BroJoeK Said,
“In fact I responded precisely and in detail to your rate-of-mutation post, but since you didn’t like the answer you now pretend I didn’t make one.So how honest is that “logical fallacy”?”
No, you did not refute the science and findings of the slowed mutation rate for human DNA in the science article I posted.
You also said,
“First, why is the probability 100% that posters who announce themselves with gaudy discussions of “logical fallacies” invariably end by blasting away with such a load of garbage-talk?”
First that was a copy from Redroller in response to your attack on my intelligence and your tactic of dumping text to make up for the lack of substance in your response.
You also said,
“Second, why is it that if I simply delete all that garbage-talk, there are no serious arguments to be found in your post?”
There are logical arguments in that response augmented by the General Theory proponents common method of ridicule. You tried to use ridicule and derision on me - turn about is fair play. Further, presuming a low education level of a poster online is never a good idea...
“Basic evolution procedes one mutation at a time, as sorted out by natural selection — and those are confirmed observations. So if you claim that it’s “impossible” to “get here from there”, then it is you not evolution theory who is making the “argument from ignorance”. In essence you are saying: “just because I can’t figure it out, therefore it can’t happen”.”
No I am saying I can figure out you are using the logical fallacy of begging the question as well as the burden of proof fallacy for failing to provide actual data from scientists living in this world today with knowledge and testable, observable, repeatable data showing that evolution is true that does not engage in logical fallacy.
You also said,
“But in reality, the world is full of “intermediate forms”, both living and fosilized, separating different breeds, sub-species, species, genera, families, orders, classes, etc. And degrees of similarity or separation — previously guessed at — can now be determined through DNA analysis.”
Not true, again nothing more then logical fallacies intermixed with conjuncture, assumptions and unsupported theories presented as fact. And no, there have been no valid “intermediate forms” found.
You also said,
“Every year new fossil discoveries are made and new “intermediate forms” found — your example of bird evolution being a prime subject. The discoveries show that birds did not evolve all at once, but over many millions of years, each new advance improving the creatures’ abilities to move faster and higher.”
Again Logical fallacy, a bird is still a bird is still a bird. The fact is adaption has been shown to be primarily a result of existing coding within the DNA. Further like the Finch Beaks, City Dweller Nose hair density, etc the “mutation” reverts when the environmental stimulus is removed.
An example is antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the current capstone of the General Theory proponents. The argument is this is proof of evolution because the bacteria has “evolved” to resist modern antibiotics. The problem is modern science does not support this argument. The logical fallacy involved collapsed when it was discovered drug resistant bacteria is natural and has existed long before the drugs that bacteria are “evolving” to resist existed.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034953
“The implications of this study are significant to our understanding of the prevalence of resistance, even in microbiomes isolated from human use of antibiotics. This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard wired in the microbial pangenome.”
You also said,
“ Next, your critique of Stephen Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium” idea is way off the mark, in both mischaracterizing Gould and purporting to refute him.
In fact, the basic idea of “punctuated equalibrium” makes perfect sence (no “logical fallacies”) once you understand that creatures perfectly adapted to their environments do not change so long as the environment doesn’t change.
But once their environment does change — which can happen slowly over long periods, or sometimes nearly instantaneously — then creatures must either change or die.
And if some creatures change too slowly then they can be replaced by others quicker, smarter, better adapted to new conditions. That’s “punctuated equilibrium”.”
So where are the new species? The fossil record shows they all appeared fully formed. That does not help your argument. The rest of your argument was mantra not science.There is no evidence such occurred that does not use logical fallacy.
You also said,
“Somewhere I read the fossil record shows most distinct species only last a million years or so before being replaced by others, perhaps closely related, but obviously distinct. That’s “punctuated equilibrium”.”
Except for the fact the fossil record shows only fully formed species.
I’ll leave you with what your fellow evolutionists say about the subject.
“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” (Darwin 1995, 60).” Darwin, Charles R. 1995. Quoted in The Life of Charles Darwin, [1st Edition - 1902], Francis Darwin – author. London: Senate, 1995, reprint.
“[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.”—*L. Harrison Matthews, “Introduction to Origin of Species,” p. xxii (1977 edition).
“A Belief in Evolution is a basic doctrine in the Rationalists’ Liturgy.”—*Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and Its Critics (1935), p. 53.
“The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.”—*J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
“With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.
A penguin is not an ostrich is not a parrot is not an eagle.
In the bird class, you have a wide variation in ability to fly, and other characteristics. In the fossil record, you have a number of intermediate (extinct) forms, such as Archaeornithes and Enantiornithes.
The earliest birds had claws on their wings, which would allow them to climb trees. Once in the trees, an ability to glide from branch to branch (like modern flying squirrels) would have given an evolutionary advantage.
From gliding branch-to-branch to flying short distances tree-to-tree would give another advantage, as would the ability to dive on prey from the tree branch and fly back to the branch.
In fact, I gave you a lesson in applied scientific theory, which you ignored because it doesn't fit your anti-science agenda.
The latest estimates of average mutation rates are somewhat slower that previous calculations.
That has been found to solve some mysteries, while raising new ones.
Therefore, I'm certain they will not be the last words on this subject.
Mechanicos: "in response to your attack on my intelligence and your tactic of dumping text to make up for the lack of substance in your response."
In fact, I have not attacked your IQ, since I'm certain it is quite high.
But I'm equally certain, based on your several lengthy posts here that you understand nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about science, scientific theory and terminology.
And the reason is as clear as day: it's because you despise real science, scientists and scientific ideas.
Therefore your goal, your purpose, your very reason for being here is neither to discuss nor debate scientific ideas, but simply to mock, scorn, ridicule, insult and disparage them with all your soul and all your might.
So I have not insulted you, but simply pointed out the truth.
Mechanicos: "You tried to use ridicule and derision on me - turn about is fair play.
Further, presuming a low education level of a poster online is never a good idea..."
I neither "ridiculed" nor "derided" you except to point out the truth, which is that you hate science.
Mechanicos: "No I am saying I can figure out you are using the logical fallacy of begging the question as well as the burden of proof fallacy for failing to provide actual data from scientists living in this world today with knowledge and testable, observable, repeatable data showing that evolution is true that does not engage in logical fallacy."
Such a long sentence to say so little!
First, your whole argument here is a "logical fallacy" from beginning to end, since it understands nothing of actual Evolution Theory.
Second, a listing of facts confirming Evolution Theory is available in any book on the subject in any library or book store.
So if you cared in the least about science itself, you'd make some effort to learn the facts and correct terminology.
Mechanicos: "And no, there have been no valid “intermediate forms” found."
In reality, every individual is an "intermediate form" between its ancestors and descendants.
And since we've established that there is a normal rate of DNA mutation -- be it one per billion base-pairs per year, or something else -- we know that every generation accumulates minor changes from those before.
We also know -- by confirmed observations -- that if some of these mutations improve survivability, natural selection will pass them on to future generations.
And that's evolution, in a nut-shell, pure and simple.
Mechanicos: "Again Logical fallacy, a bird is still a bird is still a bird."
Here is where your alleged high IQ and advanced education become seriously in question.
In fact, the word "bird" is just that, a word, which scientists by common agreement apply to certain animals and not others.
By biological classifications, birds are not a breed, nor sub-species, species, genus, family or order.
Instead, they are a class of animals, whose earliest predecessors are found in fossils dated over 150 million years old.
So the huge variety of "birds" we see today -- from sparrows, ducks and hawks to penguins and emus -- has taken 150 million years of evolution to produce, at the rate of "x number" of average mutations per billion base-pairs per year.
Mechanicos: "An example is antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the current capstone of the General Theory proponents."
Because you hate Evolution so much, you refuse to understand even its most basic ideas: descent with modifications and natural selection.
Disease resistant bacteria are obvious cases of natural selection.
How much actual genetic modification has occurred in existing strains is a matter for scientific inquiry, but the basic idea of evolution is supported either way.
Mechanicos: "So where are the new species?
The fossil record shows they all appeared fully formed.
That does not help your argument. "
In fact, Planet Earth is chock full of "new species", since the average species life before going extinct is five to ten million years (yes I looked it up, here).
This means that around 10% of all species are less than one million years old -- so they are "new species".
The age of "new species" can be estimated by comparing its fossils and DNA to those of it closest relatives.
Mechanicos: "The fossil record shows they all appeared fully formed."
Of course they are "fully formed", whatever that means.
They are also all "intermediate forms" between what went before and what came after.
The scientific question is, how closely related is each species to its ancestors and to similar species.
That can be determined through DNA analysis and physical comparisons.
Mechanicos: "I’ll leave you with what your fellow evolutionists say about the subject."
This "discussion" concerns the scientific theory of evolution, not the existence of God or veracity of the Bible.
On the latter subjects, I accept the teachings of most Christian Churches, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and "mainline" Protestants, namely: that Evolution is a scientific theory which can help explain how God created the Universe and life on Earth.
Evolution theory neither contradicts nor denies basic biblical ideas expressed in Genesis and elsewhere.
So a difference between "theistic evolutionism" and atheistic evolutionism is simply the theistic view that we are God's intent and purpose, His reason for Creation, while atheists can never find a reason, purpose or intent in creation.