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.
Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.
I already gave specific logical reasons why it was a fallacy of ad hominem and argument by assertion You cut those out of your quote because you can't refute them.
Merely repeating your originial refuted assertion, as though it has not already been refuted, is the fallacy of thinking you prove your claim is true just because you repeat it.
You need to provide valid counter arguments to my arguments in order for you to insist your claim should continue to be believed as being true.
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.
Logical fallacy, failure to meet the buren of rejoinder.
Your response does not attempt to offer any counter argument to my argument.
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.
Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.
I already explicitly offered arguments to show why you were wrong to claim that adaptation as a concept proves cells evolved to man just because they are both labeled as being "evolution".
You have made no attempt to refute those arguments. Merely repeating your original refuted argument doesn't stop it from being refuted just because you repeat it.
??????? 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.
You did, for one.
When you try to claim "evolution has been proven" true you are asserting, by definition, that everything defined as "evolution" has been proven true.
But not everything defined as "evolution" has been proven true. So your claim is false.
It's a fallacy of bait and switch because you're taking things that have been true and lumping it in with things that haven't been proven true, and then trying to claim they are all equally proven true.
Show specifically where anyone has done that.
You did:
Well there ya' go....evolution is observable and verified to exist. I guess we're done then!
As well as others:
When England was experiencing its industrial revolution, we saw moths evolve a darker color because the trees they perched on were becoming coated with soot. Any fruit or vegetable you can buy at the store is a product of evolution guided by humans. There are endless verifiable and repeatable examples.
.
You are both committing the logical fallacy of false equivalence and/or the fallacy of bait and switch by claiming that proving the concept of adaptation proves that everything under the umbrella term of "evolution" is proven to be true just because the concept of adaptation was proven to be true.
To suggest that shows you don't understand the new genetic code introductions that are needed to go from a single cell into mankind. New code which adaptation alone as a mechanism can't account for because adaptation functions based on toggling the expression of options which the existing code already has provisions for.
That's why you can get different colors of fur on a cat but you can't get scales instead of fur just by natural selection alone. The genetic code already has the information needed to express different colors of fur. It doesn't have the genetic code to express scales instead of fur.
Good thing no one has done that.
I just proved with those two quotes that you and at least one other did.
Second, do you even know what epigenetic adaptation is? The way in which you post about it indicates that you don't.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that there is error in anything I have said doesn't prove your claim is true just because you claim it is
In order for your argument to not be fallacious you are required to demonstrate your claim could be true by quoting specific things I have said and then explaining with logic and evidence why you think it is in error.
If you mean evolutionary common descent requires the evolution of new functional genetic sequences, then that's been observed countless times.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that this has been observed doesn't prove it's true just because you assert it is.
You are required to provide specific evidence of this happening to prove your claim is true.
If you mean something else, then define "new functional genetic code information" in a way that allows us to identify and measure it.
I already did but I don't think you know enough about this issue to recognize it for what it was.
I gave you the example of the folding of a new protein and the genetic code required for that to happen.
Because the folding of a protein is the most basic level of what makes cells functions.
You can't get a new function in a cell unless you can get genetic code that will fold a new type of protein.
And then on top of that this needs to a protein that will change something so significantly in the organism that it confers a survival/reproductive advantage so that natural selection could cause this to become the new standard.
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 described 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 of letters that were in the original sentence.
You have a misunderstanding about what I was saying because you don't see to understand the distinction between a functional line of code and the alphabet that code uses.
The genetic code has only four letters in it's alphabet.
But a genetic function requires those four letters to be in a precise coded sequence. If that is not done then there will be no function. Such as the function of folding a protein into a specific shape so that it can achieve a specific purpose.
You don't get a new protein by simply changing one letter in the long string of code. The most that would do is just give you a failed protein.
The amount of letters you would have to change in that string of code to get a functional new protein is so numerous that it's basically writing a new line of code.
The biggest problem for that idea is then that fact that all these changes would have to happen at once, and in just the right sequence to get new information, in order for a change to be expressed that natural selection could retain as a feature to pass down.
If all you do is change one letter by chance, with no change in function, then natural selection has nothing to select. So that random mutation can't become the dominant one.
So there's no mechanism by which you could have one random letter this generation, one random letter the next, and so on, until you just by chance happen to arrange them into a functional code that folds a new protein that changes the survival rate of the organism.
And the odds are writing a new piece of code where everything is changed all at once, and ends up in the right sequence, and confers a survival improvement so it can actually become dominant, is a statistical impossibility.
It would be like suggesting you can let your cat play on your keyboard with a programming software open and, if given enough time, your cat will eventually create the "hello world' program.
You need all characters of the alphabet in place in the right sequence in order to get the program to run. Even one letter out of alignment in the coding portion would cause even such a basic and simple program to fail to function.
Except even that example is a lot more likely, I suspect, than random external factors acting upon protein gene code resulting in the creation of a new protein gene code that has a new survival function.
Even worse if you're talking about something that requires more things than just a single protein to happen simultaneously in order for a new function to be created that confers a survival advantage onto an organism so that new function can become dominant - now you need even more lines of functional code to emerge simultaneously that just happen to be able to pair their function with the other new lines of code that emerged. You're compounding what is already a statistical impossibility with increasingly absurd levels of probability that strain the credulity of logic.
I thought this was a fitting analogy I heard: "Trying to explain DNA by random chance is like saying a tornado can go through a print shop and produce the contents of the library of congress."
No matter how man tornados you send through how many different print shops, you have no reason to believe you could ever produce the library of congress. The number of co-dependant variables for this equation are beyond statistical and logical reason.
The evidence would never cause you to conclude you could get the code for a protein by random chance unless you had an a priori commitment to materialism that forced you to accept it must have happened simply because you can't accept a designer as a hypothesis - for no other reason than because it conflicts with your a priori belief in materialism.
Likewise, if you did come across the library of congress, but had an a priori commitment to believe that humans didn't have the capability to write or produce books, then you would be forced to conclude something like a tornado must have done it for no other reason than because the a priori assumptions of your worldview prevent you from accepting the obvious logical best answer that explains what you are seeing.
