In fact I responded precisely and in detail to your rate-of-mutation post, but since you didn't like the answer you now pretend I didn't make one.
So how honest is that "logical fallacy"?
Mechanicos: "It’s basically ignorant."
Mechanicos: "Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited..."
Mechanicos: "evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that..."
Mechanicos: "faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator..."
Mechanicos: "a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT"
Mechanicos: "best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is..."
Mechanicos: "nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution..."
Mechanicos: "the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980..."
Mechanicos: "some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said..."
Mechanicos: "...taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT"
Mechanicos: "But it gets even stupider."
Mechanicos: "Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying..."
Mechanicos: "It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence..."
Mechanicos: "clowns promoting this BS are claiming that the very lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory"
Mechanicos: "Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance"
Mechanicos: "if you could SEE them, they wouldn’t BE witches"
Mechanicos: "like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years."
Mechanicos: "should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge’s BS"
Mechanicos: "How could anything be stupider or worse than that?"
Mechanicos: "What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?"
My response begins with the following questions:
First, why is the probability 100% that posters who announce themselves with gaudy discussions of "logical fallacies" invariably end by blasting away with such a load of garbage-talk?
Second, why is it that if I simply delete all that garbage-talk, there are no serious arguments to be found in your post?
You obviously know nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about science in general and evolution in particular, except some wierd notions you picked up God-knows-where, notions which have no more relation to reality than, oh, say, Mother Goose fairy tails to actual history.
Basic evolution procedes one mutation at a time, as sorted out by natural selection -- and those are confirmed observations.
So if you claim that it's "impossible" to "get here from there", then it is you not evolution theory who is making the "argument from ignorance".
In essence you are saying: "just because I can't figure it out, therefore it can't happen".
But in reality, the world is full of "intermediate forms", both living and fosilized, separating different breeds, sub-species, species, genera, families, orders, classes, etc.
And degrees of similarity or separation -- previously guessed at -- can now be determined through DNA analysis.
Every year new fossil discoveries are made and new "intermediate forms" found -- your example of bird evolution being a prime subject.
The discoveries show that birds did not evolve all at once, but over many millions of years, each new advance improving the creatures' abilities to move faster and higher.
Next, your critique of Stephen Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" idea is way off the mark, in both mischaracterizing Gould and purporting to refute him.
In fact, the basic idea of "punctuated equalibrium" makes perfect sence (no "logical fallacies") once you understand that creatures perfectly adapted to their environments do not change so long as the environment doesn't change.
But once their environment does change -- which can happen slowly over long periods, or sometimes nearly instantaneously -- then creatures must either change or die.
And if some creatures change too slowly then they can be replaced by others quicker, smarter, better adapted to new conditions.
That's "punctuated equilibrium".
Somewhere I read the fossil record shows most distinct species only last a million years or so before being replaced by others, perhaps closely related, but obviously distinct.
That's "punctuated equilibrium".
BroJoeK Said,
“In fact I responded precisely and in detail to your rate-of-mutation post, but since you didn’t like the answer you now pretend I didn’t make one.So how honest is that “logical fallacy”?”
No, you did not refute the science and findings of the slowed mutation rate for human DNA in the science article I posted.
You also said,
“First, why is the probability 100% that posters who announce themselves with gaudy discussions of “logical fallacies” invariably end by blasting away with such a load of garbage-talk?”
First that was a copy from Redroller in response to your attack on my intelligence and your tactic of dumping text to make up for the lack of substance in your response.
You also said,
“Second, why is it that if I simply delete all that garbage-talk, there are no serious arguments to be found in your post?”
There are logical arguments in that response augmented by the General Theory proponents common method of ridicule. You tried to use ridicule and derision on me - turn about is fair play. Further, presuming a low education level of a poster online is never a good idea...
“Basic evolution procedes one mutation at a time, as sorted out by natural selection — and those are confirmed observations. So if you claim that it’s “impossible” to “get here from there”, then it is you not evolution theory who is making the “argument from ignorance”. In essence you are saying: “just because I can’t figure it out, therefore it can’t happen”.”
No I am saying I can figure out you are using the logical fallacy of begging the question as well as the burden of proof fallacy for failing to provide actual data from scientists living in this world today with knowledge and testable, observable, repeatable data showing that evolution is true that does not engage in logical fallacy.
You also said,
“But in reality, the world is full of “intermediate forms”, both living and fosilized, separating different breeds, sub-species, species, genera, families, orders, classes, etc. And degrees of similarity or separation — previously guessed at — can now be determined through DNA analysis.”
Not true, again nothing more then logical fallacies intermixed with conjuncture, assumptions and unsupported theories presented as fact. And no, there have been no valid “intermediate forms” found.
You also said,
“Every year new fossil discoveries are made and new “intermediate forms” found — your example of bird evolution being a prime subject. The discoveries show that birds did not evolve all at once, but over many millions of years, each new advance improving the creatures’ abilities to move faster and higher.”
Again Logical fallacy, a bird is still a bird is still a bird. The fact is adaption has been shown to be primarily a result of existing coding within the DNA. Further like the Finch Beaks, City Dweller Nose hair density, etc the “mutation” reverts when the environmental stimulus is removed.
An example is antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the current capstone of the General Theory proponents. The argument is this is proof of evolution because the bacteria has “evolved” to resist modern antibiotics. The problem is modern science does not support this argument. The logical fallacy involved collapsed when it was discovered drug resistant bacteria is natural and has existed long before the drugs that bacteria are “evolving” to resist existed.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034953
“The implications of this study are significant to our understanding of the prevalence of resistance, even in microbiomes isolated from human use of antibiotics. This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard wired in the microbial pangenome.”
You also said,
“ Next, your critique of Stephen Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium” idea is way off the mark, in both mischaracterizing Gould and purporting to refute him.
In fact, the basic idea of “punctuated equalibrium” makes perfect sence (no “logical fallacies”) once you understand that creatures perfectly adapted to their environments do not change so long as the environment doesn’t change.
But once their environment does change — which can happen slowly over long periods, or sometimes nearly instantaneously — then creatures must either change or die.
And if some creatures change too slowly then they can be replaced by others quicker, smarter, better adapted to new conditions. That’s “punctuated equilibrium”.”
So where are the new species? The fossil record shows they all appeared fully formed. That does not help your argument. The rest of your argument was mantra not science.There is no evidence such occurred that does not use logical fallacy.
You also said,
“Somewhere I read the fossil record shows most distinct species only last a million years or so before being replaced by others, perhaps closely related, but obviously distinct. That’s “punctuated equilibrium”.”
Except for the fact the fossil record shows only fully formed species.
I’ll leave you with what your fellow evolutionists say about the subject.
“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” (Darwin 1995, 60).” Darwin, Charles R. 1995. Quoted in The Life of Charles Darwin, [1st Edition - 1902], Francis Darwin – author. London: Senate, 1995, reprint.
“[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.”—*L. Harrison Matthews, “Introduction to Origin of Species,” p. xxii (1977 edition).
“A Belief in Evolution is a basic doctrine in the Rationalists’ Liturgy.”—*Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and Its Critics (1935), p. 53.
“The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.”—*J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
“With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.