Fallacies of Evolution

the theory of evolution does not have one line of evidence..

 

You're parotting, not thinking... Think!

 

Ignorance of evidence is not valid argument.

 

I think your knowledge of the subject is limited.

 

So you've got nothing on that. I'm not surprised, no one does. But let's move on. You claim that evolution theory has powerful compelling explanations for how life made the vast transitions between the Family groupings of animals we see today, and I have declared that claim to be pure horse (*)(*)(*)(*). You have zip on the most important transition, from dead to living, so lets try an easier one.

Reptiles to Mammals:

Mammals are warm-blooded animals, which means they come with the ability to generate their own heat and maintain it at a very steady level.

They give live birth.
They suckle their young.
Their bodies are covered in fur or hair.

Reptiles are cold-blooded, they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes according to the external temperature.

They lay eggs.
They do not suckle their young.
Their bodies are covered in scales.

So, how did a reptile start to regulate its body temperature and come by a perspiratory mechanism to allow it to maintain its body temperature?

How did it replaced its scales with fur or hair.

How did it start to secrete milk and why were all the changes conserved by natural selection before long before they began to produce milk?

These are serious questions, yet the "answers" provided are "just-so" stories more fit for children's books:

Some of the reptiles in the colder regions began to develop a method of keeping their bodies warm. Their heat output increased when it was cold and their heat loss was cut down when scales became smaller and more pointed, and evolved into fur. Sweating was also an adaptation to regulate the body temperature, a device to cool the body when necessary by evaporation of water. But incidentally the young of these reptiles began to lick the sweat of the mother for nourishment. Certain sweat glands began to secrete a richer and richer secretion, which eventually became milk. Thus the young of these early mammals had a better start in life.

That is the product of nothing more than imagination, unsupported by the evidence, and in fact irrational. Do you have any idea how highly complex nutrient such as milk is? How many genetic instructions it takes for the food ingested by a mammal to be dissolved into its constituent parts and then built molecule by molecule into the vastly complex macro molecules that make up milk, by biological machines also built by the instructions and processes contained in DNA? And the "scientific" explanation for this is "it just happened' because a youngster licked its mother's body sweat? When reptiles don't even sweat?

Bahahahahahaha!

 

It doesn't. How life started is called abiogenesis. The Theory of Evolution only explains the diversity of life, and the same mechanisms which explain the observed differences between individuals can also explain species, families and kingdoms.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you believe the DNA evidence used in courts to determine paternity cases?

 

That's correct, it has hundreds of lines of evidence.

 

Certainly genus and species but they haven't demonstrated any power at the kingdom and family level.

 

When time is the only variable differentiating kingdom and family from genus and species, it's just a matter of time before we do.

 

But it's not, and you don't. The Animal Phyla formed in Cambrian Explosion, 540 million years ago. It lasted a mere 20 million years. Nothing like that has happened since, so it's not at all clear that what ever mechanisms were operating in the Cambrian explosion are even in operation today.

 

The more we learn about pre-Cambrian life, then less explosive the Cambrian looks.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)00916-0

 

Then why do so many people say GodDidIt when, in reality, they don't know?

 

deleted by ecco

 

Evolution has nothing to do with non life to life.

 

Lol, why do you insist on making such demonstrably false statements?

 

Care to back up your lies & smears with facts? Can you produce ONE LINE of evidence for the ToE? NOT ad hominem.. i know you can do those. NOT 'poison the well', false equivalence, or any other logical fallacies.. i know you are expert in the use of those, too. But ONE factual evidence that shows that structural changes to the genome are possible, not just imagined & asserted, as has been done here.

Talk is cheap. If you want to have any credibility in this thread, you've got to provide some evidence or arguments, not just 'drive by one liners'. I've provided the premise, & made the challenge. All i've gotten is deflections, distortions, ad hominem, & lots of other logical fallacies. You have only proven my point, that the ToE is based ONLY on logical fallacies, with NO science, NO facts, & NO reason.

My premise stands, unrebutted & ignored.

 

I refer you to the peer reviewed paper I provided, which you hand waived away.

Your premise was refuted on the first page.

 

They are true to him, and if you are willing to dismiss all things contrary out of hand they could be to you as well.

 

ah, just popping back in for a dash of ad hominem again? Still no substance or topical matters to post?

 

So, to go into this genetic question just a bit, stick one toe into the evolutionary waters...do we know the mechanism of genetic change involved in macroevolution? Do we even know that much? For that would be evidence, although usfan might want science to show us that it works by replicating it.

So, do we know the essential mechanism?

 

What does?

 

It's mutation. It happens in every generation of every organism that we've ever studied.

- - - Updated - - -

Abiogenesis

 

Since this is usfan's sandbox perhaps he will address this. I know what he will say, I think, but we shall see.

 

He already agreed that mutations occur, so I don't know what you expect him to say.

 

That is Micro and until you can place a cat on a table in front of me and turn it into a dog Macro does not exist. He might be satisfied with a fish turning into a frog...but probably not.