Fallacies of Evolution

But how would we know a species became another species from the fossil record? Just give me an example of a fossil or fossils that if they existed would count as evidence to you.

 

Your argument still has no foundation. Your argument cannot account for the actual existence of the "sun" you cite. The sun is itself going from a more complex state to a less complex, and consequently more stable, state. How do you account for the sun's complexity?

 

I don't need to account for the existence of the sun because the theory of evolution doesn't try to account for it. It claims that all life evolved from a simple common ancestor with mutations and natural selection. You didn't address my arguments refuting your claims about entropy and mutations.

 

You are most certainly correct that life cannot be a closed system. Unfortunately, the sun cannot cause mutations that increase complexity. Natural selection is the extinction process not the evolution process. The sun cannot increase complexity. It cannot increase available information. The sun can cause mutations, but these can only serve in the extinction process. The sun simply does not account for complexity. Furthermore, no effect can transcend its cause. Life transcends non-life. Life cannot be caused by the sun.

 

So the fact that two groups of Fruit Flies which originated from the same founders are no longer able to procreate means that the evolution of species has been observed.

 

Life uses the energy from the sun to support itself which is how the sun introduces energy into the life system. DNA is information and mutations can increase the amount of DNA. We have examples of evolution producing new complex features like bacteria evolving to digest nylon.

All by itself yes, but it will select positive mutations thus creating evolution.

Bad mutations cause extinction but almost all mutations are neutral.

Why?

Why?

I never said it was caused by the sun.

 

What you mean is: You have debated the science of evolution for decades and all the science based arguments that have ever been presented are, in your mind, fallacies.

During that time you could have written several papers on "The Fallacies of Evolution" and had them reviewed by scientists in the field.

Michael Behe, who has far more real knowledge in the science of evolution, did that. He argued against evolution based on the idea that even just the eye was too complex to have evolved naturally. Behe's ideas have been shot down repeatedly by multiple scientists in the field. They not only showed where he was wrong, but showed how the complex eyes of today did evolve naturally.

But at least he tried. All you do is get on the internet and reject any and all evidence anyone gives you, and then complain that no one has given you any evidence.

Do you believe that the entire complex process of evolution can be boiled down to a few simple paragraphs? There are Masters level textbooks written on the subject. The kind of textbooks that are required reading for a degree.


http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib160/booklist.html

I. Classics
Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray (always seek out the first edition, facsimile version, and avoid later editions).
Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia Univ. Press (there are several later editions, and the title changed in the last).
Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press (there is a later edition).
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana: Univ. Illinois Press (an English translation of a book published earlier in German).
Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia Univ. Press (there is a later edition, with a different title).
Schmalhausen, I. I. 1949. Factors of Evolution. Philadelphia: Blakiston (publication of this book, written in the early 1940's, was delayed because of war, and then the translation from Russian to English was also delayed; it has been reprinted by Univ. Chicago Press).
Simpson, G. G. 1944. Tempo and Mode of Evolution. New York: Columbia Univ. Press (again, there is a later edition, with a different title).

II. Accessible General Books
Bonner, J. T. 1988. The Evolution of Complexity. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton.
Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful Life. New York: Norton.

III. History and Philosophy
Hall, B. J. (ed.). 1994. Homology, the Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. San Diego: Academic Press (a collection of essays by many authors).
Keller, E. F. and E. A. Lloyd. 1992. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Rieppel, O. 1988. Fundamentals of Comparative Biology. Basel: Birkhäuser

IV. Units of Evolution
Dawkins, R. 1982. The Extended Phenotype. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Williams, G. C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press (destined to be classic).
Williams, G. C. 1992. Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

V. Population and Quantitative Genetics
Crow, J. F. 1991. Basic Concepts in Population, Quantitative, and Evolutionary Genetics. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Falconer, D. S. 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, second ed. London: Longman.
Hartl, D. L. And A. G. Clark. 1989. Principles of Population Genetics, second, ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Real, L. A. (ed.). 1994. Ecological Genetics. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press (a collection of essays by many authors).

VI. Selection
Bell, G. 1996. The Basics of Selection. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Sober, E. 1984. The Nature of Selection, Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

VII. Molecular Evolution
Gillespie, J. H. 1992. The Causes of Molecular Evolution. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Kimura, M. 1983. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Li, W-H. and D. Grauer. 1991. Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Ohno, S. 1970. Evolution by Gene Duplication. New York: Springer Verlag (a minor classic, now out of date).

VIII. Adaptation and Life Histories
Roff, D. A. 1992. The Evolution of Life Histories. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Rose, M. R. and G. V. Lauder (eds.). 1996. Adaptation. San Diego: Academic press (a collection of essays by many authors).

IX. Species Concepts and Species Formation
Otte, D. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its Consequences. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer (a collection of essays by many authors).

X. Phylogenetics and SystematicsHillis, D., C. Moritz, and B. Mable. 1996. Molecular Systematics, second edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Maddison, W. P. and D. R. Maddison. 1992. Macclade, Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution, version 3. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer (Part 2, chapters 3 6, deal with modern phylogenetic theory).
Sanderson, M. J., and L. Hufford. 1996. Homoplasy, the Recurrence of Similarity in Evolution. San Diego: Academic Press (a collection of essays by many authors).

XI. Adaptive Radiation and Major Features of Evolution.
Grant, P. R. 1986. Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Nitecki, M. H. (ed.). 1990. Evolutionary Innovations (a collection of essays). Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press.

XII. Development and Evolution
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press
Hall, B. J. 1992. Evolutionary Developmental Biology. New York: Chapman and Hall.
McKinney, M. L. and K. McNamara. 1991. Heterochrony: the Evolution of Ontogeny. New York: Plenum.
Raff, R. A. 1996. The Shape of Life: Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press.

XIII. Great Dissenters, from Brilliant Iconoclasts to Cranks.
Goodwin, B. 1994. How the Leopard Changed its Spots, the Evolution of Complexity. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Goldschmidt, R. B. 1940. The Material Basis of Evolution. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Kauffman, S. A. 1993. The Origins of Order, Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Margulis, L. and D. Sagan. 1986. Origin of Sex, three billion years of genetic recombination. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.​

You don't want to believe the people who did take the time to read and learn and experiment.
You don't want to take the time to read and learn and experiment for yourself.

 

That's why I always start by making the other side define 'species' so we start with that agreement. But your correct that 'species' is a vague term which is usually the case when you try to impose a binary description onto an analog reality.

 

Natural selection does not choose from among more complex options because random mutations cannot produce more complex options.
Extinction is observable, evolution is not.

Virus may appropriate preexisting DNA from a host. That information may increase the virus' net complexity, but it is not new information, and it is most certainly not brought about via random mutation.

 

We have seen bacteria evolve to digest nylon. We have also seen bacteria evolve to digest citrate. In another study we saw them evolve multi-cellularity.

So you are claiming that all viral adaptations comes form the host and not mutations? Do you have evidence of that?

 

Not all. Just all of those that increase complexity.
Nothing, absolutely nothing has ever been observed to become spontaneously more complex, not by mutation or by any other process.
That is why macro-evolution is a mere theory and doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis. Evolution cannot be tested because we have never observed matter spontaneously organize in more complex manners, never, not once!

Assuming that complexity spontaneously mutates from simplicity is not even a good theory left alone a testable hypothesis. It files in the face of all observable material interactions, all of them, ever. Pointing to complexity as evidence of a process that spontaneously produces complexity is no evidence at all. All of the evidence indicates that the material-spatial-temporal being began with maximum complexity and is, in net, increasing in entropy.

 

How do you know all viral adaptations that increase complexity come from the host and none of them come from mutations? What percent of adaptations come from the host anyway?

I just gave you three examples in the my last post and you completely ignored them.

Actually a Scientific Theory is at a level above a hypothesis. For example the theory of gravity, atomic theory, theory of relativity are all theories. A theory is a hypothesis with a lot of evidence.

Its easy to test evolution. Evolution claims a certain progression from simple to complex in the fossil record and if we just find the fossils jumbled together then that easily refutes evolution. Also humans have fewer chromosomes than all the other apes. If we evolved from the apes there must have been a chromosome fusion and we should see that in one pair of our chromosomes that looks like two ape chromosomes with evidence of fusion. Thats just to name a couple.

You are talking about abiogenesis (complexity from lifeless matter) which isn't evolution which is the development of existing life through natural selection and mutations from a simple ancestor.

Like what?

I never did that.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

This one apparently does not understand that the Earth is an open entropic system and many events upon it and within it involve a decrease in entropy. Nor does he seem to understand that entropy is based on statistical averages within an analyzed system. Examples:

1) The melting of rock creating migrating lava which lays down deposits of heavier elements in "veins", such as silver, gold and copper.

2) Growth of a carbon-based organism from fertilization through birth and again though development into an adult.

3) The building of a house by humans from raw materials.

These are all examples of decreasing entropy on Earth, easily explainable without the need to invoke supernatural special pleading.

 

Theories do not make fallacies. Humans do. My obvious argument is with humans, who have made the fantastic claim of the ToE. I have pointed out the MANY fallacies that these humans have made, over the years, regarding the ToE, as an explanation of origins. These are not just 'dumb things people say' on forums or in other venues, but are actual teachings from universities, .edu sites, textbooks, & scientific papers. Of course, they have been used in this thread, & others on this topic in this forum.

If you are claiming that 'nobody smart has made these claims', then that is a fallacy, too. I have sourced this early on in this thread, for several items in the list. I would suggest that instead of me repeating & quoting all of them, you look back at the replies.

As a reminder, here is a list, from the OP, of some fallacies, as commonly taught in schools, textbooks, .edu sites, talk.origins, & forum debaters:

1. False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.
3. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.
6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi
8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
9. Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability (micro) within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.
10. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

I have heard, multiple times, these arguments used by evolutionists, either in direct debate, written text, or any other medium of communication. This thread has had many of them used simultaneously in a single response! Many of them have been used in textbook descriptions of the ToE. So your claim that 'nobody smart uses these arguments' is absurd. They are commonly used arguments, by evolutionists, regardless of their expertise or education.

You claimed there were other, valid arguments with evidence FOR the ToE. Prove it. Post ONE. Show me ONE example of scientific evidence that supports the claim of increasing complexity in the genome.. added chromosome pairs.. new traits.. structural changes in the dna... ONE scientifically observable evidence that this CAN happen, much less that it did happen.

THAT is what you don't see.. in forum debates or ToE sites.. NO evidence. I hear assertions. I get ad hominem. I review the same logical fallacies of equivocation, false equivalence, appeals to probability, & bandwagon. If you can provide some actual, scientific evidence to examine, i would be thrilled. I don't expect it, because few even attempt it. It does not take long to see that the actual evidence is pretty sparse.. non existent, even.. so that is why most 'debaters' of the ToE rely on the fallacies. And, that is why all you see on .edu sites, or other pro ToE sites & textbooks is the same. But i welcome any scientific discussion on this subject. It would be a welcome change from the ad hominem we usually get.

 

Yes, but you called them "Fallacies of Evolution" not "Fallacies about Evolution." Its like saying "Fallacies of Capitalism" which indicates that these are fallacies that capitalism or evolution makes as ideas not just dumb stuff said by ignoramuses about these ideas. If you want to continue to call them "Fallacies of Evolution" you have to show these are big and common arguments made for evolution especially by scientists since it is a scientific theory.

So please show that the below arguments specifically are used in universities, education sites, textbooks, and scientific papers to try to show evolution is true. If these are dumb stuff said by people on the internet then they aren't "Fallacies of Evolution" and are "Fallacies of Reddit Evolutionists."

[*]'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.

[*]Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.

[*]Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi

A lot of scientific sites really put a lot of work into trying to present good evidence for evolution but I see that you aren't convinced. Lets discuss your so-called "fallacies of evolution" before address the misunderstandings you are having.

Don't go to internet forums for good discussions about science, you will be disappointed. Try emailing a scientist or reading some informed articles about the topic or finding some good forums geared to science.

 

The fuzzy nature of what a species is pretty much evidence for speciation in itself.

 

(my emphases in red)

The problem is that your list of "fallacies, as commonly taught in schools..." are NOT "commonly taught in schools". Your statement that they are is, at best, nonsense.

However, it is easy to prove me wrong.
Show us a scholastic textbook that defends evolution by stating 'Given enough time, anything is possible.'
Show us a scholastic textbook that defends evolution by stating 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.'
Show us a scholastic textbook that defends evolution by stating 'evolution is true, because it has not been proven false'

We'll wait.




ETA I see Distraff has basically raised the same questions.

 

Knowing that it is a demonstrable lie to claim you have been given no evidence, why do you continue making the claim?

 

I already replied to this lame argument, earlier in this thread. You can look back, if you want. Or, you can try to bluff & lie to pretend you have a 'gotcha!' statement. I don't feel like jumping through hoops for you on this.

 

Of, by, for, with, from... pick your preposition & apply it. the meaning is there, & the arguments are not affected by the preposition. This is a semantical dodge, with nothing of substance to address.
We are debating a scientific concept.. a 'theory' of origins, & it is hardly an obscure, geeky topic for nerds. Many people believe very strongly in it, & it is the basis for many world views. Examining the claims of those following this belief system is appropriate & only closed minded True Believers object to any scientific scrutiny of the claims.

You are merely passing the buck, assuming that somewhere 'out there' are brilliant scientists who KNOW the facts about the ToE, & can prove it with a glance. But this is merely another fallacy. IF there is so much evidence for this 'theory', why has none been presented? Why am i stuck with logical fallacies, instead of scientific evidence? This is a science subforum, & a valid topic. Why not address the issue, instead of deflecting with arguments of authority?

IF your 'a lot of scientific sites' have evidence, then by all means, present it. But assertions, links, & wild claims are not evidence. Present the science. You may be surprised.

 

Claiming you have not been given evidence is a demonstrable lie

 

I am not dodging anything. I am merely asking that you actually support the claims in the OP, and you are trying to dodge your burden of proof in the OP. Lets make this real easy. Show that the below claim is made by universities, education sites, textbooks, or scientific papers:
'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.

If you can't do that then show me a reference to someone on the internet who said this. If you can't then I strongly suspect you are just making stuff up, and why should I have a discussion about evidence when you make stuff up on purpose?

 

All you continue to do is document your ignorance of the science you presume to criticize.

 

Ok. Here is the reply to [MENTION=72883]ecco[/MENTION] on the 'taught in schools!' issue:

You guys still want to pursue this lame argument? Instead, why not post REAL EVIDENCE, if it is so plainly there, readily available, & obvious to everyone. Nit picking terminology, or deflecting with definitions does not aid your cause, nor does it produce ANYTHING scientific or empirical. You are just reasserting your beliefs, with no facts.

 

IOW, you have no evidence, so must deflect with definitional dodges, ad hominem, & technicalities of prepositions.

Multiple times, the fallacies of the OP have been illustrated, either by posters here, directly, or links they have posted (and very few of those). My simple list is a summary, & examples are in the lists of the intent. If you wish to claim there is something empirical for the ToE, by all means, present it. BUT... if you have no evidence, but only fallacies, diversions, & deflections, THEN that only proves the premise of the OP, that the ToE is not scientifically evidenced, but is based on logical fallacies.