Evolution has been observed... right?

[Valjean]

OMG! That's so important! Thank you for pointing that out!

It's evidence you don't pay attention to posts, or learn from them.

 

[Rise]

In the case of @Rise it's not a fallacy; it's simply true.

You are committing the logical fallacy of ad honimen and argument by assertion.

You cannot establish your claim is true by demonstrating that anything I have said is in logical or factual error.

So not only is your accusation a mere fallacious argument by assertion (ie. it's not proven true just because you assert it is), but it's also an ad hominem because you are using a personal attack as a substitute fro having a valid counter argument.

The only way your accusation could not be a fallacy is if you paired your accusation with actual logical counter arguments to tr to demonstrate why you think your accusation would be true.

 

[Valjean]

So, now they do morph. Y'all really need to make up your minds.
You ever heard of putting lipstick on a pig?
No matter how much lipstick you smack on that Darwin pig, he doesn't look any better to people that aren't already indoctrinated.

What are you talking about? Evolution is change, call it morphing, transmogrification, metamorhosis or whatever.
Yes, organisms change over time -- "over time" being the operative term. One species doesn't suddenly give birth to another. Why do we need to keep explaining this over and over?

Q: Why do you keep bring up Darwin? What does Darwin have to do with current evolutionary biology?
Physicians don't keep referencing Hippocrates or Galen. Engineers don't always bring up Archimedes. What's with this creationist obsession with Darwin?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Please find a single example of anyone other than a creationist claiming that evolution says that one species grows into another species.

At one time there was nothing but a species of one cell animals. Science says they grew into other species. Isn't that evolution?

 

[Valjean]

Yeah and I bet you had to add more parts to get from a wheel bearing to a full automobile. I worked lots of assembly lines. There was always a works prep that they had to supply the line.
The problem with macroevolution, is that the other parts, the additional information, isn't available.

Apparently you don't understand DNA. The information is genetic. It's just spelling changes.

Have you ever seen a litter of puppies or kittens? Are they all the same? Where did the new information come from? Why aren't they identical to their parents?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Let me just add that I have asked numerous people here for evidence of some sort of "wall" that stops "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution", and yet not one person over several years of me asking this same exact question has provided one shred of such evidence.

Logically, small changes can add up over time. One summer I was working at Chrysler Corp in final assembly, and I was involved at the beginning of that assembly process. If one didn't know better, they would have no idea what the finished product would even look like.

The ToE in no way negates the concept of Divine creation, thus any church or denomination that teaches that it does is simply not telling the truth, such as the fundamentalist church I first started attending as a child and left when in my 20's because of this and a couple of other reasons. My point is too many people are being misled to by their pastors on this, and many of these pastors know this according to a study several decades ago.

So, why do some of them do this? Largely for two main reasons according to the study, with one of them being that the leaders of the denomination expect them to deny the evolutionary process whereas the other is that the congregation itself expects them to deny evolution. If they ignore either, they could find themselves out of a job.

I have not always agrees with everything you say but I must agree that you are a wise person with many good ideas. And I agree completely that animals can and do change. But going from one cell animals to fish and birds is a lot more than just small changes adding up over time. There has to be other factors involved.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are committing the logical fallacy of bait and switch.

I know you just loooooove to play the logical fallacy card, even in cases like this where it's not at all applicable, but just a suggestion.....find another tactic.

The fallacy is when you take one concept which you can prove and then try to claim that proves a different concept which you can't prove by pretending these two concepts are actually the same.

Um.....I went by your own post! You posted a definition of "adaptation" that explicitly described it as an evolutionary process ("it is the dynamic evolutionary process that...").

Try and pay closer attention to what you post.

Proving epigenetic adapation happens doesn't logically prove that cells could evolve into mankind if given enough time.

??????? You're not even making the slightest bit of sense here. First, where has anyone said anything like what you describe (proving epigenetic adaptation proves universal common descent)? Be specific.

Second, do you even know what epigenetic adaptation is? The way in which you post about it indicates that you don't.

Calling them both evolution purposely introduces confusion whereby you try to claim cells to man evolution is proven because you'e proven adaptation evolution happens.

Show specifically where anyone has done that.

The cell to man evolution would require mechanisms and processes that aren't part of how we know adaptation works. Ie. The introduction of new functional genetic code information into an organism rather than merely toggling the switches of the genetic code that is already there.

If you mean evolutionary common descent requires the evolution of new functional genetic sequences, then that's been observed countless times. If you mean something else, then define "new functional genetic code information" in a way that allows us to identify and measure it.

So you can't claim adaption proves cells to man evolution because the process of adaptation by itself doesn't have the requisite features to make cells to man evolution conceptually possible.

Good thing no one has done that.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Do you doubt the various dating methods? If so, why?
Do you understand how the dating works?


Yes. Small changes accumulate into big changes.
When people reproduce, their children speak the same language as the parents. Latin speakers don't make French or Spanish speakers.
Yet French and Spanish speakers exist, and they did not in the past. How did that happen?

And yet you miss the main point. Children of Spanish speakers and children of French speakers are all HUMAN because their parents are human. If a Spanish speaking human gives birth to a puppy, that will be similar to saying these tiny one cell animals somehow became fish.

 

[Valjean]

You are committing the logical fallacy of bait and switch.

The fallacy is when you take one concept which you can prove and then try to claim that proves a different concept which you can't prove by pretending these two concepts are actually the same.

Proving epigenetic adapation happens doesn't logically prove that cells could evolve into mankind if given enough time. Calling them both evolution purposely introduces confusion whereby you try to claim cells to man evolution is proven because you'e proven adaptation evolution happens. Even though as concepts they are completely different.

The cell to man evolution would require mechanisms and processes that aren't part of how we know adaptation works. Ie. The introduction of new functional genetic code information into an organism rather than merely toggling the switches of the genetic code that is already there.

So you can't claim adaption proves cells to man evolution because the process of adaptation by itself doesn't have the requisite features to make cells to man evolution conceptually possible.

The genetic shuffling of information that drives adaptation happens all the time, with every new generation, through reproductive variation or mutation. No need for epigenetics.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are committing the logical fallacy of ad honimen

Nope, for two reasons. First, it's only the fallacy if I say something like "Rise is ignorant of the subject, therefore his statement is false". Merely pointing out your ignorance without any "therefore....." is not the fallacy.

Second, it's simply true. Your posts on epigenetic adaptation serve as good illustrations of your ignorance.

 

[Valjean]

And yet you miss the main point. Children of Spanish speakers and children of French speakers are all HUMAN because their parents are human. If a Spanish speaking human gives birth to a puppy, that will be similar to saying these tiny one cell animals somehow became fish.

Do you understand what an analogy is?

 

[Jose Fly]

The genetic shuffling of information that drives adaptation happens all the time, with every new generation, through reproductive variation or mutation. No need for epigenetics.

Yup, but I don't think Rise even understands many of the concepts he's trying to argue. But it's not like we haven't seen that before....

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Do you understand what an analogy is?

Do you understand that offspring are the same species as their parents? No analogy needed.

 

[Valjean]

At one time there was nothing but a species of one cell animals. Science says they grew into other species. Isn't that evolution?

Depends how you define "grow into." Science points to a gradual accumulation of small changes. You keep representing the claim as a sudden transformation.

lostwanderingsoul said: ↑
Do you understand that offspring are the same species as their parents? No analogy needed.

I guess you really did miss the point.

The analogy compared the gradualness of the mechanism.
Parents birth the same species. Children speak the same language. Yet, given enough time, minute changes in each generation can accumulate into a different species/language.

 

[Valjean]

I have not always agrees with everything you say but I must agree that you are a wise person with many good ideas. And I agree completely that animals can and do change. But going from one cell animals to fish and birds is a lot more than just small changes adding up over time. There has to be other factors involved.

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia
Why? And why do we see a gradual increase in complexity over great periods of time?
Was each new variant magically poofed into existence, fully formed? That's what you seem to be claiming. It's the only alternative I can think of.

Such a thing has never been observed, nor can any mechanism to account for it be imagined (hence: 'magic').
The mechanisms proposed by abiogenesis, and by the ToE, on the other hand, are observed every day, and are easily demonstrable in the lab.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you understand that offspring are the same species as their parents? No analogy needed.

And what do you say when that's not the case? New species arising in one generation via hybridization is extremely common in plants for example.

 

[Rise]

The genetic shuffling of information that drives adaptation happens all the time, with every new generation, through reproductive variation or mutation. No need for epigenetics.

You are committing the fallacy of a false equivalence.
Shuffling of existing information around is not the same as creating new information.

I can shuffle the lines of a code in a computer program around but that's not going to create a new function. I can only shuffle what is already there. The information for new functions is simply not there because no mind wrote it down to put it there.

What you are arguing for is the idea that random chance can create new functional code in the genetics. But you have no observational evidence of this happening. And you can offer no mechanism by which it could feasibly happen.

Even at the most basic level of the genetic code for folding a single type of protein, the informational coding that controls that is so long and complex that it is statistically and logically infeasible to suggest that it could arise out of the random chance of errors or damage in the genetic code.
You would need too many errors, in too many places, in just the right order, in order to result in a functional new piece of code.
And then on top of that you need this new functional piece of code to actually do something significant enough that nature could select it based on survival and reproduction rates.

And if you can't even explain how we could get the genetic code for a single new folding of protein by random chance then there's no basis for believing it's feasible to expect new gene coding function information can just arise by chance in an organism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

At one time there was nothing but a species of one cell animals. Science says they grew into other species. Isn't that evolution?

Those cells never became "something other than that they are". Everything that lives is a *variation* of what those cells were.

Do you understand the difference?*

(*to be clear, this is not a rhetorical question designed to insult your intelligence - I am genuinely asking if you would like me to explain the difference; I understand the concept is far from intuitive)

 

[Wildswanderer]

Apparently you don't understand DNA. The information is genetic. It's just spelling changes.

Have you ever seen a litter of puppies or kittens? Are they all the same? Where did the new information come from? Why aren't they identical to their parents?

Because they have slightly different DNA coding. But they don't have the coding to give birth to another species, no matter how much time passes.

 

[Jose Fly]

Shuffling of existing information around is not the same as creating new information.

If that were true, then the alphabet must contain all the information in the universe. After all, there's no information that can't be represented by rearranging parts of the alphabet.

Or another way in which your statement is ridiculous is to show how that if it were true, then....

My mom went to the dairy store

...contains the exact same amount of information as....

My mom went to the dairy store on Monday

According to your argument, "on Monday" isn't new information since it's just the result of copying and shuffling letters that were in the original sentence.