The Three Fallacies of Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 4, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Borne wrote:
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.
Indeed. This reminds me of a recent article by Jonathan Wells where he writes:
Coyne goes on to discuss several “transitional” forms. “One of our best examples of an evolutionary transition,” he writes, is the fossil record of whales, “since we have a chronologically ordered series of fossils, perhaps a lineage of ancestors and descendants, showing their movement from land to water.”9 “The sequence begins,” Coyne writes, “with the recently discovered fossil of a close relative of whales, a raccoon-sized animal called Indohyus. Living 48 million years ago, Indohyus was… probably very close to what the whale ancestor looked like.” In the next paragraph, Coyne writes, “Indohyus was not the ancestor of whales, but was almost certainly its cousin. But if we go back 4 million more years, to 52 million years ago, we see what might well be that ancestor. It is a fossil skull from a wolf-sized creature called Pakicetus, which is bit more whalelike than Indohyus.” On the page separating these two paragraphs is a figure captioned “Transitional forms in the evolution of modern whales,” which shows Indohyus as the first in the series and Pakicetus as the second. But Pakicetus—as Coyne just told us—is 4 million years older than Indohyus. To a Darwinist, this doesn’t matter: Pakicetus is “more whalelike” than Indohyus, so it must fall between Indohyus and modern whales, regardless of the fossil evidence. (Coyne performs the same trick with fossils that are supposedly ancestral to modern birds. The textbook icon Archaeopteryx, with feathered wings like a modern bird but teeth and a tail like a reptile, is dated at 145 million years. But what Coyne calls the “nonflying feathered dinosaur fossils”—which should have come before Archaeopteryx—are tens of millions of years younger. Like Darwinists Kevin Padian and Luis Chiappe eleven years earlier, Coyne simply rearranges the evidence to fit Darwinian theory.)
Full ArticleAtom_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

I would also like to point out that there is mysticism on both sides- creationists say "God did it" as often their explanation and secular evolutionists like to say "we don't know"- but neither answer is scientific- because if God did it we want to know how he did it (though it may be beyond our ability to understand or it may simply never be revealed) and if there is an unknown aspect of a secular theory we need to have that explained to accept that theory as a whole. To say you dont know and to say God did it is equally worthless though the theory of ID does rationally make a case for the requirement of a guiding designing intelligence - but not creation. Allow me to hypothetically speculate on how both modes of explaining the mystical could actually bump heads. Take the idea of special creation- that is God creates animals without a universal linage- and take the theory of Dark Matter in astrophysics. The theory of Dark Matter is supposed to explain why we have no evidence of most of the matter absolutely required for the big bang model to function- What if the missing dark matter/energy was actually somehow used or displaced though special creation events? This explanation would change physics as we know it and of course evolution and yet could help explain both and limit one theory by proving another. This is a real kind of problem with physics, evolution and reality- that is mysticism- actually with the unknown in general. We are dealing with mysticism on both sides. Creationism tends to welcome it while evolutionists reject it or write promissory notes that it will be uncovered my man. But in reality neither side knows what's going on with the missing matter and energy- nor do they know how matter emerged- or what guides it and governs it's manifested forms. Science does do the job of understanding mysticism- of lifting the vale a bit- but it needs to embrace its own limitations and admit what it does not know at present- and accept it's fallibility and stop trying to declare itself an all seeing eye- because when that happens science reveals itself to be the very thing it rejects- a mystic.Frost122585_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

"How can one who acknowledges a grand designer who also acknowledges common descent hold a different position than the theistic evolutionist?" Well let me put it in vivid terms here and compare special creation to universal evolution. For the universal evolutionist the idea that life forms could emerge fully formed as if they were put there by a designer or creator is a supernatural claim. But for the creationist the idea that everything could have evolved without a guiding creator or designer is to them a super natural or even impossible claim as well. Both theories run into the same problem which is why ID is compatible with both. Special creation runs into the problem of improbable creation at the origin of the higher taxa- but evolution runs into the problem at the beginning of their cosmic natural selector called the big bang. The fallacy of unintelligent or non-teleolgical evolution is that everyhting is "explained" naturlaistically when infact their entrie theory relies on the biggest maricle of all- the manifest emergence of everyhting out f nothing. I have often said that the idea that the big bang could bring forth "everyhting" out of "nothing" is the single most illogical theory, idea, postion and or conception not just ever mentioned, but that could ever be. Everything out of nothing- the cosmic free lunch in the name of anti-intelligent evolution. So the point is if universal common ancestry is true it needs an intelligence to bridge the probability gaps between mutation/selection and it's correlation to the fitness landscape and both theories require a machine or creator to bring forth their system into existence. SO theistic evolution is fine so long as it is supported within good evidence and acknowledges the need for evolution to be guided- which theologically mean that the creator is involved in it's creation. There really is no good case for Deism- except to say God may not commit miracles which would be defined as acts which go outside a certain probability bound. But it would be a stretch to make such a case for Deism.Frost122585_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Ah yes indeed, you're speaking of front loaded design. I only really have one qualm though. How can one who acknowledges a grand designer who also acknowledges common descent hold a different position than the theistic evolutionist? Just curious because I always see theistic evolution carry a bad connotation around here, yet I fail to see how the TE position differs from the ID common descent position. Of course I'd be infinitely more apt to accept evolution as a product of careful planning and design over random natural processes. But then again, I think John C. Sanford makes the best case above most every other study I've seen so far which infers de novo creation followed by continual genetic decay.PaulN_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Paul,
"Now if you want to argue the potential for mutations to break this barrier in any meaningful way, then that’s another discussion altogether."
I never argue here because i am one not knowledgeable about such things at this time and two because i am convinced anyone can put together a hypothetical model of how anything could evolve into anyhting. Sure it is easier to evolve a chimp into a man than a horse into a man but what ID critiques is notion that it is rational to expect this to happen given the mechanisms of DE. Which it is not because you have insufficient mechanisms to break the probability barriers- which for me is almost always the care with evolution except very small changes observed under lab conditions with minimal intelligent intrusion. Ideas like irreducible complexity assert that certain biological mechanisms could not have evolved by chance in small gradual steps due to their complexity and the necessary function of the whole. This does not mean the systems cant be designed, built or even evolved- but that they cannot be evolved without some form of intelligent design bridging the gap of improbability. (at least i think I am explaining IC here correctly)Frost122585_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

And show me good almost full skeletons - don't show me a piece of bone the size of my pinky finger and claim it is the missing link between bacteria and man kind.Frost122585_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Borne,
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.
Oh so true! Remember what happened when the T-rex soft tissue was found? The funny thing is that even more stringent research on the same fossil has been conducted to put the nail in the coffin of any objections. But of course this just means that hey, I guess soft tissues can survive over 65 million years after all! =P Apparently the power of the paradigm overrides the power of the evidence. http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-proteineven-more-confirmation Sorry, my YEC view likes to surface now and again. Please don't hit me!PaulN_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Frost, Thanks for making that distinguishment. I'm sorry if I didn't explicitly indicate that I was targeting solely fossils that would illustrate macro-evolution(Which to me is the primary issue I have with the ToE), in which case there certainly aren't "hundreds" as proposed. Micro-evolution of course has not been argued, because not only is it empirically observable, but we have also observed the very reliable and consistent method in which it occurs. All of the changes we see are normally minor variations, but more importantly, even these expressed minor variations are derived from pre-existing information. There's no arguing the fact that normally humans can range anywhere from 4 1/2 to nearly 8 feet tall. But this is not to say that if you found a short human in the fossil record that precedes a tall human who appears later on in the column, that this can be extrapolated to ape-likes evolving into humans. This applies to many of the other minor traits as well such as proportions, hair color, eye color, nose shape etc... From what we know and observe, there are genetic boundaries in which these traits can vary, and these boundaries are defined within the genetic makeup of the organism. Now if you want to argue the potential for mutations to break this barrier in any meaningful way, then that's another discussion altogether.PaulN_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

I would like to also add that an extreme frustration that i have is that whenever a transitional fossil is claimed as proof of macro evolution they seem to always use pictures and drawings of the skeleton to prove their point. Then I would say about the 90% of the time they use skeletal replicas of the animals they claim to have fossils for- but rarely are they showing us the real fossils so we can take a look for ourselves and decide how transitional it really seems. Let me give the evolutionists some honest advice- if you want your truth to be known by all stop building replicas and drawing cartoons all the time- and spend more time showing us all of the overwhelming number of macro transitional fossils. Show me the common ancestor of dogs and bears. Show me the common ancestor of all dinosaurs- and explain why a one cell organism was able to evolve into a human being but mosquitoes have not evolved in 300 million years.Frost122585_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Nakashima:
Since the claims involve a universal nested hierarchy, I would expect that even one “rabbit in the Cambrian” would disprove these claims.
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. How many times have such reclassifications actually occurred to skewer the real data? By the paleontologist or whoever pushing and pressuring for a different dating? I suspect a lot more than we think.Borne_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

PaulN, There are certainly tons of transitional fossils regarding mico evolution- what some IDists and most creationists question is macro evolution or universal common ancestry. There have been some fossils found supporting this but those fossils such as the reptile/bird transition and some of the primate transitions are often called into question for several reasons. 1. They either fit into one category or the other- meaning no clear cut middle of the road transitions are found. Lucy for example I think was about 3 feet tall - that is hardly close enough to a man to be conclusive for all skeptics. Not to mention even if the evolution is continuous scientists still say there was a first homosapien to be born called mitochondrial Eve. So you would need both the transition right before and the so called first homosapien to show that continuity- and until that point people can imagine a disconnected special creation via a common designer just as well as evolutionists can imagine a universal tree of life. and 2. There seems to be very few of these transitional forms - and in the case of the whale mammal transitions they dont even have all of the skeleton of even one- when in fact animals that big should be easy to find transitions of. The argument that stasis seems to be the rule in higher taxonomic fossils is still very evident despite a few examples. When you have people as brilliant as Stephen Meyer still opening saying that he is not convinced of universal common ancestry you know there is probably a weaker case for it than is being advertised. SO those of us with lesser knowledge of all the fossils that have been found can rest assured that questioning macro evolution is not off limits yet- even if subsequent evidence does show that theory to be true.Frost122585_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

*burden of proof*
PaulN_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Nnoel,
What are you saying? There are hundreds of transitional fossils, stop reading Kent Hovind and go find some real literate. If you not finding it you looking in the wrong place (and I cant be bothered to go find it for you. lol)
Oh boy. So you're posing a positive argument yet refusing to be bothered to provide the evidence to back it up? That's committing a big science no-no as the burden is proof is on you. Who told you that there are hundreds of transitional fossils? Care to cite any comprehensive lists of such fossils? I'm just curious, because according to Wikipedia, you could probably fit all of those "hundreds" of fossils into a walk-in closet; most of which fossils I would find questionable to begin with.PaulN_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

sorry, typo, 'find some real literature'Nnoel_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

2 : Nakashima @ "What is your opinion of a credible alternative?" Yes I agree, the article claims that others options are possible, but sure most half intelligent persons realize this fact, but the ToE HAS THE MOST EVIDENCE. :) 5 : Avonwatches @ "(nothing, nothing…explosion of species over brief time…nothing, nothing… explosion again, etc)" For those unaware, 'brief' in this context means 50 million years, that's if you were referring to the Cambrian explosion! "And I’ll also like to call you on your assertation about the predictive powers of paleontologists - could you provide examples of these places and times? It is just that if what you assert is true, then I am amazed that only a bare handful of “transitional” fossils have been found - and these are very much disputed within the paleontology community anyway :/" What are you saying? There are hundreds of transitional fossils, stop reading Kent Hovind and go find some real literate. If you not finding it you looking in the wrong place (and I cant be bothered to go find it for you. lol)Nnoel_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

Khan, The theory of evolution is based on our ignorance. And it is our ignorance that allows it to "stay alive". Why do I say that? Because no one on this planet knows whether or not the changes required are even possible. Also other ideas affirm the same consequent that the ToE does- meaning it doesn't have anything exclusive.Joseph_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

"Avonwatches" (#5) wrote: "And I’ll also like to call you on your assertation about the predictive powers of paleontologists - could you provide examples of these places and times?" Dr. Neil Shubin wrote a fascinating book, "Your Inner Fish" (described at http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/book.html ) about where a transitional fossil (which when found was named "Tiktaalik") was predicted to be found. And it was. And if you are unaware of the predictive powers of paleontologists, I take it you are also unaware of the Journal of Paleontology - see http://www.journalofpaleontology.org, a publication of the Paleontological Society, which has been around a hundred years - see http://www.paleosoc.org.PaulBurnett_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Footnote: Affirming he consequent is a common challenge of scientific thought. Arguments by explanation have a counter flow between the explanatory logic, from Hyp to facts and predictions, and the flow of empirical evidence, from observations to explanations. If Hyp THEN Obs (current and expected) does not mean that IF Obs THEN Hyp. That's why scientific explanations are at best provisional and reliable against test, but are subject to correction in light of further observations. Confirmation bias then may blind us tot he crucial issue: scientific explanations are refutable by empirical evidence, not provbable thereby; though they may be shown reasonably reliable in a relevant domain. In that context, denial of counter-evidence becomes a serious problem, once anomalies pile up. And of course this takes us down the road travelled in part by Kuhn: at what point do we say ENOUGH for a paradigm? When do anomalies bring us to a point where a theory is in crisis and begs fro a revolution? One thing I know: imposing censorship by redefining science as applied materialism does not help us. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

@1. I think you are confusing evolution with migration. Evolution is the transformation of species into another. Migration is one species moving to another place. Were these marsupial fossils showing gradual change in form, or were they all very similar across the continents? ============== @3. Why is it a problem for ID? ID says that the appearance of new species in the fossil record- __/ \_____/ \____/ \___ (nothing, nothing...explosion of species over brief time...nothing, nothing... explosion again, etc) - is difficult to have occurred from naturalistic processes, but that an intelligent, directed process is fully capable of causing this pattern. I would suggest working from the bottom up, rather than top down. That way you avoid presuppositions (e.g. "I don't like/accept the proposed conclusion, therefore the data cannot match it!"). And I'll also like to call you on your assertation about the predictive powers of paleontologists - could you provide examples of these places and times? It is just that if what you assert is true, then I am amazed that only a bare handful of "transitional" fossils have been found - and these are very much disputed within the paleontology community anyway :/ ========== @4. It does not invalidate hypothesis testing. If you are familiar with the scientific method (from your reasoning this does not seem the case), then one of the most important parts is to limit as many variables as we can. This is in order to isolate a particular constant/factor/observation that we are testing. Probably the best example I can give is testing whether a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object, e.g. a hammer or a feather. We could assume that because the hammer falls faster, therefore heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. But, once we eliminate variables such as atmosphere (e.g. perform the experiment on the moon; Apollo15), we see that both feather and hammer fall at the same rate, refuting that an object that weighs more accelerates faster when dropped. The problem with darwinian evolution 'science' is that it does not do this, instead taking what supports it (hammer falls faster than brick) and dismissing the (more numerous) detractors. And of course the observations don't even line up with the original predictions (see my wonderful ascii art of the fossil record in my response to #3Avonwatches_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

If evolutionary theory is invalid because it affirms the consequent, then all science based on hypothesis testing is invalid. Newton used the same process of making a hypothesis P, determining its implications Q and then testing for Q. If Q is shown to be correct, then P is supported. If not, then P is rejected. do you really think that almost all science outside of descriptive studies are bogus because of a logical fallacy?Khan_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

From the linked page:
In the fossil record, for instance, increasing complexity, decreasing complexity, rapid appearance, trees, bushes, diversity explosions, stasis for eons can all fit within evolution's broad and flexible imagination of what natural forces can do.
Of course, if this is a "problem", it's a problem for any theory that accepts and tries to explain the fossil record… and I've never seen a single decent a priori reason why the Designer had life's history go the way it did, and not some other way. Paleontologists can make amazingly specific predictions about the time and place a transitional organism appeared, whereas ID still seems to be making up its mind as to whether transitionals exist in the first place.Lenoxus_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Dr Hunter, In Fallacy 1 you say that the fossil and genetic evidence does support the claims of Myers and Carroll, but in Fallacy 2 and 3 you say that there is much evidence that does not support those claims. Since the claims involve a universal nested hierarchy, I would expect that even one "rabbit in the Cambrian" would disprove these claims. So is your statement in F1 correct, and the fossil and genetic evidence supports evolution, or is F2 and 3 correct and the evidence does not support evolution? It sounds like you are trying to have it both ways. I think you are more correct with F1, that the evidence supports evolution, but logically there could be another explanation which also explains all of that evidence, plus other evidence that evolution doesn't explain. What is your opinion of a credible alternative?Nakashima_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

So with marsupial fossils from 40 million years ago found in South America, and in Australia from 20 million years ago - and then (based on evolutionary theory) 30 million year old marsupial fossils are predicted to be found in Antarctica (which joined South America and Australia 30 million years ago in the supercontinent of Gondwana) - and the predicted marsupial fossils are then found...does that somehow offer no proof of evolution?PaulBurnett_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply