Evolution, It's only a theory, page 78

privacy

Pages: << 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 61 times

reply posted on 2-5-2009 @ 04:15 AM by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by JPhish

You're just dodging the question.

Originally posted by JPhish
I’m afraid you’ll have to answer your own rhetorical question.

Doesn’t seem like dodging to me, answer your own rhetorical question, I’m all “eyes” and no one is stopping you.

You saying that my post is illogical fallacy of causation, does not make it so.

It isn't so because i say it, i say it because it is so. If you’d really like for me to explain why it is a fallacy of causation I will, but you have ignored my logical formulas in previous posts, so I personally felt it would be a waste of time.

You’ve committed MANY logical fallacies and have continued to do so . . . Perhaps you don’t realize that you’re being illogical so I’m going to start emphasizing your logical fallacies in bold

I won.

wishful thinking

Evolution won.

wishful thinking

End of debate.

I wasn’t aware that such a debate was “winnable” but if you insist, let’s tally up how many times you’ve been illogical juxtapose to how many times I have.

argumentum ad consequentiam, bare assertion fallacy & poisoning the well
Quote mining, another baseless assertion and an appeal to flattery
red herring OR causal simplification
(you can pick)
LOADED QUESTION & poisoning the well
poisoning the well again and argumentum ad consequentiam again
argumentum ad consequentiam a third time

We can also add all of your recent wishful thinking to the list which tallies up to THIRTEEN illogical fallacies in only 7 posts! That’s an average of more than 2 logical fallacies per post. Impressive.

Now let’s say your argument is only impaired by the ones I’ve shown logical proofs for . . .

If I understood genetics, I would agree with you
But I don’t agree with you, and since it is DESIRABLE for me to agree with you
(for you)
Then I do not understand genetics

So in review

P = I understand genetics
Q = I agree with you

If P, then Q
⌐Q is undesirable
Therefore ⌐P

Argumentum ad consequentiam

X = You

A = Everything I said is false and everything you said is true

Fact 1: X claims A is true.
Fact 2: X claims X are correct.
Conclusion: Therefore A is true.

bare assertion fallacy

P = It’s pointless to discuss the topic with me because I don’t understand the evidence.
Q = you won’t debate with me

If P, then Q
Q is desirable for you (because you’re losing the debate?)
Therefore P

Argumentum ad consequentiam

P = I understand the connection
Q = I answer your question

If P, then Q
⌐Q is undesirable for you (because it doesn’t animate your straw man)
Therefore ⌐P

Argumentum ad consequentiam

Of course logic is derived from the Latin, “logos” which means “argument”.

So,

My argument : 0
Your argument : -4

[edit on 5/2/2009 by JPhish]

reply posted on 2-5-2009 @ 09:12 AM by rhinoceros

Colour me surprised, the dodging continues.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
You saying that my post is illogical fallacy of causation, does not make it so.

It isn't so because i say it, i say it because it is so.

Nice fallacy there! You say it's an illogical fallacy of causation because it's DESIRABLE for you. It's not an illogical fallacy because I say it, I say it because it's not.

If I understood genetics, I would agree with you
But I don’t agree with you, and since it is DESIRABLE for me to agree with you
(for you)
Then I do not understand genetics

Do you understand genetics? Have you studied genetics? I'm guessing you have not studied genetics and clearly you do not understand genetics because otherwise you would agree with me. It's not so because I say it, I say it because it's so.

Can you now answer the question or will the dodging continue? You can try to tear that post where I explain chromosome 2 apart sentence by sentence if you'd like.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply posted on 2-5-2009 @ 11:51 PM by andre18

reply to post by JPhish

I just want to add that the scientific name for Neanderthals is Homo neanderthalensis - Homo being the genus and neanderthalis the species. We are Homo sapiens. So we have the same genus, but are different species. Other species in our genus are homo erectus, homo ergaster, etc.
The term "human" is applied to all members of the Homo genus. So Neanderthals are indeed human.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 12:12 AM by KRISKALI777

reply to post by andre18

Still, this debate has raged on for over 100years; yet still no "missing-link", to substantiate this theory. Many times, academics that have doubled as part time archaeologists, have tried to "doctor" primitive remains; as decoy evidence-but yet, still no cigar.....

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 12:46 AM by Kiltedninja

somebody will figure it out eventually.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 01:41 AM by KRISKALI777

reply to post by Kiltedninja

Yeah, >100years and onward is my bet.
Evolution is as believable as Christianity, Judaism, Islam -many have faith; with no tangible evidence!

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 02:28 AM by JPhish

reply to post by andre18

i honestly was not even thinking about it in that regard. But thanks for bringing that to light.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 04:23 AM by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Colour me surprised, the dodging continues.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
You saying that my post is illogical fallacy of causation, does not make it so.

It isn't so because i say it, i say it because it is so.

Nice fallacy there! You say it's an illogical fallacy of causation because it's DESIRABLE for you. It's not an illogical fallacy because I say it, I say it because it's not.

Standing alone as you quoted it, what I said could be an illogical fallacy within particular context, but since in reality I offered to prove it in the subsequent sentence and have done so in this post; it is certainly not. Which makes what you just did quote mining (14).

Can you now answer the question or will the dodging continue? You can try to tear that post where I explain chromosome 2 apart sentence by sentence if you'd like.

based on our previous posts, I will likely succeed, here I go.

reply to post by rhinoceros

What is more simplistic?

plurium interrogationum (15) the question presumes that one possibility is more simplistic than another when in fact they may be equally simplistic/complicated.

Because this question is being asked rhetorically it is also false dichotomy (16) for the same reasons.

Where is this lack of evidence shown? Certainly not in the fossil record, that's for sure. There's plenty of evidence around.

This is circulus in probando (17) because you claim . . .

“There is no lack of evidence in the fossil record, because there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record”.

It is also a bare assertion falacy (18) because we are to believe your circular reasoning is true merely because you say it is.

Have you heard that us humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and that chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes?

Yes

Question goes, how about our common ancestor? Did it have 23 or 24 pairs of chromosomes?

plurium interrogationum (19) the question presumes that 23 and 24 are the only possible answers.

Again, because this question is being asked rhetorically it is also false dichotomy (20) for the same reasons.

The answer is 24. Our common ancestor that lived some 5 to 7 millions years ago had 24 pairs of chromosomes.

2 bare assertion fallacies (21) (22)
You would have us believe these things are true merely because you say that they are.

How do we know this?

You don’t

You know how our chromosomes are linear instead of circular? Every time you copy them (for cell division) you're going to lose a little from their ends. So there are these sequences of DNA at their ends that we call telomeres. The only place you find them at is at the end of chromosomes. Well that's rule, but there's one exception. It's chromosome 2. There are telomere sequences not only at its ends, but also in centerish parts of it.

Yes, I “knew” this, waiting for how it is relevant to micro and macro evolution.

But why? They serve no purpose what so ever there. What are they doing there then? Well the answer is that after our species diverged, in our lineage two chromosomes fused together.

bare assertion fallacy (23)
You would have us believe all of the above simply because you say it is so.

This particular chromosome also has two centromeres. Centromeres are places where certain strings attach during cell division. And the genes we find in this one chromosome, we find identical sequences in chimp genome, the only difference is that in their case these sequences are divided into 2 seperate chromosomes.

Again, how was this relevant to micro and macro evolution?

What is this, if not undeniable evidence for common descent? What alternative explanation could there possibly be?

it’s causal oversimplification, or more specifically a false dilemma (24) taken to the extreme wherein you suggest that only one answer/explanation is appropriate; when in fact there are many other possible precursors.

These extra telomere sequences and that extra centromere sequence are like the tail bone of human DNA.

odd analogy, but irrelevant.

p.s. Here I make a prediction based on the theory of evolution. In all humanoid fossils older than 7 million years you're going to find a genome that is spread into 24 pairs of chromosomes.

That’s not a bold prediction considering we’ve never found DNA from anything, let a lone a human, that was older than a half million years old.
source
Since in all likelihood we will NEVER find human DNA that old; your “safe” prediction is simply foolish.

~Here I make a prediction based on THE THEORY OF PEANUTS. In all Proboscidea fossils older than 7 million years, you will find exactly 24 peanuts inside their stomachs; Every time.~

fittingly, your tally is up to 24 logical fallacies

My argument: 0
Your argument: -24

[edit on 5/3/2009 by JPhish]

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 06:14 AM by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by Kiltedninja

Yeah, >100years and onward is my bet.
Evolution is as believable as Christianity, Judaism, Islam -many have faith; with no tangible evidence!

Resolutely ignoring the evidence is a prime characteristic of a theist. As "faith" requires no evidence they're not used to doing the mental work required in examining, evaluating and processing evidence. Hence the confusion that scientific processes and religions are on a par. It's like equating astrology and astronomy if you've never looked upwards.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 06:32 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by andre18

Still, this debate has raged on for over 100years; yet still no "missing-link", to substantiate this theory. Many times, academics that have doubled as part time archaeologists, have tried to "doctor" primitive remains; as decoy evidence-but yet, still no cigar.....

What are you talking about? What missing link?

[edit on 3-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 06:36 AM by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by rhinocerosWhat are you talking about? What missing link?

andre18 is about to pop out the "god of the gaps" meme. "God" is the one who fills in the gaps in the fossil record. Or perhaps "God" is shown by the fact that the fossil record is not 100% perfect after 150 years or so of serious digging. It's a desperate attempt to diss the science that is snowballing against the creationist dogma, nothing more.

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 07:11 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Nice fallacy there! You say it's an illogical fallacy of causation because it's DESIRABLE for you. It's not an illogical fallacy because I say it, I say it because it's not.

Standing alone as you quoted it, what I said could be an illogical fallacy within particular context, but since in reality I offered to prove it in the subsequent sentence and have done so in this post; it is certainly not.

Your proof was just a bunch of illogical nonsense.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
What is more simplistic?

plurium interrogationum (15) the question presumes that one possibility is more simplistic than another when in fact they may be equally simplistic/complicated.

Because this question is being asked rhetorically it is also false dichotomy (16) for the same reasons.

Nice quote mining there! I wasn't asking anything rhetorically. I was asking KRISKALI777 to explain what he ment when he said "Similar to the Darwinian idea that we are derived from more simplistic Hominid species; similarly unsupported via lack of evidence." I saw the same problem with it than you did. How come you failed to comprehend that this was KRISKALI777's fail, not mine? Is it because this is DESIRABLE for you?

Originally posted by JPhish
This is circulus in probando (17) because you claim . . .

“There is no lack of evidence in the fossil record, because there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record”.

It is also a bare assertion falacy (18) because we are to believe your circular reasoning is true merely because you say it is.

It's a well known fact that there is a very complete fossil record. Denying facts is not going to advance your cause. There's some fallacy there too as this: “There is no lack of evidence in the fossil record, because there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record”. is not what I said. Straw man?

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Question goes, how about our common ancestor? Did it have 23 or 24 pairs of chromosomes?

plurium interrogationum (19) the question presumes that 23 and 24 are the only possible answers.

Again, because this question is being asked rhetorically it is also false dichotomy (20) for the same reasons.

A loaded question is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven. This has been proven, thus it cannot be a loaded question. Your claim of false dichotomy comes from your practice of quote mining. Later in that post I leave room for alternative explanations..

2 bare assertion fallacies (21) (22)
You would have us believe these things are true merely because you say that they are.

Again quote mining. I explain myself in the next few sentences of that post.

Yes, I “knew” this, waiting for how it is relevant to micro and macro evolution.

I told you how it's relevant.

bare assertion fallacy (23)
You would have us believe all of the above simply because you say it is so.

This is the part where understanding genetics might be of help. Telomere sequences certainly don't code for any proteins. In humans it's in 5" -> 3" TTAGGG over and over again. You can check all I said from the internet. It's not like people here link to scientific journals to support their claims or anything.

Again, how was this relevant to micro and macro evolution?

I've told you how it's relevant.

it’s causal oversimplification, or more specifically a false dilemma (24) taken to the extreme wherein you suggest that only one answer/explanation is appropriate; when in fact there are many other possible precursors.

Yet nobody has still given a plausible alternative explanation.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 07:20 AM by rhinoceros

But yeah once again you dodged the question.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 07:25 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
That’s not a bold prediction considering we’ve never found DNA from anything, let a lone a human, that was older than a half million years old.
source
Since in all likelihood we will NEVER find human DNA that old; your “safe” prediction is simply foolish.

What a silly statement. You don't need any DNA for this. I've been saying it: understanding genetics is essential here. Maybe now you understand why?

[edit on 3-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 08:37 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by Kiltedninja

Yeah, >100years and onward is my bet.
Evolution is as believable as Christianity, Judaism, Islam -many have faith; with no tangible evidence!

That's so typical creationist lameness. Just a few days back you and I talked about this. You still have not replied to my last post. Really, no evidence? Open your eyes Christian! If your God was real it would for sure be ashamed of you.

p.s. I find it funny how creationists often try to hide their beliefs. "oooh I'm not a creationist, there's just no evidence for either side and that's why I believe in Jesus"

[edit on 3-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply posted on 3-5-2009 @ 09:51 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
P = I understand the connection
Q = I answer your question

If P, then Q
⌐Q is undesirable for you (because it doesn’t animate your straw man)
Therefore ⌐P

Argumentum ad consequentiam

You know what the real fallacy is here? It's the truth value of you premises. I really do want you to answer my question. There is a straw man here indeed. You created it! It's the same over and over. Oh, and RED HERRING!

p.s. You have indirectly said that Neanderthals were same species than us since your definition of species was ability to interbreed and you said that Neanderthals could today for sure interbreed with us (not actual words).

p.p.s You still have not explained:

1. Why there are telomere sequences are at centerish part of human chromosome 2?
2. Why human chromosome 2 has 2 centromeres?
3. Why the genes found in human chromosome 2 can be found in chimps, only in their case they're spread over 2 different chromosomes?

These three facts represent very strong evidence for common descent. It's exactly the kind of thing we'd expect to see if we shared a common ancestor. Do you disagree?

[edit on 3-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply posted on 4-5-2009 @ 06:05 AM by KRISKALI777

reply to post by rhinoceros

Again quote mining. I explain myself in the next few sentences of that post.

You reply to Jphish in this manner, but my friend mining quotes is far more fruitful than mining crap.
I never said I as a creationist, and I am certainly not a Christian.
So, before you go of in another tirade of accusations, please try to be a little less presumptuous!
Try and fortify your point of view with more than insults.

Also "Fossil records.......Bahhhh"

reply posted on 4-5-2009 @ 08:56 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Try and fortify your point of view with more than insults.

Kind of did that with this:

Just a few days back you and I talked about this. You still have not replied to my last post. Really, no evidence?

You of course failed to reply (again).

Once more?

1. Why there are telomere sequences are at centerish part of human chromosome 2?
2. Why human chromosome 2 has 2 centromeres?
3. Why the genes found in human chromosome 2 can be found in chimps, only in their case they're spread over 2 different chromosomes?

These three facts represent very strong evidence for common descent. It's exactly the kind of thing we'd expect to see if we shared a common ancestor. Do you disagree?

[edit on 4-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply posted on 4-5-2009 @ 10:09 AM by melatonin

reply to post by rhinoceros

lol, you're doing well. Perhaps you could add in more generally pseudogenes, ERVs, and transposons to the human chromosome 2 argument. But like you point out, unless the basic genetics is there you'll just get obfuscation and dancing.

I'm glad I read back a bit, I now remember why I haven't bothered here...

Have fun, rhinocerus.

reply posted on 4-5-2009 @ 12:11 PM by weedwhacker