[AntiGuv]

You seem to be confused. The theory of evolution is not deductive logic; it is inductive logic. Here's a general rule of thumb if you wish to sound more vaguely knowledgeable in the future. When you go from general principles to specific outcomes, you are employing deductive reasoning (albeit not very well in your case, it seems). When you go from specific facts to general principles, you are deploying inductive reasoning.

[SmartCitizen]

You seem to be confused. The theory of evolution is not deductive logic; it is inductive logic. Here's a general rule of thumb if you wish to sound more vaguely knowledgeable in the future. When you go from general principles to specific outcomes, you are employing deductive reasoning (albeit not very well in your case, it seems). When you go from specific facts to general principles, you are deploying inductive reasoning.

Yes, I learned the distinction in Speech 100 class. inductive logic must follow the RULES of logic, and the monkey DNA hypothesis doesn't. As I said, the conclusion does not follow the premise - that makes it illogical. If you want to refute what I said, you will have to do it within the confines of logical rules. What I said was logically valid - I even gave an example of how the logic flows. You need to address that specifically. Not only does the conclusion not follow the premise (has nothing to do with it), but he law of the excluded middle applies. Third, the attributes of a part cannot be applied to the whole (similar parts does not imply similar origin); third, the word "similar" is not the same as "identical" - that is the fallacy of equovication.