The Three Fallacies of Evolution
| June 4, 2009 | Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design |
We routinely hear that the biological evidence proves evolution, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Recently PZ Myers made this claim for the fossil evidence and Sean Carroll for the molecular evidence. These evidences are often debated and discussed, but what is often missed is that this evolutionary reasoning is illogical to begin with. Philosophical failure is not a good starting point for discussion. Any debate needs to start with a clear understanding of the evidence and what it means. Unfortunately, such a starting point is difficult to come by. In fact, three different fallacies are routinely at work in the evolution genre. Here are quotes from Myers and Carroll, and an explanation of the fallacies.
Read more here.
83 Responses to The Three Fallacies of Evolution
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Frost, plants are complex eukaryotic organisms that are subject to the same evolutionary processes as animals are, and are presented with just as critical adaptive problems to solve.
Dave writes,
I have always asked for many transnationals showing connection across several significantly different complex taxa.
I do not know that much about genetics but I suspect you are wrong about the plants. My intuition tells me they can evolve more easily than complex mammals- Suspect they are more numerous for one and secondly since they are less complex it would take a shorter time for the diversity of their speciation.
Tiktaalik is some kind of an ancient fish- hardly a great example of a long evolutionary tree of life.
and I remind all at this post who still dare to question Macro evolution or universal common ancestry – that there are many Darwinian evolutionists looking for evidence of their theory day and night. The search for transitions, data and explanations for life’s origin is for them the search for the Holly Grail. So if you are unconvinced by the evidence know that the evidence they do have is the absolute best that they can muster. Make no mistake they have worked day and night to prove this theory.
Now with all of that said universal common ancestry is a logical possibility with some evidence but there is no reason why a person cant desire more evidence to be convinced. Questioning the theory even if it was true only opens up the discussion resulting in making people think, disseminating scientific information and literacy and promoting the pursuit of new questions and ideas. All of which is very important as we can do science for eternity but the motivations which guides our science are limited to the specific desires of man to peruse the enterprise.
Hi Frost,
You write:
I do not know that much about genetics but I suspect you are wrong about the plants. My intuition tells me they can evolve more easily than complex mammals- Suspect they are more numerous for one and secondly since they are less complex it would take a shorter time for the diversity of their speciation
Plant genetics are the same as animals, Frost. A moment’s reflection that the basic laws of inheritance were derived from studies of plants, not animals, should tell you that. Or were you thinking of the prevalence of polyploidy (multiple chromosome sets)?
I’m not sure what you mean by “evolve more easily”– by that do you mean adapt? And why did you switch from animals in general to mammals in particular? Do you think highly specialized orchids can adapt to changes in pollinators any more easily than mammals can adapt to changes in their environments? Are plant extinction rates lower than those of animals (I’m not sure myself).
Plant evolution is more like variation among species – and plants are a little easier to change than full fledged complex animals that die very easily if they inherit a mutation that can have bad consequences
Then why are there far more insect species than all plant species combined?
Yet we have mosquitoes that are 300 million years old- from the time of the dinosaurs but have refused to yield to those pesky random mutations.
The fact there are over 3000 species of them today suggests that quite a few mutations occurred in the lineage over that 300 million years
Good point in bringing up the insects. Because they are small they can reproduce in massive quantities because there is a large relative landscape for them to evolve.
Plants are less complex than most animal life forms. When a mammal begins to evolve it is so complex that there are many problems that have to be adjusted for a morphological trait to be carried on. Plants are not only more numerous and therefore have a greater population to evolve such traits but they also don’t have as many features and hence they don’t have as many problems to circumvent in order for a marco change to proliferate.
You can debate genetics for ever- it is much like debating mathematical formulas- of which there are many that are not in use. DE needs major fossil evidence showing a continuous linage between vastly different taxa and the logical step by step process that the various morphological changes evolved through.
Sketches and models count for nothing outside of a firm fossil record. This is the obvious truth that has encouraged devout materialist evolutionists to fake several transitional fossils.
Dave those small mutations have nothing to do with what we are discussing about marco change. You know as well as I that no one id debating variation among kinds or species-
The theory of universal common ancestry makes a gigantic claim and gigantic claims require gigantic evidence.
That’s your big beef?
Quite literally “don’t fix what ain’t broke”.
For those interested, the Journal Evolution: Education and Outreach has an issue devoted to transitional fossils (and its available free online!!!):
http://www.springerlink.com/co.....&pi=0
Hmm..link doesn’t work.
http://www.springerlink.com/co.....v=expanded
Darwinism continues to conflate evolution with adaptability. They are not the same.
3,000 species suggests the adaptability of mosquitos, not the evolution of the mosquito.
As other posters have pointed out (using other animal examples), mosquitos are still mosquitos. The evolutionary rollout of the mosquito is finished. It is now exhibiting the specified plasticity of its genome (its adaptability).
It’s like that basic screensaver where you see the ball bounce from all sides of the screen. Mosquitoes, like all other animals are confined to a specific adaptive range. They can bounce around but they can never breakout from the adaptive room they are confined to.
Further to my last post, the fact that there are 3000 species of mosquitoes seems to show that mosquitoes’ adaptive capability is sufficient to stabalize its genome over time.
It therefore has no pressure to transform itself into some non-mosquito form in order to continue on.
Mr Oramus,
Mosquitoes, like all other animals are confined to a specific adaptive range.
Do you have some science to back this up, or is it just wishful thinking?
Mr Frost122585,
I have always asked for many transnationals showing connection across several significantly different complex taxa.
Assuming the example given of ants and wasps was not sufficiently different, would you be convinced if someone could show that all the different kinds of mammals, bats, whales, horses, humans, etc., were all related in some branching tree of gradual change?
How can one tell the difference between a transitional fossil and phenotypic plasticity?
You can’t.
Transitional fossils are ASSUMED based on the overlying assumption that (universal) common descent has occurred.
What the theory of evolution needs is genetic data which links to form.
That way we could test the premise that such changes are even possible.
As for Tiktaalik, there are air-breathing fish alive and well in the Amazon River today.
And they ain’t on their way to becoming land animals.
IOW Tiktaalik is a transitional only because the theory requires it to be.
There isn’t any genetic data to support the transition.