Replies

At the start of this thread I asked a question regarding where the proof for this line of thinking lay. Then I was blasted when I disagreed that what was being profered up as "evidence" was actually evidence. I never made any claim of any kind, but then I was expected to provide "proof" for claims I never made. Is this not referred to as a strawman argument or red herring attack?

Sorry you are feeling insulted.

Your comments to me, unfortunately, had the same effect.

You asked for evidence for evolution. That's no problem; science deals in evidence.

I provided some evidence, both data (photographs and descriptions of several of the important fossil specimens) and interpretation (a chart showing the best guess at their relationships. If I remember correctly, I provided some information on my personal experience with the casts of these specimens. This represented my own study and learning, not something that was second hand.

Your answer was to wave it all away. No discussion, no evidence, nothing. That's not the way science works; if you have evidence, you should present it. If you have really good evidence you can overturn existing theories.

If your objections are based on religious belief, you should state that and that will suffice. But to many of us it is insulting to be told that after several years of grad school studying a science, and perhaps 10, or 20, or 30 years of additional learning, that we know nothing about the fields in which we work. Unfortunately, we are seeing a lot more of that on these threads lately.

Then I was blasted when I disagreed that what was being profered up as "evidence" was actually evidence.

This is because you did not actually explain any faults with the evidence, but instead dismissed it without even demonstrating that you had examined it.

Suggesting that evidence isn't actually evidence at all is a claim, and a significant one at that. It is not unreasonable at all for people to ask you to back up what you say with evidence of your own. If you're expressing an opinion instead of a statement of fact, then you don't really need to support it. However, be aware that the market is flooded with opinions and they are not worth very much.

In argumentation, a strawman and a red herring are two different things.

The strawman argument is best explained with an analogy. It is like building a scarecrow out of straw, dressing it in the livery of your opponent, and then beating it up. Making a strawman argument entails constructing a weak caricature of your opponent's argument so you may easily more destroy it.

Where the strawman is based on misrepresentation, the red herring is a diversion or distraction from the issue at hand. It is a means of making your point through irrelevancy. A common example is the "do it for the children" argument. Many times, "but what about the children" is a distraction from the issue at hand, and the issue of children is not relevant to the discussion.

"I provided some evidence, both data (photographs and descriptions of several of the important fossil specimens) and interpretation (a chart showing the best guess at their relationships.

So, best guess is evidence? Photos of skulls which show structural similarities (along with many dis-similarities), but don't explain how one turned into another is evidence? I'm sorry that I cannot connect non-existant dots like those who profess to know these dots exist in the first place. Again, I'm unable to fathom where the actual evidence exists for the "theory" except to be told that the evidence does exist. No-one has demonstrated the connection from one skull to another other than they are marginally similar. No-one is looking at any other possible reasons for this either because they've become too convinced of their own evidence being all that is necessary. For religious, moral, and scientific reasons I cannot accept that some ape evolved into modern day humans. Especially in the absence of concrete date which shows the evolution from one into the other. If there is truth to this claim, and after the millions of years between then and now, you'd think that someone would identify/find evidence of other fossils closer to either one of the ones currently used to support the claim. That fossil evidence doesn't exist. so, conjecture and supposition is used in order to explain what has not been found. People cannot use extrapolation and interpolation as "proof" that what they say exists, exists. And, simply because someone doesn't agree to what someone else claims is, doesn't give someone the right to "put them down". As stated earlier, I asked a question, and was set upon when I didn't agree with the claims of evidence. As stated earlier, I made no claim of having any proof or disproof, but wanted the evidence that fully supports the theory. No-one provided, so I disagree.