Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Three Fallacies of Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

Comments
I agree with that but evolution is a fact- the theory that you are referring to is the universal common ancestor hypothesis within Darwinian evolution. DE does seem to explain micro change within living organisms but not to new body plans. So if you mean the neo-darwinisn synthesis I agree it does need all extensive and living organisms to fall into a tree of life- and ID is perfectly compatible with this hypothesis. I think there is good reason to question universal common ancestry as fact though- even if one does think it is true they should remain somewhat skeptical and continue to question- as with nay theory such as special/general relativity. To hold a position without skepticism is to hold a "belief", dogmatic or religious. Darwinism is a dogma for many especially those advertising it as fact.Frost122585
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Alen you are asking me to prove a negative which is almost impossible...
No, I am just pointing out that the for the ToE to be true, all living and extinct organisms must fall into a pattern of a nested hierarchy of relatedness from a universal common ancestor.Alan Fox
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
Alen you are asking me to prove a negative which is almost impossible but I will point out as evidence that the lack of the multitude of transitional fossils expected to be found is evidence for the theory to be possibly incorrect. The truth is that there should be millions of these things show clear patterns - not small bones used to extrapolate an entire living creature that is then used to extrapolate an entire evolutionary sequence. I did a quick search today for real pictures of intermediate transitional fossils between marco taxa and the closest thing that i could find wa sa whale head with teeth. I mean the only example i could fined should a devolution from a more complex whale like creature that had teeth to out whales now that don't need teeth. Is that to be taken by me as the proof for a theory of universal ancestry full of billions of missing links?Frost122585
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
The theory of evolution does not say we will find one possible transitional fossil- it makes a much larger claim than that. It is all things are connected via a materialistic tree of life.
Yes, the claim is that all life that exists or has existed on Earth is descended from a common ancestor. So far, what has been found in the fossil record is not inconsistent with this prediction.Alan Fox
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
ALan, Is there an argument there? I am saying we need multiple fossils that show a linage. The continuity i am referring to is the continuous small scale change exemplified in fossils over millions of years as it pertains to one higher taxa orphing into anotehr. If you just have one or several ape like creatures that have close DNA signatures to human beings that is not enough to assume one evolved from another. You need to show the linage and that is where the amount and overall weight of the evidence builds the case. Steve Meyer still seems unconvinced and his more experienced mind is greater than my less experienced mind. The theory of evolution does not say we will find one possible transitional fossil- it makes a much larger claim than that. It is all things are connected via a materialistic tree of life. So there is no one silver bullet the case must be made with a preponderance of evidence which must ultimately be shewn with a multitude of good transitional fossils showing macro evolution between very different kinds of creatures. And cartoons and models do not suffice.Frost122585
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
Because universal common ancestry is not about finding a particular person based on their unique finger print- it is about showing a continuous transformation between species.
Who claimed continuity? The smallest possible change in a genome is a single nucleotide substitution. That is not continuous. It is a discontinuity.Alan Fox
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Nakashima wrote, "Why are you fixated on the volume and weight of the fossils? You can be convicted on the basis of a fingerprint, a piece of hair, a drop of blood. The weight of evidence is no longer measured on a scale!" Because universal common ancestry is not about finding a particular person based on their unique finger print- it is about showing a continuous transformation between species. Paulburnett, Why would make that claim above and than link to an article with no slides and no pictures?Frost122585
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
And is there any chance I could be taken off moderation also? I really have no idea why I was put on it in the first place.RDK
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Here's a simple question for IDists regarding the nature of micro vs macro evolution. What mechanism is there in nature that actively limits microevolution from changing into macroevolution? This is decidedly the center of the debate, and it's something the ID camp needs to answer. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same process in different scales; it is irrational to say that only one of them exists. When you seek to "refute" macroevolution, all you're doing is reducing micro to a minimum effect and pushing macro to a maximum effect, when in fact there is a spectrum in between. And since creationist terms are perpetually undefined, it's remarkably easy to employ a smokescreen and impossible to objectively determine what evidence would be required to support it. So now we're asking you. When do two recently diverged species descendants become sufficiently distinctive that macroevolution has occurred? What is the minimal requirement?RDK
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
"PaulN" (#11) wrote: "Who told you that there are hundreds of transitional fossils? Care to cite any comprehensive lists of such fossils?" It's not hundreds...there's lots more. Please take a look at Dr. Kevin Padian’s expert witness sworn testimony and slideshow which were part of his Federal Court appearance in the 2005 Dover trial - see http://ncseweb.org/news/2007/05/meet-padians-critters-001159 . This provides many examples and a clearly understandable explanation of transitional fossils.PaulBurnett
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Khan, You're off moderation. I guess we need parse out size and importance. I never claimed that a larger sized specimen would be "better", I only claim that a forensic view of evidence is not better, and that a complete specimen would be better also.Clive Hayden
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Clive, First, a jaw is not a "trace" fossil.. this term is reserved for marks in the substrate, e.g. burrows made by worms. second, of course a full skeleton would be better than a jaw bone. I don't see anyone arguing with you there. but this doesn't mean that "bigger" is always "better." a fossil of a precambrian organism the size of a thumbnail may be many times more valuable than, say, a complete woolly mammoth skeleton. finally, can you take me off moderation? i have been commenting for at least 6 months now..Khan
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Khan, ------"are you then saying that, if we could get DNA from, for example, precambrian organisms it would be worse evidence than the fossils we have?" Not at all. It would be good evidence. It would be good evidence that precambrian organisms had DNA :), but all we can do, so far, is collect fossils, and on that score, trace fossils are not "better" than full organisms, wouldn't you agree? I mean, a jaw bone here, and an feather there, are certainly not to be preferred over a whole specimen.Clive Hayden
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Nakashima, ------"CS Lewis was correct to rebut an argument from incredulity. However I wonder what his response to this other, very similar sentence from DMS Watson’s same paper in Nature (1929) would have been?" It would have been the same. Emphasis on the "and because no alternative explanation is credible" showing the hand that is being played by Watson.Clive Hayden
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Clive,
The most convincing evidence would be the heaviest, but since evolution doesn’t have it, they make analogous claims to trace evidence being “the best”, when, in reality, the analogy to trace evidence is a false analogy, and therefore the conclusion that “trace evidence” is the best has no purchase.
are you then saying that, if we could get DNA from, for example, precambrian organisms it would be worse evidence than the fossils we have?Khan
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Oh, and thanks for the C.S. Lewis reference Clive, that hit the nail on the head!PaulN
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of palæontology, and geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.
From what I've seen so far, including what I've mentioned already, I believe this statement stands highly contested in and of itself. This statement is another truth claim that has been well disputed by various evidences in all 3 fields mentioned. So even though the sentence conveys a slightly different message in this case, the validity of the message still stands contested according to the evidence. Also the last sentence really does help to reveal the mindset carried out by the person who stated it in the first place, which in my opinion leaves it open for even more scrutiny.PaulN
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Nakashima, ------"Mr Hayden, I was not making an analogy to forensics, I was pointing out that evidence comes in all shapes and sizes, and we now know that the most convincing evidence is not necessarily the heaviest." The most convincing evidence would be the heaviest, but since evolution doesn't have it, they make analogous claims to trace evidence being "the best", when, in reality, the analogy to trace evidence is a false analogy, and therefore the conclusion that "trace evidence" is the best has no purchase.Clive Hayden
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
CS Lewis was correct to rebut an argument from incredulity. However I wonder what his response to this other, very similar sentence from DMS Watson's same paper in Nature (1929) would have been? Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of palæontology, and geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible. Nakashima
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Mr Hayden, I was not making an analogy to forensics, I was pointing out that evidence comes in all shapes and sizes, and we now know that the most convincing evidence is not necessarily the heaviest.Nakashima
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
PaulN, ------"This is why genetic entropy, the cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity, complex specified information, and the actual observed/tested effects of gross mutations within a wide range of experiments have not yet falsified it. Who needs all of that empirical data anyway? Evolution is true after all, so none of that stuff matters." "The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defence. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or, can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation [and ID], is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?" ~C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry?Clive Hayden
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
If it wasn’t “impossible”, it wouldn’t be contradictory to the theory and a disconfirmation
Wouldn't that be the same thing as saying that everything "possible" confirms the theory of evolution then? Looks like I might have to reformulate my previous recipe and add in a couple more parts presupposed truth. =P
A single rabbit’s foot, a single flower petal would be disconfirmation.
In the impossible scenario that someone were to actually find one of these items in the cambrian or the precambrian, do you really think that most of mainstream science would abandon the theory? I think Vivid's original point is that even if you were to find something like this, then the theory would just be retrofitted to contour with the new data. When you presuppose the theory of evolution to be true, then there of course is no way to falsify it. Your logic will just remain along the lines of "I know this to be true, so lets see how the data can be reinterpreted to fit." No matter how much contradictory evidence is presented within the realm of possibility, you won't be able to abandon something that you have already accepted as reality, leaving only unrealistic or "impossible" means for falsification.PaulN
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
PaulN, -----"1 part presupposed truth, 2 parts broad/ambiguous conditions, variables, and forces, and 3 parts persuasive political/social dominion over all other propositions. Bake at 400 degrees for one hour and Voila! Your naturalistic unassailable theory is ready to be forc- errr served to the masses =)" Well put.Clive Hayden
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Nakashima, ------"Why are you fixated on the volume and weight of the fossils? You can be convicted on the basis of a fingerprint, a piece of hair, a drop of blood. The weight of evidence is no longer measured on a scale!" We're not talking about criminal forensics, where there is obvious Intelligent Design inherent in the crime, for if there weren't, there would be no person to convict. Now if you want to say that the fossil record has some Intelligent Design inherent in the artifacts and their culmination, then the analogy to forensics is appropriate. Without ID, the analogy to forensics in the fossil record is a false analogy, for the false analogy would be that you could convict something that doesn't exist, a phantom.Clive Hayden
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Mr PaulN, Of all the plants and animals mentioned in the Bible, which do you think has the weakest support in the fossil record for gradual, macro-evolutionary change?Nakashima
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Mr Frost122585, Why are you fixated on the volume and weight of the fossils? You can be convicted on the basis of a fingerprint, a piece of hair, a drop of blood. The weight of evidence is no longer measured on a scale!Nakashima
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
Mr Vividbleau, Why does this strike you as unusual? If it wasn't "impossible", it wouldn't be contradictory to the theory and a disconfirmation. A single rabbit's foot, a single flower petal would be disconfirmation.Nakashima
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
1 part presupposed truth, 2 parts broad/ambiguous conditions, variables, and forces, and 3 parts persuasive political/social dominion over all other propositions. Bake at 400 degrees for one hour and Voila! Your naturalistic unassailable theory is ready to be forc- errr served to the masses =)PaulN
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
In short the evolutionists posit something that is impossible as it”s standard for falsification!!!
Well of course, if the conditions for falsification actually fell within the realm of possibility then it would have been falsified 3 times over by now! =P This is why genetic entropy, the cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity, complex specified information, and the actual observed/tested effects of gross mutations within a wide range of experiments have not yet falsified it. Who needs all of that empirical data anyway? Evolution is true after all, so none of that stuff matters.PaulN
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
"A rabbit in the Cambrian? Here’s what would happen upon such a dig: The strata would be reclassified by the Darwinists to fit the theory. It would no longer be Cambrian. Simple." It used to be that evolution would be disproved if one found a rabbit in the precambrian. Regardless to say that finding a rabbit in the cambrian or the precambrian makes no difference. It is not possible for a rabbit to exist either in the cambrian or precambrian for the simple reason that would require the rabbit to exist before the phylum for the rabbit existed. In short the evolutionists posit something that is impossible as it"s standard for falsification!!! Vividvividbleau
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply