A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists

In the interest of being fair and balanced, I believe that it would be handy to present a list of the common Bait & Switch Tactics used by so many of the Evolutionists. The purpose of the thread is to give people a guide to help them identify when they are being conned.I will start off with some of the more common cons pushed by evos.1. Defining a word one way in order to justify the same term but a different meaning. This happens most notably with the word, evolution. Evos will define evolution as heritable change and thus a fact, and go on then to use that to suggest that macroevolution is a fact.2. The reliance on semantics in general. Evos, for example, have pushed various, different theories all by the name of Recapitulation, and despite several being disproven, they come up with a new version called by the same name to avoid, imo, the fact their facts were wrong, and recapitulation was a myth.3. Reliance on faked data, and continual reliance on it for decades and decades when there was ample, open, and clear evidence pointed out over and over again that the data was false. Haeckel's embryos are a good example of this, but in a lesser manner, there are other examples such as the slowness to present Neanderthals as human, the peppered moth being glued to trees, etc,....5. Creating child Neanderthal skulls with a protruding chin when none exists. A good example of fitting the data, or manufacturing data, to fit the theory rather than the other way around.6. The idea that natural selection is an agent for macroevolution, completely unsubstantiated as the forces of natural selection appear to limit genetic diversity, not increase it.7. The idea that microevolution is an example of macroevolution writ small. Once again, it's a false idea because the forces of microevolution tend to limit genetic diversity, not increase it.\8. Claiming the fossil record shows evolutionary transitions when in reality, it shows the opposite.I could go on and on, but perhaps some other critics of evolution would like to add to the list......after all, we want to make sure people are not conned. Edited by randman, : No reason given.

On the fossil record, what we actually see on totality is a massive lack of transitional evidence. Basically, using the term "transitional" is somewhat dubious in and of itself because it implies the fossil in question actually evolved, and generally there is no evidence of this. Evos get around this by saying the fossil shows features of creatures before and creatures afterwards and so even if it didn't evolve, it is "transitional."Secondly, what is not being said is the transitions are just not seen. There is absolutely no macroevolutionary transition seen whatsoever. There are fossils of creatures with massive gaps, thousands of missins transitions, if they occurred at all, where evos place the fossil in between various creatures to create the appearance of a transition when in reality, the fossil record is well-nigh proof that gradualistic transitions did not occur.Some evos acknowledge this from time to time, and come up with various hopeful monster theories, which though seeming outlandish, actually make a lot more sense than ignoring the data and pretending small, gradualistic changes can and have added up to macroevolution.In reality, the fossil record stands out very strong against mainstream evo models.On the terms, pictorials and presenting interpretations as data, I agree with you. I do think, however, using the term "rare occurence" is also poorly defined. It's not that clear, for example, if whale species or genus, fossilization is very rare at all, given geologic time-frames. One of my beefs with evos is using the claim of fossil rarity to explain away the lack of transitionals.For example, we have thousands of some types of creature's fossils. So even though the occurence is rare per the individual, it may not be rare for the species. I don't think "rarity" has really been quantified, or established, as pertaining to large mammals for example, on whether we should expect most of them to show fossils or not. Why, for example, do we see a lot of horse fossils and whale fossils, but such an absence of the fossils in whale evolution. The vast majority of forms are missing, and yet there are good examples of thousands of fossils of just one form, or type of whale or cetacean.Why Basilosaurus being so present, and nothing for the most part showing how it could have transitioned to modern whales, or just a few possibles?The fossil record appears to show an abruptness indicative of either a hopeful monster type of mechanism or ID, not gradualism.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

On abiogenesis, I need to review your comments elsewhere to know for sure exactly the specific problems you want to discuss, but there is certainly a multitude. Woese believes that the 3 kingdoms could not have emerged via normal vertical evolution or natural selection as we know it, and so proposes a progenote, which is a hypothetical creature with a breakdown in the precise linkage between genes and features. I need to brush up on it again, but the idea is that beneficial features could be passed on horizontally within the community of these pre-life forms until populations could emerge.Another way to look at this is that the data we do have indicates that the 3 kingdoms could not have emerged from a common living ancestor. The solution could be they didn't evolve at all, or that they evolved all 3 independently via abiogenesis.In my opinion, the abiogenesis thing is pretty far-fetched to take seriously as a scientific theory since there is really no evidence whatsoever for it. It's fine for a hypothesis of spontaneous generation, but it just doesn't cut it when it comes to empirical support.In terms of self-duplicating and self-emerging RNA prototypes, it's so speculative, often based on ideas of the early atmosphere that were wrong, that I think there are lots of problems that basically are unanswered. Rocks do change "on their own", sometimes forming crystals, etc,.....Imo, if within chemistry, there is an ability "on it's own" to evolve into biology, that really is evidence of a product of the design of whoever created the principles of chemistry. So I am not wholly against the concept of abiogenesis, but would have to say that abiogenesis should rightly be understood as part of Intelligent Design embedded into the universe.The problem, of course, is we have no real evidence of abiogenesis.All that may have missed your point, however....I'll take a look at those threads you mentioned....On sexual harmony, I have to confess I am not sure either if I got your point completely, but certainly the idea evos put forward that sexual isolation leads to speciation would still limit genetic diversity, not increase it. So if speciation occurs or subspeciation, that works against macroevolution by limiting genetic diversity, as Faith argued here quite some time without anyone answering substantively. The claim of evos is that mutations can add the material needed, but evos also have theories of rates of mutation where it is hard to imagine the rate of beneficial mutation outweighing factors such as sexual and geographic isolation in speciation or variation, in terms of limiting genetic diversity.Thanks for your comments at the beginning, btw. Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I'll do something after Thanksgiving as to do it now, well, I may not be around. I think the general evo argument is asexual creatures developed first, but there is still the issue of how sexual reproduction arose in the first place......the likelihood of a male and female evolving at the same time, same place, and then producing off-spring is incredibly remote, and borders on miraculous. At least, we see the process of creation and design when we create and design things. Evos have never seen anything close to occuring via natural causes that would evolve sexual reproduction from scratch, but then again, the more you look at evo theories, there are tons of facts, hard data, logic, etc,....that shows the theory is all smoke and mirrors and no substance. It's not a fact-based theory.I suspect evos imagine that asexual reproduction evolved to the point that a creature mated with itself, instead of just duplicated it's cell-structure. How that would happen or be more suited to survival, of cours, is a mystery, but then imagining further, evos probably say the creature split one day while mating, and wholla, there was a male and a female......still invoking near-magic, but ample use of the imagination is a big part of myth-making. Edited by randman, : No reason given.

already predicted the hermaphrodite argument, nwr.....there is no misunderstanding or ignorance.....generally creationists and IDers understand evo arguments very well, as we have all been taught them, but the same cannot be said for the other side.

You mean like you guys universally misunderstanding quantum physics, recapitulation, fossils, etc, etc,....?My experience with evos is that they tend to use terms with several, various meanings interchangeably. So I prefer to focus on the process....my suspicion is evos argue that asexual reproduction or organisms reproducing without being male and female first emerged, and that then maleness and femaleness emerged within one organism and split later into male and female, or they argued that creatures evolved into being male and female at the same time. If that is incorrect, please offer the just-so story evos do use. I would be quite interested.For clarity sake, I assume nwr's comment on hermaphrodite's is what he commented on. Not sure where you think a misunderstanding has taken place, WK. At some point, males and females would have to simultaneously emerge as separate. I pointed out briefly that they would have to either evolve at the same time, or a male and female creature would have to split into 2. Either way, it seems there is considerable challenged for the evo position. Note: I did not say hermaphrodites mate with themselves, though perhaps this is a possibility for evos when discussing the imagined scenarios for sex evolution.Do you have sdifferent scenario? I would not be surprised if evos could imagine another one.....what is it?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Did I say hermaphroditism means, by definition, a creature that mates with itself? The mate with itself was one scenario for you guys to imagine a path for evolving, suggesting that perhaps an organism split into 2 and thus after it split, it mated "with itself", but admittedly that is far-fetched.I'll admit that I didn't do an in-depth analysis, but maybe if you can explain your ideas about how a hermaphrodite or hermaphrodites emerged and led to sole males and females, we can discuss it.... Of course, it is still imagination.Why would, for example, a creature succesfully duplicating itself evolve male and female identities? What's the selective advantage of being male and female, as oppossed to not? Seems it is limiting and a disadvantage at that point.Of course, natural selection never added a whit to macro-evolution, but for sake of argument, an individual organism that is male or female rather than asexual or hermaphrodite, is more limited in it's ability to mate. It must find another of the opposite sex, not just another.....I really can't see any selective advantage at all.Maybe you can though?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Why would a hermaphrodite population emerge in the first place, WK?What's the advantage? You pointed to a disadvantage of a hermaphrodite population, but not to how hermaphroditism is an advantage over other means of reproduction.Also, isn't the removal of one sex from an organism likely acheived via a reduction in genetic diversity that accounted for the sex that was removed?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This would be humorous if not so tragic for the scientific community. Look at your post and notice that you use the term "evolution" in the second sentence, and then refer to "evolution" as "it" in the same sentence in a direct reference to macroevolution. Despite having the false logic pointed out to you and you making the comment that "evolution" and "macroevolution" are 2 different words, you still nonetheless go straight ahead with the same bait and switch tactic.Keep in mind observing changes or speciation is not observing macroevolution, period. In fact, the process you observe works against macroevolution by limiting genetic diversity, and evos have never shown any empirical evidence to substantiate how a process working in direct contradiction to organic macroevolution can lead to organic macroevolution. Really? Maybe you need to let your fellow evos here know that as they argued with me ad infinitum that it was an acceptable term and theory, even though the Haeckel version was discredited. You should let the folks know at TalkOrigins know too.I don't have a lot of time to look up stuff today, but the term "recapitulate" and recapitulation is still in use by evos, as well as the Biogenetic law.Just a moment... Um, exactly who do you think first exposed, later exposed, etc,....Haeckel's drawings? Prior to the Richardson study in 1997, there were decades of creationists that exposed the drawings as faked, and of course, they were originally exposed as fakes in the 1800s. Moreover, you have a false dichotomy as if men like Von Baer and other critics of evolutionary theory were not and are not scientist.Let me ask you this. Why did it take the evo community 130 years to quit perpetuating a fraud on the public?You are pretty much doing the same thing most evos do. You ignore the fallacies of the peppered-moth story, ignore the false depictions of Neanderthals as sub-human, ignore the fact evos kept using faked data for 130 years, ignore the fact that we have hard evidence that the recreation of Neanderthal skulls has been distorted (failing to realize that evos don't just escavate skulls, but put them together often adding missing materials to the models), etc, etc....you display an avalanche of errors here. Look at this comment: Maybe I didn't spell it out. Macroevolution necessitates an increase in diversity, and so processes that work in the opposite direction work against macroevolution, it would seem. Maybe you are the one here needing to learn what evolutionary theory is, not me? You yourself tried to claim microevolution was macroevolution writ small in the same post. How can you then claim my statement is a flat out lie?You also display the common error of evos that the reason people disagree with it is because they do not understand it whereas it is usually the opposite situation; the evos don't understand the criticism of evolutionary theory. So you say, but under evo definitions, all fossils are intermediate forms automatically. The question is why doesn't the fossil record show gradualistic evolution. The fossil record contradicts the theories of evos because the gradual transitions are just not seen.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

but you said essentially nothing, except to show you failed either to understand or respond to anything I wrote. For someone calling other people ignorant, you are seriously lacking in grasping basic concepts.Why is that?

You don't appear to be trying to learn anything, Dr Adequate. It seems you aren't getting some basic concepts, and I don't really have time to break them down again and again. It doesn't take a genuis, for example, to understand the point that since natural selection limits genetic diversity and macroevolution requires an expansion of genetic diversity, that positing natural selection as an effective mechanism or better yet as an actual instance of observing "evolution" is not an empirically-based assertion, and yet it lies at the heart of evo arguments.Take some time to learn about things and then respond. Reread what I wrote, and then maybe you can respond intelligently instead of hurling senseless barbs.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Please show the empirical, peer-reviewed studies that verify the rate of beneficial mutations is greater than the limiting effects of reproductive and geographical isolation, natural selection, subspeciation/variation or speciation, and the other factors involved with microevolution....If you cannot, then admit you have been advancing a fairy-tale and shut the heck up and learn something from those smarter and better educated than you. Your schtick pretending that I and people like myself don't understand evolutionary theory is getting old. Thus far, you appear to be the ignorant one here, failing to understand evo models as well as criticisms of it.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

So you can't answer and try to cover up the inadequacy of your position (having on empirical evidence) with utter bull-crap.OK. You concede defeat here.Come back when you at least understand the criticism and can explain why observed microevolutionary processes that decrease genetic diversity should rightly be considered part of a process increasing genetic diversity.

Dr Adequate, for someone lecturing others about understanding evolutionary theory, you sure do seem to need help filling in the blanks.How do you think macroevolution occurs?For example, most evos argue that speciation occurs via reproductive or geographical isolation, not just mutation. You seem to have an outdated and naive concept of evolution, as if whole species gradually change as a whole via mutations, very gradually over and over again until we see a species morph into something else entirely. This flies in the face of the fossil record, since we see no such thing occuring, even over millions of years. We see stasis and sudden appearance.It also flies in the face of common sense because mutations don't generally spread around to the entire population of a species. People, for example, have not evolved 6 fingers on each hand, even though that is an advantage. Traits generally get swamped if there is no isolation of a smaller group within the species.You don't seem to be aware of the process evo models generally use. In this process, natural selection does not just select for beneficial mutations, it also selects for existing traits within the group. This decreases genetic diversity but can increase form (lead to new forms or traits that become more dominant).So since we see such a decrease in genetic diversity in the process of variation (this is observed), where are the studies that show beneficial mutations occur at a rate that overcomes the decrease?Please provide some links to where evos have substantiated this most basic claim.

So since we see such a decrease in genetic diversity in the process of variation (this is observed), where are the studies that show beneficial mutations occur at a rate that overcomes the decrease?Please provide some links to where evos have substantiated this most basic claim. Please substantiate that with evidence.