Fallacies of Evolution

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't do debate by proxy, if I wanted to rehash all that crap again I'd go straight to the Discotute and their spawn. I ignore your posts because I have seen it all before and seen it all debunked before. What I dislike is that you are trying to pretend that you don't have a bias when anyone that has previously encountered what you post easily sees it for what it is. Just asking questions is one of the saddest techniques in internet history.

    - - - Updated - - -

    All you will get is a string of crap from Creationist sites with a Gish Gallop...

    What about...?
    What about...?
    What about...?
    What about...?
    What about...?
    What about...?
    What about...?
    What about...?
    What about...?
    What about...?
     
  2. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think some definitions are in order, to clarify some of the things being said, & to reveal their significance. These are from wiki, as they usually have more generic definitions. I'll try to expand on them & show examples, later.

    Genotype: The genotype of an organism is the inherited map it carries within its genetic code. Not all organisms with the same genotype look or act the same way because appearance and behavior are modified by environmental and developmental conditions. Likewise, not all organisms that look alike necessarily have the same genotype.

    Haplogroup/haplotype: A haplotype is a group of genes in an organism that are inherited together from a single parent, and a haplogroup is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor.

    As usual, definitions, especially in genetics, generate more terms that need defined, as well. But i'll toss in a few examples, that should clarify the terms.

    Chihuahua-- haplotype. part of the haplogroup of domestic dogs, & from the genotype canidae.
    Coyote-- haplotype. part of the haplogroup of domestic dogs, & from the genotype canidae.
    wild ass- haplotype. from the haplogroup, or subgenus of asinus, & from the genotype defined as equus.

    White redneck-- haplotype. From the haplogroup of euro/caucasoid descent. Genotype-- homo sapiens
    Zulu-- haplotype. From the haplogroup of negroid/african descent. Genotype -- homo sapiens
    Neanderthal-- extinct haplotype. Included in many Haplogroups..since there are no haplogroups that are uniquely neanderthal. Genotype- Homo Sapiens

    The genetic definitions & classification are almost the same as the usual taxonomic ones. But there are some differences, & it seems to me that the genetic classifications out-evidence the more morphological taxonomies. When you can follow a real genetic line, such as from the mtDNA, you can conclude actual descendancy, & it overrides a 'looks like!' belief. Neanderthal is an example of that. It was once thought it was a separate species of hominid, but now we know it to be just a haplogroup at worst.. from the same genetic roots as all other homo sapiens. In a haplogroup, there can be some overlap, as some distinct 'types' can appear in other groups. Neanderthal, for example, appears in Native Americans, chinese, aborigines, europeans, & a few other haplogroups.

    Anyway, i hope this isn't too technical, & it clarifies some things regarding genetics. I'll be glad to clarify or be corrected if this isn't clear or gives a false impression. And, remember this is a general definition, not a technical one. There can be some blurring between haplo types & groups, depending on how recently you draw the information.
     
  3. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you don't want to debate the issue, don't. But your drive by heckling does not contribute to the discussion. If you have nothing to contribute other than some 'poison the well' fallacies, why bother posting?

    And, if it is so 'easy' to refute these arguments, why not do it? Dismissal is not an argument, & it does not refute any of my points.
     
  4. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seriously, I would rather go to CARM and do that, at least they don't pretend to be something that they are not.
     
  5. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet in your own post # 1002 in your own thread "Fallacies of Evolution" you write about a controversy regarding new findings relating to Neanderthal's.
    If there is a controversy, it means some scientists are challenging the existing mandates. How can new scientific findings be causing controversy in the scientific community if, as you assert, everyone in the scientific community prefers to mandate belief in their decrees?

    It seems pretty straightforward:
    • Establishment Science has old theory A regarding Neanderthals
    • New Guys have new theory B regarding Neanderthals




    1. In Fallacies of Evolution you say New Guys are causing a stir - ("The Neanderthal Problem is getting worse. This was not a popular discovery.")
    2. In Fake Science you say New Guys are not allowed to cause a stir - ("it is ignored").



    Either 1. or 2. must be wrong.
     
  6. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Science also calls it speculation. Remember the animated video you posted? Where
    in the fossil record is the species that's thought to be transitional in the video? The answer is
    nowhere. The video is speculation via extrapolation of a limited amount of information.
     
  7. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Enjoy. Pages and paragraph included.

    ... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
    Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is
    the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
    Charles Darwin (1859),
    The Origin of Species, p. 280.77

    The intermediate links and finely graduated organic chain are another way of saying transitional
    species.
     
  8. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The use of the quote to imply there are no transitionals misstates Darwin's argument, intentionally or out of ignorance.
    Darwin was not stating that there was an absence of transitionals but, in fact, stated there were "many links."
    Instead, he was discussing why there are not more transitionals in an easily read pattern of gradual change.

    As Darwin correctly noted, where the fossil record does not approach "perfection," it is difficult, if not impossible, to tell by morphology alone exactly where any particular organism would fall within such a graduated series. Thus, such an organism might be classified as a distinct species from either the original or the subsequent ones. However, such organisms, being general morphological intermediates between different forms, as in the case of Archaeopteryx, would, along with other evidence, support an inference of evolutionary change over time through common descent.

    The fossil record may not be easy to read, but it is not devoid of information either.
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  9. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I had a great response written and I was ready to submit it when I noticed Cosmo's reply and I realized that everything I was going to say, he said much better.
     
  10. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Testing new server options.

    ...
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Every species is "intermediate" or "transitional". Modern humans are "transitional". Over the last 20,000 years, we've evolved to acquire the ability to digest milk as adults, to have blue eyes, to have less brain volume by about the size of a tennis ball.

    We are not static, nor were we ever static, nor was any other life form static.

    Your question just boils down to the fact that not every life form has left fossil evidence that we've managed to find.

    However, what we do find fits within the constraints specified by evolution - and NOT by any other theory. The ToE has been phenomenal in predicting what we will find when we look.
     
  12. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    this is a fine assertion, & a common belief. it is NOT, however 'settled science'. it is not evidenced by any valid scientific studies, or empirical evidence. it is your belief, that you have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe, as have most of us. You have NO EVIDENCE that modern humans are a transitional species. Our DNA is structurally unchanged, from as far back as we can find any dna samples. Every human being on the planet has the same root DNA, is the same species, & can reproduce with other humans. Merely comparing skull shapes or sizes of some extinct tribes means nothing. There are pygmies today with small skulls. There are humans with all manner of different bone sizes, structures, melatonin content of skin, hair color, eye color, & other cosmetic differences. But we have NO EVIDENCE that we came from something else, or are becoming anything else. We are humans, from a long line of humans, & we haven't changed in our genetic architecture.
     
  13. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So if we did not come from something else would you care to explain exactly what your theory is as to where we came from?
     
  14. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you guys really want to know where you go with evolution?

    All animal life evolved from bacteria. Want to know which one? Cyanobacterium. Still around today. Find some and say hi to your ancestors.
     
  15. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If this is a fact, that we evolved from Cyanobacterium, well there ya go boys, you got the organism to turn into a small animal. Since you can manipulate matter in a very fast manner, you no longer need millions of years of the macro evolutionary mechanism to work. So now if macro evolution, the theory is correct, you can show us it is more than just abstractions, and create for us a small critter. 4 legs. Or at least get the process started, and show it to the world as evidence for your theory.

    Once physicists figured out the atom sufficiently, they proved their abstractions were valid enough to split that bugger. Later using it to blow up two cities in Japan. Real science at work. So you guys creating new species for us would be a much better way to use science...if it is science you have.

    You guys sure these evolutionary biologists are more scientists than philosophers? For they seem to be engaging in philosophical beliefs, more than hard science.
     
    usfan likes this.
  16. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since you first need life to start, to evolve .... the earliest possible life is the single cell. But thus far, expert scientists in this field will say the cyanobacterium came first.

    Challenge for the evolutionists, since they now know the most elementary part of the link, is to do as said above and use cyanobacterium as the base to advance to the next stage of life. Should be a snap for the evolutionists. The book follows that explains it all to you and the author is the top scientist.
    [​IMG]
     
  17. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure thing Dr. Frankenstein; oops, I mean Sheldrake, coming right up.
     
  18. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this is a fine assertion! It is, however, an incorrect assertion. How many three year olds are indoctrinated into the sciences that support evolution- none. How many three year olds are taken to church and indoctrinated into believing in a god- a helluvalot.

    Sure we do. It's just that fundamentalist Christians cannot accept it because it directly conflicts with their deeply ingrained fundamentalist religious beliefs. You just don't want to admit that, even to yourself.
     
  19. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He won't.
     
  20. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is a simple challenge to take. Cyanobacterium is not uncommon. Collect what you need and go to work. Since some of you understand evolution, there you go. You have the basic starting point or as close as you will get to the beginning. The oldest deposits known on earth are in Australia. This is documented in the awesome book of life, Cradle of Life and is authored by probably the top expert on Earth. Dr. Schopf put in a lot of research to write his book.

    I read his book when it came out. A wildly exciting book and it is wonderful to read.
     
  21. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Define life. Make sure your definition is all inclusive. And try to do it without shouting.
     
  22. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which Dr. Schopf? The dentist in Arizona? The internest in the Netherlands?
     
  23. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Let's start some of you geniuses with some facts.

    I am talking about cyanobacterium. Thus far, this is Earth's earliest known life.

    [​IMG]

    I think the mockers of the Bible believe it is fine if they came from monkeys (chimpanzees) but they might not enjoy it were they to find out their ancestors were slimy and found in water and still exist.

    So, to all germs and germettes, you came from bacterium.

    Feel better about yourself?
     
    usfan likes this.
  24. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have studied Dr, Schopf's book and when you also study it, you will know the answer and we can then talk. Dr. Schoph is no dentist and is a renowned scientist at UCLA.

     
  25. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is this supposed to be 'Breaking News'? Welcome to the 20th Century. Please do try to keep up.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page