Fallacies of Evolution

Well, you've put up a lot of words, here, but the reasoning is not sound. If you cannot see the difference between the observable phenomenon of variability within an organism, and the very different phenomenon of structural changes making the organism into something genetically different.. I don't know how we can discuss it further. This is a crucial definition, and the reason for much confusion about the ToE. It is a false equivalency, correlating a clearly observable, repeatable event with an imagined one. They are not the same event, and they do not correlate.

Selection can only act on existing variability. You can drift all you want, between the genetic walls along the road. But the walls are tall and strong, and will not let you go over them. Mexico paid for them, and you cannot cross them.

You can't call 'checkmate!' when we're still going over the rules.

 

I have said before, that scientifically, I am an origins agnostic. I don't have enough evidence to draw a conclusion. The physical evidence is not conclusive.

My beliefs and opinions are irrelevant in a scientific inquiry. Facts, experimental data, and observations are the weapons of choice for the scientific method.

It seems to me that your obsession with religious beliefs is a projection. You cannot frame the debate in a scientific mindset, and assume nobody else can, either.

But you are mistaken in this. Some people can distinguish between empirical evidence and beliefs. That is what science is about.

 

You deny the accumulated evidence from over 100 years of scientific research from 1000's of professionals and chalk it up to the fact that it's never been presented to you. What utter nonsense.

Do you ask the pilots to give you a presentation of the training they have received? Have you been presented with course outlines for pilots in training?

Why not be honest and admit that your fundamentalist religious beliefs is the only reason you deny TOE.
[/QUOTE]

 

That's an interesting choice of wording - "scientifically". So, from a religious standpoint, you are not "an origins agnostic". But, hey, we already knew that.

There are two competing "theories" regarding the existence of humans on this earth:

• Evolution
• Creationism

You argue vociferously against evolution. You never say anything about creationism.

• That is pretty clear evidence that you are not an origins agnostic at all.
• That is pretty clear evidence that you are a believer in GodDidIt.

I have found that there are two categories of people who deny evolution:

• Those who openly assert that they know GodDidIt because it's written in the bible.
• Those who try to hide their fundamentalist beliefs and make feeble attempts to try to argue against the science.

I have more respect for the former.

Wrong. Your relevant religious beliefs are what drive your denial.

 

Not the point.

Obviously the evidence is not conclusive and many people do not believe the theory of evolution is at all complete. Many of those critics are quite knowledgeable of the science, recognize its many flaws, but work with the theory because it is the only working theory available. Other critics are not biologists and either question or reject the theory of evolution for various reasons (such as religious reasons, or that the theory is improbable, or it does not seem to operate today).

If you want to debate endlessly, fine. But if you want to end the debate, then do a conclusive demonstration. Let people see with their own eyes.

<>

The London moths is not evolution. There were always light moths and dark moths, there still are. Only the proportion of light to dark has changed. And there is no new moth species.

 

I have not stated I deny the theory of evolution, nor have I based my posts on religion.

You are an example of what happens when someone (myself in this case) does not spout obedience to the theory of evolution. In your mind, people are either totally accepting of the theory of evolution as the Truth, or are religious anti-science troglodytes. To you, there is no room for criticism, questions, or a scientific curiosity.

- - - Updated - - -

See post 156

 

You understand that saying no evidence has been presented is a demonstrable lie right?

 

He apparently gets to decide when something is evidence, fact, real or agreed upon.

 

Just because you keep saying evolution in invalid doesn't make it true. Are you so conceited that you actually believe you know more than thousands of scientists, spread over numerous disciplines, who have studied over a hundred years of data?

 

Since it usually takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years for a new species to evolve, chances are pretty good we will not see it in our lifetime.

 

I think you have in infinite loop going on there.

 

I already replied to this, which you conveniently deleted. You are still dodging the questions, & are trying to make this a religious debate, over beliefs. This is about science. If you have absolute proof of another theory of origins, then that would be a major blow to the other beliefs. But we are employing the scientific method to THIS theory, not others. You are welcome to critique other theories, if you wish, but that is not the topic, here.

Then demonstrate it. You have not demonstrated anything, except your ability to dodge & weave & say nothing... oh, and engage in ad hominem.

That is convenient. So now you admit you have no evidence, because what you assume takes too long, & cannot be observed. IOW, it is an EXTRAPOLATED phenomenon, with no observable evidence. That has been my point all along.

..and you still evade the question, 'HOW?'

How does the genetic structure change, creating a new species? How do you get enough horizontal, cumulative changes to affect a major vertical jump in the genome, creating an entirely new species? HOW do you get ANY new genes or traits? Hiding behind time does not work, with the scientific method. That is an excuse & wishful thinking, not scientific evidence.

I am getting weary of repeating myself, & getting no empirical evidence to examine. Why has nobody been able to provide even one example of structural, vertical change in the genome? We observe the descendancy in the canid family, & can follow the mtDNA as the thread of life, indicating descendancy. But why has there been nothing presented to show the 'slow, accumulated changes' from the canid to another, or some other to the canid? Canids remain canids. They vary within their structure, but they do NOT change that basic structure. They can breed with each other, demonstrate a lot of morphological differences, & are connected via the mtDNA as related.

Observable, repeatable science, with hundreds of years of application, says that macro evolution is impossible.. it is the opposite of micro evolution, & it does not work. You never get slow, accumulated changes in the genome, but mere variability. They do not add up, but remain branches on a family tree, ending with a few narrow trait samples.

It is probably best if i bow out of this subject for a while.. since nobody, it seems, wishes to honor the questions in the OP. I'll watch the thread, in case someone does want to debate this scientifically, but i'm not really interested in bickering with unscientific fools, or hate filled ideologues who feel they have to attack anyone who dares question their sacred beliefs.

 

I am not a biologist, so I can't answer your questions directly, but that doesn't mean that science has not. See, the issue is not whether you have an argument that someone on this forum can or cannot answer, it is about who do the rest of us trust, you, an anonymous Internet poster, or the 98% of scientists that say that evolution is true.

See, the debate has been already settled. You are trying to argue a court case after the jury has already handed down the verdict.

 

Sure you have...

• It's not the only one people have come up with. It's the one that has been enhanced and enriched for over 100 years with support from evidence from many different areas of scientific inquiry.
• The only raging debate is between people who deny evolution on religious grounds and scientists and lay people who put science ahead of their silly superstitious beliefs.
• It isn't complete. Science will continue to enhance and work out the finer and finer details.

Your religious beliefs are the root of your denial of evolution. You can try to deny it. Just post whether or not you find to be the Genesis account in the bible to be accurate.

I had never thought of using the word "troglodyte". But, it does fit.

trog·lo·dyte

There has been and continues to be criticism and professional debate within the scientific community ever since Darwin first published. That's why we know more about evolution today than we did 100 years ago. That's how science works. That's why TOE is accepted as the answer to the question of human's existence on earth. There is no scientific research that counters the validity of the overall concept of TOE.

 

We don't need as rational people to fill in these details as long as science is working on them and trying to find the truth, we just need to show the process is the most convincing explanation for the evidence we have including DNA now and that it works at some level such as in bacteria and viruses and in distressed populations or even in a laboratory using genetic manipulation. See its the one theory that makes sense of the evidence we have until such time another theory takes its place with a better understanding. But even if aliens came down, tinkered with life for ages and we found out the theory would still work. And since 99% of life in the history of our planet is extinct evolution seems pretty damned effective at separating the winners from the losers and we fortunately made it until we are replaced in some manner maybe by super intelligent sentient androids or something.

We are damned sure Black Holes exist but haven't seen one directly or studied one up close, yet Black Hole Theory is pretty sound but we still can't explain them completely.

 

Well, here is the rest of your post #152...

I just addressed the first paragraph (See above) because of the way you worded it.

I haven't dodged anything. You are one of the people who refuses to state their beliefs on the origins of humans on this earth. Since the only theory in opposition to TOE is religious creationism, yes, the debate must include religious beliefs. Within the scientific communities, there is no debate.

Critique of other theories is topic here. You made it so. Your list of questions in your OP is just like the list of questions that religious based groups like the Creation Institute and CARM have been throwing around for years. Here sample from ...

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

• 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!
• 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?)
• People have been wearing clothes for thousands of years. Why haven't our bodies evolved natural clothes that come out of our skin then?

​

You're in good company indeed.

 

You totally fail, and demonstrate you do not think about what you read.

For example, your claims of me stating I do not believe the theory of evolution:

127 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. That is related to the false claim that because a theory is the only one, then it must be true.


128 Its obvious the experiments have not shown evolution is true or there would be no raging debate.
155 Obviously the evidence is not conclusive and many people do not believe the theory of evolution is at all complete.
Simple statements of fact, as the many threads in this forum demonstrate. Many people reject or are critical of the theory of evolution. Simple, undeniable fact.

Neither even hints at my position on evolution, neither comes close to the form of "I believe..."

And I have certainly not made any claims to a religious basis for my unstated opinion of evolution.


You continue to nicely demonstrate the closed mindedness and lack of scientific integrity in some of the evolutionist zealots. The mere thought that someone could be critical of your faith in evolution sends you into blindness.​

 

Battle, (and Usfan) I've been in forums for many years. I've been in many discussions regarding evolution.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the one thing deniers of evolution have in common is their fundamentalist religious beliefs. There are primarily two kinds of arguments used by evolution deniers:

1. I believe evolution is wrong because the bible says otherwise.
2. I believe evolution is wrong because it's unproven, has too many unanswered questions, thousands of scientists disagree with it, etc, etc.

Those in the first group are open and honest and provide an alternative to TOE.
Those in the second group refuse to admit their religious roots and refuse to provide an alternative to TOE.

You label me closed minded. Yet you are the one who will not open his mind to the accumulated knowledge provided by tens of thousands of scientists garnered over the course of 100 years. Scientists in many different fields of expertise like geology, physics and biology. Scientists of many different religious beliefs.

The thought of you, and people like you, being critical of my position on TOE does not send me into blindness. It no longer even saddens me. Your arguments do not change the fact that TOE is firmly established as the only scientific explanation for the existence of humans on this earth.

It's really quite simple, either nature did it or GodDidIt. I believe nature did it. I am quite sure you believe GodDidIt, even if you will not admit it.

Perhaps I'm wrong. It's easy to prove me wrong. Just show a third alternative.

 

And thus do we complete the circle, now begins the cycle of denial and useless dodging of questions. Do not expect any answers or expect disappointment.

 

........

 

My comment was to the author. I have no dog in this hunt other than along with him waiting for the evidence he asked for. I think the evidence is there for micro which can be replicated under controlled conditions. But he isn't questioning that, right? Since I am not a philosophical materialist, my ideas come from the assumption 180 from the assumption materialism is based upon, but we are not arguing that subject here, right? And if I ever feel the need to debate that, which would be useless, given the assumptions involved, I would start a new thread and leave this one to the author.

 

It just seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the reason no evidence is available in regards to this macro evolution question, then hard evidence must not exist? If this is indeed the case, then what happens within the genetics, in order for a new species to arise is just unknown. Which means we are missing the mechanics needed, right? So until those mechanics are discovered we are asked to accept a promissory note that one day, one year, science will discover what they need, which will then be utilized in a controlled experiment which will then supply the hard evidence needed?

This of course has been what Rupert Sheldrake has been talking about for years, which is applying the scientific method to the dogma inherit in science, especially in fields like biology. Sheldrake is a biologist, btw, and sees problems within science itself, with perhaps this question in the OP being one of them. .

It really isn't too much to ask, for evidence behind the assertions in this field of evolution, is it? For that is what the author of the OP is doing. But in response he gets attacks, and accusation for even asking for the evidence. Which was of course expected, IMO.

Personally, not being much interested in this stuff, I really thought the hard evidence was there for what he is talking about. For evolutionists exhibit such certainty, when perhaps that simply does not exist, unless a little bit of faith is injected. Just because they got micro evolution right, does not mean their ideas on macro is right. It looks just to be just...an idea...but the mechanics are unknown? Therefore no testing can be done to acquire the evidence? So promissory notes are issued? This might be driven by...we know a creator does not exist, so this has to be able to be discovered by experiments, yet we are not there yet for we do not understand nor can we discover, so far the genetic mechanics involved. Of course this would be where my idea of reality would come in, as the physicist Tom Campbell entertains. But this is the author's play pen, not mine...and I think he will not get the evidence he asked for. For obvious reasons. Yet something which we do not understand happened after mass extinctions of life, and then a flowering of different species as seen in the Cambrian era, an explosion of a multitude of different species. We just cannot explain it by the mechanism of genetics, how the WALL is breached, and the limitation was no longer there. So, it looks almost magical. So, all we have then are promissory notes.

 

The third alternative is the scientific approach - acceptance of the theory of evolution as a working hypothesis (its all there is at the moment) while recognizing it is incomplete and may very well be wrong, and accepting the criticisms as the natural process of peer review and progression of knowledge.

And science does not rule out the option of "God did it". At this time, those hypotheses are not testable, provable or disprovable, so while they exist and cannot be discarded, they cannot actually be addressed. And since within humanity the concept of god is so fluid, there is no secular argument that can prevent the "god did it" claim. For example, you can claim the theory of evolution is exactly how life evolved, and it can be true - but then someone can say that god created the world to work in that manner and started the process by creating the first life. And in that example, you are both correct, it is evolution and god.

Again, an alternative is not necessary to believe a hypothesis is wrong, and is not required to disprove a hypothesis. For many years, scientists believed the concept of ether, it served as a working platform for advancing knowledge and explaining observed phenomenon, but it was completely wrong. And when it was proven to be wrong through the Michelson-Morley experiment, there was no replacement for another 25 years until Einstein published his papers.

 

It is a question of what you will accept as evidence, all my questions were pertaining to that and the way that the thread has transpired, my suspicions about where it would go were right. In all my time in forums like this I've never been wrong about how these arguments will go by the way.

1. Do you deny deep time exists in itself? Is deep time demonstrable? I didn't ask you to say if it supported the ToE, the key word here was 'independently', do you accept that science has independently demonstrated deep time in independent disciplines?
2. OK, so you accept that you do not have to directly observe evidence?
3. Evolution is not falsifiable because it is a fact, we observe diversity in species. The ToE is a falsifiable explanation for the fact.
By the way, the ToE is a theory on the origins of species, not the origins of life, I am reiterating this because your post is vague here.
4. I said, quite specifically, Evolution is a fact and, the ToE is the scientific theory that best explains the fact of Evolution. The ToE is supported by the science using the scientific method.
5. So you agree that the ToE does not try to explain the origins of life but, you didn't say that you understand that Evolution happens to populations not individuals?

These have a bearing on the topic, they have a bearing on how much value we should place on taking the time to give you answers that you will never accept.

Evidence will change my mind, what would change yours?

 

If there were such a "wall" (for which there is no evidence), then there could be no long sequence of evolutionary changes.
The basic evolutionary mechanisms;mutation, migration, natural selection and genetic drift can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.