Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Jonahdog]

Nope. Evolution is not a fact, it's just a theory.

My goodness, after all this time, Stripe falls back on this. This really is profound.

 

[Stripe]

The theory of biological evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Nope.

You're talking about two different things.

The "fact of evolution" you like to trot out is just "change." Nobody argues that things do not change. Heck, I had a haircut this week. I evolved! Darwinists call evolution change using this stupid technique to define any debate out of existence.

The theory of evolution — which is what is up for debate — is exactly as I described it.

Fact: a hypothesis that is so overwhelmingly supported that you act as if it is true.

Nope.

This is the old argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how many people you can find to declare evolution as settled science, that don't make it so.

And even if it were the world against one dissenter, you would not be justified in using a logical fallacy to win him over.

[Darwinists] do for evolution.

We know. They're religious fanatics. They hate it when science intrudes on their sacraments.

You may want you define a private meaning of fact to avoid this conclusion for yourself.

A useful test for what should be regarded as a fact is: Do all sides agree on it? Does everyone in this conversation agree that gravity is the fact that masses are attracted to each other according to the inverse square law? We creationists do. The Darwinists seem to be not so convinced. :chuckle:

And see what I mean about evidence? I mention a laboratory and it is like a crucifix to a vampire for the evolutionists. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Have you read the link he provided?

Why should I? The title is obviously wrong. Evolution is just a theory.

 

[Jonahdog]

Why should I? The title is obviously wrong. Evolution is just a theory.

Channeling Kent Hovind?

 

[Stripe]

Blablarian is desperately looking for the study he used last time this topic arose, which doesn't at all test what I'm talking about.

 

[gcthomas]

This is the old argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how many people you can find to declare evolution as settled science, that don't make it so.

You are such a fool Stripe. That fallacy would be saying that you should believe the Theory of Evolution because most other people do. I didn't say that at all (you just make stuff up, don't you?)

The argument all along this thread is that Evolution Theory is a fact because it is a very accurate representation of how the world words as verified by countless experiments and observations. And that is why it is believed to be a factual representation. You should believe the theory because it works and predicts better than anything else. That 'everyone believes it' is a result of that evidence, and is not the evidence itself.

You really need to practise this 'logical fallacy' stuff, as you keep misunderstanding the basic principles.

 

[6days]

That fallacy would be saying that you should believe the Theory of Evolution because most other people do.

That would be similar to back when everyone said we had 48 chromosomes, simply because that's what other people said. They could see the evidence of only 46 chromosomes but argumentum ad populum was more powerful than evidence for many years.

 

[gcthomas]

That would be similar to back when everyone said we had 48 chromosomes, simply because that's what other people said. They could see the evidence of only 46 chromosomes but argumentum ad populum was more powerful than evidence for many years.

That's wrong usage, 6. People trusted the experiment and used the experiment as the justification, not the fact of many people believing it.

You an Stripe seem to think that any situation where someone agrees with the majority is a logical fallacy. Numpty.

 

[Interplanner]

Sorry for the topic shift, but Dr. Clary on ICR on details of Noah catastrophe was superlative yesterday. Icr.org. I just can't find storage of the 20 min broadcast. I've written to editor@icr.org.

Extensive details on the denial of marine/mammal fossil piles together throughout Africa, Australia, N. America. On the amounts of sedimentary movement in the phases of the flood, with new terminology being worked out like 'asaricus' for the first month, 'zudi' for the period from that to the 150th day, then 'recessive' from there to the end.

He had a N. American English accent... Unlike some other geologists, he had excellent verbal delivery.

 

[6days]

That's wrong usage, 6. People trusted the experiment and used the experiment as the justification, not the fact of many people believing it.

In 1923 Painter could not determine whether there was 46 or 48 chromosomes, but he chose the number 48. For about 25 years people accepted that number in spite of the evidence. There was better microscopes and people could count that the number was actually only 46.

 

[chair]

In 1923 Painter could not determine whether there was 46 or 48 chromosomes, but he chose the number 48. For about 25 years people accepted that number in spite of the evidence. There was better microscopes and people could count that the number was actually only 46.

And there were N rays that turned out didn't exist. Therefore- what exactly? All of science is wrong? Or perhaps science is self-correcting: errors do come to light and get corrected.

Unfortunately for creationists, evolution has stood the test of time. It is not some temporary blip in the history of science.

 

[gcthomas]

In 1923 Painter could not determine whether there was 46 or 48 chromosomes, but he chose the number 48. For about 25 years people accepted that number in spite of the evidence. There was better microscopes and people could count that the number was actually only 46.

Can you let me have your source for this (bold part) please? I will happily recant if you didn't just make it up.

 

[zzub]

There is no such thing as a non-harmful mutation.

There most certainly is. Mutation is THE ONLY method of evolution. May I suggest you read the book I quoted earlier, written by a leading Geneticist in his field for the last 30 years. Or any other book written by an expert in the subject.

 

[zzub]

Nope. Evolution is not a fact, it's just a theory.

Genetic 'evolution' is a fact. Thousands of experiments have been done in the past decades to prove this. The popular understanding which is called 'evolution' is not factual. As you say, it is a theory.

A popular myth is that if one stands in a pond all day and very day, and one's children do the same; for many generations, then somewhere down the line the following generations will develop webbed feet. I.e they will adapt to the environment. This is total bunk but is still portrayed in the media, schools etc as fact.

Genetic science, though matured over the last 30 years, is still to new to have reached mainstream.

There is still much to learn though. E,g there is a clear pattern that a male, whose mother's uncle was/is homosexual, is statistically very much more likely to be homosexual as well. This points (not proves) to a genetic cause. Though DNA studies has yet not found a gene for this.

 

[6days]

In 1923 Painter could not determine whether there was 46 or 48 chromosomes, but he chose the number 48. For about 25 years people accepted that number in spite of the evidence. There was better microscopes and people could count that the number was actually only 46.

Can you let me have your source for this (bold part) please? I will happily recant if you didn't just make it up

https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/The-chromosome-number-in-humans-a-brief-15575


Hopefully that link works for you. It is a PDF and my phone isn't cooperating with me at the moment.


You will read in that article that Painter declared there was 48 chromosomes even though he said " in the clearest plate so far only 46 appear". That was in 1923. On the following page of the article it says, "in the 1950s all the necessary technology was available to obtain high quality human metaphase preparations, but paper still appeared reporting painters reported number of 48 chromosomes."

 

[6days]

GC... I don't think that link works? Try Googling ' the chromosome number in humans a brief history' Nature

 

[Stripe]

You are such a fool Stripe. That fallacy would be saying that you should believe the Theory of Evolution because most other people do. I didn't say that at all.

"Fact: a hypothesis that is so overwhelmingly supported that you act as if it is true."

 

[Stripe]

Genetic 'evolution' is a fact.

Nope. It's just a theory.

I.e they will adapt to the environment. This is total bunk but is still portrayed in the media, schools etc as fact.

Never heard of epigenetics, huh?

There is a clear pattern that a male, whose mother's uncle was/is homosexual, is statistically very much more likely to be homosexual as well. This points (not proves) to a genetic cause. Though DNA studies has yet not found a gene for this.

Likely because the homo rapes the kid, messing him up.

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Give it a year here. I used to have the same view as you. I was naive

I'll hold out till xmas

 

[SUTG]

Then all those creation scientists at Answers in Genesis, Liberty U. etc should jump on that area of investigation.

Unfortunately, I don't think they'e big on investigation.