+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 18 of 43 FirstFirst ... 814151617181920212228 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 426

Thread: Fallacies of Evolution

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo View Post
    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.
    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.
    "Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind..." Erwin Schrodinger

  2. Default

    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.
    "Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind..." Erwin Schrodinger

  3. Likes usfan liked this post
  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ecco View Post
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Battle3; Jan 11 2017 at 12:35 PM.
    In the Koran, Surah 8 is titled "al-Anfal" which means "The Spoils of War". Why does the holy book of the "religion of peace" have an entire chapter describing the spoils of war?

    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    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.
    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?
    Last edited by William Rea; Jan 11 2017 at 12:31 PM.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by One Mind View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    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.
    You're putting forward that there's some change in the way genes work now from the way that they appear to have always worked. No evidence supports that view and you don't actually propose any yourself. Where does that leave your position? In checkmate I say.

    Again, you should expect very little success wielding taxonomy itself as a natural property. Was this a deliberate dialectic ploy of yours or had you not realized that you'd based your entire understanding of the topic on semantics?

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo View Post
    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.
    The idea of "given enough time" is an assumption, for we have not found the genetic evidence of this happening, right? We would have to know of the mechanism involved, and knowing it could be reproduced, by doing it, right? Yet all that is actually being said is that time is the factor needed, vast amounts of time. Yet at some point in that time, something has to happen at the genetic level. If we knew what happens, the mechanism requiring vast time we would have evidence. So here we have A which through some mechanism yields B, but we do not know what that mechanism is.

    Isn't there some kind of wall between us turning a fish into a dog? Or even a cat into a dog? What is the natural process, the mechanism on the genetic level that achieves one life form changing into another with little genetic commonality ? We do not know, right? For if we knew, and using intelligence, manipulate this, skipping the vast time, we could replicate it. Right? Yet even with our intelligence we cannot do this and if we could, the author of this OP would not be asking for evidence. I see where he is coming from, and it seems to be a rather hard question to answer with anything approaching certainty. Yet evolutionists speak with utter certainty. As the theist and the atheist speak with such certainty. I think the same thing is going on here with the evolutionists. Not in regards to horizontal for we can provide evidence. What environmental stimulus is involved with genetic changes, or what genetic events and mechanisms are involved in the creation of dissimilar life forms? If we know this, that would be he evidence the OP asked for.


    What sparked the tremendous rise of a great variety of dissimilar life forms in the Cambrian era? Does nature abhor a life vacuum when the conditions will support it? And will rush to fill it? IF the needed elements are available? Akin to the information needed at the quantum level for an atom to work?
    "Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind..." Erwin Schrodinger

  9. Likes usfan liked this post
  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Battle3 View Post
    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 don't think that science is really there to burst the bubbles of the faithful. There's no active consternation with evolution theory in the biology community. The findings related to evolution may help someone who is looking to identify fossils they found or understand how a newly discovered plant specimen relates to other life. So many of these simple studies have happened without uncovering contradictions to the way we understand things, that the body of science does seem like a very conclusive demonstration. It's not accessible to people who don't study the work that other people have done.

    There will never be an end to the debating of the second group you mention. Science is not a tool for shutting down debate and not all principles demonstrate to the untrained eye.

    Regarding the moths experiment, it is a demonstration of the mechanics of evolution. When it's combined with genetics, this natural experiment explains a lot about how things have come to be. Particularly that moth populations in the home counties were converse to the London population, it's used as a way of understanding how environment drives change, and location/isolation drives speciation.

    The confidence in speciation comes from the genetic relationships that we see between species. Because we know how genes are transferred and how they get minced up and rearranged in reproduction, we can tell if there's descendancy or ascendency in these interspecies genetic relationships. It's generally accepted that this sort of DNA evidence is more accurate than looking at things with the naked eye and surmising probabilities about who's the daddy or who's blood was on the scene. The same applies here. This is the strongest evidence of evolution, but it's the evidence that gets overlooked by the religious/misunderstanding group, probably due to how much studying has to be done to understand it first hand.

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by One Mind View Post
    The idea of "given enough time" is an assumption, for we have not found the genetic evidence of this happening, right? We would have to know of the mechanism involved, and knowing it could be reproduced, by doing it, right? Yet all that is actually being said is that time is the factor needed, vast amounts of time. Yet at some point in that time, something has to happen at the genetic level. If we knew what happens, the mechanism requiring vast time we would have evidence. So here we have A which through some mechanism yields B, but we do not know what that mechanism is.

    Isn't there some kind of wall between us turning a fish into a dog? Or even a cat into a dog? What is the natural process, the mechanism on the genetic level that achieves one life form changing into another with little genetic commonality ? We do not know, right? For if we knew, and using intelligence, manipulate this, skipping the vast time, we could replicate it. Right? Yet even with our intelligence we cannot do this and if we could, the author of this OP would not be asking for evidence. I see where he is coming from, and it seems to be a rather hard question to answer with anything approaching certainty. Yet evolutionists speak with utter certainty. As the theist and the atheist speak with such certainty. I think the same thing is going on here with the evolutionists. Not in regards to horizontal for we can provide evidence. What environmental stimulus is involved with genetic changes, or what genetic events and mechanisms are involved in the creation of dissimilar life forms? If we know this, that would be he evidence the OP asked for.


    What sparked the tremendous rise of a great variety of dissimilar life forms in the Cambrian era? Does nature abhor a life vacuum when the conditions will support it? And will rush to fill it? IF the needed elements are available? Akin to the information needed at the quantum level for an atom to work?
    I listed the mechanisms.
    In order to help separate science from science fiction I suggest taking a course in evolutionary biology and one in paleontology.

    Moving on.

  12. #180

    Default

    Ok, since we can't seem to deal with the science, i'll address one of the popular arguments that has been presented. This is not a proof of the ToE, or evidence for it, but attempts to smear any who would question the theory.

    1. 'Your theism has blinded you to the truth of evolution.'
    This argument implies that the critic of the theory has a hidden agenda, & cannot accept scientific evidence because of personal religious bias. Their religious bias won't let them see the obvious evidence for the theory.

    Let us examine this premise. It is flawed in many ways, but the major one is the obvious fact that a great many theists believe in evolution as an explanation of origins. They may include a supernatural entity in there, somewhere, but there is no conflict between theism & the ToE.

    THEREFORE, the premise is false, & has no validity. A theist can objectively examine the SCIENTIFIC claims of the ToE, without compromising their core beliefs. A belief in God does not conflict with a belief in evolution. Millions of people do this. I would predict that if you took a survey of theists on this forum, most would say they believe in the ToE.

    Therefore, the argument is invalid, & should not be repeated ad nauseum, as it has been here. It is flawed in observable reality, & has no evidence. It is merely a prejudicial smear to dodge any criticisms of the SCIENCE of the ToE.

    It does, however bring up an interesting question:

    Why would an atheist believer in the ToE accuse such a thing? It is obviously flawed, logically & factually. Why would an atheist suggest that a theist cannot objectively examine the science behind this theory?

    I suggest that it is projection. Unlike the theist, the atheist cannot exist, philosophically, without the ToE, or some other theory of naturalistic origins, and there are none other, as we are constantly reminded. So SOME atheists cannot examine the science behind the theory, because they are too invested in it PHILOSOPHICALLY. Any questioning of the theory is an attack on their core beliefs. Their foundations are rattled, & they are left adrift in a sea of doubt, if they lose faith in the ToE. That is why SOME of them react so emotionally & angrily toward any critique of the theory.

    So this argument has no validity for the theist, who can keep his worldview whether evolution is true or not, & who can examine the scientific claims of the ToE critically, & dispassionately. But SOME atheists, who are not secure in their beliefs, or who cling to the belief in evolution as the only naturalistic explanation for origins, react irrationally, as religious ideologues often do. Their protests against theists who might examine the claims of the ToE are biased & prejudiced, not based on scientific evidence.

    So the atheist who accuses, 'Your theism is blinding you to the evidence of evolution!' is merely displaying his own blindness, & is demonstrating his closed mindedness in examining the claims of a scientific theory. To him, it has become a religion, which he defends with jihadist zeal. Any who dare question their sacred tenets of faith are blasphemers, & should be attacked mercilessly.

    I know of no other explanation for the irrational hysteria that some atheists have for anyone who questions the ToE.
    Town drunks or village idiots is what the collective produces. It takes a family to raise a child.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 18 of 43 FirstFirst ... 814151617181920212228 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks