Evolution Logic

Looks like this thread is devolving into "What is Wrong With SWC's Essay" so maybe we should take it a step at a time to show the logical fallacies and erroneous information. Ever wondered what an argument from incredulity looked like? This first paragraph is nothing but fluff and the assertion that the author actually knows something that the reader does not. As we shall see (if we haven't already) this is a false assumption.The outstanding falsehood here is that evolution is based on beliefs rather than the scientific study of evidence and the corroboration of theory by test after test after test.Thus the first paragraph is based on a false premise. Wrong again. We are talking about a science not a "popular belief" -- science based on factual evidence.Evolution is the theory of change in species over time. As time passes more changes will be accumulated. This is all that is necessary for evolution to be "true" (although theories are not ever regarded as "true" by scientists, just corroborated by evidence and repeated testing; theories can be invalidated at any time by new evidence, but "truth" cannot - by definition eh?).This is not a "belief" system -- let's look at the definition of Now lets look at the definition of No "belief" involved.Thus this is a mischaracterization of the science of evolution, it is a falsehood. One cannot expect a valid argument about a topic when the topic is defined incorrectly.Either the author does not understand the topic enough to define it properly, and thus will be unable to talk intelligently about it,Or the author is purposely misrepresenting the topic, and thus will misrepresent anything else he needs to in order to make whatever point he intends with such misrepresentation,Or the author is ignorant of the proper definition, and thus is likely to be ignorant of any other related issue,Or the author is deluded into thinking this is the truth, in which case his delusions will likely color any thing else he says.Based on just this part of the essay there is no reason to expect any valid argument from it.This is actually evidence of someone who is careless in what they say.Can such carelessness be defended?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I disagree... We're devolving!Like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We're coming undone!

quote:

---

Wrong again. We are talking about a science not a "popular belief" -- science based on factual evidence.

---

Another error (although unrelated to your point -- sorry for the digression) is that evolution -- common descent, actually -- says that there is a single common ancestor for all life. Actually, the theory of evolution merely asserts that the species in a given major taxon has a common ancestor -- but all known life may have had several ancestors.The idea that there is only a single common ancestory is based on empirical observation, but is not necessary to the theory of evolution.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

quote:

---

I disagree... We're devolving!

---

I don't know about you, but I made a lot of progess since the days I was a simple single cell travelling down my mama's Fallopian tube.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

There is no such thing as devolving. It's all evolving no matter what direction.And the 2^nd. Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution. We have lots of threads here on that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I doubt it. So far you have run from any discussion of actual evidence for anything. And that when others provide the evidence -- your record of substantiating any assertion you have made is zero.Why no response on my suggestion to talk about simple speciation with an example?You do agree that small changes do occur, what you call "changes in kind" or "micro"evolution, happens yes?I've suggested we start with a simple example - Pelycodus, a small primate mammal that shows gradual increases in size and then a splitting into two groups:

(click to enlarge)
(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)Do you or do you not agree that this is just normal speciation - that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?Do you agree that this is no different than "dog is dog" variations? If no why not?Once we have established the "micro"evolution aspects of the fossil record of events like this we can move on to the next level.Or are you afraid of what the evidence will show?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And protraying evolution as being common descent is making a strawman out of a molehill of incredulity eh?

Would you be willing to explain to me how tiny variations within the kind could accumulate to make a new kind? How have I been corected? I still repeat my claim, no one has yet shown me a transitional fossil that is undebatable, and no one can. Because the fossil record does indeed have "sudden" appearances of all the kinds of creatures. Like in the lowest layer, there are fully developed sponges, trilobites, jellyfish, worms, and other organisms, and this is the bottom of the geologic column! Microevolution, what you just said about species changing is microevolution. But not the popular evolution belief, macroevolution. And yes, I have already gave my general definition from macroevolution, for what it WOULD be, please check back. The species can continue to have variation, within the kind. Look at a wolf, and look at a poodle, they sure do look different, don't they? But it's still a dog "kind." It's not like a dog evolved into a cat or something. I said I would support my claim later, in a more suitable thread, and you still attack me. Please, have patience. I have enough on my hands with only two threads! And the facts do support a young earth, I will show you later in the thread for it. As the administrator said, this thread has gone way off topic, you are promoting it to go even more off topic. Let us not do this. Specific topics will go to specific threads, as this young earth thing.Let me help remain with this topic by saying: Evolution logic? No, evolution is not logical. A single cell, forming into a human, and everything else, by chance, randomly, unguided by a Higher Being, is not logical. It defies all logic. That random, chance processes would make creatures able to make sounds, and make them also have ears to pick up those sounds. To make the sights, and to also make the eye to see them, by chance. To make the smell producing foods and flowers and trees, and to also make the nose to be able to sense these smells, by random chance. To make varying temperatures, and to make sensors in our bodies to be able to differentiate between the temperatures, by chance. To make food, and to make mouths and digestive systems to use to food for our survival, without guidance by a Higher Being. No my friends, evolution is not logical. Evolution could not do all this by chance, by random processes, unguided by a Higher Being. And did you know that the chance for the single living cell to form by chance, is mathematically impossible? You have to have a lot of faith in a theory that is mathematically impossible... That's why evolution is like a religion. It takes faith. I didn't make an assertion. Please read over those posts. Someone said we cannot rely on AIG for information. I said, that I could use the same reasoning and say we cannot rely on TO. Pointing out how that reasoning could be flipped back at the person from the opposite view. So thus that claim shouldn't have been made, it could be used against the person making it. Oh, right. I'm sure that those many sources I used mean nothing to you? The Bibliography, the Works Cited?

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

quote:

---

Like in the lowest layer, there are fully developed sponges, trilobites, jellyfish, worms, and other organisms, and this is the bottom of the geologic column!

---

Actually, it's not. The fossil record extends farther into the past into the Precambrian. And molecular biology shows evidence that the origins of the major phyla may extend even farther into the past.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

Okay, just a few points.We don't know what the bottom of the geological column is, and it's even possible may never know since the surface gets recycled. But we do know of stuff that goes back long before sponges, trilobites, jellyfish and worms.Second, you say "fully developed". Well, yes. That is exactly what we would expect to see. No one except the Biblical Creationists sites ever expects to see some critter that is not fully formed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

When one group acccumulates enough change that it's sufficiently different from other groups within the same kind, it's in a new kind. In other words:We have a kind called "wobbles", containing all wobbles. Wobbles live in the east and the west, but they're all wobbles. But a mudslide seperates all the wobbles into two groups that, now, can't have anything to do with each other. The eastern wobbles change, over time, in different ways than the western wobbles do. The eastern wobbles become tall and thin, and the western wobbles become short and furry. Eventually the mudslide clears, but neither side recognizes the other as fellow wobbles - they're too different - and they keep their distance.Where there was once only plain-old wobbles, taxonomists now recognize two new kinds of wobbles - Wobblus orientalis, the tall thin wobble, and Wobblus occidentalis, the short furry wobble. The wobble kind now contains two new kinds of wobbles. Wobbologists analyze their evolutionary history and discover that these two kinds of wobbles are both decended from a common ancestor, which was of the wobble kind but wasn't in either of the two current wobble sub-kinds.What once might have been a species - wobble - is now a genus, the next-highest category, because it contains two kinds of its own, that are new. Both those new kinds of wobble arose from a kind that they still belong to, but an ancestor that wasn't a member of either of those kinds.Hierarcheal classification of species. Pretty simple, when you think about it. Adelobasileus cromptoni. There. That's an undebateable transitional organism from the fossil record. No, you can't. You can't employ the same reasoning. The reason that you cannot rely on Answers in Genesis for information is because the "information" they promulgate is objectively wrong, a fact which they're aware of. It's definately been demonstrated to the AiG crew over and over again, so we know that they're dishonestly promulgating information that they know is wrong. Moreover, AiG does not employ persons who are experts in the fields in which they comment.The same cannot be said of talkorigins.org. The information at talkorigins.org is objectively accurate, and when any inaccuracies are discovered, the talkorigins crew corrects them, regardless of who pointed out the error. The contributors to talkorigins are persons with advanced degrees and research experience in the fields in which they contribute.Objectively, the information from AiG is not reliable, whereas the information from Talkorigins is. So you can't turn the reasoning around. You can't simply dismiss TO because they're pro-evolution, because we're not dismissing AiG simply because they oppose evolution. We dismiss AiG because their resources are objectively wrong.

I think you missed something. See, Gingerich probably did draw the picture with only two skull fragments. And later, someone found the whole skull or something. But we are speaking of Gingerich's picture, when speaking of the skull fragments. Sure, maybe later along the way, someone found the whole skull, or fake it, or something like that... Thanks for the picture, where did you get it? What is the source? Can we rely on it? When I said knee cap I was referring to the hind legs, the part they haven't yet found. And, this may startle you, but yes, you do have a ball and socket joint for your shoulder, check out this site: ForbiddenBet you didn't know that, huh? It's okay, we all make mistakes sometimes.But my point was, you called it a pectoral fin, not a limb, or something. As someone claimed it was a leg. No, maybe that's not a leg at all. Or maybe, it didn't even belong to Tiktaliik. Or maybe, Tiktaliik is not a fish. So it's not a fish with legs? Like someone said? Because legs have to be able to move a creature on land, you just said those "things" wouldn't be able to do that. I know, but I didn't see any hands or fingers. Lol. Yes, thank you. Please don't, I don't know much about those topics! It would help to not bring them up! See, if it were just half a fish, or just half a newt, we wouldn't really need the back end. But evolutionists are claiming it is a transitional fossil, a fish with legs, so the rear end is important to see if that is valid and true. Like it would tell us if the pelvis is connected to the vertebrae, if it had hind legs or just a tail, and more important information like that.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

sorry at the time it was a bit late so it may not have been as deep as i wanted, i thought more on it and realized that they study how plants evolve natural defences we can use i'd like to learn more about plants, the way they evolved from non-seed producers to seed producers was interesting *shrug* i'll look that up then

no no i meant that comparing the two was not much of an arguement since the only relation was they where both forms of eyes and saw in color i agree it was so far back its kind of irrelevent, since they are like comparing bats wings with birds wings

Ok, thanks for the info. But pterosaur is classified as an archosaur, which contains birds. But you're right, there's also crocodiles and dinosaurs in that category. So, you say this is a reptile-dinosaur type of creature? Probably not all. But there is a possibility that some were faked. It's easy to carve into an old fossil, if you have the right tools. Have you considered how great of a force it would take to leave an imprint in rock? Probably something like, a great flood? But think of it, all those fossils with hair and feathers being fossilized, I think there's some conspiracy behind it or some of it... Maybe it's not a mistake after all? That's a possibility... But see, that is from one creature, a bird that had the genes for scutes and feathers. But how about reptilian scales and bird feathers, do you have proof that they came from one gene? But those dinosaurs are not birds. And I thought they can only turn into feathers easily in chickens. But that's not reptilian scales evolving into bird feathers. So you're saying that the chicken has reptilian scales? How? Oh, and, scutes are also the scales of turtles and other creatures, not just chickens.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown