How can mutations add new information?

originally posted by: chr0naut
But speciation is a different issue because it infers non-heritability to the ancestor phenotype. Similarly there are examples of alleged speciational evolution without sufficient generational gradualism or physical barriers between populations. What sort of un-think is required to say that speciation occurs by evolution, when the mechanisms required to explain it, are absent?

This topic is about genetic mutations and how information changes, and you just can't stop the diatribe about epigenetics and other lesser known mechanisms... Nobody is even arguing against that, and nobody is saying gradualism is absolute in every single circumstance. Yeah, evolution theory doesn't know every single transition that ever happened. That doesn't say anything because there is a lot we DO know. You are basically appealing to ignorance here, because you are arguing that we only know evolution happened if we can show every mechanism in every situation. Scientists don't need to because they have demonstrated it enough to know genetic mutations are constant and the environment changing happens on a frequent basis.

The paper previously linked showed how a simple genetic change rendered a sexual plant species infertile in cross pollination with its ancestor species. It was entirely relevant to the point I was making and only off topic to what you want to keep repeating in every thead.

This does not demonstrate that evolution only counts as evolution when there is speciation. It shows one instance of speciation occuring quickly. It's just a red herring. It's about allele change frequency as I have stated many times. Morphological change is not synonymous with species change. Sometimes species change can happen with very little differences to the original species. Sometimes species will not change, even with a multitude of differences.

Natural selection is not the only process within evolutionary theory.

Straw man, I never argued that.

Here's a link to my penultimate response you in that argument. I have bookmarked it for future reference. Make no mistake, you will see this every time you make reference to it.

Again, you post a straw man. That is not the thread I was referring to, I was talking about where you claimed there was a "missing mechanism" and then I posted the research paper where the exact mutation was found. Change in a allele frequency caused by genetic mutations and natural selection is slam dunk proved with the moth example.

So, if something doesn't fit into evolutionary theory, it is a "dishonest" red herring? That's not just cognitive bias, that is flat-out denial.

It's a red herring, not relevant to the topic in the slightest and you default to it every single time any part of evolution is discussed. This thread isn't about epigenetics or lesser known mechanisms of change. It's about genetic mutations changing information. Why can't people stay on topic with evolution ever? The reason is obvious. It's because genetic mutations and natural selection are 100% confirmed mechanisms of evolution demonstrated countless times.

www.nature.com...

Here is the paper I referred to, so you can stop with the "missing mechanisms" nonsense. Peppered moths evolved. Genetic mutations are constant and natural selection affects which genes stick around. It's an ongoing process. We don't need to observe every mutation to know that they happen during replication.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

This topic is about genetic mutations and how information changes, and you just can't stop the diatribe about epigenetics and other lesser known mechanisms... Nobody is even arguing against that

What is your argument, then?

and nobody is saying gradualism is absolute in every single circumstance. Yeah, evolution theory doesn't know every single transition that ever happened. That doesn't say anything because there is a lot we DO know. You are basically appealing to ignorance here

No, I am appealing to the evidence, and the evidence alone, and suggesting it does not show what you speculate it does.

because you are arguing that we only know evolution happened if we can show every mechanism in every situation. Scientists don't need to because they have demonstrated it enough to know genetic mutations are constant and the environment changing happens on a frequent basis.

What was definitely shown was natural selection. That is unarguable. To go beyond the evidence is mere speculative inference.

For instance, can you eliminate the possibility that any phenotypic change, if there was such, was due to horizontal genetic transfer, or was an already innate trait in the gene pool (and, of course, epigenetically triggered traits, which has some cross-over to the previous mechanism)? Since the data does not eliminate them from possibility, you cannot make the assumption that the classical evolutionary models are exclusively shown.

This does not demonstrate that evolution only counts as evolution when there is speciation. It shows one instance of speciation occuring quickly. It's just a red herring. It's about allele change frequency as I have stated many times. Morphological change is not synonymous with species change. Sometimes species change can happen with very little differences to the original species. Sometimes species will not change, even with a multitude of differences.

An allele is a variant gene. To talk of allele change frequency, you have to establish that there was, actually, genetic change. The fact that there may have been an existing heritable trait of melanism in the population, fully explicable by Mendelian genetics, prior to the gathering of the data, is almost entirely overlooked in the pro-evolutionary papers, but there is evidence that such was the case, as I will show later.

Straw man, I never argued that.

You argued that evolution is shown in the example, when there are other equally plausible and even some better evidenced explanations.

Here's a link to my penultimate response you in that argument. I have bookmarked it for future reference. Make no mistake, you will see this every time you make reference to it.

Again, you post a straw man. That is not the thread I was referring to, I was talking about where you claimed there was a "missing mechanism" and then I posted the research paper where the exact mutation was found. Change in a allele frequency caused by genetic mutations and natural selection is slam dunk proved with the moth example.

No, there can be other valid explanations for the observed data, which you are overlooking because they do not support your 'pet theory'.

So, if something doesn't fit into evolutionary theory, it is a "dishonest" red herring? That's not just cognitive bias, that is flat-out denial.

It's a red herring, not relevant to the topic in the slightest and you default to it every single time any part of evolution is discussed. This thread isn't about epigenetics or lesser known mechanisms of change. It's about genetic mutations changing information. Why can't people stay on topic with evolution ever? The reason is obvious. It's because genetic mutations and natural selection are 100% confirmed mechanisms of evolution demonstrated countless times.

I am arguing that in very many instances where it is claimed that evolution is demonstrated, that confirmation bias towards evolution is clouding the interpretation. This is because the alternate possible mechanisms have not been eliminated as possibilities and sometimes are better supported by the evidence.

www.nature.com...

Here is the paper I referred to, so you can stop with the "missing mechanisms" nonsense. Peppered moths evolved. Genetic mutations are constant and natural selection affects which genes stick around. It's an ongoing process. We don't need to observe every mutation to know that they happen during replication.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept all the conclusions of this paper.

While the authors may have identified the genetic locus of melanism, they fail entirely in eliminating the non-evolutionary possible reasons for the existence of the gene.

They even identify the date of the change as 1819 when a prior sample of the black specimen was kept in the University of Oxford (collected in 1811). A simple bit of research prior to publishing would have identified the magnitude of error within their calculations and assumptions but they were also restricted by confirmation bias and didn't challenge their conclusions sufficiently.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

...
I explained that NS is a mechanism several times. By the way, we already had this discussion, and I clearly destroyed you in it by pointing out that scientists have isolated the exact gene mutation responsible for the light and dark moth colors. So genetic mutation and natural selection causing change in allele frequency, slam dunk case for evolution. To claim it's not evolution because species didn't change is completely baseless.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
...
Did the peppered moth evolve into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.” (On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9.) Yet, apparently, it's still popular on ATS for that exact purpose in 2019. ...

You see, when a pro-evolution respected journal made for experts in the field states something that doesn't tickle your ears, you simply dismisss, diss or ignore it. Then suddenly it's supposedly "completely baseless" to point out the obvious.

All based on your phony definition for "evolution" which conveniently leaves out any of the evidential requirements for so-called "macroevolution" by not mentioning anything about it in the definition, carefully tapdancing around it by pointing to irrelevant facts that provide no evidence for this part of the evolutionary storyline being marketed (fish evolving into amphibians, amphibians evolving into reptiles, reptiles evolving into birds and mammals, animals evolving into man; and classifying man as an animal*).

*: Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, one evolutionist stated: “No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.”⁠ ( Populations, Species, and Evolution, by Ernst Mayr, 1970, p. 375.)

What sets man apart from all other creatures on earth is his brain. The power of abstract thought and of speech sets man far apart from any animal, and the ability to record accumulating knowledge is one of man’s most remarkable characteristics. Use of this knowledge has enabled him to surpass all other living kinds on earth​—even to the point of going to the moon and back. Truly, as one scientist said, man’s brain “is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe.”⁠ (The Brain: The Last Frontier, by Richard M. Restak, 1979, p. 162.)

Another feature that makes the gulf between man and animal the greatest one of all is man’s moral and spiritual values, which stem from such qualities as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is alluded to in Genesis when it says that man is made ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ And it is the gulf between man and animal that is the greatest chasm of all.​—Genesis 1:26.

Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? As one can see from the fossil record, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say: “Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.” (Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 111.) Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer. (Natural History, “Darwin and the Fossil Record,” by Alfred S. Romer, October 1959, pp. 466, 467.) For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is still saying: “Special creation.”

Just like the study of genetic mutations acted upon by natural or intelligent/artificial selection (in for example studies involving mutation breeding and regular breeding; as I discussed before in this thread and multiple of the other threads).

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

...
I explained that NS is a mechanism several times. By the way, we already had this discussion, and I clearly destroyed you in it by pointing out that scientists have isolated the exact gene mutation responsible for the light and dark moth colors. So genetic mutation and natural selection causing change in allele frequency, slam dunk case for evolution. To claim it's not evolution because species didn't change is completely baseless.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
...
Did the peppered moth evolve into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.” (On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9.) Yet, apparently, it's still popular on ATS for that exact purpose in 2019. ...

You see, when a pro-evolution respected journal made for experts in the field states something that doesn't tickle your ears, you simply dismisss, diss or ignore it. Then suddenly it's supposedly "completely baseless" to point out the obvious.

All based on your phony definition for "evolution" which conveniently leaves out any of the evidential requirements for so-called "macroevolution" by not mentioning anything about it in the definition, carefully tapdancing around it by pointing to irrelevant facts that provide no evidence for this part of the evolutionary storyline being marketed (fish evolving into amphibians, amphibians evolving into reptiles, reptiles evolving into birds and mammals, animals evolving into man; and classifying man as an animal*).

*: Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, one evolutionist stated: “No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.”⁠ ( Populations, Species, and Evolution, by Ernst Mayr, 1970, p. 375.)

What sets man apart from all other creatures on earth is his brain. The power of abstract thought and of speech sets man far apart from any animal, and the ability to record accumulating knowledge is one of man’s most remarkable characteristics. Use of this knowledge has enabled him to surpass all other living kinds on earth​—even to the point of going to the moon and back. Truly, as one scientist said, man’s brain “is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe.”⁠ (The Brain: The Last Frontier, by Richard M. Restak, 1979, p. 162.)

Another feature that makes the gulf between man and animal the greatest one of all is man’s moral and spiritual values, which stem from such qualities as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is alluded to in Genesis when it says that man is made ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ And it is the gulf between man and animal that is the greatest chasm of all.​—Genesis 1:26.

Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? As one can see from the fossil record, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say: “Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.” (Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 111.) Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer. (Natural History, “Darwin and the Fossil Record,” by Alfred S. Romer, October 1959, pp. 466, 467.) For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is still saying: “Special creation.”

Just like the study of genetic mutations acted upon by natural or intelligent/artificial selection (in for example studies involving mutation breeding and regular breeding; as I discussed before in this thread and multiple of the other threads).

If you want to pretend you have an actual position supported by science, you may want to consider reading some material that isn’t nearly a half century out of date. By trapping yourself in outdated data and positions, you marry yourself permanently to willful ignorance because you are purposely refusing to use current data so that you can quote mine and prop up arguments that you probably already know are entirely fallacious. Seriously man, 1981 is the date of your most recent ciration and the oldest is 49 years old. Science isn’t stagnant therefore neither should your source material.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic

This website has really fallen off a cliff. This is old debunked nonsense. Look up the INSERTION mutation. You people have no clue what evolution is or how it works, you just KNOW it's wrong. It's comical. Grow up. Only butthurt babies still fight science in 2019.

I suspect you are one of those friendly atheists.

originally posted by: peter vlar

If you want to pretend you have an actual position supported by science, you may want to consider reading some material that isn’t nearly a half century out of date. By trapping yourself in outdated data and positions, you marry yourself permanently to willful ignorance because you are purposely refusing to use current data so that you can quote mine and prop up arguments that you probably already know are entirely fallacious. Seriously man, 1981 is the date of your most recent ciration and the oldest is 49 years old. Science isn’t stagnant therefore neither should your source material.

Tens of millions of theoretical years between ancestral apes and homo sapiens and we can't find one complete transition fossil, despite having looked since Darwin postulated his theory.

Science isn't stagnant, unless you hold on to a dead-end theory.

a reply to: peter vlar
So the statement made by he English medical journal On Call made in 1972 doesn't count because it's too long ago? Lame excuse, even lamer then claiming it's "completely baseless". Nothing has changed concerning the peppered moth, what they said back then is still as valid a point today as it was back then. You fanboys just keep on ignoring, dismissing and/or dissing things that don't tickle your ears.

I know your routine, pretending evolutionary mythologists and philosophers are making scientific progress when none has been made, so every valid statement from the past 150 years or so about evolution is still just as valid today as it was back when it was made.

You're just always looking for an excuse to downplay anything about evolution that doesn't promote it and doesn't tickle your ears. Your arguments are getting more and more devoid of content. Pff, as if that statement concerning peppered moths isn't up-to-date. Your arguments are getting lamer by the day.

Nothing has changed concerning the fossil record shouting out “special creation” either, just like “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” (in the fossil record concerning the “Cambrian period” and missing “progenitors of the Cambrian forms”). You and others repeatedly making false claims about it and giving a phony version of history isn't going to change a thing about it. Neither does pretending that this (the evidence from the fossil record) doesn't contradict evolutionary storylines and doesn't support creation.

When you were a child, did you ever startle your parents by asking, “Where do babies come from?” If so, how did they respond? Depending on your age and their personality, your parents might have ignored the question or given you a hurried, embarrassed answer. Or perhaps they told you some fanciful tales that you later found to be false. Of course, if a child is to be properly prepared for adulthood and marriage, he or she eventually needs to learn about the wonders of sexual reproduction.

Just as many parents feel awkward about discussing where babies come from, some scientists seem reluctant to discuss an even more fundamental question​—Where did life come from? Receiving a credible answer to that question can have a profound effect on a person’s outlook on life. So how did life begin?

What do many scientists claim? Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They feel that in some such location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubblelike structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these “simple” original cells.

Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

And nothing has changed about that subject either in the last 10 years. The statement above about "no significant advance in scientific knowledge" (over the last 60 years now) that 'leads in that direction' can just as well be said about other evolutionary storylines. Your fantasy version of reality isn't going to change anything about that either.

Darwin thought that all life might be traced to a common ancestor. He imagined that the history of life on earth resembled a grand tree. Later, others believed that this “tree of life” started as a single trunk with the first simple cells. New species branched from the trunk and continued to divide into limbs, or families of plants and animals, and then into twigs, all the species within the families of plants and animals alive today. Is that really what happened?

What do many scientists claim? Many give the impression that the fossil record supports the theory of a common origin for life. They also claim that because all living things use similar “computer language,” or DNA, that all life must have evolved from a common ancestor.

What does the Bible say? The Genesis account states that plants, sea creatures, land animals, and birds were created “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:12, 20-25) This description allows for variation within a “kind,” but it implies that there are fixed barriers separating the different kinds. The Bible account of creation also leads us to expect that new types of creatures would appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed.

What does the evidence reveal? Does the evidence support the Bible’s description of events, or was Darwin correct? What have discoveries over the past 150 years revealed?

Darwin's tree chopped down:

In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.” (Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.)

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” (New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. pp. 34, 37, 39.)

For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils showed that species change very little over time. Why the silence about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.” (The Evolutionists​—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul, by Richard Morris, 2001, pp. 104-105.)

a reply to: peter vlar
[continued from last comment where I mentioned]

For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils showed that species change very little over time. Why the silence about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.” (The Evolutionists​—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul, by Richard Morris, 2001, pp. 104-105.)

What about evolutionists today? Could it be that they continue to place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas?

Which conclusion fits the evidence best? Consider the facts I have discussed so far in this thread (or focussed on):

- Genetic research shows that life did not originate from a single common ancestor. In addition, major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record.

In light of these facts, do you think it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence is in harmony with the Bible’s explanation of the origin of life? Many people, however, assert that science contradicts much of what the Bible says about creation. Yet the evidence, the facts, prove them wrong.

FACTS AND QUESTIONS:

- Fact: Two of evolution’s fundamental ideas​—that life has a common origin and that major new body types appear as a result of the slow accumulation of small changes—​are being challenged by researchers who do not support the Bible account of creation.

- Question: Given the controversy over these pillars of Darwin’s theory, can his version of evolution honestly be referred to as scientific fact?

- Fact: All living organisms share similarly designed DNA, the “computer language,” or code, that governs much of the shape and function of their cell or cells.

- Question: Could this similarity exist, not because they had the same ancestor, but because they had the same Designer?

What About Human Evolution?

Look up the topic of human evolution in many textbooks and encyclopedias and you will see a series of pictures​—on one side a stooped, apelike creature followed by creatures that have progressively more upright posture and larger heads. At the end stands modern man. Such renderings along with sensational media reports of the discovery of so-called missing links give the impression that there is ample evidence that man evolved from apelike creatures. Are such assertions based on solid evidence? Consider what evolutionary researchers say about the following topics (none of the researchers quoted here believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution).

WHAT THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE ACTUALLY SHOWS:

Fact: At the beginning of the 20th century, all the fossils that were used to support the theory that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor could fit on a billiard table. Since then, the number of fossils used to support that theory has increased. Now it is claimed that they would fill a railroad boxcar. (The Human Lineage, by Matt Cartmill and Fred H. Smith, 2009, Preface, p. xi.) However, the vast majority of those fossils consist only of single bones and isolated teeth. Complete skulls​—let alone complete skeletons—​are rare. (Fossils, Teeth and Sex​—New Perspectives on Human Evolution, by Charles E. Oxnard, 1987, Preface, pp. xi, xii; From Lucy to Language, by Donald Johanson and Blake Edgar, 1996, p. 22; Anthropologie, XLII/​1, “Palaeodemography and Dental Microwear of Homo Habilis From East Africa,” by Laura M. Martínez, Jordi Galbany, and Alejandro Pérez-Pérez, 2004, p. 53; In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, p. 22.)

Question: Has the increased number of fossils attributed to the human “family tree” settled the question among evolutionary experts as to when and how humans evolved from apelike creatures?

Answer: No. In fact, the opposite is true. When it comes to how these fossils should be classified, Robin Derricourt of the University of New South Wales, Australia, wrote in 2009: “Perhaps the only consensus now is that there is no consensus.” (Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins​—Taxonomies, Fossils and Egos,” by Robin Derricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.) In 2007 the science journal Nature published an article by the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree, saying that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes. In other words, or to use Meinesz' words, “no significant advance in scientific knowledge”. (Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.) Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.” This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures. (Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings​—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.) Again, another way of saying that would be 'no significant advance in scientific knowledge that leads to the conclusion that humans evolved from apelike creatures', and there was already none to begin with. So how much is zero + zero?

Fact: The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans.

Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence?

No. One group of researchers who used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so they “often feel on shaky ground.” Why? Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.” (The Human Fossil Record​—Volume Three, 2004; Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/​September 2008, p. 72.)

Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?

Honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented.

a reply to: peter vlar

I don't even have enough space to go through all the facts that contradict evolutionary storylines and claims and support the Genesis account of creation. It just goes on and on. And plenty of evolutionary scientists ("philosophers" I'd say) that have acknowledged these facts both in the past as well as this century, they most often just won't admit to how these facts relate to evolutionary claims and storylines, how they contradict those and most of the times fit the Genesis account of creation quite nicely. But even that on occasion does happen (the latter part at least) as just demonstrated by my quotation of Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer, which is in no way an outdated statement. At most one could say that such honest admittals and acknowledgements are becoming more rare, out of fashion amongst today's evolutionists and fanboys (or the flock).

Honesty is in very short supply these days in these circles. Marketing and propaganda in favor of evolutionary philosophies that make no mention of the evidence to the contrary rules the day in these circles. Nevertheless, honest admittals regarding the facts are still being made by evolutionists; such as the ones quoted in the previous 2 comments). Just not the reality that these facts contradict their evolutionary storylines and support the Genesis account of creation. Often, there isn't even a mention how these facts relate to those logically, how they apply to any evalutation of either version of history and what they really show, demonstrate or prove (beyond any reasonable doubt).

a reply to: whereislogic

Seriously how much more do you plan on copy-pasting from a Jehovah witness site? Is that all from the Watchtower Society?

When you copy paste that much by ATS standards you are to show the link to the original.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Sure, throw the book at me. Why don't you start flagging my commentary and calling in the moderators again as well (as was done before when I was quoting too much from other sources, causing comments to get deleted or edited and vital information hidden from the average ATS reader). Anything to get people to remain ignorant of the facts.

I guess they're busy. Luckily, cause I don't agree with their max 3 paragraph-rule anyway (this is my way of getting around it). I would not want to use other words to describe a situation that is already so appropiately and adequately described. My words could never trump it. I'll just add my thoughts in between (and since I agree with it word for word, they might as well be considered to be my words in a sense; what am I to do, try to forcefit single word changes here and there and still try to make the sentence work without screwing up the point being made there so eloquently? The same point I want to make?). Besides, most of it is quotations from evolutionists, can't even change those.

Your prejudiced generalization and assessment of my primary source of honest reliable information about the topic of evolution is invalid anyway. It being based entirely on prejudice and generalization. Both being involved with propaganda, in particular the effect of propaganda. And it conveniently ignores and sidesteps the quotations from those who accept the teaching of evolution, the focal point of my commentary.

a reply to: whereislogic

Why do you keep plagiarising? The walls of text you keep copy-pasting have been debunked already for its fallacious reasoning and people are already used to you spamming it like in this thread same ole same ole

a reply to: Grimpachi

Just claiming it's fallacious doesn't make it so or doesn't refute a thing in it. If you have a legitimate point to make in relation to the quotations I used and facts I brought up (copy-pasted or not), go ahead make it.

If you want these facts and admittals to these facts/realities/truths/certainties to be removed from ATS so that people will remain ignorant about them cause keeping people ignorant about these specific facts as well as the acknowledgements made regarding them by evolutionists helps in defending and arguing in favor of your pagan religious originated evolutionary dogma and beliefs, go ahead and start complaining to the moderators or make comments about it in the hopes they will notice or that me admitting that this is my way of circumnavigating the 'max 3 paragraph'-rule so I can include more pertinent facts, information and points, will spring them into action editing my comments like before (or completely removing them for using more than 3 paragraphs, or limiting the comment to just some introductionary paragraphs that are of little use because the most pertinent parts are edited out).

If you just want to continue your discrediting routine by making accusations about plagiarizing because of my choice in how to circumnavigate the 3 paragraph-rule, without responding more seriously to anything in my commentary, possibly not even reading it but having your accusation ready to go, well, I can't stop you but the troll-corner is over in the political mudpit. Perhaps you may be interested in going back there. I don't comment there a lot so you will not have to be bothered by long detailed accurate and honest comments containing the relevant background to the points I'm making showing a more accurate picture of the situation.

The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. “But the mouth of the stupid feeds on* [Or “pursues.”] foolishness.” (Pr 15:14)

The “foolish one” keeps his comments short, troll-like and often including at least 1 personal attack to discredit what someone else is pointing towards, which in this case are mostly statements of evolutionists or those found in scientific literature to boot (not my own statements, so personal attacks aren't going to change a thing about these acknowledgements or the facts being discussed in them). All in an effort to steer the attention away from the facts discussed and how they provide evidence for creation and against evolution. Nothing to say in detail about that have you?

“For a foolish one true wisdom is too high; in the gate he will not open his mouth.” (Pr 24:7)

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: whereislogic

The walls of text you keep copy-pasting have been debunked already for its fallacious reasoning ...[/url]

To quote from the video below at 0:57:

“...he can simply swat away any argument you provide by claiming it's been debunked, and when you get nowhere in trying to convince him- which you will, because he is determined not to be convinced- he'll expect you to default back to his preferred supposition— “There is no evidence for God.” In this case that would be: "There is no evidence for creation and evolution is a fact well backed up by evidence in the sciences” (or something like that that pertains to what I was commenting about and what you are arguing for when you are responding to someone else here).

More relevant commentary in the phrase: “he is appointing himself arbiter of all evidence. When he refuses to be convinced by any evidence you provide, he will demand that you accept his starting premise as true. This is not a position of intellectual humility, it is a position of ultimate intellectual arrogance.” (0:48 below) I'd say a demonstration of an intellectual superiority complex and the haughtiness, arrogance that comes with it, all of which is an effect of repeated usage of appeals and reverse appeals to pride, a standard propaganda technique involving playing on the emotions rather than focussing on the facts and inductive reasoning or common sense. It (this way of thinking, reasoning, arguing and accompanying behavioural patterns and attitudes) also comes in multiple forms, not always exactly the way described by the person in the video above and below.

A bit more about it (keypoints at 0:31 - 0:41, 1:40 - 1:54, 2:20 - 3:24: “Unfortunately that openness to evidence you describe characterizes in my experience approximately 0.1% of atheists. Uh, you assume that atheists are just completely willing to change their minds upon encountering new evidence, I do not share that assumption. Again, in my experience atheists [you can swap this out with "fans of evolutionary philosophies" in the situation in this thread regarding arguments for creation being supposedly fallacious and debunked or failing to prove the Genesis account of creation and disprove the type of evolution involved with the topic of "common descent"] are no more willing to change their minds then say hardcore anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers.”

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: whereislogic

Why do you keep plagiarising? The walls of text you keep copy-pasting have been debunked already for its fallacious reasoning and people are already used to you spamming it like in this thread same ole same ole

And the same old silence in terms of any rational counter-argument regarding the facts and points about them being made. For example, there was no such response to these questions (one of which is purely rhetorical) in the thread you linked either:

Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?

Honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented.

Of course the flock isn't going to admit to that bolded rhetorical question and the related point at the end. Yet, this is what the evidence, the facts, clearly demonstrate is the reality of the situation. Not even a rational counter-argument is offered on this subforum (not in the thread you linked or any of the other times I brought it up). Just brushing it off by painting the "fallacious reasoning" label on it isn't going to change a thing about it. I will continue reminding people of this behaviour by evolutionists. You may keep ignoring it if you feel like it, or denying it by means of prejudice and generalization, painting with a broad brush on the entire comment and making sure you mention "the Watchtower Society" to help with playing on other people's prejudice against that publishing organization (and demonstrating your own, as if the source of these quotations of evolutionists or the facts brought up even matter, anyone can bring up the same stuff, as I've done, it's irrelevant who or what brings it up if you're not playing on prejudice and carefully nurtured and conditioned intellectual superiority complexes by those quick to conclude brainwashing and indoctrination in others, especially those who hold different views than their own indoctrinated beliefs/opinions/thoughts and ideas/philosophies, in this case pertaining to evolutionary philosophies and beliefs that are often described as not being beliefs but facts that are supposedly "accepted" rather than "believed"; cause some people have been conditioned to be allergic to admiiting any sort of "belief/faith", even when it's obvious that that is what they do indeed believe, it is their opinion on the matter, that's what they think/believe is the case, the truth/reality/certainty of the matter while they desperately promote the agnostic code to pretend they can never be 100% certain about it while they like to use the term "fact" a lot, which indicates something that is supposedly "factual/absolute/certain/conclusive/true/correct, without error". I.e. they are misusing the word "fact" if they want to argue that they can't be 100% certain about it, but they only 'accept' it as the most likely scenario).

a reply to: whereislogic

Just claiming it's fallacious doesn't make it so or doesn't refute a thing in it. If you have a legitimate point to make in relation to the quotations I used and facts I brought up (copy-pasted or not), go ahead make it.

OK fine. The point is you quoting a bunch of so-called research means absolutely nothing because you have no clue what any of it is about. All you are doing is Using the Gish Gallop fallacy.
link

The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott and named after the creationist Duane Gish, who used the technique frequently against proponents of evolution.

As to why I say you have no clue I am sure that all the references you referenced such as -
(The Human Fossil Record​—Volume Three, 2004; Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/​September 2008, p. 72.) (Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins​—Taxonomies, Fossils and Egos,” by Robin Derricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.) . (Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.) Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: (Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings​—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.) (The Human Lineage, by Matt Cartmill and Fred H. Smith, 2009, Preface, p. xi.) (Fossils, Teeth and Sex​—New Perspectives on Human Evolution, by Charles E. Oxnard, 1987, Preface, pp. xi, xii; From Lucy to Language, by Donald Johanson and Blake Edgar, 1996, p. 22; Anthropologie, XLII/​1, “Palaeodemography and Dental Microwear of Homo Habilis From East Africa,” by Laura M. Martínez, Jordi Galbany, and Alejandro Pérez-Pérez, 2004, p. 53; In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, p. 22.)

-and more that you have not read any of them yourself. All you are doing is copying from some JW site without any clue about the material in question. You are not debating you are simply being a tool parroting what you are told to parrot. You are cluelessly spreading propaganda.

Oh, and FYI I have never reported you. Maybe I should and maybe I will from here on out when I see you plagiarising with a gish gallop of info you copy pasted from a JH site without a single reference to a link. This ATS if you are unable to discuss the topic and are simply being their minion then you deserve it.

a reply to: Grimpachi
See again, nothing specific about the behaviour of lining up the so-called "hominid" fossils by brain size for example. Or anything else in my comment.

You just repeated the 'it's fallacious reasoning' argument with a more specific invented term*+definition that doesn't apply. But you don't care it doesn't apply, you only need to make it stick for others.

One does not need to read whole books or articles to understand the key points being highlighted by someone else. None of that negates the admittals being highlighted. It is not quote-mining either.

*: Btw, I have no interest in Eugenie C. Scott's invented terms for fallacies. Talk about someone using propaganda and marketing techniques and twisting the reality of a situation...Haeckel merely "may have fudged his drawings somewhat to look more like his ideal"? (1:43)

Can you get any more dishonest as to what Haeckel was doing and give it your political spin by describing it in another much more mild way? Deliberate fraud is deliberate fraud. Haeckel was a con-artist who inspired Nazi ideology based on social Darwinism and the idea that black people and jews were less evolved than caucasians and Aryans were the most evolved in terms of survival of the fittest (among all the related Nazi extermination ideologies that came with it).

Anyone defending his fraud by describing (downplaying) it as "may have fudged his drawings somewhat to look more like his ideal", and "blown out of significance" and "a minor footnote in the history of science", is as much a propagandist as the prominent Nazi propagandists were. Defending a philosopher con-artist that basically inspired most of Nazi ideologies (and were already put in practice in Africa before the Nazi party came into existence). Disgusting really.

Unlike you and those on your side of the fence, I do not recognize terms for fallacies that were made up by evolutonists in order to fallicitate the argument that someone else who disagrees with evolutionary claims is using fallacious reasoning as a legitimate term for fallacies. Especially when they are completely inappropiately applied to arguments that do not even fit the definition given for these terms. It's a bit like that ATS-poster that keeps on linking the term "appeal to complexity" to a website that actually mentions at the bottem:

References:

This is a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found.

Source: Appeal to Complexity (logicallyfallacious.com)

That's so ironic, and everytime he uses it in regards to my commentary, there's nothing in my commentary that even fits with that definition given there. Heck, even his own definition had to swap something out to make the accusations he made towards someone else supposedly "appealing to complexity" stick. To force-fit the 'God did it'-conditioning triggerphrase. While his own argument boils down to 'Nature did it' in spite of all the evidence to the contrary and that the forces of nature on their own have been well-established not to be able to accomplish what he's implying they did by chance on their own without outside intelligent interference with natural events such as entropy and decay. Nature does not build up, it tears down, put in more energy from the Sun, it tears down even quicker (if we're thinking about biomolecular machinery for a moment, which was what that discussion was about).

The best you can do is pull up something from the 1800s? FYI tech wasn't available to be as precise as today.

Weak sauce.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Keep on going with your political-style spin. You're doing so well. This is not honestly described as something from the 1800's (as if it's old news, outdated, only from the 1800's, beating a dead horse, "blown out of significance", "overused"). As mentioned in the video, his drawings were still used to beef up the evolutionary marketing campaign when that video was made. And the whole embryology-argument related to evolution, hasn't changed one bit, as Eugenie C. Scott herself argues, his fraud supposedly doesn't change "a bit" about it (the evolutionary argument concerning it, presented as factual and "science", described as "what we know about the relationship of embryology to evolution" by Eugenie). She refuses to acknowledge the other facts mentioned in the first video about it that clearly demonstrate the argument to be bogus. But what's more important, is the related fraudulant marketing and propaganda behaviour which she won't acknowledge and tries to downplay as she continues with it (keeping people in the dark about the facts mentioned in the video that contradict it). That too should affect their argument related to embryology, as it does for me, so there goes her 'not a bit'-argument concerning how much Haekel's behaviour and fraud affects the evolutionary argument concerning embryology. Continued dishonesty doesn't bode well for the argument (which includes the misrepresentation of the actual facts and the twisting of logic applied to it and the contuinued fraudulant behaviour of cherry-picking which stages and which photos of which organisms to show when making this argument of an evolutionary relation, and which facts, evidence, organisms or "stages of development" to leave out of it when doing these comparisons and claiming its similar enough to warrant their argument that there is an evolutionary relation between these organisms; how is it not dishonest to cherry-pick those stages and those organisms that look the most similar to a biased beholder? This is marketing/promotion, not science).

But hey, this all works well as a distraction from the points and facts brought up in my initial commentary that you were responding to, doesn't it? So you can further paint the picture of gish-galloping on me, making it stick better. Nobody will notice you inserted Eugenie Scott into this discussion warranting me to give my opinion about her as a reliable or nonreliable source for terms for fallacies. In turn causing me to bring up why I don't accept* any terms for fallacies that she invented with a specific motive of discrediting those who object to her methods and behaviour and those on the same side of the fence displaying the same propagandistic marketing pattern. Which includes her response there to Haeckel's embryo drawings fraud. But also other things I've heard from her in videos released by government institutions for education, or the documentary "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed". But I don't feel like discussing those in detail for now, the Haeckel-thingy is already the most blatant example of what I mean.

*: accept in terms of being valid terms to use in a reasonable rational discussion about something, accept as pertinent as well and not merely part of the discrediting routine I so often speak about involving appeals to pride and reverse appeals to pride, painting the picture on someone of not being able or willing to use logic appropiately concerning something, being supposedly both intelectually or logically challenged. If we're focussing on the verb "willing" there, it's actually just like what psychologists term as "psychological projection". Cause it's people like her who won't apply logic appropiately to all the pertinent facts, not just the ones she (or they) can twist into her (or their) evolutionary storyline. I prefer to call it the Isaiah 5:20,21-thingy if I want to keep it short and not quote it again. Propagandists sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths, capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic (and making up their own terms for supposed fallacies to facilitate in all this). Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target. Propagandists agitate the emotions and exploit insecurities. The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right one and that it gives you a sense of intellectual superiority and belonging if you follow it (belonging to those deemed more intellectual and logically coherent for example). You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone—so they say.

The way you argue about Haeckel's fraud and try to downplay it as well as the way you use Eugenie Scott's terminology for a supposed fallacy, I might as well be talking to her instead. Like talking to a brick wall, with the only difference being a motive for propagandizing and marketing in favor of evolutionary philosophies and defending the fraudulant propagandistic marketing behaviour of evolutionary philosophers and downplaying the effect it should have for people evaluating the evolutionary storyline and marketing campaign that a brick wall wouldn't be pre-occupied with.

In my experience, people like Eugenie Scott are not much different from types like Donald Trump. Very cunning and effective in telling people what they want to hear, tickling their ears, targeting a specific market. That's how they use their intelligence. I would never argue they are intellectually inferior as they constantly do when talking about someone who addresses their marketing behaviour or otherwise disagrees with what they're selling. As if using appeals to pride and reverse appeals to pride is perfectly fine and doesn't hurt your credibility for those who know how this works. Continuing with that comparison, the 'it's not science, it's fallacious reasoning'-styled arguments are not much different than Trump's 'it's not news, it's fake news'-style arguments. Propaganda...it works! But it's still not cool and it doesn't work on everybody.

a reply to: Grimpachi

But thanks anyway for providing me with the information that Eugenie C. Scott came up with the term "Gish gallop". I didn't know that and it's useful to know regarding all the times people on your side of the fence here have used that accusation and paintjob in the form of an ad hominem, appeal to pride and reverse appeal to pride (something that happens quite a bit, not only regarding my commentary). Who's parroting terms and arguments now? Who's copy-pasting ways of thinking and arguing or debating?

You can always just come up with your own terminiology next time, or some terminology that has been around a bit longer and better recognized by philosophers of logic than a terminology invented by someone into horses and horseriding trying to sound clever as they use their lame techniques (should have known it was a woman that came up with it). Before you know it, you'll start making up whole new ways of using words like "nothing" to describe the opposite: something. Like Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins, the ultimate demonstration of the intellectual superiority complex, arrogance and appeals and reverse appeals to pride I've been talking about (as if they get to re-define the word "nothing" to the exact opposite to what it has been used as for centuries by people not involving that word in marketing and self-marketing attempts and selling books like "A Universe from Nothing" and "The Grand Design").

Knowing that the term comes from Eugenie Scott, makes it easier to recognize what's going on with those who like to use it as well. So I wonder, who was the first to use the term "appeal to complexity"? Dr. Robert Bennett from the "logically fallacious" website? I don't think so, but watch how people link to the 'logically fallacious'-website to warrant their usage of those terms, while the page mentions that "No academic sources could be found" for this term. And that it's "a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet." Yeah duh, perhaps lately by people infatuated by Dr. Robert Bennett and his supposed ability to list fairly new and supposedly useful terms for fallacies that are supposed to be useful to anyone discussing fallacious reasoning. And the fallacy described is actually matched up by these people with a straw man interpretation of the original argument* which doesn't fit the bill (the description of this supposed fallacy). *: by reading that interpretation into it (the straw man interpretation is in that way prepared for them in the description of the fallacy; all they need to do from that point, is read it into what they are hearing and try to make it match in their minds). So eg., whenever people see someone else mentioning "complexity" (or a related concept) in their argument or just a fact brought up in relation to the argument, they read their straw man interpretation into it that matches the description Dr. Bennett gives for a supposed "appeal to complexity".

Way to go people.It's more likely the other way around, Dr. Bennett listing this fallacy on the basis that other people on the internet are using the term as it is described on his website. But why would you even do that? Just about anyone can make up a new term for a supposed fallacy and then use it on the internet, but do you need to give each one credit like that? He lists only slightly over 300 fallacies in his book with the same title as his website, so I'm sure he didn't. Sounds more like he's trying to impress with the phrase "over 300", when you could do the most important or common (actual) types of fallacies in perhaps under 50. But then your book doesn't sell as well on Amazon perhaps (more is better, it looks like you have a lot of knowledge about fallacies and have put in a lot of research, even if you list the lame ones that others don't immediately recognize as not being very useful descriptions for a type of fallacious reasoning, not even worthy of mention in discussions about fallacies, sometimes because they are already described in much more accurate and widely recognized recognizable terms, such as "argument from ignorance" in this case; and in this case, just so you can force-fit the conditioning triggerword "complexity" in there, a word that triggers some indoctrinated and conditioned thoughts and ways of reasoning when that word is used in the context of creation, design and highly sophisticated machinery and technology, related to a straw man argument involving the topic of complexity):

Amazon.com: Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition) eBook: Bo Bennett: Kindle Store

A ridiculous price of over 35 bucks for a hardcover version. More marketing and money-making schemes along with self-promotion as an intellectual who knows what he's talking about and is worthy to read up on and spend 35 bucks on.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Also note that the term "gish gallop" isn't referred to as a fallacy or fallacious reasoning on the link you used. More irony (it is used however with the term "chewbacca defense" in the "See also:" section at the bottom, but that doesn't count regarding what I just said and the way you said "Gish Gallop fallacy").

What would be so fallacious anyway about using "a rapid series of many" arguments or facts "in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate" that in themselves aren't fallacious or only "specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations" in the eyes of the biased beholder that wants to see them that way (and paint them as such)? Quoting from your wikilink regarding the description of this term. Not to mention that my commentary in no way has to fall "within the format of a formal debate" when merely bringing up lots of pertinent facts and acknowledgements regarding them from evolutionists that aren't misrepresented or only half-true, and a few arguments or points related to them that again, would only be considered specious in the eyes of a biased beholder that doesn't want to acknowledge otherwise.

In no way, can that description of "gish gallop" be applied to my commentary here. And again, it's just another way to repeat the argument that my commentary was based on fallacious reasoning, confronting "an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place." (repetition of your initial argument by pointing to a term that basically describes something similar, arguments that are "specious", i.e. wrong, misleading in appearance; doesn't really support or justify your original claim. You have not shown anything in my commentary to be fallacious or akin to the concept of "Gish Gallop", you haven't even made a coherent argument why it supposedly is or resembles a Gish Gallop, just someone using many words doesn't count in that description, not even if those words include lots of points in the eyes of a beholder that wants to interpret it as "lots of", what is 'a lot' to some people may not be so for others. I for one prefer longer comments with considerable and unambiguous factual support brought up for whatever point someone is making; at the very least, you can better see what someone is thinking even if you don't agree with them, and you can see someone is making an effort rather than just trolling for kicks and defensive reactions, which seems to be entertaining for some people who may even feel that it makes them more cool, admired by others that they can get a rile out of someone, trolling does seem to make one more popular in this system of things on average.)

Coming back to that part of the description of "Gish Gallop" quoted above, even if that were so in my commentary (which isn't part of a formal debate), just pick one to refute, fact-check or address (if responding anyway), why would you need to refute them all if you feel there are too many? I think I spent considerably more time on supporting them with factual accurate statements that are not misrepresenting the situation as you did refuting or fact-checking any of them and misrepresenting my commentary, misapplying supposed fallacies that aren't even described as fallacies on the link you used for it (maybe Dr. Bennett did it as part of his "over 300 fallacies" in his book, then you should have maybe used his website to argue that this is a fallacy, not that it would have made it any more applicapable to my commentary about what could be argued is a single point or topic, maybe 2: what the fossil record shows and genetic research, although I didn't say much about the latter in the comment you responded to, that would be earlier in the thread where I discussed that topic in more detail and made some related points to it).

And that's the only reason my commentary fills up the space, not because there are "many specious arguments, half-truths and misrepresentations" in them, but because I back my few points with pertinent unambiguous facts acknowledged by so many evolutionists that I run out of space quoting them and adding some background to what they are acknowledging, in particular how it relates to the evolution-creation controversy, which they won't do most of the times when making these acknowledgements. Showing that they are misrepresenting the facts and leaving out the crucial context in terms of evolutionary philosophies versus the creation account in the book of Genesis. Making acknowledgements in the fineprint so to speak. The Dutch saying goes: 'mentioning it in between nose and lips'. I don't think there is an equivalent expression in English ("in passing" comes closest).