Can you name one 'evidence of evolution' (EoE) that is not based on the 'fallacy of naturalism' (FoN) (see details)?
First the observation. From the time of the hypothetical last divergence point until today, evolution has been changing all the existing species for many millions of years(myr). Humans and chimps for more than 5 myr. Lemurs 40 myr. Fig Wasps 60 myr. Rats, crocodiles, coelacanths and nautiluses for 100, 200, 350 and 500 myr respectively. Yet, after so many years of evolutionary change not a single organism within a species has been observed that would even start transforming the pre-existing organs into functionally distinct ones, let alone developing a myriad of de novo ones like in the imaginary scenarios of whale evolution and Cambrian explosion that lasted 10-15 myr. So scientifically, the observable evolution is creatively powerless, regardless of time. Logically it follows, some 'unobservable cause' (UC) is responsible for the origin of organs.
And now the EoE. ERVs for example, can simply mean that the UC upgraded DNAs of preexisting species to get novel species instead of creating DNAs from scratch for every new species. Fosil record (whale for e.g.) can mean that the UC decided to upgrade the DNA of a land animal to see what kind of aquatic animal will turn out. Etc. Etc. So the so-called EoE are not actually "evidences" but logical fallacies based on a single philosophical premise - "only humanly observable (natural), causes can exist"- or in short, FoN. Given that scientifically such causes are creatively powerless, is there any valid EoE?
By 'fallacy of naturalism' (FoN) I mean that naturalism as a philosophy is based on a logical fallacy: Premise 1: Nature is what is humanly observable (HO). Premise 2: Only HO things exist. Therefore: all things in nature are the result of HO causes. Premise 2 is obviously wrong as things that are not HO could also exist.
- CRRLv 71 month agoFavorite Answer
Do you mean the naturalistic fallacy?
The naturalistic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy which argues that if something is ‘natural’ it must be good. It is closely related to the is/ought fallacy – when someone tries to infer what ‘ought’ to be done from what ‘is’.
I don't think it works the way you're using it.
- The_Doc_ManLv 71 month ago
Your own fallacy appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to inject God into this discussion (with regard to claiming that not all extant things can be observed.) If you take indirect observation (via evidence left after the fact of existence) into account then saying "Only humanly observable things exist" is not a fallacy.
The evidence which you seek (EoE) was revealed by the Genome projects that have successfully shown every genetic mutation leading stepwise through the fossils from which we were able to extract DNA. They showed clearly how Man came into being on an "evolutionary tree of life." That is INCREDIBLY strong EoE. If you can't accept it then your problem is that you are biased and not able to free your mind of your preconceived notions.
Next time, skip the thesaurus when trying to make a logical argument. You give yourself away every time when you display your inadequacies that way.
- Bulldog reduxLv 71 month ago
You are within your rights to call the theory of evolution a fallacy, but the theory does not meet the definition of a "logical fallacy." You seem to have a knack for spewing out scientific and philosophical terms without showing any understanding of what they actually mean.
- οικοςLv 71 month ago
Your first premise is faulty. There is an exercise that I used in ecology class to teach population size measurements, using red and white beans of the same size and shape. It can be used to teach natural or artificial selection too. Start with all white beans. Add a handful of red ones. Mix them up and withdraw a handful. Remove all the white beans to the side and replace the red ones in the "population". Repeat over and over. Eventually, you will have only red beans in the "population".
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Ted KLv 71 month ago
Disingenuous question, based on a strawman. You are not entitled to an answer when the question is so fatally flawed to begin with. Your fatal flaw is in ignoring--either by ignorance or by design--the fact that there are two types of naturalism, not just one, and you picked the wrong type to use to try to attack evolution.
The "fallacy of naturalism" is a critique of PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM, which assumes that what is natural is the only thing that exists. But science, of which evolution is part, is based on METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM, which does NOT assume that only natural phenomena are real. Rather, it mandates that the only thing science can study is the natural world. That is a self-imposed constraint. Anything that is presumably supernatural is not part of what science can address--science does not have the tools or means to study the supernatural, and so rightly ignores it--IOW, it doesn't try to be something it isn't, instead it confines its application to questions that it CAN address. It does not assume the supernatural "doesn't exist," but rather, that it can't be studied using the tools of science. That's it. So your entire question is based on a flawed conception of what science is about, versus what it is not about. As such, your question can be rightly ignored and dismissed.
Your willful, arrogant ignorance is on full display here. Not only do you not understand what evolution is, but you also have a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry, and the basic philosophy of science. You are little more than an annoying, ignorant pest who thinks that knowing a few big words will let you pull a "gotcha" on people who know far more than you do about the subject you are trying to attack. Once again, you fail, because you haven't done your homework.
- D gLv 71 month ago
Proof is required by you to disprove anything
The statement that things only exist are from a treatise to prove that God exists
- CowboyLv 61 month ago
you have NO idea what evolution is and what it is not.
- ZirpLv 71 month ago
Questions about the answerer are violations of the guidelines, but yes we can.
- strains of bacteria become immune to certain antibiotics
- the flu-virus mutates, so we have to develope a new vaccine every couple of years
- large parts of our DNA are pretty much identical to large parts of the DNA of other species - not just animal-species but also plant-species.
- animal-zygotes that develope into babies and cubs go through many phases in which they look just like "lower" animals - make a movie out of it and it looks like evolution is happening in front of your eyes
- vorenhutzLv 71 month ago
Sure, sure. Presumably you could provide a coherent scientific definition of "the supernatural", and/or evidence for it. Is there some reason you're holding back?
- JazSincLv 71 month ago
Mutations change DNA.
I strongly recommend you read
Campbell Biology, 7th edition or newer
from cover to cover, before you ask any more questions.