Fallacies of Evolution

Discussion in 'Science' started by usfan, Jan 7, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,377
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm a scientist in my own small way, I got College of Preceptors exam passes in General Science and Advanced Science in the 1960's and went on to work in labs, so my scientific curiosity is naturally aroused by this Jesus fellow who said-
    "I am not of this world ....though you do not believe me, believe the miracles.....i'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (John 8:23,John 10:38,Matt 13:35)
    So surely it's only logical that we should want to check out an alien visitor, right Spock?

    "Affimative, I'm all ears"
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've been busted...own it.
     
  3. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Would you like to go back & review our posts, to see which had 'science' in them, & which did not? Your ad hominem here is a blatant lie. I am a great believer in science, & the scientific method, & i defend it from all enemies, foreign or domestic. The lame bits of 'Fake Science' i have exposed in this thread & others demonstrate this commitment.

    No response or rebuttal to the Equus post? the Neanderthal one? Canidae? Bacteria? I have been the main producer of scientific evidence, arguments, studies, & empirically based replies. Most of the hecklers in the peanut gallery only have their beloved fallacies.. with some poo to toss in with it.
     
  4. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes....you have told us all of your education before. Cr. Ben Carson id a freakin' neourosurgeon and believes the Pyramids of Egypt were built by Joseph to store grain. Your "Education" is irrelevant considering your obvious intellect.
     
  5. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Have A Nice Day:smile:
     
  6. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    usfan's definition of "real science" amounts to whatever he agrees with.
     
  7. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,377
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry mate but I don't understand what you're trying to say.
    Check your monitor settings to see if my Dawkins quote is displaying properly for you, it's a direct quote from his book "Climbing Mount Improbable", page 146, where he seems to be saying a lump of jelly appeared out of nowhere as if by magic, look-
    "It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
    Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)
     
  8. Dirty Rotten Imbecile

    Dirty Rotten Imbecile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    869
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure if you are aware but a lot of what you posted a) supports evolutionary theory and b) was accounted for in the original link I posted.

    I would definitely expect the evolution of the horse to be more like a bush (a tree I would say) than a direct line. In fact I'm pretty sure I talked about the tree of life earlier on the thread.

    The fact that Eohippus is a sub species of hyracotherium is accounted for in the Wikipedia article. When you click on the link from Eohippus it takes you tan article describing its classification as such back in 1932.

    I have to confess I'm not much of a fan of when people find a bunch of different quotes and string them altogether creating a new context. I always want to find the quotes and put them back in their original context.

    I did take some time to search out the first quote from Boyce Resenberger. Unfortunately the entire article is difficult to find however I found a description of the article here at section 3.4.

    It's important to note that Resenberger's article also appeared in the NYT with a different headline and the quote we are discussing removed from the article.

    Also, this website claims that an earlier paragraph in the article states "Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin's epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic analysis, for example, has shown that every organism is governed by the same genetic code controlling the same biochemical processes"

    So Resenberger wasn't refuting the theory of evolution he was however clarifying it.

    I tried unsuccessfully to locate the NYT version of Resenberger's article. However it was referenced in this book The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
    By Stephen Jay Gould and it refers to the way the headline used by the NYT was more sensationalist than it had to be. It also mentions how his work and the work of a few other scientists have "unwittingly fostered a scourge of creationism." If you read the entire chapter you begin to understand how he feels, that scientists like himself and Resenberger were sensationalized and used by the press and by creationists to suggest that the theory of evolution was dead because of his theory of punctuated equilibrium when all it really does is modify the theory with additional data from paleobiology.
     
  9. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,377
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But mate, the famous Drake Equation suggests there are thousands of alien civilisations out there, so shouldn't we open-mindedly and scientifically speculate on the possibility that Jesus came from one of them just like he said- "I am not of this world"?

    "According to Drake, the average of people's best estimates suggests that there are about 10,000 technically advanced civilisations spread across our galaxy"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/questions_and_ideas/drake_equation

    [​IMG]
     
  10. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While I agree the Drake is a good hypothetical model to speculate upon...and even that perhaps some form of Alien life could and has visited our planet. I cannot agree it would manifest as a baby human and allow itself to ne captured, tortured, and killed after decades of pretending to be human and then come back from being killed to play God.
     
  11. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was not quoting the evolutionists because i thought they were refuting evolution. I was addressing a single issue.. Eohippus, & by extension, Equus. These are both touted as 'proof of evolution!' in many places, including the NPR link i gave. The old 'horse march of time' graphic has been replaced with the 'bush', but not by many textbooks, teachers, .edu sites, etc. I bemoaned what seems to be a major lag in evidence & information... discredited info is still presented as 'settled science', and criticisms are often not even alluded to.

    Archaeopteryx is another example, still touted as 'the transitional species!' when there have been birds found that are allegedly older, & when many see archaeopteryx as just another extinct bird. There is nothing to compel a conclusion of 'descendancy!' from these fossils.

    The quotes are from a variety of sources, to illustrate the points made. I do not say they argue against evolution, just the specific claim in the post. I prefer to use quotes from evolutionists, as any from those who are skeptical are automatically dismissed as 'deniers!' or such.

    Regarding your added quote from Resenberger, 'Genetic analysis, for example, has shown that every organism is governed by the same genetic code controlling the same biochemical processes', would catch a lot of flak from geneticists today, & might already have. This is not anywhere near true.. it is not the 'same genetic code', but each organism has uniquely distinct genes that manage the various functions. They are not 'plug & play', lego block genes, common to all living things. If you isolated the genes governing breathing in a human, it is not anything like that of a bird or reptile, or even a chimp. So this suggests a false impression, & is not accurate at all.

    If all he is saying is that 'all breathing creatures have dna that controls that function', then that would be accurate. But the DNA is not the same. The genes are different, the architecture is different, & they do not interchange.

    It is more like parts of a car. Say that a chevy pickup with a 350 engine has mechanical problems. You cannot take a part from a ford to fix it. That 'species' of auto needs its own genetic type or structure. Now, if you have 2 chevy pickups, with different engines, some of their body or mechanical parts can interchange. That is like humans getting kidney transplants, or blood transfusions. But you cannot put monkey blood in a human, or vice versa. the parts are not interchangeable with the different models.
     
  12. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,377
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It goes much, much deeper than that mate but sadly our human brains aren't capable of seeing the big picture just as JC said-
    "You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?.....I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.....you are of this world, I am not of this world" (John 3:12,John 10:38,8:14,8:23)

    However it's fun to speculate, so if you'd care to post in the Religion forum I'd be happy to churn out more of my scientific/religious speculations like this one..:)-

    Jesus said - "Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it,but small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."(Matt 7:13)

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  13. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your drivel is sourced from debunked "creation science" websites with zero credibility. That you refrain from providing the links to those sites says volumes.

    You were asked to provide this "magical science" of yours but instead you respond with puerile ad homs which is a de facto admission that your "magical science" cannot withstand critical scrutiny. You have not "substantiated" anything at all.

    You have no valid sources and that is readily obvious to everyone reading this thread of yours.

    But that is your problem, not mine.
     
  14. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since that would exclude 100% of your "creation science" nonsense that would eradicate the entire purpose of this thread.
     
  15. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nice heckle. Any science or evidence, or do you not know what that is? Is that just what YOU agree with? Want to present some arguments, evidence, of even logic? Aren't you tired of relying on fallacies?

    Take on my neanderthal post, if you think you're up to it. Or the equus.. or bacteria, or canidae, or the multiple other studies i have presented, addressed, or rebutted. I have done the heavy lifting, in this thread. Too much weight for you?

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you allegedly believe in the scientific method then where are the links to the peer reviewed papers in prestigious scientific journals supporting your bogus "creation science"?

    Oh, right, they don't exist because "creation science" is an oxymoron and it doesn't meet the basic standard of the scientific method.

    Explains why you never post the links to your sources either.
     
  17. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More heckling & deflections. Let me know if you ever decide to post anything topical..
    I hardly ever post anything from non evolution sites.. too much hysteria from the evolutionists. I try to be considerate & posts from people they think are smart. But i primarily use reason, science, & evidence.. something very few posters here have done.

    - - - Updated - - -

    If all you have are lies, distortions, & ad hominem, don't expect any replies.
     
  18. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I'm saying is that you're guilty of quote mining.
    Use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage or speech by an author.
    ~fini~
     
  19. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ironic since that is all that you are doing right now.

    Where is this imaginary magic "science" of yours that had been "debunking" the ToE for "200 years" now?

    What, you can't provide even a single link to back up that allegation of yours?

    :roflol:
     
  20. Dirty Rotten Imbecile

    Dirty Rotten Imbecile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    869
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I said before, no one is claiming that genes are like lego blocks. If you look back to my previous quote about I referred to analogous genes.

    It however is very much a fact that that genetics do show an interrelationship of species based on the genetic code. Can you plug and play genes? No. We all know that once a species becomes separated there is no reproducing them but it happens in stages. Horses and donkeys can reproduce to make a mule and donkeys can mate with zebras. Once the degree of separation between species is great enough then reproduction is no longer possible. That doesn't disprove evolution at all.

    Yeah you can't put monkey blood in human blood, they are far too different. However there is growing evidence that humans have traces of other hominid species in their genetic code. There is evidence of cross breeding between Neanderthal and modern human, Denisovian and modern human. Obviously monkeys and humans are too distantly separated from their common ancestors to reproduce.
     
  21. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113


    He meant that all organisms have a genetic code made up of ATCG nucleotides, and that they all control the same processes of transcription, translation, etc. This is a good example of why context is important.

     
  22. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apparently too much weight for you considering you haven't refuted any evidence presented;
    you just think you have.

    And do try not to confuse your "analysis" of a study with it having been peer-reviewed.
     
  23. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A lot of this is just the 'false correlation' from the OP. Of course there is neanderthal dna in some other humans, because neanderthal was just another human, with some morphological differences. It was NOT a different species.. that is what genetics has taught us. The once believed 'theory' of neanderthal as a sub human ancestor of homo sapiens has been debunked by genetic science, & even those who had a dog in the hunt have had to change their view of neanderthal.

    Now, that has not corrected all the false 'march of evolution' graphics out there, that continue to show neanderthal as a 'transitional species'. Neanderthal came from the same mtDNA as any other homo sapiens. They were not a different species.

    You mention donkeys, horses, & zebras. These you CAN trace as descended. Some have them have become 'sort of' reproductively isolated, but not completely. Is this an indication of becoming a different genetic species? No. These are tips of the branches, some of them so narrow in their variability that the can only produce the narrow range of traits. Reproductive isolation does not always mean a completely different genetic type, or a major change in the architecture of the genome. Sometimes, it does. All organisms that are NOT of the same genetic makeup cannot reproduce with each other. But that does not indicate descendancy, & some reproductive isolation does not mean they are NOT related, either. It depends on the DNA.. THAT is the arbiter of descendancy, not morphology.

    When you can follow the mtDNA & conclude descendancy, but have no evidence for it with others, what evidence is there? The main one presented here seems to be a 'looks like!' morphology. If some organisms 'look' similar, that indicates descendancy. But that is not a scientific conclusion, or the only possibility.

    'Once a species becomes separated' is circular reasoning. You are assuming the premise to prove the event. You have to provide evidence that a 'separated species' was once part of another, or related somehow, to the former. There is genetic information to do that. The aforementioned mtDNA can do this. There are other genetic comparisons as well. But to then correlate those that are obviously descended, with all of those that are NOT evidenced is a leap.. a false correlation. I can say, 'Dogs have the same ancestor as wolves', & be genetically & scientifically correct. There is evidence for that. But to then say, 'And humans have the same ancestor as apes', is flawed. There is NO evidence for that, other than a similarity of appearance. The genes are different. The chromosome pairs are different. They are not genetically compatible. So there is no way to make that statement scientifically.. it is one of belief, only.
     
  24. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Out of curiosity, is there a reason you trust mtDNA analysis that shows the relationship between donkeys, horses, and zebras, but don't appear to trust the analysis of nuclear DNA that shows a broader relationship between all organisms?
     
  25. Dirty Rotten Imbecile

    Dirty Rotten Imbecile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    869
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Neanderthals, or more rarely Neandertals,[a] (UK /niˈændərˌtɑːl/, us also /neɪ/-, -/ˈɑːndər/-, -/ˌtɔːl/, -/ˌθɔːl/;[6][7] named for the Neandertal region in Germany) were a species or subspecies of archaic human in the genus Homo that went extinct about 40,000 years ago. Neanderthals and modern humans share 99.7% of their DNA[8] and are hence closely related.[9][10] (By comparison, both modern humans and Neanderthals share 98.8% of their DNA with their closest non-human living relatives, the chimpanzees.)[8] Neanderthals left bones and stone tools in Eurasia, from Western Europe to Central and Northern Asia. Due to accumulating genetic and fossil evidence suggesting Neanderthals evolved in Europe separately from modern humans in Africa for over 600,000 years, paleontologists generally classify them as a distinct species, Homo neanderthalensis. From the 1950s to the early 1980s, however, Neanderthals were widely considered a subspecies of Homo sapiens (H. s. neanderthalensis) and a minority of scholars still hold this view.[11][12][13]

    The bolding is mine. Homo neanderthalis is a distinct species and genetics have not "debunked" that idea or at least the majority of the relevant scientific community classify it that way.

    Regarding my circular reasoning. I'm stating that when species are closely interrelated then reproduction is possible and when they become more distantly separated then they are not able to. The example of horses and donkeys, two subspecies of the equid family illustrate that. It's not circular reasoning it's observable fact. Two more distant cousins in the equid family, the horse and the zebra are more distantly related making reproduction only possible with certain breeds of zebra as the number of chromosomes vary. The phylogenetic tree shows that as species become more genetically unique the possibility of reproducing becomes less likely. This is why some subspecies in the equid family can reproduce and others cannot.


    As for your comments about apes I'm just not sure what to say. You kind of have this "science has proved this wrong" stance but biologists classify hominids as the family of great apes. Not only are we related to apes, WE ARE APES!

    And let me say this. It's possible that I'm talking to one guy who cracked the code that all the scientists couldn't. You've found the right quotes (but interestingly can't or won't produce the original article which suggests this info is third hand info), you've got it all figured out and the scientific community is wrong. It's possible but it's not probable.

    Regardless, you're trying to make me feel like the stuff you are saying is fact and well established. "Genetics have proven we're not related to apes" when it's not well established. Genetics have proven we are of the family hominidae and that is the family of apes. And when I say proven I mean peer reviewed by other scientists to the extent that this is how we classify it. There will probably be modifications to this as time goes on and more data is gathered but they're reasonably sure that this is the case.

    When you come at me with statements like "it's been debunked" it tells me you're not getting the full debate. "Most scientists classify homo neanderthalis as a distinct species but I side with the ones who don't ..." is a statement that would make me have more confidence in what you are saying. But when you say "debunked". I don't know.

    I feel like I'm a lot closer to breaking my policy of criticising the argument and not the person making the argument more than I have before on this forum. I feel like you are trying to pass things off as fact when those things are actually debatable. Very debatable. You say you only quote evolutionists but I get the impression you are quoting a creationist who quoted an evolutionist.

    Produce the original Resenberger article. I want to read it as you did.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page