Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: GetHyped

An ad hominem is ONLY when "a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized". Eg: "your argument is invalid because you are an idiot". And no, actually countering an argument with logic and then also attacking someone's character is not an ad hominem (neither of which have happened so I have no idea why you're throwing around the term "ad hom").

Welcome GetHyped. Appreciate you trying to clarify things here.

Allow me to clear up your misunderstanding: I made a statement re: a non-random mutation that led the poster to suggest I was an ID'er, hence my point being rendered invalid/dismissed as hocus pocus. That to me is very fitting of an ad hom, wouldn't you agree?

Here's the definition from logically fallacious:

Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making

Did the poster have to suggest I was ID'er simply for making a statement about a non-random mutation? This is a very well established mechanism.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: GetHyped

An ad hominem is ONLY when "a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized". Eg: "your argument is invalid because you are an idiot". And no, actually countering an argument with logic and then also attacking someone's character is not an ad hominem (neither of which have happened so I have no idea why you're throwing around the term "ad hom").

Welcome GetHyped. Appreciate you trying to clarify things here.

Allow me to clear up your misunderstanding: I made a statement re: a non-random mutation that led the poster to suggest I was an ID'er, hence my point being rendered invalid/dismissed as hocus pocus. That to me is very fitting of an ad hom, wouldn't you agree?

Here's the definition from logically fallacious:

Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making

Did the poster have to suggest I was ID'er simply for making a statement about a non-random mutation? This is a very well established mechanism.

so the topic has been reduced to attacking one another's credibility for lack of possessing actual refuting evidence.

i am sorry i returned.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: GetHyped

Allow me to clear up your misunderstanding: I made a statement re: a non-random mutation that led the poster to suggest I was an ID'er, hence my point being rendered invalid/dismissed as hocus pocus. That to me is very fitting of an ad hom, wouldn't you agree?

Your argument was addressed despite the accusation of being an ID'er. For example:

"Your argument that the speed of light is not constant is wrong because you are a neoconservative" is an ad hominem fallacy. The argument is not addressed and your political leanings have no direct relation on your argument.

"We should be skeptical of your claim that evolution is a conspiracy pushed by liberal atheists because you are a young earth creationist" is an ad hominem argument but not a fallacy. While being a YEC in and of itself does not automatically make someone's views on evolution invalid, the questioning of the character does indeed have bearing on the motivations of the arguer.

"Your argument is invalid because [legitimate reasons] and you're an idiot", while rude, is not an ad hominem fallacy. The argument was addressed and the insult at the end does not make the rebuttal argument invalid.

Had Noinden dismissed your argument for no other reason than the accusation of you being an ID'er then yes, that would would be an ad hominem fallacy. However, your argument was addressed in the paragraph that preceded the accusation. You are free to dispute his argument but to dismiss it because of the accusation would actually be an example of an argument from fallacy:

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy,[2] fallacist's fallacy,[3] and bad reasons fallacy.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
If an architect has a blue print to build a 2 story house and the builders follow it to a tee, then theres 0 chance they wind up with a sky scraper as the end product. Regardless of the location of the build site or who the builders are, it's a certainty there will be a 2 story house at the end of construction. The same can not be said with genes. Which is why I think the metaphor breaks down.

But genes don't work that way either. From conception to birth a creature is not going to suddenly morph into another animal entirely. It's about small mutations adding up over time, so your metaphor is invalid. However, if you were to take a series of blue prints, and each one features a small change here and there to a common design, thousands to millions of blue prints later the change will be noticeable. The design of the automobile has evolved in that way over the last 50+ years. Simple buildings became high rise skyscrapers over time. The whole point was that if you change the blueprint, you change the final product, even if it's something so tiny it goes unnoticed.

Okay then you'd know these examples show two distinct and independent lineages evolving in the same way, in other words - homoplasies. You asked to see examples of different genotypes producing similar phenotypes. Now you want % differences- I will have to do some more digging but:

How can you claim the genotypes are "completely different" without even knowing how much DNA they share in common? You saying that they are completely different genotypes has not been validated, so how can your examples prove anything other than convergent evolution, which I already knew about?

How about streamlined body morphology (aquatic life such as fish, ichthyosaurs, whales, seals and diving birds - e.g. penguins)? How about powered flight ( birds, bats, insects, pterodactyls)? How about Echolocation (dolphins, bats, whales, and some birds)? And you seemed to skip right over the camera eyes example (independently evolved in cnidarians (certain jellyfish), cephalopods (such as squid and octopus) and vertebrates (birds, mammals)?

How different would you wager these genotypes to be?

How about them? Again, we're not talking about similar traits, we are trying to validate your claim that completely different genotypes can lead to nearly identical organisms. Sharing a few traits does not make an organism nearly identical. I'm not denying convergent evolution, I'm looking for validation of your claim about genotypes. Maybe you'd like to revise your statement?

a reply to: GetHyped

Your argument was addressed despite the accusation of being an ID'er.

Addressed in what manner. Go back an re read the discussion points about the LCT gene if you're so hell bent on showing how I don't know what an ad hom is.. This is off topic btw, but I understand what you're mission is

a reply to: TzarChasm

Refuting evidence for what? For the record I'm not here denying nor trying to provide refuting evidence for evolution not occurring.

a reply to: Barcs

We share 90% of our genome with mice, therefore our "blueprints" can be said to be 90% the same. Yet we look and behave very differently. Shouldnt this show the inadequacies of the blueprint metaphor? If you're telling me that we can get from a two story house to a skyscraper by changing only 10% of the building plans then there's no point in continuing this part of the discussion.

How can you claim the genotypes are "completely different" without even knowing how much DNA they share in common? You saying that they are completely different genotypes has not been validated, so how can your examples prove anything other than convergent evolution, which I already knew about?

Why shouldn't convergent evolution validate, at least in part, what I said? It's about independent and unrelated lineages developing similar phenotypes. Whether it be one trait or several. It doesn't matter how you slice it up. It's all part of the same point.

I'm looking for validation of your claim about genotypes. Maybe you'd like to revise your statement?

No thanks, you haven't shown where I'm wrong. Your issue is with the word "completely" and what that means in the context of genomics. % difference whether small or large can still have vastly differing results. So I don't see what the issue is. I read a paper citing the similarities in phenotypes resulting from different genotypes. I'll have to dig it up to see what it said.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I would argue that throwing around incorrect fallacies at people is an off-topic diversionary tactic but hey.

a reply to: GetHyped

I would argue that throwing around incorrect fallacies at people is an off-topic diversionary tactic but hey.

Yes, you've demonstrated this by your very participation.

But I have to disagree, again.

Non-random mutations are not an "unnatural" or "supernatural" phenomenon. Not in the least. But because I made reference to this mechanism with re: to the LCT gene, the poster characterized me as an adherent to ID. This is derisive and is an attempt to invalidate my arguments using a logical fallacy. It's a logical fallacy because non-random mutations are quite natural, and do happen. Plenty of studies to back it up. Nothing mystical here.

Of course when pressed on the subject the poster then claimed that because I'm disagreeing with him/her, and not arguing against the creationists/ID supporters, it must follow that I am one of them. Also a logical fallacy. This despite my clear admission that it's not evolution I have a problem with - just the current view of it, and specifically a misleading claim made by this poster about what evolution is.

It's all there. Go back and re read it before you jump in on this round of double dutch. You've always been a thorn in my side so it's not surprising that you're only purpose here is to attempt an invalidation of my arguments. Keep trying.

a reply to: GetHyped

This one is very adept at avoiding answering questions, but also very good at making insinuations. Perhaps they see IDer as an "ad hom"?

a reply to: Noinden

What questions have I avoided? The ones about god? It has nothing to do with our previous discussion so why keep bringing it up?

ETA-- it is you making the insinuations about my character. Don't twist this

You want to rewind it back to why I even started debating you in the first place?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You know if you could stay on topic, it would be less embarrassing for you. You get bent out of shape over my mentioning education, yet it is pertinent to this topic. I've done work in the evolutionary field, the genetics side of it. I actually understand it. However you throw out "your opinion" on LCT (for example) with no supporting evidence, hells not even much of an argument. I ask if you are an IDer, because otherwise why would you bring it up? I mean seriously, LCT is a recent example of human evolution in action. Your opinions do not matter to it being part of evolution or not, that is the nice thing about science, its about the data, not popular feelings.

As for my comment on Deity it was a throw away one, I certainly did not bring up Darwin's issues over religion in this discussion. Indeed why would Darwin even matter in the discussion, this would be akin to talking about modern programming and saying "Babbage would never have ...." Its not pertinent, as the data has increased. I continuously have to point out to people that the method of heredity (nucleic acids store the info) until well into the twentieth century. Darwin just knew that there had to be a way for the info to be transferred. Even after the nailing down that DNA and RNA do the job, it required the ability to sequence genes (and eventually genomes) for this to be of much use.

So we return, to the fact, that you seem to be rather defensive neighbor. One wonders why?

Slan leat

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
We share 90% of our genome with mice, therefore our "blueprints" can be said to be 90% the same. Yet we look and behave very differently. Shouldnt this show the inadequacies of the blueprint metaphor? If you're telling me that we can get from a two story house to a skyscraper by changing only 10% of the building plans then there's no point in continuing this part of the discussion.

Nobody is claiming that! A mouse is much more similar to a human, than a 2 story house is to a sky scraper. You're comparing apples to oranges here. The engineering required for a steel highrise is MASSIVELY different than a 2 story house ON ALL FRONTS. That comparison is more like humans to yeast. It's not just about outer appearance and size. It's about internal organs, and their functionality, it's about their diet and reactions to certain stimuli. It's about intellectual capacity and numerous other factors. In a high rise, it's about structure, materials and load bearing, which is night and day compared to a simple house. To claim that mouse : human :: house : skyscraper is ludicrous unless you are only referring to size.

Why shouldn't convergent evolution validate, at least in part, what I said? It's about independent and unrelated lineages developing similar phenotypes. Whether it be one trait or several. It doesn't matter how you slice it up. It's all part of the same point.

I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against your statement that "completely different" genotypes can lead to "almost identical" phenotypes. You made this statement because you were trying to suggest that genotypes don't always influence phenotypes. You gave me examples that did not prove that in the least. The genotype similarity (or lack thereof) was assumed in every example. This is why I asked how similar the genotype actually was and why I asked if you'd like to revise the statement. I don't care if it is separate lineages. Technically, humans and cows are separate lineages as well, but they still have an 80% similar genotype.

I don't need to see the video to know evolution is wrong. I won't talk about creation or anything else, I'll just use science against what people believe as fact even though it's a theory.

Here it is...

In the beginning there was nothing and nothing evolved to be everything. Yet nothing evolved everything from nothing contradicts 5 known laws of science.

• The proven law of cause and effect
• The proven law of conservation of energy/mass
• The proven law of increasing entropy
• The proven laws of universal information
• The proven law of biogenises

This concept also contradicts reason.

Therefore it is a 'faith' And to think evolutionists have the audacity to laugh at Christians. I think their belief is far crazier than mine.

originally posted by: SanitySearcher
I don't need to see the video to know evolution is wrong. I won't talk about creation or anything else, I'll just use science against what people believe as fact even though it's a theory.

Before reading the rest of your response, I'm going to take a wild guess here that you did not reference any relevant science or facts whatsoever in your conclusion.

In the beginning there was nothing and nothing evolved to be everything. Yet nothing evolved everything from nothing contradicts 5 known laws of science.

Yep, no references to valid science whatsoever. Evolution does not claim "nothing" evolved to be everything. Do you know for a fact that "in the beginning there was nothing"? You took a wild guess based on religion and failed. Something from nothing is a religious view, not a scientific one.

• The proven law of cause and effect
• The proven law of conservation of energy/mass
• The proven law of increasing entropy
• The proven laws of universal information
• The proven law of biogenises

Yep, I knew it. Nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. Please go back and educate yourself before making such blatantly wrong statements. Evolution is about the diversity of life, not abiogenesis, big bang, etc etc.

This concept also contradicts reason.

Yes, your post certainly does.

Therefore it is a 'faith' And to think evolutionists have the audacity to laugh at Christians. I think their belief is far crazier than mine.

Christians are only laughed at when they try to attack science without facts and demonstrate complete ignorance of the theory of evolution. The majority of Christians are actually rational people that accept scientific facts, rather than cling to literal interpretations of ancient story book as literal absolute truth.

Why attack something when you haven't even learned the basic fundamentals of how it works? It is intellectual dishonest at it's finest, and it's a completely backwards illogical way to form an argument. Learn the other side, first. What you are doing is like attacking calculus and claiming it's wrong after just learning basic math. You don't have the required knowledge to even make that assessment.

It's also funny that you reference cause and effect. What is the cause of god?

a reply to: SanitySearcher

did you really just claim to disprove evolution, with science and then somehow throw abiogenesis into the mix and conflate it with evolution? but you're using science to disprove a theory...without understanding either the science you're disproving OR the science you think you are using as your evidence for the falsification of evolutionary theory? Brilliant!

a reply to: PhotonEffect

For the record I'm not here denying nor trying to provide refuting evidence for evolution not occurring.

Wow, Photon have you come a long way! I used to correct you on the basics of evolution, now it seems you have come of age?

a reply to: flyingfish

I used to correct you on the basics of evolution, now it seems you have come of age?

Ha! You did no such thing, ever, Mr. fishy. Don't delude yourself

I'm hard pressed to recall the last time you actually said anything that wasn't in anyway insulting, condescending, or entirely off topic. Including this last post of yours. Way to go.

Suum cuique

a reply to: SanitySearcher

Sigh

Just

SIGH

Sanity Searcher, go for it. There are a number of us here educated in the sciences. SO go for it. Just don't act like each other poster who has tried this in this thread (and else where), and bitch and moan when your "logic" ripped apart.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

There are scumbags in society from all walks of life. People have egos and prefer fortune and fame over legitimacy. It's a shame, but it happens, and there are plenty of religious folks like that as well. Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, etc have lied directly about evolution and science many times. Does that make you not trust Christianity as a whole? If no, then why do you discount evolution because of a handful of frauds that wanted to get famous over the thousands of legitimate scientists that do valid research?

Apologis for the delayed response. Haven't had a chance to get in here and really read in a while.

This is true. I have known a couple of pastors I wouldn't trust any further than I could throw them. Maybe less. Shame, but it happens. Phonies all over, even in some churches. I am not familiar with Ham. Hovind, I like. Never seen anything he said I would call a lie. Different interpretation, sure, but no lies I have seen. There's Christianity, then there's organized churches, and they aren't always the same thing. Lots of churches aren't really representing Christianity as well as they should be. For me, it's about a relationship with the Savior, far more than any regular practices. Worship and fellowship are good things, but they aren't vital. All in all, though, I believe there are a LOT of frauds in that particular area of science.

originally posted by: Barcs
The only thing I'm asking from you is for you to tell me which parts of the evidence I posted are wrong without flat out denial. I've done it multiple times for other science denier sites. You not only dodged my evidence again, you refused to answer the question of why mutations do not add up over time. Nobody ever addresses that point. The websites I posted cite direct scientific studies and experiments. You claim to be debating but you ignored almost all my primary points. So basically you're saying all science is wrong and can't be trusted. Sorry, that's not good enough. You don't trust science but I'm willing to bet you own a refrigerator, and computer and are not denying their capabilities despite being products of science.

Mutations do not tend to be beneficial. To believe that mutations account for species change assumes that they would have to be beneficial far more than what the evidence shows. Also, in many cases, they wold have to occur simultaneously to have any benefit at all, and thus to be passed along. The odds of that happening anywhere often enough are astronomical. I have seen that point addressed many times. There is science, and then there is evolution science. They aren't really the same. I love science. Always have. I just prefer logic is involved, and in a lot of cases, when it comes to evolution, there isn't any.

originally posted by: Barcs
Fetal drawings are not part of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. If you are not referencing that, you are not referencing evolution. Darwin is irrelevant. The theory has changed quite a bit since Darwin, so referencing it as it was then isn't pertinent to the argument. The evidence behind evolution is not a farce.

They still show up in textbooks. They were used for decades to support evolution. Maybe not at the top levels, but to "teach" people, they are used. That is simply one example of false evidence.

originally posted by: Barcs
You either don't understand the classification system, or you are intentionally misleading people saying that "mutations don't change one species into another," immediately following my link to the scientific experiment that showed exactly that. You say "type", but that classification does not exist and you used the exact argument I predicted you would. Did you know there are near 1000 different species of shrimp alone? The term species does not apply to all shrimp. But again, if an organism can change slightly, why can't the changes add up over millions of generations? Please don't dodge this question again, or you will prove my point.

I understand it well, and I am not misleading. I never seek to mislead. the system has been changed many times over the years, and these days, a new variety of the same sort of fly or flower is called a new "species" just to show some sort of weak support for evolution. All those shrimp are still just shrimp, aren't they?

originally posted by: Barcs
I wasn't using fundamentalist as an insult. It seemed appropriate. Would bible literalist be better? WordofGodist? They are essentially the same thing. I didn't mean radical, I'm not trying to associate you with terrorists, although most are indeed fundamentalists that deny evolution as well. Either way denying evolution despite the evidence is irrational.

As a descriptor, it's fine. I am certainly that, in the basic sense of the word, since I accept the Bible as God's Word, and as infallible. Pretty traditional in a lot of views, as well. I see it as irrational to trust so much of the so-called evidence, in light of all the known fraud, but that's just me. It's a great topic for discussion, either way! Neither of our points of view is really proven, as far as I am concerned.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Barcs
Also you said above that you seldom visit creationist OR evolutionist websites, yet you sourced:

www.darwinthenandnow.com...

Clearly a creationist website with an anti evolution agenda. What do you consider unbiased? You discount all science sites without even reading them despite the fact that they directly reference numerous studies and experiments.

I looked it up just before posting. I don't tend to visit and read that sort of site on any regular basis, however.