no bearing on the subject, & with no evidence for the claim, but they are mere smokescreens for the emptiness of the argument & the impotence of the evidence.

 

Experiments like this have been tried for over 100 yrs. Environmental pressures have been forced, tails have been cut off, millions of generations have been observed & narrowed down, trying to create ONE new trait. It has never succeeded. The ToE has never been confirmed with any experimentation, & is left in the theoretical stage. It cannot be disproved, or shown to be impossible, so hope endures eternally, for its proponents.

 

how do i present evidence for something that does not exist? I gave the illustration of dropping a rock. That is like breeding or hybridizing living things. You can repeat the process as many times as you like, but you do not create new traits, or see structural changes in the DNA. This is not a troll, but a challenge for scientific evidence for a major theory in human history. I am merely calling FOR evidence, & demonstrating that there is no way to disprove the claim as it stands. It is not a falsifiable theory, in the scientific sense.

You posted a link, claiming it would clear everything up, & instruct me in the mysteries of evolution. I do not believe it, & i have been consistent here, not jumping about looking at links, when there have been no arguments given, & no evidence offered. A string of links has no meaning to this debate. If you do not understand your link, or cannot present evidence for your beliefs in your own words, why would you attempt to instruct me? I do know the issue. I understand the claim, the theory, & the major problems it has in it. I'm not attacking anyone, but have defended myself multiple times here, & am constantly directing the thread back to the topic, enduring ad hominem uncounted by many posters.

It is a hard task i have given the evolutionists in this thread, & none have complied. Why is that? It is because there is NO evidence for this belief system. It is one of the biggest hoaxes foisted upon mankind. Few will debate this subject, but prefer dogmatic assertions of superior knowledge, all the while demonstrating none. Why is there no evidence provided, in these many pages of posts, & many more in other threads? Why is there no honest debate over this topic, but instead ridicule & outrage is expressed? Where is ONE example of structural changes in the DNA, or added traits or chromosome pairs?

 

Of course there is a difference. It is universally recognized in the scientific community, & addressed by those terms. 'Micro' & 'macro' are used to describe the different levels of change. Micro is horizontal. It is variability within the genetic structure. Light vs dark moths. Red eyed fruit flies. Breeding. Macro is vertical. It is the theory that living things can increase in complexity at the genetic level, adding traits, creating new genes, adding chromosome pairs.. major, vertical changes in the genetic structure.

Macro evolution is the topic here. I listed that in the OP. Much of the problem is the false equivalence, in equating the 2, when they are 2 very different events. Micro is observable, repeatable, & predictable. Macro is theoretical, with no experimental evidence.
Merely breeding to reproductive isolation does not prove the ability to make the structural jumps to more chromosome pairs, or added genes. All it demonstrates is a narrowing of available traits.. fewer become available as selective options decrease. Sometimes, with some organisms, you get reproductive isolation, where the parent stock (which was kept in isolation from the child generations) became reproductively isolated. But you have not added genes. You have not changed the genetic structure. The fruit flies are still fruit flies, & even after millions of experiments over millions of generations, they remain genetically, fruit flies. It is unknown why they become reproductively isolated, when certain traits are bred out of the original stock, but they do sometimes. But the question of 'why?' for that is another subject. Suffice it to say it is not evidence for increased complexity, or structural changes in the genome. It's variability has been depleted, & it is locked in a narrow band of selection options.

 

Flies didn't come from mosquitoes, they have a common ancestor. See, the problem is that you guys want evolution on a Pokemon time scale when in reality, it takes millions of years in some cases. Besides, why should researches spend millions on an experiment, that even if it was an absolute success, would only tell us what we already know and you guys would say it was rigged and is part of the conspiracy to deny God?

 

LOL, and so the excuses start.

Such an experiment would produce all kinds of new information - but you don't realize it because you think everything about evolution is already known.

So much for the open mind of the evolutionist.

 

Bravo usfan! You have exposed something here. Which some of us were aware of, but you provided an excellent illustration of it. Many of these people sound like they are members of some cult.

The problem you listed in regards to ToE, is answered by using faith, while calling it science. The faithful always misdirect, ridicule, and indulge in character assassinations. You asked for simple evidence. Not too much to ask. But you got everything but that, with some pulling the leftwing tactic of trying to shut you up, for they cannot provide what you are asking for.

I do not expect you will get the evidence, for it does not exist. Only promissory notes can be written, to be redeemed in the future.

 

Check mate, ol' debater. I claim semantic assumption fallacy, my friend. I feel that you've extrapolated that the one evolution phenomenon is actually two phenomena because some human decided to classify it with two words. Because that is not the intent of the classification or an assumption of the theory itself, you're arguing on a straw man - whacking away at your own theory.

First let's explore how this is different from the semantics of dogs and cats: A dog is distinctly not a cat, regardless of a human's nomenclature.

In the case of evolution, micro and macro evolution comprise the theory of evolution and evolution itself, regardless of a human's nomenclature.

These are perspectives on the same matter designed by humans in order to study the topic. Done in many studies - biology, anatomy and economics are some examples.

Let's look at these perspectives side by side:
Both show the mechanics of evolution to be mutation, selection and drift.

The evidence they rely on is identical. What we find indicated in heredity between generations, we find indicated in the DNA of all living things over eras.

The two are entirely dependent and completely congruent. Because of what we know about genetics and reproduction, we expect that isolation and migration will affect speciation. We have historical evidence.
We know that adaptation comes from environment, not through happenstance, but through eradication and fitness that we've observed in the lab/life/geological records, etc. We would expect to find evidence like sabretooth tigers that were specialized to one environment and eradicated by the next.

The core tenets of evolution rely on this shared expectation: these 'two' occupy the same place at the same time: one.

What would be groundbreaking on your part is to point out the contradiction; show how false the equivalency of self is. You have to come out from behind experimentation to do so. It is not the only standard for science, hence another strawman assembled here. Science is significantly mathematical, historical, and indeed - theoretical. Your position also has to be supported by any and all of these facets of science for it to be a valid challenge to more comprehensive work.

People often feel theory and hypothesis are the same. To the contrary, theory is a basis of experimentation, analysis and hypothesis. One assumes theory and draws a hypothesis. When hypotheses fail to demonstrate or accord with a theory, then the theory undergoes change or is deprecated by another. Most of the time, these more fundamental theories like evolution and gravitation are shaped and supported by such a significant amount of hypotheses, experiments, findings... that you could find yourself getting some condescending response from the science community with any aims to controvert them in such a fundamental way. It's to say here's this wahoo with some idea - hasn't read anyone else's ideas and experiments like a good scientist does as a fundamental part of their career. They're sensitive, because that social part of science is what advances science beyond witchcraft and mad-science.

Drawing the hypothesis that evolution has itself evolved or changed fundamentally based on a semantic assumption fallacy and straw men doesn't seem like it would be fruitful. It is interesting, your proposal of an alternate genetic paradigm preceding the one we operate in... there's just no evidence to prove it.

 

The ToE has what any good scientific claim has,...evidence, and lots of it.
It's supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others.

If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

 

The reason this matter does pivot on your understanding is that you are setting a non-scientific standard to a scientific theory. Beyond any doubt?

You think that all of the chemistry, physics, biology, paleontology, geology, history.. that is based on and supports evolution was merely talk. In that hundred+ years, researchers have been able to document historical evidence showing that the mechanics of evolution that we produce in experiments have been at play in the same way for ages upon ages. Your confused hopes on the matter betray that you haven't looked much into any of that with an open mind.

Without study. There's a high risk of misunderstanding. For example, you want an experiment without a predictor as superior proof through less controls. Again, the high school fruitfly experiment is a demo of a bottleneck from an environment predictor (what you suggest): the London moths observation.

 

The OP posted a bunch of questions that he and you both know, or should know, have been answered by scientists over and over.

I realize that it is a lot different for Creationists. Regardless of how many questions are asked of them they need only one answer: GodDidIt. When asked how they know GodDidIt one answer is again all that is needed: TheBibleTellsMeSo.

Complexity reduced to absurd simplicity.

 

Yes and no. Indeed I have not offered a competing theory, but that is not a failure - speaking of which, this is a good place to repost the question you ignored in your thread:

You might as well be waiting for me to shovel the snow outa your driveways.

If it's not worth messing with, the obvious question is why the hell you're messing with it.

So you put your faith in authority figures, much like religionists. Whodathunkit?

The comparison is of course utterly preposterous, given that receiving bad counsel WRT evolution will hardly put the recipient in mortal danger, at least on this side of the grave.

And again I'll wonder aloud why the hell you're asking me.

Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding, pilgrim.

I could hardly do that, since I barely glanced at them.

Now that you know better, how about cutting the crap?

Damn right I don't, because I'm not retarded enough to answer questions that don't have a damn thing to do with anything I said.

Actually I'm pretty sure the misunderstanding is all yours. You guys are like 8 year olds who, having just built a footbridge over a creek, are supremely confident they can build a bridge to the Moon.

By what objective standard?

Maybe so, if the dataset excludes certain salient facts about human nature as opposed to that of animals. Otherwise, not a chance in Hell.

That's idiotic.

Yeah, well guess what: if roller derby were the only game in my town, I still wouldn't give a damn about roller derby. With that in mind, tell me why I should give a damn about the ToE "game".

On the contrary, your claim is utterly irrational, since one can hardly know how close to the truth any theory is without knowing the truth.

 

Post the evidence, & I'll address it.

There has been no evidence presented to support the claim. Assertions, yes. Beliefs declared. But no evidence.
I'm not asking for 'lots,' just one valid experiment or observation that supports the theory.

 

Not at all. I use the term denier, in the context of discussions about evolution, as a label for people who deny TOE because of their fundamentalist religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with a knowledge of a Final Truth.

If you really understood science and the scientific method you would know better than to use the term "proven". If you really understood science and the scientific method you would know that science arrives at conclusions based on a large consensus of evidence. The evidence for evolution, coming from many different fields of study including geology, physics and biology has been accumulating for over 100 years. You know that. But you deny it because of your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

- - - Updated - - -

See above

 

What is your explanation for the existence of humans on this earth?

It wouldn't be GodDidIt, would it?

 

If someone posts bogus nonsense, it's worth messing with.

We are not discussing a possible outcome. We are discussing the basis for accepting knowledge. You accept the knowledge of pilots, you deny the knowledge of people like geologists and biologists. We both know why you make that distinction.

Because you fall into the category of people who deny evolution because of your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

 

I've made no such denial, obviously. I merely note that I've never been presented with a credible argument that their knowledge in aggregate supports the proposition that human beings are the result of evolution from other species.

Since that distinction is a figment of your imagination, there is nothing to be known.

Then surely you will have no problem enumerating them.

 

Gee, then why don't you anti-evolutionists do the experiment yourselves, since you are so certain that it will fail. Then at least you can say you actually did some science instead of just flapping your mouths and beating on your keyboards about how evolution is not real.

 

Evolution is a physical process not a Mental one. It is obvious our species in NOT the only self aware creature on this planet. One need only have a Dog/Cat as a pet to understand this. If you cannot see this then watch a Dolphin play. Until you grasp the concept of TIME and how many changes are taking place within it you will never comprehend Evolution.

 

You merely assert this, as your belief. You have no evidence that this happened, or is even possible.

More assertions and a dodge. You don't have any evidence because the 'deniers!' would claim a conspiracy? Please. That is so lame. We're talking science, here. If you have no evidence, just admit it, and go back to the drawing board.

You don't have to become a Bible thumper just because some theory is found invalid. IMO, you are too invested, philosophically, in the ToE, and cannot give it an honest critique.

 

Experiments like that have been done for over 100 yrs, with the same results. There have been no examples of added traits, increasing complexity, or anything that is predicted by the ToE. That does not disprove the theory, but it does support the observation that living things stay within the parameters of their DNA.