• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fallacies of Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
False Equivalence

And what happens when lots and lots and lots of little changed occur over millions of generations?

Argument of Authority.

The evidence for evolution is manifest.

Everybody believes this!

Quite obviously not true, you are just one exception that makes a total mess of claim 3

The infinite monkey theorem

Is it a theorem? Or a straw man?

Ad Hominem

Of which you seem to be guilty hear, not one argument so far has and grounding in reality.

Argument by Assertion.

Considerable evidence is presented and often, the problem is that some people wont accept the evidence because s bronze age book tell them not to do they resort to underhanded methods, misrepresentation and yes, ad hominem

Argument from Ignorance.

Oh wow??? Talk about projection.

Circular Reasoning.

Nope, it is using science to observe and measure such things as DNA to tell its story. And unlike some, DNA not only does not lie, it cannot lie.

Equivocation

Well, that explains all, what you seem to be saying here is that evolution cannot be evolution because its not evolution???

Shall we go back to your circular reasoning argument?

[QUOTE"usfan, post: 6119036, member: 66590"]Correlation proves Causation[/QUOTE]

Who says this?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I really have no problem with people questioning the ToE. I think it is fair to criticize and one should always have some degree of skepctisim, but... I often find myself frustrated with the double standards, you know ? I mean, generally the ones that have the harsher criticism towards the ToE are the religious people with a creation story that certainly wouldn't stand if they applied the same degree of skepticism they apply to the ToE.

Just so we are clear on this from the start: you are not one of those people, right ?
I think that real and valid criticism comes from within the scientific debate and indeed there, debates do rage on. This is more flat Earth science than actually science .

Now I could say, the author has shown an obvious lack of understanding of the science, might they just as completely wrong and confused in regards to the topic god? Now some might read the author as an expert on the topic god. Based on what exactly? I see zero proof what I see is only confusion.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.
  1. False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
  2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.
  3. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
  4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
  5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.
  6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
  7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi
  8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
  9. Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.
  10. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

The ToE has not been demonstrated by scientific methodology, only asserted & claimed. It is, in fact, a belief.. an almost religious belief in the origins of living things. It is an essential element for a naturalistic view of the universe, & for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. But it is too full of logical & scientific flaws to be called 'science'. It is a philosophical construct, with very shaky foundations. There are many other flaws in the ToE, regarding the dating methods, conjectures about the fossil record, & other conflicts with factual data.

Why are logical fallacies the primary 'arguments' given for the theory of universal common descent, if it is so plainly obvious and 'settled science!', as the True Believers claim?
FLAT EARTH BIG FOOT

Evolution is an on going changing scientific narrative about what exactly? You have zero clue so your understanding of God is pure nonsense and that makes you an expert on the topic god for atheists.. !!!!! Now that's funny!
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.
  1. False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
  2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.
  3. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
  4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
  5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.
  6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
  7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi
  8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
  9. Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.
  10. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

The ToE has not been demonstrated by scientific methodology, only asserted & claimed. It is, in fact, a belief.. an almost religious belief in the origins of living things. It is an essential element for a naturalistic view of the universe, & for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. But it is too full of logical & scientific flaws to be called 'science'. It is a philosophical construct, with very shaky foundations. There are many other flaws in the ToE, regarding the dating methods, conjectures about the fossil record, & other conflicts with factual data.

Why are logical fallacies the primary 'arguments' given for the theory of universal common descent, if it is so plainly obvious and 'settled science!', as the True Believers claim?


But that is NOT observed

Who cares. No has EVER observed the Earth orbit around the sun, yet there is plenty of verifiable evidence to suggest that it in fact does. No one has ever observed so called 'macro-evolution' - and of course since no one lives millions of years, you wouldn't expect anyone to - yet there is plenty of verifiable evidence to suggest that it is in fact a genuine process.

The infinite monkey theorem

Clearly you do not understand the concept of infinite monkeys or infinite time. The reality is that not only would an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of computers for an infinite number of time inevitably create the entire works of Shakespeare... they would inevitable create the entire works an INFINITE number of times.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.
  1. False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
  2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.
  3. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
  4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
  5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.
  6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
  7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi
  8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
  9. Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.
  10. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

The ToE has not been demonstrated by scientific methodology, only asserted & claimed. It is, in fact, a belief.. an almost religious belief in the origins of living things. It is an essential element for a naturalistic view of the universe, & for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. But it is too full of logical & scientific flaws to be called 'science'. It is a philosophical construct, with very shaky foundations. There are many other flaws in the ToE, regarding the dating methods, conjectures about the fossil record, & other conflicts with factual data.

Why are logical fallacies the primary 'arguments' given for the theory of universal common descent, if it is so plainly obvious and 'settled science!', as the True Believers claim?

There can be only one reply to the above... and it's so common, it's a meme:
why people reject evolution.jpg
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
As a religious person, with strongly held beliefs in the existence of God and that God created the world, I believe scientific research and conclusions should ignore my beliefs entirely. Let the science lead us where it may. It pollutes science if we try to ignore it, explain it away, or interpret it through a religious lens. I don't know this for sure, but it seems that most people who argue against evolution are motivated by the fact that it contradicst their faith. I have never taken the time to study evolution in detail, so I don't vigorously defend it. But is there anyone out there in the scientific community who refutes the TofE who also does not feel it contradicts their religion? Obviously nothing about evolution can possibly prove that God did not create the universe. For a believer it simply provides more details than does Genesis, on how the Lord got the job done. I see Genesis as dealing with the "who" and the "why" more than the "how". God reveals truth through revelation and through science.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Alright then, let's have a go...

1. False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
Wrong. The observations of micro-evolution (and observations of macro-evolution) are not the reasons that we conclude universal common descent. Rather, they provide the direct observational basis for the process of evolution. Common descent is a conclusion reached only when combining those observations with what we see in the fossil record (i.e: nested hierarchies of animals showing further diversity as we ascend the geological strata) and DNA (i.e: all living things share a certain amount of DNA, and this amount correlates with predictions and observations based on models of common ancestry). When you combine these three observations, we conclude common ancestry to be the explanation. We do not merely extrapolate common ancestry from a mere observation of evolution in action.

2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.
Strawman. "All really smart people believe in ToE" is, as far as I am aware, not an actual part of the theory of evolution, and so not a fallacy inherent within it.

3. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
Strawman. See number 2. At this stage, you are merely describing fallacies and then ascribing those fallacies specifically to supporters of evolution. You're not actually addressing the theory itself or the truth of it. After all, a theory can be perfectly sound even if the people supporting it use poor logic to do so. Right now you're arguing against the latter rather than the former.

4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
Strawman. The infinite monkey thought experiment is more to do with the nature of infinity as a concept and has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory has never posited that "given enough time, ANYTHING can happen". In fact, I have never even seen that claimed by supporters of the theory. What evolution DOES say is that, given the time that it had and the mechanisms at work, common ancestry can account for the current state of biological diversity on the planet. Do you have a cogent argument against that?

5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.
Strawman. See numbers 2 and 3 again. You are once more not addressing problems or fallacies with the theory, you are addressing (alleged) fallacies committed by people arguing about it. This is not the same as demonstrating a fault or fallacy with the theory itself.

6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzz
8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
Strawman. Strawman. Strawman. See above. Once again, you are not presenting an argument with the THEORY, you're just listing fallacies and ascribing them to arguments used to support evolution (arguments that I don't believe I have ever seen in my 6-plus years of debating evolution online). This is not the same as pointing out flaws in the theory.

9. Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.
Wrong. Finally, something other than a strawman! In my experience, people who argue for evolution are very specific in making the distinction between evolution as a process, the theory of evolution as an explanation for it, and the notion of common ancestry within that theory. By and large, it is creationists who equivocate "evolution" and/or "the theory of evolution" and/or "common ancestry". I have had multiple creationists tell me that ring species "aren't evolution, they're adaptation" despite the fact that evolution is the name we give to the process that RESULTS in adaptation. It's kind of like someone saying "I travelled to the shop by walking", and somebody responding by saying "But you just WALKED to the shop, that doesn't mean you TRAVELLED to it!". However, it is worth noting that the process - whether accounting for changes within or above the level of species - is exactly the same. Whether we are talking about directly observed changes or common descent, the process that results in either is the same.

10. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.
Unsupported claim. Please demonstrate this "wide divergence" in DNA.

I'm thoroughly underwhelmed by your arguments.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Most of my posting time is in the early morning, but i will endeavor to reply to the posters who have offered their input on this thread. Thanks to all for your replies, and i hope to return a fitting response, soon. :)

I have pointed out what i consider to be the 'central flaw' of the theory of universal common descent. It is a false equivalency between horizontal variability, that is observed in living organisms, and the extrapolation to common descent. ..macro vs micro, as it is commonly presented. It is the ASSUMED ability of organisms to change outside of their genetic parameters. All scientific experimentation conflicts with this assumption, as organisms can only vary within their genetic haplotypes.. they do not change in their basic genetic structure, but are hard wired to produce only what their genes supply.

In this thread, i repeat my challenge for scientific evidence, for this theory, which has become a belief.. an impassioned religious belief.. as evidenced by the zeal, indignation, and emotion that the Defenders of UCD employ in what should be a dispassionate examination of scientific evidence.

I know this topic attracts hecklers, religious bigots, and unscientifically minded True Believers in a worldview. But, if you have evidence, arguments, or rational rebuttals for this subject, i would love to hear them, and debate the merits of this theory of origins
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
  1. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
This demonstrates a very poor understanding of the theory of evolution on your part. Of course a monkey won't type the works of Shakespeare. It would take TRILLIONS of years (or more). No scientist claims that random mutations lead to the evolution of complex organs in a single step. IF that were the claim, you would be very correct to doubt evolution. However, even though mutations are essentially random, natural selection is not. Study a basic biology textbook and then get back to us.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
As a religious person, with strongly held beliefs in the existence of God and that God created the world, I believe scientific research and conclusions should ignore my beliefs entirely. Let the science lead us where it may. It pollutes science if we try to ignore it, explain it away, or interpret it through a religious lens. I don't know this for sure, but it seems that most people who argue against evolution are motivated by the fact that it contradicst their faith. I have never taken the time to study evolution in detail, so I don't vigorously defend it. But is there anyone out there in the scientific community who refutes the TofE who also does not feel it contradicts their religion? Obviously nothing about evolution can possibly prove that God did not create the universe. For a believer it simply provides more details than does Genesis, on how the Lord got the job done. I see Genesis as dealing with the "who" and the "why" more than the "how". God reveals truth through revelation and through science.
This is a view that I simply don't see enough of on the evolution debate forums. Mostly likely because people such as yourself don't really feel the need to debate the subject because you feel it is neither a threat to your faith nor something you feel personally informed enough about to discuss in depth. I really do find it odd that there are still many theists out there who have difficulty reconciling science with their beliefs, especially considering science cannot encroach, or even comment, upon those beliefs. That kind of attitude always smacks to me of a very narrow and limited view of God and their capabilities - "Either God did it this specific way, or some way I find easy to understand, or God couldn't possibly have done it!". I'm sure, however, that there are a lot more people like you out there who don't suffer from this short-sightedness, it's just that - as you observe - such people don't feel the need to involve themselves that much in the debate.

Thank you for this post. It is genuinely refreshing!
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.
  1. False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
  2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.
  3. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
  4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
  5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.
  6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
  7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi
  8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
  9. Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.
  10. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

The ToE has not been demonstrated by scientific methodology, only asserted & claimed. It is, in fact, a belief.. an almost religious belief in the origins of living things. It is an essential element for a naturalistic view of the universe, & for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. But it is too full of logical & scientific flaws to be called 'science'. It is a philosophical construct, with very shaky foundations. There are many other flaws in the ToE, regarding the dating methods, conjectures about the fossil record, & other conflicts with factual data.

Why are logical fallacies the primary 'arguments' given for the theory of universal common descent, if it is so plainly obvious and 'settled science!', as the True Believers claim?
Please show a textbook on biological evolution that uses any of these "fallacies" even once. I have read about 20, and have not observed them. If you can put up a specific example, where you believe fallacious reasoning has been applied, then we can discuss and debate it. A generic OP like this without specific exemplars is difficult to reply to.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I know this topic attracts hecklers, religious bigots, and unscientifically minded True Believers in a worldview. But, if you have evidence, arguments, or rational rebuttals for this subject, i would love to hear them, and debate the merits of this theory of origins
Just so you know, there's a well known principle in logical discourse stating the burden of proof rests on the party making the assertion.

An assertion carries a burden of proof. If you clearly assert that a certain statement is true, then you have a burden of proof to demonstrate that this is indeed the case, meaning that you must either prove that your assertion is true, or retract it.

A presumption carries a conditional burden of proof. If you ask someone to presume that a certain statement is true, then you don’t necessarily have a burden of proof with regards to that presumption, unless your opponent questions it, at which point you must either prove that your presumption is true or retract it, as is the case with an assertion.

An assumption carries no burden of proof. If you simply assume that a certain statement could be true, but don’t claim that this is necessarily the case, then you have no burden of proof. However, note that if you rely on your assumptions too much in the argument, or if your assumptions are perceived as too unlikely, they will end up weakening your argument, especially if they are challenged by your opponent.
source

In other words, those who challenge you have no obligation to present evidence, arguments, or rebuttal, rational or not. It's all in YOUR court.

.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Most of my posting time is in the early morning, but i will endeavor to reply to the posters who have offered their input on this thread. Thanks to all for your replies, and i hope to return a fitting response, soon. :)

I have pointed out what i consider to be the 'central flaw' of the theory of universal common descent. It is a false equivalency between horizontal variability, that is observed in living organisms, and the extrapolation to common descent. ..macro vs micro, as it is commonly presented. It is the ASSUMED ability of organisms to change outside of their genetic parameters. All scientific experimentation conflicts with this assumption, as organisms can only vary within their genetic haplotypes.. they do not change in their basic genetic structure, but are hard wired to produce only what their genes supply.

In this thread, i repeat my challenge for scientific evidence, for this theory, which has become a belief.. an impassioned religious belief.. as evidenced by the zeal, indignation, and emotion that the Defenders of UCD employ in what should be a dispassionate examination of scientific evidence.

I know this topic attracts hecklers, religious bigots, and unscientifically minded True Believers in a worldview. But, if you have evidence, arguments, or rational rebuttals for this subject, i would love to hear them, and debate the merits of this theory of origins

A lot of word salad here, but what do you mean by "genetic parameters"? I have never read that term in a scientific paper. What is your evidence that a species cannot evolve beyond this apparently nonexistent border?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
As a religious person, with strongly held beliefs in the existence of God and that God created the world, I believe scientific research and conclusions should ignore my beliefs entirely. Let the science lead us where it may. It pollutes science if we try to ignore it, explain it away, or interpret it through a religious lens. I don't know this for sure, but it seems that most people who argue against evolution are motivated by the fact that it contradicst their faith. I have never taken the time to study evolution in detail, so I don't vigorously defend it. But is there anyone out there in the scientific community who refutes the TofE who also does not feel it contradicts their religion? Obviously nothing about evolution can possibly prove that God did not create the universe. For a believer it simply provides more details than does Genesis, on how the Lord got the job done. I see Genesis as dealing with the "who" and the "why" more than the "how". God reveals truth through revelation and through science.

I wish that all theists could think this way. Of course that would ruin my fun since I would have no one to argue with. The problem is that many believers equate refuting their personal version of God with "disproving God". They tend to have a literalist all or nothing approach to their holy book, not realizing that that sort of approach only has "nothing" as the correct answer.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.
  1. False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
  2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.
  3. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
  4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
  5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.
  6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
  7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi
  8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
  9. Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.
  10. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

The ToE has not been demonstrated by scientific methodology, only asserted & claimed. It is, in fact, a belief.. an almost religious belief in the origins of living things. It is an essential element for a naturalistic view of the universe, & for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. But it is too full of logical & scientific flaws to be called 'science'. It is a philosophical construct, with very shaky foundations. There are many other flaws in the ToE, regarding the dating methods, conjectures about the fossil record, & other conflicts with factual data.

Why are logical fallacies the primary 'arguments' given for the theory of universal common descent, if it is so plainly obvious and 'settled science!', as the True Believers claim?


The fossil record isn't the only evidence in support of evolution. There is other collaborating evidence, such as overwhelming genetic evidence of common ancestry between humans and other great ape species.
Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry:

Chromosome 2 in humans

Main article: Chromosome 2 (human)

Further information: Chimpanzee Genome Project § Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site

Figure 1b: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere
Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Chromosome 2 thus presents strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to J. W. Ijdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2
Chromosome2_merge.png

Figure 1b: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

Endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) are remnant sequences in the genome left from ancient viral infections in an organism. The retroviruses (or virogenes) are always passed on to the next generation of that organism that received the infection. This leaves the virogene left in the genome. Because this event is rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of a virogene in two different species suggests common ancestry. Cats (Felidae) present a notable instance of virogene sequences demonstrating common descent. The standard phylogenetic tree for Felidae have smaller cats (Felis chaus, Felis silvestris, Felis nigripes, and Felis catus) diverging from larger cats such as the subfamily Pantherinae and other carnivores. The fact that small cats have an ERV where the larger cats do not suggests that the gene was inserted into the ancestor of the small cats after the larger cats had diverged. Another example of this is with humans and chimps. Humans contain numerous ERVs that comprise a considerable percentage of the genome. Sources vary, but 1% to 8% has been proposed. Humans and chimps share seven different occurrences of virogenes, while all primates share similar retroviruses congruent with phylogeny.

Fig.1.jpg



There are millions of fossils to show transitions and millions of animals to compare DNA. Chromosome 2 proves that humans share a common ancestor with Great Apes who have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while we have 23 pairs. Where did our 24th pair go? Evolutionary scientists have found evidence that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. Chromosomes have a telomere on each end and a centromere in the middle. So if a chromosome had been fused, it would have three telomeres (one on each end and one in the middle) and two centromeres. Guess what...scientists found it. Chromosome 2 has three telomeres and two centromeres (unlike any other chromosome). Somewhere along the line, we broke off and took our own evolutionary route, although we humans still belong in the family of Great Apes. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) also prove Evolution. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 pairs of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. These ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
I certainly opened a can of worms, here. I will try and reply to everyone , but some of the personal shots i will likely ignore.

This is an examination of fallacies, used to defend the BELIEF of universal common descent. They are quite common, for anyone who has debated this topic. A good companion to this thread would be a look at the scientific evidence FOR UCD (universal common descent), aka, evolution. That should be the next step, if a debate over the SCIENCE for UCD is desired.

Because they aren't.
Good assertion. Another example of using fallacies to defend the belief?

Good grief, what a lot of assertions and list of false arguments with little evidence against evolution.

Since Darwin first published in the mid 19th Century his theory has been tested, challenged, amended BUT it is still the best (by a long way) explanation for the diversity of life on earth.Science welcomes challenges.
If you believe you have a rebutal and an alternative explanation, (Not "God did it") then publish it - fame fortune and Nobel Prizes await anyone who can disprove evolution.
I'm not holding my breath
I would be glad to examine the alleged evidence FOR UCD. Do you want to do that here? Or shall i start an evidence specific thread?

It appears from you list of "fallacies" that you have no understanding of the theory of evolution or how it is tested.
I have personally seen and 'debated' these fallacies, and they are real. My understanding of UCD is not the problem, and you merely illustrate another fallacy! 'To the man', rather than the topic.
But let's go over one that is a clear error on your part. No one uses the "infinite monkey argument". That demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of how evolution works.
No one uses the 'probability' argument? Like you do in the next sentence?
A more proper analogy is that of a limited number of monkeys typing with a selection method applied. When that is done they can and have written the works of Shakespeare in a computer simulation. In the same way we can show that evolution is more than possible.
I called this the 'Infinite Monkey Theorem', for color and cultural reference, but the root of it is an APPEAL to time and chance, as the driving mechanism of universal common descent . 'Given enough time, anything is possible!', is the fallacy i expose, and which you illustrate.
You need to repeat this mantra to yourself since like many creationists you do not understand it "Variation and natural selection.
To the man, again!

But i like the repeated mantra suggestion. I suspect many indoctrinees into the UCD belief system have been programmed by that very method. ;)

The syllogism is "I don't understand science so I don't believe in science so I don't believe in the results of science when it disagrees with my a prior beliefs"
Casting aspersions on my understanding is another fallacy.. it does not refute any of my points, neither does it provide evidence for the belief in universal common descent.

I'm sure some people defend ToE as you describe. But most do not.

I also think it's important to distinguish between scientific theories and scientific laws. The ToE is still evolving. Some aspects are more settled than others, but by no means is it considered "settled".
Most defenders/promoters of UCD do, indeed, use these (and other) fallacies. They do not use scientific evidence, because there is none. The whole theory is built on shifting, plausible assumptions and beliefs, with NO EVIDENCE that it can or did, happen.

And of course many.. a great majority.. of believers in UCD consider it 'settled science!' Any discussion brings the dogmatic believers out in force, where their jihadist zeal and devotion to this belief finds expression.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.
  1. False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
  2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.
  3. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
  4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
  5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.
  6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
  7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi
  8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
  9. Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.
  10. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

The ToE has not been demonstrated by scientific methodology, only asserted & claimed. It is, in fact, a belief.. an almost religious belief in the origins of living things. It is an essential element for a naturalistic view of the universe, & for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. But it is too full of logical & scientific flaws to be called 'science'. It is a philosophical construct, with very shaky foundations. There are many other flaws in the ToE, regarding the dating methods, conjectures about the fossil record, & other conflicts with factual data.

Why are logical fallacies the primary 'arguments' given for the theory of universal common descent, if it is so plainly obvious and 'settled science!', as the True Believers claim?
The fact you couldn't provide any examples of the things you describe existing in any specific curricula should have been a warning for you. Another fallacy for you to look up, "strawman".
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have personally seen and 'debated' these fallacies, and they are real. My understanding of UCD is not the problem, and you merely illustrate another fallacy! 'To the man', rather than the topic.
You fail right at the start. You do not know what an ad hominem is. But then most creationists don't understand that concept. Pointing out your errors and ignorance is not an ad hom. Those are merely observations.

An ad hom is an argument like this:

"You are wrong because you are stupid"

That would be an ad hom. Observing that you do not know hardly anything is not why you are wrong. We can show why you are wrong regardless of how much you know. If you want to discuss the topic then do so properly. You did a Gish Gallop, a method of lying by spout all sorts of nonsense in one post. Try to limit your claims and they will be properly dealt with. When you do a Gish Gallop all that is required to refute you are a series of "Wrongs". I can see that you are not satisfied with that so don't do it.



No one uses the 'probability' argument? Like you do in the next sentence?


I did not use that to "prove evolution" so no I did not use the probability argument. I used it to show how your concept was wrong. Claims like this are what lead to people spouting what you consider to be insults.



I called this the 'Infinite Monkey Theorem', for color and cultural reference, but the root of it is an APPEAL to time and chance, as the driving mechanism of universal common descent . 'Given enough time, anything is possible!', is the fallacy i expose, and which you illustrate.

No, that is not the claim of those that support evolution. We can show that we have had enough time for life to evolve as it has. You used poor arguments. Once again try to argue properly. You have no business complaining when you can't argue properly yourself.



To the man, again!

But i like the repeated mantra suggestion. I suspect many indoctrinees into the UCD belief system have been programmed by that very method. ;)

Wrong again. I explained your error to you and gave you a way to correct it. That if anything is the opposite of an ad hom. Once again, you need to work on your logical fallacies. You keep screwing them up.

Let me emphasize this. If you want a satisfying debate limit your claims. Technically when you make a Gish Gallop all it takes to refute an entire post is to pick one point and refute it. Do you want people to do that? Try to argue properly and honestly. And drop the logical fallacies. You do not understand them or how to use them.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
You are too kind. The process is: science disagrees with my prior beliefs, therefore I exercise great care not to learn or understand science - which allows me to disbelieve it without cognitive dissonance (the likelihood of cognitive dissonance being further reduced if the individual in question is as thick as two short planks).
Good example of ad hom. ;) ..not much of a rebuttal to my points, though.

..or were you just illustrating a fallacy to support my premise? ;)

The theory of biological evolution is a scientific theory. It is considered settled science, like the heliocentric theory or the germ theory of infectious disease. The evidence for evolution is staggering in its quantity and diversity.
Yes. This is a very common perception. But it is just a belief, with no corroborating evidence. You assert and believe in UCD, but there is no compelling science behind it. It is indoctrinated by state run institutions, and supported by all others in the world.

The argument for evolution is based on the evidence, which is robust.
..so you believe. ..so you assert. But if we were to examine the evidence, that is a flawed conclusion.
Your initial post stereotyped, before anything else if it was a serious post. First problem is it reflects a low science IQ. Second it reflects an Fundamentalist Christian anti-science bias.

Is that what you intended to communicate?
Another great ad hom! Thanks for illustrating my points!
If I was to grant that everything you wrote is true, then how would YOU explain where the abundance of life came from?
Just curious.
I already said i was an origins agnostic, though i believe in God. But as to HOW we got here, i see no hard evidence to make a definitive conclusion.

I am in less agreement with the above because we do see dramatic changes in species.
We do? Name one. Show me a genetic change from one genome structure to another. NOT more fruit flies, with the same genetic structure, just variations. NOT e coli adapting to digest citrates, but a vertical change in the genomic structure, into a different phylogenetic organism.

Evolutionary theory can explain all those similarities and chain of similarities. It also is scientific. It answers questions, is a workable model explaining how things work and successfully predicts further results.
So you believe. So you assert.

The church I belong to for over 40 years now doesn't teach such lies and distortions, and it teaches that one can accept the ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.
Theistic evolution is the most common belief, for origins. But this is about the SCIENCE behind the theory, not the strength of conviction and belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top