Originally posted 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.
wishful thinking(25)
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.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
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 apologize; in this case, I wasn’t quote mining, I misinterpreted what you said. +2 (23)
Isaw 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?no, I misinterpreted what that particular question entailed; again I’m sorry.
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.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
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?
No it’s not a straw man, what you said was DEFINITLY circulus probando. Simply because your circular reasoning may be true does not make it any less illogical. If I said
“There is no lack of apples in the basket, because there are plenty of apples in the basket.”
Even if there ARE lots of apples in the basket, it is still circular reasoning.
It was what you said but I changed it grammatically for clarification.
“Where is this lack of evidence shown? Certainly not in the fossil record, that's for sure.”
Paraphrased reads: no lack of evidence in the fossil record.
“There's plenty of evidence around.”
Paraphrased reads: there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record.
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.
. . . The question presupposes we had a common ancestor (loaded question) and that it had 23 OR 24 chromosomes. (False dichotomy)
Again quote mining. I explain myself in the next few sentences of that post.
Explaining illogical fallacies with illogical fallacies doesn’t count.
when did this happen?
I told you how –telemore sequences are- relevant –to macro and mirco evolution-.
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.
Oh I’m sorry; it’s not a bare assertion fallacy because you claim the evidence supporting your bare assertion fallacy is true? Are you serious?
This is what you’re essentially saying. “I have an undetectable pet dragon, he exists. You don’t understand him but I know he exists because he drinks Gatorade. You should believe he exists because Gatorade exists.”
You can check all I said from the internet.
Yeah, because being on the internet makes it true.
It's not like people here link to scientific journals to support their claims or anything.
Since you’re crying for a science article, here you go.
“read em and weep”
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...
Pretty much discloses that everything you’ve been talking about is merely conjecture.
I've told you how –telomere sequences are- relevant –to micro and macro evolution-.You keep saying that but I still don’t see where you did.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by JPhish
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.
I offered you several right here
Are you one of "us" now? 
