Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Arguments 'evolutionists' should NOT use
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 1 of 74 (399777)
05-08-2007 12:59 AM


I apologise if this has been done before, but I looked and looked but couldn't see. Maybe it is an old topic, so need to be gone over again.
In Message 29 in my thread on Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory, AnswersInGenitals suggested a list of arguments that should not be used, comparable to AiG (that's Genesis, not Genitals) with its list for unhelpful creationist arguments. So, I'm creating what could be considered the antithesis of that other thread of mine (or perhaps the antithesis would be "compelling evidence for creation"...).
In evaluating what a "bad evolutionist argument" is, I propose that it must meet at least one of the following criteria:
  • Is not logical
  • Is based on false premises
  • Is easily refuted by creationists ( or at least enough attempted refutations exist and are well known, thus making the argument unusable)
  • Leads to a greater misunderstanding of evolution, rather than elucidating the theory
For example, using a false fossil, such as Piltdown Man, or asserting anything resembling Haekel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" approach.
For a less obvious example, using vestigial pelvic girdles in snakes as evidence of evolution is not a good argument against creationists, because they believe that snakes once had legs (and ate food other than dust) - Gen 3:14.
So, got any lousy, useless or confusing arguments for evolution? Perhaps you once tried to use one, but it ended up confusing things, or, even worse, were you were proven wrong?
If we get a good list, I might see if I can upload them to the EvoWiki (with all of your permission of course).

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPaul, posted 05-08-2007 1:57 AM Doddy has replied
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 05-08-2007 12:05 PM Doddy has replied
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 05-09-2007 2:04 PM Doddy has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 3 of 74 (399790)
05-08-2007 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPaul
05-08-2007 1:57 AM


Yeah. That puts it right next to my other thread on the good arguments.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPaul, posted 05-08-2007 1:57 AM AdminPaul has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 6 of 74 (399897)
05-08-2007 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
05-08-2007 12:05 PM


TD writes:
While the refutation is somewhat right, it's not the correct way at tackling this issue.
May I ask what the better, or more correct, way is?
TD writes:
Speciation has never been directly observed, therefore evolution is based on faith.
Generally what a creationist means by that sort of an argument is that a reptile species can't evolve into a bird species, or an ape species can't evolve into a hominid species. Basically, macroevolution.
So in that case, I do agree that going on about speciation isn't going to help the case much, unless you extend it into how speciation events can lead to the diversion of lineages into seperaate families/orders.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 05-08-2007 12:05 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by dwise1, posted 05-08-2007 8:37 PM Doddy has not replied
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 05-09-2007 12:37 AM Doddy has not replied
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 05-09-2007 10:12 AM Doddy has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 19 of 74 (400026)
05-09-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ringo
05-09-2007 3:09 PM


Ringo writes:
I think we should be comfortable saying "evolution is proven" - i.e. it has passed all the tests.
But if we do, do we mean "completely proven" or do we mean "proven beyond all reasonable doubt"?

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 05-09-2007 3:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 05-09-2007 7:49 PM Doddy has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 73 of 74 (401026)
05-17-2007 10:04 PM


Can I ask you to get back on topic?
I take it from the debate here that the issue of proof and falsifiability is not one to focus on in this sort of debate. If we can't agree with one another, the creationists will be able to choose the parts of this debate as 'proof' that we disagree or quote-mine the parts saying that evolution can't be proven etc
Regardless, this is ust not the topic of this thread of mine. The "Is it Science?" section would be a good place to start a topic on this issue, as I see there is still a lot of enthusiasm for discussing it.
So, I ask you all, to find another evolutionist argument that shouldn't be used, and give reasons. Let's see if we can put this thread back on track.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by sfs, posted 05-18-2007 1:05 PM Doddy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024