Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Where Is The Evidence For Evolutionist Assumptions?

Recommended Posts

Considering the incoming of a few new people I figured I would rehash a favourite argument of mine which demonstrates the belief of evolution to be inherently unscientific.

 

When one considers the evidence given for evolution people may think of DNA, fossils etc.. What people do not consider is the hidden assumption that is assuming similarities are indicative of ancestry.

 

So to put my case simply what is the evidence that supports assuming similarities in fossils demonstrates ancestry between them, I am choosing to focus fossils since they are used for deep time common descent.... Please note- discussions of DNA are invalid on this thread.

 

Tied into this is the convergent evolution contradiction where evolutionists assume that similarities = ancestry, yet also realise that "convergent evolution" can occur whereby similarities form which have no relationship to ancestry.. Meaning that the assumption of similarities = ancestry is debunked by the evolutionists belief in convergence... (So we already know what the answer is ;) Just hoping some evolutionists who read this can get their heads around it).

 

http://evolutionfair...pic=5833&page=1

 

 

I will ask in advance that the evidence given will not be based on assuming similarities = ancestry... This is the thing you are being asked to support so to use something that is based on this assumption is committing the begging the question fallacy. In previous versions of this thread evolutionists (for some reason) feel that this is a logical answer... Sorry logical fallacies are not logical :)

 

Bonus points to evolutionists who can post evidence from a peer-reviewed article. Since apparently the evolutionists provide support for these assumptions despite I not seeing any hint of such, since most evolutionists do not realise they are making these assumptions.

 

 

 

Enjoy! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. And the rationale they have been giving us to counter our arguments of late are just pitiful. The level of logic they will sink to in order to 'save' their theory seems to have no bottom. Like the bottomless pit in the Bible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the homology argument? Common ancestry is an inference taken from the similarities. But it's not a conclusive proof that there is common ancestry as reason for this. They themselves already present an alternative to this with "convergent Evolution". But why exclude common design concept as the reason. Ah yes, they've excluded Design or Creation, a priori for unscientific, metaphysical reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When one considers the evidence given for evolution people may think of DNA, fossils etc.. What people do not consider is the hidden assumption that is assuming similarities are indicative of ancestry.

That seems like a thing that's pretty easy to validate. Aren't creationists always going on about how when things reproduce, they produce something that's very similar to them?

 

Please note- discussions of DNA are invalid on this thread.

OK*, but you don't get to use any source that contains the letter 'K'.

 

*Not really, I am totally going to bring up DNA later.

 

Tied into this is the convergent evolution contradiction where evolutionists assume that similarities = ancestry yet also realise that "convergent evolution" can occur whereby similarities form which have no relationship to ancestry..

Keep in mind that it's "similarities", not "similarity". To use an easy example, bats and birds both have wings. A totally naive classification scheme that only looks at that one feature might group them together, but if you look at the organism as a whole (or even the specific details of those features), the differences start to pile up quickly, and you're looking at choosing between one coincidence (two similar features developing independently) versus an incredible number of coincidences (a bunch more features developing independently but identically without leaving any morphological or genetic signs).

 

Meaning that the assumption of similarities = ancestry is debunked by the evolutionists belief in convergence...

You're combining two different ideas here. Common descent relies on the idea that all modern organisms will share some similarities based on how closely they're related. Convergent evolution is only counter to that if you think it means that all similarities will be due to those common ancestors.

 

It's not impossible that all of the similarities we observe are a result of convergences. The problem is that theory doesn't really predict a nested hierarchy of similarities, and does predict really strange intermediates that wouldn't fit in to a nested hierarchy at all. So far, the evidence seems pretty clearly in favor of one over the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. And the rationale they have been giving us to counter our arguments of late are just pitiful. The level of logic they will sink to in order to 'save' their theory seems to have no bottom. Like the bottomless pit in the Bible.

 

We'll just have to wait and see :)

 

 

Is that the homology argument? Common ancestry is an inference taken from the similarities. But it's not a conclusive proof that there is common ancestry as reason for this. They themselves already present an alternative to this with "convergent Evolution". But why exclude common design concept as the reason. Ah yes, they've excluded Design or Creation, a priori for unscientific, metaphysical reasons.

 

Good point Mark, assuming evolution is true and that similarities = ancestry is a priori excluding the design hypothesis from the table.

 

 

 

That seems like a thing that's pretty easy to validate. Aren't creationists always going on about how when things reproduce, they produce something that's very similar to them?

 

Perhaps you can explain how this validates assuming similarities = ancestry in terms of common descent?

 

 

*Not really, I am totally going to bring up DNA later.

 

I've specifically stated I want this thread to focus on fossils, if you want to discuss DNA create a new thread and I will reply to you there.

 

I want to split them up so there is less rabbit-holes to fall into, doesn't that sound fair?

 

 

Keep in mind that it's "similarities", not "similarity". To use an easy example, bats and birds both have wings. A totally naive classification scheme that only looks at that one feature might group them together, but if you look at the organism as a whole (or even the specific details of those features), the differences start to pile up quickly, and you're looking at choosing between one coincidence (two similar features developing independently) versus an incredible number of coincidences (a bunch more features developing independently but identically without leaving any morphological or genetic signs).

 

Perhaps however, how are the significant features chosen to be significant? As per Bonedigger's marvelous analysis evolutionists cherry-pick which similarities they wish to use and ignore the dis-similar aspects... Kinda disheartening for something claimed to be scientific, since it demonstrates subjective bias in data analysis.

 

Here is Bonedigger's continuation thread, if you want to discuss particulars of his analysis please do it there.

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5957

 

 

 

You're combining two different ideas here. Common descent relies on the idea that all modern organisms will share some similarities based on how closely they're related. Convergent evolution is only counter to that if you think it means that all similarities will be due to those common ancestors.

 

You're missing my point.

 

Here is a quote of my attempt to explain it to Greg :)

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5990&p=105959

 

 

Perhaps read what I wrote again...

 

You cannot assume that similarities = ancestry when you know that sometimes similarities are NOT due to ancestry... This contradiction means the assumption cannot be made AT ALL since there are some instances where it is defied. In which case you would need evidence in order to establish a relationship, NOT assume a relationship exists... (This is what my evolution did it thread was calling for, the foundational evidence which supported the assumption of similarities = ancestry... Still waiting for the evidence wink.png ).

 

Its very basic logic... If you know that sometimes X doesn't always equal Y then you cannot assume X equals Y, because sometimes it doesn't... This is where evolutionists need to revert to EVIDENCE (not assumptions), yet as per the evolution did it thread the evidence (and the experimental basis on which they are supported) is entirely lacking.

 

So as per the OP where is the evidence?

 

 

 

It's not impossible that all of the similarities we observe are a result of convergences. The problem is that theory doesn't really predict a nested hierarchy of similarities, and does predict really strange intermediates that wouldn't fit in to a nested hierarchy at all. So far, the evidence seems pretty clearly in favor of one over the other.

 

Could you explain this point again please?

 

Nested hierarchy is a human-made construct based on the assumption that similarities = ancestry, and that evolution explains the origin of species, hence to use it as evidence of evolution is the begging the question fallacy (as I explained in the OP :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps however, how are the significant features chosen to be significant?

I'm not sure it matters. Individual comparison of features should converge on a tree that put similarities due to ancestry closer than similarities due to homology given enough data.

 

You're missing my point.

I get your point, I just think you're overestimating the difficulty it causes. As I said before, if we know similarities can happen one of two ways, we should be able to get at least some idea of which one is more likely. It's possible that bats inherited their wings from a bird, and developed a bunch of mammal characteristics (and lost most of their bird characteristics) independently, but it's wildly unlikely compared to the alternate hypothesis, which is that they inherited their mammal stuff from their ancestors who were also mammals, and evolved the wing part on their own.

 

Nested hierarchy is a human-made construct based on the assumption that similarities = ancestry, and that evolution explains the origin of species, hence to use it as evidence of evolution is the begging the question fallacy (as I explained in the OP smile.png )

Constructing the tree only requires that similarities exist. The point is that being able to construct a tree based on those similarities that shows a nested hierarchy and fits with the fossil evidence (not to mention other independent lines of evidence) is uniquely predicted by common descent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it matters. Individual comparison of features should converge on a tree that put similarities due to ancestry closer than similarities due to homology given enough data.

 

Certainly it matters, if evolutionists are cherry picking their data then what good are their correlations?

 

Additionally I'm not hearing any evidence or justification for assuming similarities = ancestry

 

 

I get your point, I just think you're overestimating the difficulty it causes. As I said before, if we know similarities can happen one of two ways, we should be able to get at least some idea of which one is more likely. It's possible that bats inherited their wings from a bird, and developed a bunch of mammal characteristics (and lost most of their bird characteristics) independently, but it's wildly unlikely compared to the alternate hypothesis, which is that they inherited their mammal stuff from their ancestors who were also mammals, and evolved the wing part on their own.

 

You're still not getting it.. I am asking for evidence to support the claims that similarities = ancestry, not rhetoric based on said assumptions.

 

As I quoted in my explanation before

 

 

You cannot assume that similarities = ancestry when you know that sometimes similarities are NOT due to ancestry... This contradiction means the assumption cannot be made AT ALL since there are some instances where it is defied. In which case you would need evidence in order to establish a relationship, NOT assume a relationship exists... (This is what my evolution did it thread was calling for, the foundational evidence which supported the assumption of similarities = ancestry... Still waiting for the evidence wink.png ).

 

Its very basic logic... If you know that sometimes X doesn't always equal Y then you cannot assume X equals Y, because sometimes it doesn't... This is where evolutionists need to revert to EVIDENCE (not assumptions), yet as per the evolution did it thread the evidence (and the experimental basis on which they are supported) is entirely lacking.

 

Please respond to the blue parts. This thread is asking for evidence not more assumptions, thanks.

 

 

I think you are attempting to go the 'well it seems more logical than other explanations' route. Sadly this call for logical coherence is not coherent in itself since it makes a few deadly assumptions

 

- that you or others know all facts and information pertaining to the issue

- that you or others by knowing all the facts, therefore know all the options of causation (people used to think the sun was pulled by a flaming chariot, because that was the option they had wink.png )

- that what you deem logical is objective, rather than what YOU deem logical (which is subjective)

 

The fact remains that people debate issues all the time meaning what people think is "logical" may not be seen that way to others, (hence subjective), meaning "seeming logical" isn't a test of truth since to claim it is would invoke the logical problem of non-contradiction since opposing claims claimed "logical" by different people cannot both be correct at the same time.

 

Constructing the tree only requires that similarities exist. The point is that being able to construct a tree based on those similarities that shows a nested hierarchy and fits with the fossil evidence (not to mention other independent lines of evidence) is uniquely predicted by common descent.

 

Wrong. The tree is supposed to represent common ancestry, whereby the assumption of similarities = ancestry is used to that effect. Meaning you literally cannot use this as "evidence" because it is based on the thing you are being asked to support.

 

The morphological trees are based on (cherry picked) similarities in fossils so to claim that the fossil evidence fits it is stating what you are saying again in order to claim more merit.

 

What are these independent lines of evidence? Do they support assuming similarities = ancestry, without first making that assumption in the first place?

 

 

 

Also can I ask you to quote my posts in full please. Generally the only time I see people cut my posts down is when they want to cherry-pick responses and avoid the crux issues of my arguments. I'd like the readers to see the context of what you are replying to. Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common ancestry is an inference taken from the similarities. But it's not a conclusive proof that there is common ancestry as reason for this. They themselves already present an alternative to this with "convergent Evolution".

 

I think these sentences illustrate the issue quite well.

 

@Gilbo

 

Are you looking for http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

 

as 1a? a : an outward sign : indication

or 1b? b : something that furnishes proof

 

or something else when you're asking for evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these sentences illustrate the issue quite well.

 

@Gilbo

 

Are you looking for http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

 

as 1a? a : an outward sign : indication

or 1b? b : something that furnishes proof

 

or something else when you're asking for evidence?

 

Greg did you read my posts?

 

Then why try and quibble definitions?

 

Evolutionists assume similarities = ancestry with no evidence whatsoever... Evolutionists may try claiming that similarities exist therefore similarities = ancestry, yet this is not evidence for that assumption because it doesn't demonstrate that such a relationship exists, rather again it is simply assumed on the evolutionist... Which is the begging the question fallacy.

 

So to use your definition (so you have nothing to quibble over), what indicates that such a relationship exists, and how is this checked via experimentation which is the mainstay of the scientific method (which pertains to empirical science like Biology).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg did you read my posts?

 

Yes

 

Then why try and quibble definitions?

 

Are you, by implication, making the claim that I am trying to quibble. If so, please prove that I'm making such an attempt. Understanding what you mean by evidence helps me understand what you are saying. I have more questions as to what you mean, and no, I'm not trying to quibble with those questions either.

 

Evolutionists assume similarities = ancestry with no evidence whatsoever...

 

By "evolutionists" do you mean some, all, or the evolutionist position as it's commonly known?

 

 

 

Evolutionists may try claiming that similarities exist therefore similarities = ancestry, yet this is not evidence for that assumption because it doesn't demonstrate that such a relationship exists, rather again it is simply assumed on the evolutionist... Which is the begging the question fallacy.

If the proposition that similarities can be signs of ancestry, and they outline what those signs are - as a theoretical model, then it's not fallacious. To be fallacious, you would have to show where the model is being offered as proof.

 

 

 

So to use your definition (so you have nothing to quibble over), what indicates that such a relationship exists,

 

That definition was step one. I would expect any of my ancestors to be similar to me. I would expect human ancestors (if there is a predecessor) to be similar to humans. I would not expect a creature with gills to be 40 generations removed from my past. I recognize God may have given that ancestor gills, so I can't prove that ancestor didn't have gills, but I would expect that ancestor to be similar.

 

and how is this checked via experimentation which is the mainstay of the scientific method (which pertains to empirical science like Biology).

This is another place where I think the question isn't appropriate. Please let me explain.

 

Evolution, by which I mean macroevolution, is theoretical and part of a theoretical model. That model is informed by the understandings of biology which include heredity, mutation, etc. Those things are empirical, and from which the theory is derived. Some might say such a position is begging the question, and I would disagree WHEN it is not being offered as proof.

 

As an example of contrasts, one could argue a theory of ancestry based on biblical testimony. Notice that such a theory, which may have empirical elements, is still standing on the assumption that all results must conform to the testimony. It can still be true, as neither have been proven. Some might say that such a position is begging the question, and I would disagree WHEN it is not offered as proof.

 

I think it might be helpful to read media pieces on evolution with the idea that "this is the current argument" and not "this is what has been proven."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

greg: As an example of contrasts, one could argue a theory of ancestry based on biblical testimony. Notice that such a theory, which may have empirical elements, is still standing on the assumption that all results must conform to the testimony. It can still be true, as neither have been proven. Some might say that such a position is begging the question, and I would disagree WHEN it is not offered as proof.

 

 

greg, it's Ok to express your opinion here. You do get a bonus when you can link it to evidence but it is not necessary. What is not helpful is to question your own opinion. The expression, "nailing Jell-O to the wall" comes to mind when one cannot express an opinion.

 

I'm not putting your style down because asking questions to clarify is an important part of this forum. However, never reaching an opinion is just not helpful. The Bible says that "iron sharpens iron" so it's Ok to take a stand and be wrong. Learn from it and come back with more info. If you get it right then you can pretend like you knew it all along. ; ) The bottom line is that we learn from each other and this forum is designed to take a position and make your best argument for it and then see if anyone has better evidence or a better idea. No harm - no foul.

 

If you think about it scientists do not wait until they have proof until they begin testing. In fact it is the testing (getting things wrong - a lot) before they discover proof. It's the same here.

 

I can tell you from experience that it is not a pleasure to get it wrong here but I did learn from it. The Bible also says that "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy." I can tell you that even our most ardent adversaries here are still considered friends.

 

Hope I didn't overstep my bounds, I just wanted to encourage you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

greg: As an example of contrasts, one could argue a theory of ancestry based on biblical testimony. Notice that such a theory, which may have empirical elements, is still standing on the assumption that all results must conform to the testimony. It can still be true, as neither have been proven. Some might say that such a position is begging the question, and I would disagree WHEN it is not offered as proof.

 

 

greg, it's Ok to express your opinion here. You do get a bonus when you can link it to evidence but it is not necessary. What is not helpful is to question your own opinion. The expression, "nailing [/size]Jell-O [/size]to the wall" comes to mind when one cannot express an opinion. [/size]

[/size]

I'm not putting your style down because asking questions to clarify is an important part of this forum. However, never reaching an opinion is just not helpful. The Bible says that "[/size]iron sharpens iron[/size]" so it's Ok to take a stand and be wrong. Learn from it and come back with more info. If you get it right then you can pretend like you knew it all along. ; ) The bottom line is that we learn from each other and this forum is designed to take a position and make your best argument for it and then see if anyone has better evidence or a better idea. No harm - no foul. [/size]

 

If you think about it scientists do not wait until they have proof until they begin testing. In fact it is the testing (getting things wrong - a lot) before they discover proof. It's the same here. [/size]

 

I can tell you from experience that it is not a pleasure to get it wrong here but I did learn from it. The Bible also says that "[/size]Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy[/size]." I can tell you that even our most ardent adversaries here are still considered friends. [/size]

[/size]

 

[/size]

Hope I didn't overstep my bounds, I just wanted to encourage you. [/size]

Iron sharpens Iron is one of my favorite proverbs. I am grateful for your response, but I admit, I don't understand what you are saying.

 

I don't know that you understood what I was saying. I don't know that I said, "one cannot express an opinion" nor do I think I even implied that. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to try and say what you said differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not responding to your specific quote that I copied but I used it as an example quote for my comments. Let me try to make it a little clearer.

 

You ask a lot of questions and definitions rather than supply any information or opinions. We really want to know what you think or believe about these topics. Again, asking questions is par for course as well as asking someone to define what they mean but it should not be the bulk of anyone's contribution to the thread, in my opinion.

 

We are here primarily to discuss topics that we are interested in but not necessarily to use the forum as a library or tutor. Meaning that most of us do our research before we come to the particular thread we are interested in. It's not that we cannot learn as we go but most of us have developed some kind of opinion or evidence before we enguage in a topic.

 

Just think what would happen if everyone claimed no knowledge, opinion or expertise in a topic, we wouldn't go too far. I hope that is a little clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not responding to your specific quote that I copied but I used it as an example quote for my comments. Let me try to make it a little clearer.

 

You ask a lot of questions and definitions rather than supply any information or opinions. We really want to know what you think or believe about these topics. Again, asking questions is par for course as well as asking someone to define what they mean but it should not be the bulk of anyone's contribution to the thread, in my opinion.

 

We are here primarily to discuss topics that we are interested in but not necessarily to use the forum as a library or tutor. Meaning that most of us do our research before we come to the particular thread we are interested in. It's not that we cannot learn as we go but most of us have developed some kind of opinion or evidence before we enguage in a topic.

 

Just think what would happen if everyone claimed no knowledge, opinion or expertise in a topic, we wouldn't go too far. I hope that is a little clearer.

I spend a lot of time digging before I ask questions. I look up definitions, read what is posted, read links, watch the videos, etc etc.

 

So when I come across something that doesn't make sense, I really have to dig for what the person is saying sometimes.

And I say this with all love and politeness, when I read your comments on stasis, I don't think you're speaking to what the argument is saying, or my issue with your skateboard evolution thread. I've questioned Gilbo's logic before, and I'm asking questions again in this thread to see if where the issue is. You'll find that I make statements and arguments in the "dying they will die" thread, and actually agree 100% with Bonedigger's translation as he presented it. I've discussed back and forth on the interpretation of Jephthah in the Bible Q&A section. Coming to this thread, I don't know if Gilbo is making a cogent argument - or if he is and that it's not directed at what the evolutionary model represents, or if I'm wrong about something. So I have to ask questions. Of course, I still may be misunderstanding what you're getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

greg: So when I come across something that doesn't make sense, I really have to dig for what the person is saying sometimes.

 

 

That is kind of my point, you don't have to ask them to redefine what they are saying you can simply phrase it better yourself or if you disagree with their position you can state your own position. If there is a misunderstanding of terms it will become evident. That is usually how it works.

 

You said that when you read my comments on stasis that you didn't think I was speaking to what the argument was saying. That's fine, state what you believe it is. Asking me to clarify my argument would probably not produce anything different. I stated my position and that is that. I would rather that you would just disagree with my position or understanding of it and define it better yourself or present your better explanation. Then I would have something to go forward with.

 

Continually asking me to define what I mean usually will not change my opinion - just so you know.

 

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has "Evolution Did It" version 2.0 written all over it! *runs to get popcorn and big gulp* tongue.png

 

What do you think my odds are? wink.png

 

Are you, by implication, making the claim that I am trying to quibble. If so, please prove that I'm making such an attempt. Understanding what you mean by evidence helps me understand what you are saying. I have more questions as to what you mean, and no, I'm not trying to quibble with those questions either.

 

Read what I replied to Greg...

 

 

By "evolutionists" do you mean some, all, or the evolutionist position as it's commonly known?

 

Quibbling.... Case in point ;)

 

 

If the proposition that similarities can be signs of ancestry, and they outline what those signs are - as a theoretical model, then it's not fallacious. To be fallacious, you would have to show where the model is being offered as proof.

Evolution is not proposed as a theoretical model... It is claimed to be a fact... So I suggest you stop cherry picking your definitions on evolution etc...

 

Similarities in fossils are used as evidence for evolution are they not? Nobody is discussing "proof" here so why even mention it.... (so you can quibble)

 

 

That definition was step one. I would expect any of my ancestors to be similar to me. I would expect human ancestors (if there is a predecessor) to be similar to humans. I would not expect a creature with gills to be 40 generations removed from my past. I recognize God may have given that ancestor gills, so I can't prove that ancestor didn't have gills, but I would expect that ancestor to be similar.

 

And? Similarities within humans doesn't allow you to assume similarities within different organisms can be interpreted under the same lens... This is an unfounded extrapolation... I am asking for the evidence that supports this, do you have any?

 

 

This is another place where I think the question isn't appropriate. Please let me explain.

 

Evolution, by which I mean macroevolution, is theoretical and part of a theoretical model. That model is informed by the understandings of biology which include heredity, mutation, etc. Those things are empirical, and from which the theory is derived. Some might say such a position is begging the question, and I would disagree WHEN it is not being offered as proof. Nobody is claiming proof, it is offered as evidence... Hence my argument is sound.

 

As an example of contrasts, one could argue a theory of ancestry based on biblical testimony. Notice that such a theory, which may have empirical elements, is still standing on the assumption that all results must conform to the testimony. It can still be true, as neither have been proven. Some might say that such a position is begging the question, and I would disagree WHEN it is not offered as proof. Nobody is claiming proof

 

I think it might be helpful to read media pieces on evolution with the idea that "this is the current argument" and not "this is what has been proven."

(Blue writing mine)

 

 

Again evolution is NOT claimed to be a theoretical model, it is claimed to be a fact... Perhaps you can cite some creditable resources that stipulate that evolution is theoretical.. Can you support this claim?

 

Nobody is claiming proof here Greg so it is disingenuous to argue continue to make those claims. Similarities in fossils IS used as evidence for evolution hence your arguments claiming "proof" are debunked... Additionally there is no "proof" in science. only evidence; so here you also demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the sciences wink.png Hmmm

 

 

I spend a lot of time digging before I ask questions. I look up definitions, read what is posted, read links, watch the videos, etc etc.

 

Then you should have known that science doesn't have proof

 

So when I come across something that doesn't make sense, I really have to dig for what the person is saying sometimes.

And I say this with all love and politeness, when I read your comments on stasis, I don't think you're speaking to what the argument is saying, or my issue with your skateboard evolution thread. I've questioned Gilbo's logic before, and I'm asking questions again in this thread to see if where the issue is. You'll find that I make statements and arguments in the "dying they will die" thread, and actually agree 100% with Bonedigger's translation as he presented it. I've discussed back and forth on the interpretation of Jephthah in the Bible Q&A section. Coming to this thread, I don't know if Gilbo is making a cogent argument - or if he is and that it's not directed at what the evolutionary model represents, or if I'm wrong about something. So I have to ask questions. Of course, I still may be misunderstanding what you're getting at.

(Blue writing mine)

 

 

Then I suggest you refer to the previous incarnations "evolution did it" where you're questions were answered previously... Does this mean that whenever we answer your questions you do not concern yourself with remembering what we answer?

 

Suffice to say that the argument is coherent, (go back and read the thread and the OP), if it were anybody else I would gladly answer their questions, however Greg your conduct has demonstrated that you do not care about the answers we give only that you disrupt threads with constant red herrings via asking for definitions... Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary, that way you can check the definition yourself.... And if you think we are using a definition out of context then you can call us up on that... It would save much time on useless / pointless questions and more time discussing the matter at hand.

 

In otherwords Greg please stop acting like a Troll and try to derail threads with needless questions that do not refer to the issues in the OP / thread..

 

 

With that said, do you have evidence that supports the evolutionist assumption that similarities = ancestry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for bringing this back up but it was very late when I was posting last night and I struggled to say anything coherent, as such I missed this;

 

 

greg: I spend a lot of time digging before I ask questions. I look up definitions, read what is posted, read links, watch the videos, etc etc.

 

 

 

If you have looked up definitions, done a lot of reading on the topic, researched external links, watched videos on the subject and much more then your goal should not be to ask questions but to post your opinions.

 

Your statement above indicates that your goal is to ask questions and not to debate. Period.

 

This is the point that I and others are making. Is that clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for bringing this back up but it was very late when I was posting last night and I struggled to say anything coherent, as such I missed this;

greg: I spend a lot of time digging before I ask questions. I look up definitions, read what is posted, read links, watch the videos, etc etc.

If you have looked up definitions, done a lot of reading on the topic, researched external links, watched videos on the subject and much more then your goal should not be to ask questions but to post your opinions.

Your statement above indicates that your goal is to ask questions and not to debate. Period.

This is the point that I and others are making. Is that clear?

If it's to understand what is being said, I will continue to ask questions. The questions can help clear up implications and definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuff said.

 

I agree enough has been said :)

 

I would like everyone to revert their attention to the OP.

 

When evolutionists use similarities between fossils as evidence of evolution, on what basis are they supporting the hidden assumption of "similarities = ancestry"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they are hiding this assumption very well at all. Consider the human / chimp similarity.

 

It is often repeated that we are 98% similar. It is claimed that this is based on facts but are there hidden assumptions or a hidden agenda?

 

 

 

Only similar DNA sequences are selected for analysis. Sections that didn't line up were tossed out of the mix.

 

The chimp genome was sequenced to a much less stringent level than the human genome, and when completed it initially consisted of a large set of small un-oriented and random fragments. To assemble these DNA fragments into contiguous sections that represented large regions of chromosomes, the human genome was used as a guide or framework to anchor and orient the chimp sequence. Thus, the evolutionary assumption of a supposed ape to human transition was used to assemble the otherwise random chimp genome.

 

The fact remains that there are large blocks of sequence anomalies between chimp and human that are not directly comparable and would actually give a similarity of 0 percent in some regions.

 

The loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps and vice versa. This is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms since the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?

 

 

 

So it would seem that their assumptions direct their research.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-similarities-common-ancestry/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the incoming of a few new people I figured I would rehash a favourite argument of mine which demonstrates the belief of evolution to be inherently unscientific.

 

When one considers the evidence given for evolution people may think of DNA, fossils etc.. What people do not consider is the hidden assumption that is assuming similarities are indicative of ancestry.

 

So to put my case simply what is the evidence that supports assuming similarities in fossils demonstrates ancestry between them, I am choosing to focus fossils since they are used for deep time common descent.... Please note- discussions of DNA are invalid on this thread.

 

Tied into this is the convergent evolution contradiction where evolutionists assume that similarities = ancestry, yet also realise that "convergent evolution" can occur whereby similarities form which have no relationship to ancestry.. Meaning that the assumption of similarities = ancestry is debunked by the evolutionists belief in convergence... (So we already know what the answer is wink.png Just hoping some evolutionists who read this can get their heads around it).

 

http://evolutionfair...pic=5833&page=1

 

 

I will ask in advance that the evidence given will not be based on assuming similarities = ancestry... This is the thing you are being asked to support so to use something that is based on this assumption is committing the begging the question fallacy. In previous versions of this thread evolutionists (for some reason) feel that this is a logical answer... Sorry logical fallacies are not logical smile.png

 

Bonus points to evolutionists who can post evidence from a peer-reviewed article. Since apparently the evolutionists provide support for these assumptions despite I not seeing any hint of such, since most evolutionists do not realise they are making these assumptions.

 

 

 

Enjoy! biggrin.png

 

Its difficult to provide a single peer reviewed article that deals with what your describing. This is because evolution is universally accepted by those in the know and has been for over a hundred years. I came accross a book by HG wells the other day called the "science of life". It was published in 1930 and described evolution as a fact. This is before the molecular identity of evolution and inheritance was even known. So if we take it back to the basics, natural selection can be reduced to a few observations.

 

1) Organisms produce more offspring than is necessary to replace themselves

2) Offspring vary in their fitness, not all survive or reproduce.

3) The traits that increase fitness can be inherited.

4) Organisms always come from other organisms, vertically inheriting their genome.

 

We now also know

 

1) Natural selection is the mechanism by which adaptation occurs, as fitness is selected for over many successive generations.

 

So there arnt actually all that many assumptions involved in this. Pleading for special circumstances of creation is unwarranted and unncessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hewy: 1) Organisms produce more offspring than is necessary to replace themselves

 

 

This is a broad statement and is not always true or else there would be no extinctions.

 

 

 

hewy: 2) Offspring vary in their fitness, not all survive or reproduce.

 

 

This is true but difficult to justify in an evolutionary sense because they must not only survive but become more than they started out to be. Some must not only survive but advance to the next level of evolution.

 

 

 

hewy: 3) The traits that increase fitness can be inherited.

 

 

Can you give evidence how these new traits are acquired?

 

 

 

 

hewy: 4) Organisms always come from other organisms, vertically inheriting their genome.

 

 

"Other organisms" as in different from their parents or "other" in the sense of their own parents?

If it is their parent's genome then why the assumption that it must go straight up? What evidence do you have that the parent's genome will become more advanced and complex?

 

 

 

 

hewy: 1) Natural selection is the mechanism by which adaptation occurs, as fitness is selected for over many successive generations.

 

 

That's magical! Is this fitness just contained or expanded and made more complex?

 

If an animal has poor vision in the dark but sonar would that be natural selection or would it be that it was designed to be this way? What evidence do you have to prove your argument?

 

 

Assumptions abound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms