It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 79
65
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

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.



I told you how –telemore sequences are- relevant –to macro and mirco evolution-.
when did this happen?



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




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
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?

You don’t need DNA to KNOW how many chromosomes a creature had? Are you sure about that Tex?


Originally posted 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!
red herrings are illogical and off topic, what I’ve been saying has hardly been either . . .


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).
i didn’t say that they could definitely interbreed with us; I said that they could possibly produce fertile offspring with us. There is a difference.


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?

Why should I attempt explain these things??? The only claim I have made is that your stance is conjectural.


These three facts represent very strong evidence for common descent.
if you impose your thoughts on them, sure.


It's exactly the kind of thing we'd expect to see if we shared a common ancestor.
exactly???
Are you saying that some one hypothesized that we would discover 1 2 and 3 based on the evolutionary theory before 1 2 and 3 were actually discorvered? That would be amazingly strong evidence. Too bad that’s not what happened. What happened is evolutionists discovered 1 2 and 3 ex post facto and then said, “This fits with our theory.”

Nice “shooting” Tex . . .

It’s also “exactly” what we’d expect to see if Aliens created us from chimps;
Or if G*d created all of these things;
Or if my pet dragon exists . . .

[edit on 5/5/2009 by JPhish]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
There is nothing to discuss here evolution is inbuilt it flows with time and transcends life... We may as well go back to discussing whether the world is flat or round.

Hang on that just got me thinking, if you viewed our planet from a higher spacial dimension it would appear to be a flat hologram whose inhabitants perceive 3 dimensional space. So essentially it is flat.




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


"Are you saying that some one hypothesized that we would discover 1 2 and 3 based on the evolutionary theory before 1 2 and 3 were actually discorvered? That would be amazingly strong evidence. Too bad that’s not what happened. What happened is evolutionists discovered 1 2 and 3 ex post facto and then said, “This fits with our theory.”"

They have used evolutionary theory to predict what a certain fossil will look like when discovered, and been correct. You really should have some grounding in the science before you starting dissing it.

BTW, immunologists use evolutionary theory to work on flu vaccines. "Not in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." You may hate that, but it's a fact.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


First of all let me congratulate you on derailing the discussion for so long.



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.

It reads: There is plenty of evidence around. But where is this lack of evidence seen? Well it's certainly not seen in the fossil record. I could have continued that this supposed lack of evidence is also not shown in comparative anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, geographical distribution of species, antibiotic resistance, etc., but I figured that this was not necessary.

You committed a fallacy there, I believe it's called Straw man: an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I did not say: “There is no lack of evidence in the fossil record, because there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record”.. I said that there is no lack of evidence and that there certainly is no lack of evidence in the fossil record. Where did I exclude this evidence to only belonging to fossil record? This is needed for your accusation of my circular reasoning. Of course I did no such thing and thus you're guilty.



. . . The question presupposes we had a common ancestor (loaded question) and that it had 23 OR 24 chromosomes. (False dichotomy)

Okay fine, you got me there. This should have been rather obvious from context but I guess I should have said: Question goes, how about our common ancestor that the theory predicts? Did it have 23 or 24 pairs of chromosomes? Are you satisfied now?



Explaining illogical fallacies with illogical fallacies doesn’t count.

You should know.



when did this happen?

In my post to which I've already given a link.



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.”

Be more specific. What exactly is my bare assertion fallacy here? The way I see it you're just guilty of one more Straw man.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
You don’t need DNA to KNOW how many chromosomes a creature had? Are you sure about that Tex?

Yes. Here is an example.


Originally posted by JPhish
red herrings are illogical and off topic, what I’ve been saying has hardly been either . . .

Nevertheless I showed that the truth value of your premises was incorrect. Hmm.. Straw man?



i didn’t say that they could definitely interbreed with us; I said that they could possibly produce fertile offspring with us.

So you said that they were possibly same species than us. Then you also said (if my memory serves me right) that they were exactly like us (might have been another member). Great.



Why should I attempt explain these things??? The only claim I have made is that your stance is conjectural.

Because they make a good case for evolution.



Too bad that’s not what happened. What happened is evolutionists discovered 1 2 and 3 ex post facto and then said, “This fits with our theory.”

Bare assertion fallacy! Actually that's more than just a logical fallacy. That's a pure lie.

You see this telomere fusion event was hypothesized at least as early as 1982 (The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy: Science, Vol. 215, 19 March 1982). I'm sure with a little effort I could find earlier articles.

The discovery of those telomere sequences was announced in 1991 (Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 88, October 1991).

Let's review:



Are you saying that some one hypothesized that we would discover 1 2 and 3 based on the evolutionary theory before 1 2 and 3 were actually discorvered? That would be amazingly strong evidence.

That's exactly what I said and that's exactly what I showed the case to be. You said it yourself, amazingly strong evidence. Consider yourself PWNED.
Are you one of "us" now?



It’s also “exactly” what we’d expect to see if Aliens created us from chimps;

Bare assertion fallacy!



Or if G*d created all of these things;

Bare assertion fallacy!



Or if my pet dragon exists . . .

Bare assertion fallacy!

[edit on 5-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Their is no need to be condescending when you have the facts on your side.

People can accept it or not accept observable science but even when you are trying to debate something as undeniable as evolution their is no reason to be offensive.

Also, you might want to accept that some people aren't really trying to find the truth, they just want to argue.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


WHY is it that YOU, 'rhinoceros' [sic] can 'parse' so well??

I am asking only because, based on MY experience here at ATS, it has taken me a great deal of time to be able to navigate the site.

I find it incredible when 'members' pop up with incredible skills, what I mean is, the ABILITY to navigate and 'quote' and pull outside 'sources'...Wow!!!! Even when you are just a 'new' member???!!!????

I expect that Mods will see this, eventually. They are GOOD at it, and will find out the 'provacateurs', when they have time.

My two cents.....



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ah hominem



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


One can pull quotes from out of a hit at will, etc.
And yes Rhino.....I did read your posts regarding DNA and genomes; but this is not a science of absolutes either.
About the only things "evolving" are the Theory of Evolution itself, and also the theory of the Genome and Genetics as science, per say.
Contemporaries of Darwin, e.g: Huxley, had problems with his theory- as do individuals today.
The truth is : Until proved with no doubt; Evolution will remain a theory; and not a Law.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


"The truth is : Until proved with no doubt; Evolution will remain a theory; and not a Law. "

The fact if evolution is well-known to literate people. The process by which evolution works is still being studied. It will remain an theory until rock solid proof is found as to the exact mechanism. Then it will be deemed a Law.

Note the difference between my statement and yours.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Evolution is still only a theory.

Darwin might have thought twice about publishing his theories if he'd had access to today's medical and microbiological discoveries. Drawing on years of research, the almost infinite complexity of the human anatomy simply could not have developed by chance. In other words would a car be complex if it was here by chance? NO!!!!

For example:

* the body runs on "battery power"...from the hundreds of mitochondria in each cell
* the two sexes-evolutionary theory cannot explain why they exist
* every cell is its own pharmacist, chemist, and metallurgist
* The brain resembles a continent swept by electrical hurricanes and chemical tidal waves that somehow make sense out of reality
* A fertilized egg makes a journey as complex as the path of a golf ball that rolls 30 miles and lands precisely in the 18th hole of a course it's never seen.
* The immune system contains multiple defenses that confine trillions of microorganisims to your skin.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


Once more: HOW evolution works is a theory. THAT evolution works is a fact. Despite the fractious resistance of the religious right, evolution is a fact.

However, do feel free to take medicines design 50 years ago, that haven't been adapted to meet the evolution of the diseases they're were treating then. They won't work now, but hey, evolution is just a theory.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Like I said it is just a theory. I didn't say I didn't agree with it. In fact I do agree with it, I just think there is more to it than chance. We're not here in America with a lower middle and high class and emotions by chance. Money does not have Illuminati written all over it by chance.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


What part of evolution do you think requires more than "chance"?

And, if there was a "motive force", why did he/she/it allow the planet to have over one billion years of life with nothing higher than a slime mold?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


The fact that the universe is oh so perfectly constructed that the atoms would take shape and form to your conscious being is amazing in itself, and any God would be able to shape the Universe that way. There is a reason people debate their reason for being here and that reason is being.

Out of nothing comes nothing, even the concept of nothing. The Big Bang happened too, but why the most powerful explosion in the history of the universe happened isn't explained. You can explain how but not why. The part of us that asks why isn't there by chance either. If there was nothing but a singularity before the universe formed or popped into existence, why was it there? That would mean there was something beforehand, but at the same time not because time only exists here. Space and time came to be at the same time thus are one in the same, and our perception is limited by the universe. Again back to Darwin, we do perceive but why we perceive is another question.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


The Universe is NOT "finely tuned" for life. Most of the Universe is hard vacuum. Stupidly designed at best.

As for "nothing comes from nothing", that would include a god, would it not? Who created your creator?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


yes yes....I got lazy! the Genome comment was aimed at Rhino, the other at Wheat grass or what ever( sorry). You may have said the same thing- tie me down and whip me, but most times (unless totally captivated by the banter), I usually am replying directly to posts aimed at me.
Although I am not as well read as some on this subject- there is no evidence to commit me to a point of view that is otherwise from what I have already expressed- Its a theory- until proven.
We can argue about all the what-ifs etc. But; its still unproven!
Until another great scientist, is able to complete Darwins work- thats where it will be. just as Einstein needed someone to complete his "unified field equations"; it didnt happen over-night- and they are still not complete.
Great theory; but , weather to hard to prove because of its overly simplistic nature, or just lack of repeatable observable data: It remains a theory.
Anyone whom is cocky enough to dispute this, may go and find the evidence needed to prove it, then post it- then once it is accepted by academia as law; you will have my allegiance, my trust, and my unerring respect.
Until then........



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


You need to separate the fact from the theory. Evolution is a fact. How it works is still a theory. That's the basis of modern biology.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


If the whole thing wasn't finely tuned we wouldn't be here. Part of that might require mass expanses of emptiness. Gravity must work in the way it does. I don't know the reasons for God to design everything that way.

What I do know is asking if something created God is a logical fallacy as God is eternal and does not exist within the boundaries of space and time meaning no aging or beginning for that matter.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join