We may need to re-evaluate how we think about evolution!

a reply to: chr0naut

I had thought the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority would be well-known here at ATS.

You claimed that several members had responded here based on their credentials, which is, bluntly, logically fallacious without further backup.

Your comment that I responded to claimed that I was focusing on religion in my post. Apparently, you're abandoning that position, which is just fine.

I have made no claim about any "actual instance of observed genetic change that cannot be better explained by a process of horizontal genetic transfer rather than vertical."

I have seen no "equally viable alternate theory" to the various (not to mention voluminous) claims of what is generically referred to as Evolutionary Theory.

Can you cite evidence for either of your comments that I have called out other than your own authority?

You're making the claims; you need to prove them.

That would be a valid argument.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Several members referring to "science based bona fides" is a generally accepted form of an appeal to authority here.

Out of 243 words in my post, you want to focus on the word "religious" being used one time in one sentence.

I submit that for some reason, you want to ignore what I said in favor of a simplistic and incorrect attempt to invalidate my comment which focuses on BELIEF.

Belief and religion are not synonymous.

Next?

The process of science is that new insights often contradict previously held beliefs.

Can you cite one actual instance of observed genetic change that cannot be better explained by a process of horizontal genetic transfer rather than vertical?

Ummm ... Mutation through selective breeding?

. That might be a stretch as I'm not sure if by 'observed genetic change' you meant 'permanent'.

ETA: Permanent may be too subjective a term to use when discussing evolution as well. -Sigh

Isn't the first stage of meiosis recombinant? Surely, one could argue that prophase I is a type of horizontal genetic transfer.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Several members referring to "science based bona fides" is a generally accepted form of an appeal to authority here.

Out of 243 words in my post, you want to focus on the word "religious" being used one time in one sentence.

I submit that for some reason, you want to ignore what I said in favor of a simplistic and incorrect attempt to invalidate my comment which focuses on BELIEF.

Belief and religion are not synonymous.

Next?

The process of science is that new insights often contradict previously held beliefs.

Can you cite one actual instance of observed genetic change that cannot be better explained by a process of horizontal genetic transfer rather than vertical?

Ummm ... Mutation through selective breeding?

. That might be a stretch as I'm not sure if by 'observed genetic change' you meant 'permanent'.

ETA: Permanent may be too subjective a term to use when discussing evolution as well. -Sigh

Isn't the first stage of meiosis recombinant? Surely, one could argue that prophase I is a type of horizontal genetic transfer.

It is a (if not the) most excellent 'argument'. It would still (in my estimate) take thousands of generations to prove and thousands more to draw an identical confirmation ... thus capitalizing evolution. We're still talking 'new species', right?

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Several members referring to "science based bona fides" is a generally accepted form of an appeal to authority here.

Out of 243 words in my post, you want to focus on the word "religious" being used one time in one sentence.

I submit that for some reason, you want to ignore what I said in favor of a simplistic and incorrect attempt to invalidate my comment which focuses on BELIEF.

Belief and religion are not synonymous.

Next?

The process of science is that new insights often contradict previously held beliefs.

Can you cite one actual instance of observed genetic change that cannot be better explained by a process of horizontal genetic transfer rather than vertical?

Ummm ... Mutation through selective breeding?

. That might be a stretch as I'm not sure if by 'observed genetic change' you meant 'permanent'.

ETA: Permanent may be too subjective a term to use when discussing evolution as well. -Sigh

Isn't the first stage of meiosis recombinant? Surely, one could argue that prophase I is a type of horizontal genetic transfer.

It is a (if not the) most excellent 'argument'. It would still (in my estimate) take thousands of generations to prove and thousands more to draw an identical confirmation ... thus capitalizing evolution. We're still talking 'new species', right?

I'm not sure if we're talking species or species.

One of the things I define 'species' by is the inability to breed with other species but that obviously only applies to sexually reproducing life. It's a fuzzy area, where does one draw the line between breed and species?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

I had thought the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority would be well-known here at ATS.

You claimed that several members had responded here based on their credentials, which is, bluntly, logically fallacious without further backup.

Your comment that I responded to claimed that I was focusing on religion in my post. Apparently, you're abandoning that position, which is just fine.

I have made no claim about any "actual instance of observed genetic change that cannot be better explained by a process of horizontal genetic transfer rather than vertical."

I have seen no "equally viable alternate theory" to the various (not to mention voluminous) claims of what is generically referred to as Evolutionary Theory.

Can you cite evidence for either of your comments that I have called out other than your own authority?

You're making the claims; you need to prove them.

That would be a valid argument.

If you are opposed to appeal to authority as valid, then who then do we cite, the ignorant?

I am also not vocationally involved with the Biological sciences, just an interested bystander, which hardly makes me an "authority" and I make no such claim.

Now, the fact that we are discussing alternate (to modern evolutionary theory) processes which may lead to biodiversity might inform you as to what those "equally viable alternate theories" may be.

Since you seem to have a grasp of logical fallacies, I assume you to have studied philosophy, however we are discussing biology. As such, I probably have to inform you that some alternate (to modern evolutionary theory) processes would be things such as epigenetics and horizontal gene transfer.

Most biologists would be aware of these and there is no need to cite studies. The issue is not one of disproving evolution as a general theory, it is one of determining true mechanism. Something which true believers of all types seem to find hard to grasp.