10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

originally posted by: Starbucks
punctuated disequilibrium is nothing but creation

If that's the best you can do that's terribly pathetic. But then again, everyone who has read this thread already knows you're a clueless hack who doesn't even understand the very basics of the scientific disciplines being discussed and can't support any of your half baked statements with citations so I'm glad to see you have accepted your place in the paradigm as court jester to the ICR. Best of luck on your new position.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Starbucks
punctuated disequilibrium is nothing but creation

If that's the best you can do that's terribly pathetic. But then again, everyone who has read this thread already knows you're a clueless hack who doesn't even understand the very basics of the scientific disciplines being discussed and can't support any of your half baked statements with citations so I'm glad to see you have accepted your place in the paradigm as court jester to the ICR. Best of luck on your new position.

why dont you (instead) disprove that it is not creation episodes

a reply to: Starbucks

Because anyone who's taken high school algebra knows that you can't prove a negative. Regardless of the idiocy of your question, it still doesn't address the fact that you simply have not been able to come up with any legitimate response, a citation that backs up what you say or any type of response to me pointing out every fallacy you attempt to put into print as fact. Particularly you're last round about regarding harmful mutations and their alleged nonexistance. What are you doing? Simply copying fallacious data off of the ICR website and not checking to see if its true or not? Or is there more than one person replying from your account taking various shifts like you're selling slushies at a 711?

You made claims about falsified data that was misleading and lacking the full information you claimed existed. Where is your response to that? Where is the additional information?

You use entropy completely out of context.

You make false claims about the nature of mutations

You mock punctuated equilibrium while demonstrating you don't know anything about it

You make multiple and repetitive claims over the course of multiple threads like a door to door bible salesman and simply can NOT support a single one of your statements. You simply move to a other thread and begin the tripe anew as if people aren't going to remember the previous 24 hours of ad nauseum

It's sad to watch. Why not support your data, provide the sources for your information or simply admit you haven't got the faintest clue and you're trolling the forum for your own entertainment.

See, if you were at all sincere and serious about what you're saying you would respond, you would support and you would cite. But none of the above has occurred. And now that I have decimated every statement you bring forth you want me to attempt the impossible and DISPROVE creation hypothesis? You're balancing on the precipice of insanity right now, watch your footing or you'll certainly topple down.

a reply to: peter vlar

Holy # I felt that Peterslap from here
Remind me never to pee you off.
Great stuff Peter .
Oh and great thread krazy.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: peter vlar



Holy # I felt that Peterslap from here

Remind me never to pee you off.
Great stuff Peter

.
Oh and great thread krazy.

Hahahaha. I just spit my drink out laughing so hard when I read your line about the Peterslap lol

You my friend, have no worries about raising my ire. I can assure you of that. I enjoy your posts immensely.

The only thing I can think of you could do to engage my wrath would be to change your avatar! There's something about primates scrubbing down a cat that soothes me...

One fallacy or misconception you missed really pees me off when I hear at and I heard it again from someone recently who should know better. When I hear this I lose all respect for that person as a sentient being. The question is " If we come from monkeys why don't we have tails?" Ahhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrggggg!!!!!!
We come from apes (or common ancester) and apes don't have tails. No one ever said we came from monkeys.

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

How are they the same? I've never understood that. Species to Species evolution has never been witnessed. Therefore, MACRO evolution IS different. It's not just a "long term process" I very much doubt that strain of E-Coli would have morphed into a frog if we'd given it the time. Granted, i'm being facetious, but you get the idea.

How are Macro and Micro the same? They count for 2 different types of evolution/development. One of which has been observed. The other, hasn't. MICRO evolution can not stand on it's own as proof of evolution from species to species. Therefore it's just a theory. Granted - a great theory and probably one of the best we have to try explain some of why we are here - But a theory nevertheless.

Like replies have mentioned - I truly believe the moment we stop trying to DISPROVE each other and realise this is 2 sides of a very confusing coin, the more progression will take place. It's all one-upsmanship at times and it's so misguided.

Or, it's Aliens.

The way the terms micro and macro are used in biology with regards to evolution are merely for taxonomic (classification) purposes. Basically, macro is used to describe when adaptations cause populations to no longer interbreed with each other. We would then technically classify them as separate species; however, it is really only an accumulation of adaptations over time. They are the same process. We know that DNA determines the morphological features of life on earth. We know that DNA changes from one generation to the next. We have a pretty good understanding of the mechanisms by which DNA changes. Whether we see one creature turn into something else entirely is irrelevant.

Exactly. They are 2 different terms with 2 different meanings. I haven't seen a spot of truth regarding species-species jumps. If this takes thousands or millions of years the same stands - we SHOULD be seeing changes from one species to another if evolution is happening...

I'm here for evolution - there's merit to it. It's not really THAT tough to believe that life on this earth has mated, evolved and adapted. We're all made up of pretty much the same 'stuff'. But there's SO much missing to the point where I feel it's silly how much people pin on it just because it's the "other option"

Like i said in my previous comment - it's more than likely 2 sides of the same coin when it comes to WHY we are here (you know the 2 sides i mean...)

a reply to: MrConspiracy

Exactly. They are 2 different terms with 2 different meanings. I haven't seen a spot of truth regarding species-species jumps. If this takes thousands or millions of years the same stands - we SHOULD be seeing changes from one species to another if evolution is happening...

We do see examples of speciation. Please note that every word in the previous sentence links to a different source with example of observed speciation.

I'm here for evolution - there's merit to it. It's not really THAT tough to believe that life on this earth has mated, evolved and adapted. We're all made up of pretty much the same 'stuff'. But there's SO much missing to the point where I feel it's silly how much people pin on it just because it's the "other option"

What, exactly, is "missing"? Evolution is the only explanation for biodiversity that currently has any evidence supporting it. And when I say "any", I mean "an overwhelming amount of".

Like i said in my previous comment - it's more than likely 2 sides of the same coin when it comes to WHY we are here (you know the 2 sides i mean...)

Can you explain how evolution and whatever other explanation for biodiversity you think may be right are "two sides of the same coin"? Or how they are both valid in terms of the evidence gathered?

a reply to: iterationzero

I can't read them all right now - I will though. I'm all FOR learning. Please know that - based on your tone you don't believe so.

I'm looking for answers just as much as the next person. All i'm saying is - "Evolution" doesn't give me the answers i'm looking for. It's an interesting theory but that's all I can take it for as of now.

I wasn't just talking about biodiversity. I'm talking about how people are so quick to say "evolution" when asked where man came from. At this moment, it's so misguided, it's untrue. Like i said - i'm sure it has merit and has the best chance of explaining a lot of unanswered questions. But for some reason i doubt it will answer the big questions.

a reply to: MrConspiracy

I can't read them all right now - I will though. I'm all FOR learning. Please know that - based on your tone you don't believe so.

I apologize if my tone was one of exasperation. You wouldn't have to look through many threads in this forum on ATS to find the same or similar information. Or you could Google "examples of speciation". Your assertion that we've never observed speciation would seem to indicate that you didn't look very hard for information. Again, if I'm wrong about that, I apologize.

I'm looking for answers just as much as the next person. All i'm saying is - "Evolution" doesn't give me the answers i'm looking for. It's an interesting theory but that's all I can take it for as of now.

What questions are you looking for the answers to in evolution and finding it lacking? If it's any question other than a way to explain biodiversity, you should be looking to evolution to explain it. Evolution is simply described as a change in allele frequency over successive generations within a given population. Anything beyond that is outside of its scope.

I wasn't just talking about biodiversity. I'm talking about how people are so quick to say "evolution" when asked where man came from. At this moment, it's so misguided, it's untrue. Like i said - i'm sure it has merit and has the best chance of explaining a lot of unanswered questions. But for some reason i doubt it will answer the big questions.

I guess I'm not understanding what you expect it to explain. When you ask "where did man come from", what are you really asking? We have an incredible amount of evidence supporting the concept that man evolved from earlier primates. What "big questions" are you looking to evolution for answers regarding? Because if it's anything other than biodiversity, you're looking in the wrong place.

a reply to: Starbucks

punctuated disequilibrium is nothing but creation

Is this another of your made up terms? If so you had better give us more of a definition than 'nothing but creation'.

Or is it a genuine typographical error? Do you mean punctuated equilibrium?

actually they were talking about diseuilibrium, but since you dont understand what they re saying. however diequilibrium or punctuated equilibrium does not exist it is just fancy words of dreamers.
but of course you take what ever they give to you and run with it like a champ

originally posted by: Starbucks
actually they were talking about diseuilibrium, but since you dont understand what they re saying. however diequilibrium or punctuated equilibrium does not exist it is just fancy words of dreamers.
but of course you take what ever they give to you and run with it like a champ

Just because you're completely ignorant and don't understand something, it doesn't make it any less real. It's nothing even remotely like what you're talking about and has been documented. Is English your first language? I only ask because of your atrocious spelling and grammatical errors on top of your errors in logic and knowledge.

oh now you are fetching typing mistakes to make your evolution claims.
they were talking about disequilibrium when they were talking about punctuated equilibrium.

hope no typing mistake s to live on troll

How about you try something new and support some of your ludicrous claims instead of pushing the blame off on others for your lack of education and interpersonal skills. You're posting is becoming less and less cognizant as you progress through the posts and the disjointed replies make it difficult to understand what the hell you're trying to say.

disequilibrium caused by extinction event, according to them ushered in punctutive equilibrium.


I d rather not to mention their crazy funny words so i dont remember such groth

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

a reply to: iterationzero

Ok, you chose to believe we came from primates. To an extent - we might have. But no, merely saying we came from primates gives me nothing.

Those who follow the evolution theory will always have more ammunition in a debate because it's physical. All i'm trying to get at is, I 100% believe we are more than just an advanced primate - I believe that mindset is illogical.

Primates exist. Humans exist. I haven't seen any credible evidence to suggest we are direct descendants. Please note the "direct" part of my sentence. I'm not saying, somehow, we aren't linked. It's often startling how similar (in some ways) we are to some primate species. Hey, who knows - we might find that missing link. Personally it opens just as many doors as it closes.

I've mentioned how FOR the evolution theory i am. It's massively interesting. I just dislike those who use it to bash anyone who believes anything outside of the physical (science). Evolution doesn't explain the origins of man nor does it explain the origin of species. I personally believe the answer to those questions are a lot more complex than the adaptation of a species.

Just a side edit - I hope you're all aware by my posts. I am not ignorant or some "crazy Christian who hates science" That's certainly not me. However, on this post I am aware i'm probably in the minority who doesn't believe science itself can answer everything - let alone our origins.

a reply to: MrConspiracy

What would you consider credible evidence for humans being primates?

a reply to: MrConspiracy

However, on this post I am aware i'm probably in the minority who doesn't believe science itself can answer everything - let alone our origins.

i would be interested in seeing a scientifically accepted fact that was not established using the scientific method. perhaps you can oblige.