Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

I believe in many of the following;

​

Genetic drift
natural selection
mutations
isolated population
the homo genus
all of the fossils
speciation
micro-evolution
adaptation
allele frequencies
normalised selection etc,

​

I only disagree with the very final conclusions inferred from such facts.

---

That's like saying you agree 1 exists, 2 exists, addition exists and works, equality exists and works, but none of that means 1 + 1 = 2.If you agree that all of the mechanisms by which evolution works are real and functional, how can you deny the reality of evolution? How can the processes by which evolution is carried out actually work and yet not be evidence of evolution?What, specifically, is the problem?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

So I was wrong when I said the following is fallacious?

​

X = Z therefore Z = X.

---

Yes.Methinks you are confusing equality with implication. That is:(X = Z) -> (Z = X)However:(X -> Z) ~-> (Z -> X)That is, equality is when two things are the same. All squares are equal. Implication, though, is when one thing leads to another: That is a logical pathway that may or may not be reversible: All squares are rectangles ("Being a square" implies "being a rectangle") but not all rectangles are squares ("Being a rectangle" does not imply "being a square.")

quote:

---

Was I wrong about the modus ponen/tollens?

---

If you think they have something to do with equality rather than implication, yes.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's like saying you agree 1 exists, 2 exists, addition exists and works, equality exists and works, but none of that means 1 + 1 = 2.

​

If you agree that all of the mechanisms by which evolution works are real and functional, how can you deny the reality of evolution? How can the processes by which evolution is carried out actually work and yet not be evidence of evolution?

​

What, specifically, is the problem?

---

​

The problem is your maths.
You missed the it about composition. The units can be true without the whole being true.

​

For example, If I add 3 and 3 and 3 it doesn't mean the answer must have a 3 in it.

---

Huh? What on earth does that have to do with anything? I asked you to specifically indicate what the problem is and you wander off on a tangent.If 1 exists, 2 exists, addition exists and works, and equality exists and works, how can that not force a concluion that 1 + 1 = 2?If you agree that all of the mechanisms of evolution exist and work, how is that not proof positive that evolution is a reality? What, specifically, is the problem?

quote:

---

Lots of the work of evolutionists, deals with provable facts I agree with, such as an isolated population leading to change.

---

So if the facts of evolution exist and work, how is that not proof positive that evolution is a reality? What, specifically, is the problem?

quote:

---

But I am not convinced that mutations and NS actually change designs.

---

But you just said that they do. If mutations exist and change morphology and if selection weeds out morphologies that do not match the adaptive landscape, how is that not proof positive of a "change" of "design"?What, specifically, is the problem?

quote:

---

I think they can dramatically alter designs that are already there.

---

Huh? How can they "already be there" if they are mutations? Just what do you think mutation is? You just said you agree with the conclusions of science and here you are denying one of them. This would be where you justify your denial.Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.