Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

When did I use an ad hominem fallacy? Just because I said something negative about someone does not make it a fallacy. You may not know how to use that argument. And you are quite wrong. One uses the scientific method to answer science problems. One uses philosophy to solve philosophical problems. etc..

The fact is that there is no scientific evidence for your belief. All you have are poorly formed arguments.

You’re only making some meaningless statements, its not an argument.

Again, If you want to prove me wrong, go back to #349 point by point and explain the reasons for your disagreement. If you don’t, then just stop the nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re only making some meaningless statements, its not an argument.

Again, If you want to prove me wrong, go back to #349 point by point and explain the reasons for your disagreement. If you don’t, then just stop the nonsense.

No need. You just posted a lot of ignorant nonsense. Bring up your claims properly. That is one at a time and I will gladly deal with them. You used a Gish Gallop. When you do that if one points is refuted they all are. Do you want to play it that way or not?

 

[We Never Know]

No need. You just posted a lot of ignorant nonsense. Bring up your claims properly. That is one at a time and I will gladly deal with them. You used a Gish Gallop. When you do that if one points is refuted they all are. Do you want to play it that way or not?

Just because...

Why don't you go to their post #349 and explain what they ask?

Is it too much trouble for you?
Or is it the wrong question?
Or is it they didn't ask it right?
Or is it they didn't ask nicely?
Or is it they didn't phrase it properly?
Or is it... Fill in your excuse from the 100's you have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because...

Why don't you go to their post #349 and explain what they ask?

Is it too much trouble for you?
Or is it the wrong question?
Or is it they didn't ask it right?
Or is it they didn't ask nicely?
Or is it they didn't phrase it properly?
Or is it... Fill in your excuse from the 100's you have.

It is a bloody Gish Gallop. A person can ask you to refute one nonsensical point. One cannot demand that one refute endless nonsense. It tends to take much longer to correct a false statement than to make it. That was what Duane Gish recognized over 40 years ago. He would spout endless lies and half truths knowing that each one would take ten minutes to correct and he could spew out several per minute.

He can choose a point.

 

[We Never Know]

It is a bloody Gish Gallop. A person can ask you to refute on nonsensical point. One cannot demand that one refute endless nonsense. It tends to take much longer to correct a false statement than to make it. That was what Duane Gish recognized over 40 years ago. He would spout endless lies and half truths knowing that each one would take ten minutes to correct and he could spew out several per minute.

He can choose a point.

I just looked at post 349. Its like a book.
I wouldn't even read it lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just looked at post 349. Its like a book.
I wouldn't even read it lol

Thank you. Considering all that do you think that my offer of him picking one point is reasonable?

 

[We Never Know]

Thank you. Considering all that do you think that my offer of him picking one point is reasonable?

Put it this way. If you want to talk about dogs, we can talk about breed, skill, work, uses, best traits, etc but it won't be done in one post. Break it down and talk it out.

 

[LIIA]

No need.

No need!! Nice escape but sorry don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

if one points is refuted they all are.

None was refuted. It's simple enough to say that you don’t agree but unless you state your reasons, it's nothing but some meaningless nonsense. Take care

 

[Subduction Zone]

No need!! Nice escape but sorry don't expect anyone to take you seriously.



None was refuted. It's simple enough to say that you don’t agree but unless you state your reasons, it's nothing but some meaningless nonsense. Take care

Please quit editing my posts in a dishonest manner. An explanation followed the "No need'.

Make a proper argument and I will respond to it. And yes, your posts were refuted. They were written so poorly that a hand wave refutes them.

Give me one single good point.

I also gave you other options. You could show that you know what a transitional fossil is. I do know what one is and why it is was defined that way. You made statements that tell us you do not know what you are talking about. If you fail in your explanation I will give you a proper explanation of the concept.

Or you could try to bring up any point that you wanted. One at a time. It takes time to refute nonsense. There is so much teaching to do. If you want me to refute all of 349 I could do that, but you would have to pay me first. There is to much ignorance and falsehoods in that post. You probably did quote it from a creationist source and they are not afraid to lie to support their beliefs.

 

[LIIA]

Please quit editing my posts in a dishonest manner. An explanation followed the "No need'.

Make a proper argument and I will respond to it. And yes, your posts were refuted. They were written so poorly that a hand wave refutes them.

Give me one single good point.

I also gave you other options. You could show that you know what a transitional fossil is. I do know what one is and why it is was defined that way. You made statements that tell us you do not know what you are talking about. If you fail in your explanation I will give you a proper explanation of the concept.

Or you could try to bring up any point that you wanted. One at a time. It takes time to refute nonsense. There is so much teaching to do. If you want me to refute all of 349 I could do that, but you would have to pay me first. There is to much ignorance and falsehoods in that post. You probably did quote it from a creationist source and they are not afraid to lie to support their beliefs.

Same meaningless nonsense, of the kind “ I’m right, you’re wrong, I know but you don’t” this is ridiculous, state your reasons and references not simply because you say so or wish to be?

You claim that my referenced articles in # 397 are all about 40 years out of date. Go back and read it. Indeed the first article was dated 1977 but continued with another in 1980, 2004 (Ernst Mayr) and 2013. All confirm the same view. I did cite more recent articles in other previous posts that I didn’t repeat in # 397.

Whether your are incapable of reading or did read but intentionally lying about it, it doesn’t matter because in either case it means that your argument is false.

 

[LIIA]

I just looked at post 349. Its like a book.
I wouldn't even read it lol

I appreciate your input but if the matter is serious, it requires elaboration. how else would you refute a false view? there is no other way around it. you break it down, explain why each point is false and support your argument with references as needed.

 

[We Never Know]

I appreciate your input but if the matter is serious, it requires elaboration. how else would you refute a false view? there is no other way around it. you break it down, explain why each point is false and support your argument with references as needed.

Take steps. Take them one at a time.
Just my opinion.
Honestly if the post looks like a book. I will skip it

 

[LIIA]

You make me laugh. Australopithecus afarensis is still very much a transitional species. Where do you get these nonsense claims from?

No its not, it's an extinct primate considered as a relative (unknown relationship) not a transitional form leading to H. sapiens. See #327

We can add on to "transitional species" as a concept that you do not understand.

Enlighten us!

Let's go over the basics and then we can have a discussion. First we should go over the scientific method and why creationist sources almost always require their workers to swear to not follow it.

Get real and stop the nonsense.

Second, we need to go over the concept of scientific evidence. The concept is well defined and there is endless evidence for evolution and none that I know of for creationism.

Stop the nonsense and get to the specifics of the argument.

Third we need to go over the concept of transitional species since you do not understand those either.

fallacious nonsense, go ahead, enlighten us!

 

[LIIA]

The new allele does not magically change those that carry it into new species

Agreed.

There is no suggesting of the sudden formation of two species and one outcompeting the other.

Agreed.

In situations were an entirely different species enters a niche, there can be competition that leads to some sort of equilibrium between the species, failure of the invading species or success of the invader in taking over. This is backed up by real world evidence. Invasive species. You are mixing the two into something erroneous.

Invasive species have nothing to do with speciation.

The theory describes the change and why. It does not predict what a specific mutation will do within a population.

Per the ToE, new species don’t just pop out to from another. The change is gradual. A new allele /variant can only emerge within an existing niche and will continue to be the same species. (The new allele doesn’t preclude interbreeding of the variants.) Even if a variant becomes isolated geographically, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s not a new species, similarly the emergence of another new allele will not change the isolated variant into a new species. It will continue to be the same species unless somehow it loses the ability of interbreeding with original species. But if that happens, it doesn’t mean that original species should go extinct.

The process repeats randomly, multiple species may emerge and all may survive. As long as ecological conditions/resources remain tolerable, a species that continue to be reproductively successful should not go extinct. Variants/new species may expand to new geographical territories but all can very well coexist.

Losing the ability of interbreeding in the speciation process means that future changes in one species may not directly impact the other and all species can coexist independently.

If this is the case, again, what is the reason that all alleged transitional hominid forms went extinct but the chimp survived? This may happen only in the case that intermediates never lost the ability of interbreeding and continued to evolve. But this hypothesis entails that no speciation was ever involved. No speciation ever happened (because speciation is necessarily associated with the loss of interbreeding capability). However you look at it, you will see that these predicted scenarios are false and not consistent with real world observations.

Consider the real world example of Humans in different geographical zones, they may have differences but all continue to be the same species and capable of interbreeding to make fertile offspring. Even humans in the most isolated zones didn’t change into different species.

 

[We Never Know]

No its not, it's an extinct primate considered as a relative (unknown relationship) not a transitional form leading to H. sapiens. See #327



Enlighten us!



Get real and stop the nonsense.



Stop the nonsense and get to the specifics of the argument.



fallacious nonsense, go ahead, enlighten us!

"it's an extinct primate considered as a relative"

I will give your that.
But in reality a bacteria/microbe is a transitional species named LUCA(last universal common ancestor) but no one wants to talk about that.
They always want to focus on the unknown LCA(last common ancestor) instead of accepting we came from bacteria.

 

[LIIA]

Take steps. Take them one at a time.
Just my opinion.
Honestly if the post looks like a book. I will skip it

You’re right, I know most readers would do the same but It's up to them.

For me, most posts include multiple false points that deserve individual detailed refutation, we cannot generalize but again, you’re right.

 

[LIIA]

"it's an extinct primate considered as a relative"

I will give your that.
But in reality a bacteria/microbe is a transitional species named LUCA(last universal common ancestor) but no one wants to talk about that.
They always want to focus on the unknown LCA(last common ancestor) instead of accepting we came from bacteria.

If you want, you may call it “origin of life” but you cannot call it "transitional species”.

Transitional species has to be an intermediate along the evolutionary line of development from a common ancestor to present species.

You may think its a satisfactory explanation to claim that all live emerged from the first single celled organism. Darwin thought the same but he didn’t have any knowledge of how complex a single cell is. We know now (an object of unparalleled complexity). The explanation is not satisfactory at all. If a single cell is not explained no multicellular organism is explained.

You consider it as a reality, I consider it as unproven hypothesis and it will continue to be till it gets proven (not hypothesized) that a single living cell can be created from non-living chemical system.

Under prebiotic conditions, there is no process to create the required biomolecules let alone assembling it. If some molecules somehow emerged through an unknown process, it will not wait millions of years to get the other essential molecules. It will simply decompose.

 

[LIIA]

They do support it. You are making a straw man. My great, great, grandfathers cousin is still in my ancestry. If evidence indicates that he had some change that is also present in me, then he is evidence of my evolution.

What I said is specific and clear. I said, “The fossil record doesn’t support the predictions of the ToE.” We shouldn’t argue about this. It’s neither a claim nor an argument. It’s an established fact as confirmed by paleontologist. Why can’t you guys wrap your head around it? See#352

Stephen J. Gould said “Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"

 

[LIIA]

Transitional forms exist in the fossil record. What you are demanding is that it be "proven" that a fossil is directly in the ancestral line with present species and "proof" is simply never going to emerge in science. Demanding it is a ridiculous.

If it’s not in the ancestral line, then it’s not an intermediate. Without intermediates simply there is no evolution.

The ToE predicts millions of intermediates (Transitional forms). If real world observations contradict the predictions of the theory, the theory is false.

and "proof" is simply never going to emerge in science. Demanding it is a ridiculous

This is actually ridiculous; I’m not demanding any thing. I’m only asserting the facts with respect to real world observations in the fossil record. Simply intermediates are absent in the fossil record. That’s what it is. Live with it.

Especially when alternative explanations don't even have evidence supporting them.

False dichotomy

That is why I don't read your long posts. I assume they are intended to swamp your reader. So, I generally ignore them or most of what is there.

I know its long. I don’t see how to make shorter. A serious reader would read. What you read or not is your concern.

All the bolding makes the post look like an expression of anger. Practice getting to the point more quickly. Or make your point and then follow it up with evidence that you indicate as that. Just some advice. You can take it or leave it, but you already know that I am not going to be reading those long posts.

Sounds like an honest advice. Here is a clarification, you can take it or leave it but just know that I'm here to help others to see things from a different perspective not to be an opponent to any one.

Thanks for the advice but making a point without the supporting evidence or reasons is illogical. It would disrupt a logical flow of an argument and automatically renders a point false. (This is what evolutionists typically do)

What you read or not is your concern. But if you neither read nor understand a post, it means that your argument against it is not credible.

 

[LIIA]

What is your definition of transitional form?

A transitional form bears traits that are both ancestral and derived traits that exist in the present species associated to that fossil transitional form.

Correct, simply an intermediate along the evolutionary line of development from a common ancestor to present species.

Basically, all I see is that you deny the evidence and reject the hypotheses because they don't fit with what you want.

I don’t. You deny that intermediates are absent in the fossil record as confirmed by paleontologists. Again see#352.

Few fossils are interpreted as evidence but the interpretation in light of a one unfalsifiable hypothesis is not credible.

The bottom line is, the theory entails the existence of millions of transitional fossils, if hardly any is found and with major problems, it clearly discredit the theory.