Fallacies of Evolution

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    33,771
    Likes Received:
    25,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They have fossil evidence for transitional forms. Archeopteryx is the classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But much of the Bible is science, or rather a "Superscience" that we know nothing about, Jesus displayed that with his 37 miracles, and amazingly he said we could perform miracles too if we knew how.
    Surely that must fascinate people?..:)
     
  3. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've read Dawkin's book and there it is in black and white..:)
     
  4. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you sure mate? When I was 21 I asked my mother where babies come from and she told me "You buy them from hospitals for £15 each"
     
  5. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regardless; you're still quoting him out of context.
    Post the rest of the page you quoted from.
     
  6. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,371
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have, and no where does it say that there are no transitional species. Unless you have pages numbers and paragraphs, I'm calling B.S. on it.
     
  7. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,289
    Likes Received:
    8,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Out of thin air" is completely inaccurate, and spontaneously is also untrue. Other than those hyperbolic distractions your general idea is true.

    It sure makes more sense than some superman making it out of mud one day.
     
  8. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm sure you believe this. Many others do, too. But it is flawed science, & it does not hold up to scrutiny. There are no 'slow, accumulated changes' that add up to big ones. That is a belief, with no scientific basis. Mutation & time do not provide scientific evidence for this belief.

    'correlation does not imply causation'. Just because living things are similar, does not imply descendancy. Especially with what we know about DNA, which provides strict rules for what the child organism can contain. New genes are not being randomly 'created' by any known mechanism. You do NOT get structural changes in the genome.. chromosome pairs remain constant, & the structure of the DNA remains constant. All of observable, repeatable science says this belief is wrong. It is an assumed extrapolation, based only on 'if you look at it just right, you can see it! It could have happened!'
    Show me a 'new unique DNA' actually formed. That is an imagined scenario, without any scientific basis. You merely assert this belief, without any empirical evidence.

    This is just the same old 'similarity proves descendancy' argument. It is a fallacy, like many others. Just because there is similarity in the development of a zygote, or that a growing organism 'looks like a fish!' is no indication of descendancy. The genetics between each organism has major differences.. they are not made of the same material, & then just arbitrarily grow to one or the other species. This argument is like saying because the building blocks of matter are all the same, all matter is from the same source. It is a lovely theory, but there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate it is possible, much less that it actually happened.
    Every cell has a nucleus, electrons, protons, etc. Does this mean all cells are the same? Did all matter 'descend' from other matter? No. the 'similarity' argument can be used for multiple 'theories' of origins, & does not prove or even indicate descendancy.

    Please. The 'embryo tails' argument? There have been a lot of discoveries about human anatomy that has dispelled the vestigial organ argument. I covered it earlier in this thread. This is just a 'looks like!' argument, with no scientific basis. The existence of a tail bone does not indicate a tail, either coming or going.

    Adaptation is very minimal, among living things.. that is why they go extinct.. because they are unable to adapt. If they do not have the variability within their genetic makeup to adapt, they die with changing environment. IF they have the needed trait, which we can only see as being in the original parent organism, it can produce itself & become 'selected' as a positive trait. Dark moths on dark trees is an example of this. But there is no indication that these moths suddenly became mammals, or grew teeth, or scales, or began to swim. Moths stay moths, with some adaptation in minor, mostly cosmetic function.

    Living things are not defined by their egg homology. You must either look at the fully developed organism, to see what was growing, or you can go to the genetic level, to see the 'blueprint' for the organism. Stages of development do not indicate anything. Similarity of development is only that: similarity. You cannot correlate descendancy from that. Well, you can, but it is merely a belief. Science does not compel such a conclusion. The DNA has MAJOR differences, between a human & chicken. Each cell of the developing organism has the DNA of the parent organism. These are major differences, at the genetic level, & any attempt to correlate them because they 'look similar!' is absurdly naive. If you want to go small, then go beyond the egg or zygote. Go to the genetic level. There, you will see HUGE differences in the structure of each organism. They do not 'look' similar at all. THAT is the real distinguishing criteria between living things, not any morphological similarities during development.

    The whole 'universal common descent' theory is full of holes, & is almost completely debunked by modern genetics. Unfortunately, most believers & the surrounding status quo cannot release this theory, because it is needed to prop up a belief in naturalistic origins. So it is believed, without scientific basis, & without factual support. It has become a religious belief, with Real Science giving it major problems. But instead of modifying the belief, they double down & pretend the evidence is there. They assert it boldly, & use logical fallacies to support the 'theory'. That is all your berkely.edu site has.. 'looks like!' homologies. Those are not gills, even if they 'look like!' it could be. The argument based on similarity of appearance is the main one for the ToE, but real science has been debunking those claims for nearly 200 yrs. Eventually, the Truth about the fallacy of evolution will win out. But religious & philosophical beliefs are hard to change.
     
  9. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, this is merely asserted. There are plenty of scientists who see this as a bird.. there is no reason to conclude otherwise. How is this a 'transitional' species? because you declare it so? You have no genetic information. The fossils are just bird like, indicating a bird. The claw means nothing. Living birds have claws. Any correlation to a reptile are imagined.. with no scientific basis. Earlier birds have been discovered in china, so how is this the 'ancestor' of birds?

    Anyone can do a search for 'criticisms of Archaeopteryx', & read hundreds of pages from paleontologists, other scientists, & many evolutionists who do NOT see this bird as an intermediate form. So merely asserting it as an 'intermediate form!' & demanding belief will not work... not with a scientifically minded person, anyway. It may work for indoctrinees, or True Believers, but any skeptical, thinking person can see through the bogus claims.

    Criticisms of Archaeopteryx's position in bird evolution have been clearly and eloquently voiced in the past by well-known palaeontologists like Gerald Mayr, who has stated that deinonychosaurs are early flightless birds and that they are all basal avian species. One could simplify Archaeopteryx's position by saying that it has always been a place-holder until a better specimen came along, which it may now have done several times over the last 20 years. source.

    Even this pro ToE site debunks the claim. They are lobbying for another bird fossil to be used, instead. So, to present this bird as 'proof of evolution!' is very flawed. This is the same old debunked claims that are just repeated & reused, when there is really nothing to support the theory. The Archaeopteryx argument was very popular in the 19th century, when it was hailed as 'proof of evolution!' But like everything with this 'theory' further scrutiny has reduced the evidence to being based on fallacies, fraud, or wishful thinking.
     
  10. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This from evolutionists:
    "The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, or fox-like creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago, to today's much larger one-toe horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown." "Ideas on evolution Going Through a Revolution among Scientists," - Boyce Rensberger: Houston Chronicle, 5 Nov. 1980, sec. 4, p. 15.

    There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff. ~Dr. Niles Eldredge

    But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time. ~Gordon R. Taylor

    As i looked up some references, i was reminded that many evolutionists have debunked this whole 'horse theory' as a proof of ToE. Even the root ancestor is in doubt. Some think Eohippus is merely a hyrax, a cousin of an animal alive today. Most of these 'proofs' of evolution are philosophical constructs.. imagined sequences without any evidence of location, timeline, or transitional forms.

    Evolutionists now imagine it to be this branching bush. Many of the supposed ancestors apparently lived at the same time, especially after Mesohippus. It is doubtful that Hyracotherium (formerly Eohippus) has any connection to horses. So the progression of toes is an illusion that was useful when the theory of evolution was first being sold to the public. Several hundred species are extinct; only one genus, Equus, survives. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html


    [​IMG]

    The above graphic is a more 'up to date' view of horse evolution.. from evolutionists. It is ironic that the old 'horse sequence' is still lifted up as scientific proof.

    Then what is the basis for the scenario of the evolution of the horse? This scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, solely in accordance with the rich power of evolutionists' imaginations. More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers. Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (Hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.
    source
    What always amazes me is how behind most evolutionary debaters are in science. They use the same tired arguments that were in vogue in the early 1900's, or that darwin used in his 'evolution' bible in the 1800's. Most of those have been debunked by evolutionists themselves, yet they are presented as 'proven fact!' in textbooks, university websites, & museums. And rather than having a skeptical, scientific mind, looking for evidence that will speak for itself, they distort the evidence, twisting it to fit in their imagined religious view of history & origins.

    ..and of course, let's not forget the religious radio voice of evolution: NPR
    They have been devoted evangelists to the cause of evolutionary proselytizing.

    EOHIPPUS The first equid was Hyracotherium, a small forest animal of the early Eocene. It looked nothing at all like a horse (10 – 20” hight). It resembled a dog with an arched back, short neck, short snout, short legs, and long tail. It browsed on fruit and soft foliage and probably would have had mannerisms more like that of a deer (timid, flighty, etc.). This famous little equid was once known as Eohippus or “Dawn Horse”. http://netnebraska.org/basic-page/te...ution-timeline

    No mention of problems with the theory or evidence.. just smug assertions about how plainly true their 'science' is.

    There are many serious problems with the evolutionary model.. it cannot explain increased complexity, only assert it. It is loudly proclaimed as 'proven fact' everywhere you look.. every nature show, every textbook, every museum or national park. The world is steeped in this ideological propaganda, masquerading as science.
     
  11. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    33,771
    Likes Received:
    25,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:

    More hyperbolic blustering on your part but not a single fact to support any of it!

    Onus is entirely on you to DISPROVE the scientific facts.

    You have failed repeatedly which is why all you can do is post longwinded denials that contain zero factual substance to support them.

    So let's throw the ball back into your court and have you provide the explanation for why all of the species exist with shared DNA.

    How did they all just spring into existence with such similar DNA?

    What "magic" occurred to ensure that they would share DNA even though they would be entirely different species?

    What is your fallacious explanation for the existence of so many different forms of life that all have common DNA?

    Since you allege that "real science has been debunking those claims for nearly 200 yrs" you must be able to produce this imaginary "real science" of yours, right?

    So where is it?
     
  12. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    33,771
    Likes Received:
    25,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cherry picking quotations OUT OF CONTEXT and failing to provide the actual link is disingenuous.

    But not in the least bit surprising coming from those who believe in the debunked "creation science" hogwash.
     
  13. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    33,771
    Likes Received:
    25,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your fallacious creationist website has been thoroughly debunked in detail.

    https://sites.google.com/site/cabba...ionism/debunking/debunk001-debunkingevolution
     
  14. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You post it..:)
     
  15. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny you should use the word "mud" because Jesus once spat in the dust to make mud pies to plaster on a blind mans eyes, then told him to go wash it off, and bingo! he could see, as if the atoms/molecules in the mud had re-formed themselves into new eyes...:)
    It illustrates yet again the "Superscience" Jesus used to do his 37 miracles, a science we as yet know nothing about, but which he said we could do too if we had the knack.
     
  16. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see any replies to any of my points.. just more fallacies, as if multiplying them will mask their intent.

    Poison the well?
    Ad hominem?
    Shifting the burden of proof?

    I have provided substantiated arguments, with quotes from experts, scientific studies, & examples to support my arguments. I get it that you don't like them, because you have no rational response. All you have here are deflections, with no rebuttal to any points of reason. This is another example of 'fallacies' being used to promote the ToE.
     
  17. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,289
    Likes Received:
    8,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ...uh.....yeah.....tecoyah backs away slowly
     
  18. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for confirming what I already knew.
    The Dawkins quote you posted is a copy & paste from a creationist site.
    .
     
  19. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,289
    Likes Received:
    8,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well...what would you expect from a guy who thinks miracle spit is a reality.
     
  20. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As this is the "Science" forum category, surely we should be interested in the "Superscience" that Jesus used to blow peoples socks off?
    Remember, our "reality" is not necessarily "real" and may just be an illusion or dream, so if we regard Jesus as a "Master of the Art of Dream Manipulation", things begin falling into place as he bent "reality" to perform what looked like "miracles" to people..:)

    "The [quantum] atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts"- Prof. Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize winner in Physics)
    "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.'' - Albert Einstein
    "Strawberry Fields, nothing is real" (The Beatles)
    "We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.." (The Tempest)
    "You can be in my dream if I can be in your dream" (Bob Dylan)
    "All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream"- Edgar Allen Poe
    "Have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?" (Morpheus in The Matrix)


    [​IMG]
     
  21. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,289
    Likes Received:
    8,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your "Super" science is NOT science....it is making things up to give "Miracles" a less silly word. You posts fit better into the conspiracy theory forum and soil this section.
     
  22. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A mud pie? Or is that cow pie?
     
  23. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ..hmm.. is this the pot calling the kettle black? How many of your replies to me have been bereft of science? You toss in ad hominem, sift in a few other fallacies, & claim, 'science!' Most of it is dogmatic bloviating, not even well disguised.

    I could probably parse this whole thread down to a few pages, if we filtered out any 'unscientific' posts.
     
  24. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No chum, it's a direct quote from Dawkins book "Climbing Mount Improbable", page 146, 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)
     
  25. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,289
    Likes Received:
    8,318
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting....How would you know if something is "Bereft of Science" when you consider everything in science to be BS?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page