In RAZD's forum about dogs and horses, AlphaOmegakid has taken it upon himself to challenge the theory of evolution on the basis of logic. He has presented the following claims:
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Natural selection is a tautology.
Homologies are circular reasoned.
Vesigial features are circular reasoned.
The geological column is circular reasoned.
And genetic evidence of evolution is tautological.
I would like him to defend these claims, but to do so on RAZD's thread would probably drive RAZD to the psycho ward, so I propose this thread to discuss AOkid's claims about tautologies in evolutionary thought.
I suspect that, when he makes these claims, he is referring to evolutionists’ tendency to find some phenomenon (such as a trait or fossil) in the natural world, interpret it in terms of evolutionary theory, then hold it up as evidence of evolution. Taken as I have laid it out in the preceding sentence, it does indeed appear to be circular logic.
To this, I respond that any study written today about a homology or vestige is resting on a long history of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of similar studies that have already established the pattern that we are using to interpret our new data, and more additions to the pattern are being unearthed every year. Furthermore, when we uncover new data, we sometimes find how our pattern needs to be adjusted, and we adjust it accordingly.
As an example of such a pattern, I present
a few examples of transitional fossils that have been highlighted just this summer here at EvC, all of which are very similar in nature to the equid fossil series AOkid is arguing against on RAZD’s thread. There is a definite and distinct pattern of transitional fossils and even extensive transitional series in the fossil record: any competent biologist or cognizant evolution buff could list off several more well-known series of fossils that line up nicely in a transitional series.
FOCAL POINT:
In order for AOkid (or any other creationist) to prove that evolutionary thought is tautological, he must show that a pattern like the one I presented above does not exist. Or, if the pattern
does exist, then he must show either (a) how the pattern supports an alternative interpretation better than, or at least as well as, it supports the theory of evolution, or (b) how the pattern is coincidental and meaningless.
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2