16 Errors In Darwinian Evolution

[cannabis]

Recently people have been claiming that my arguments defending organized Religion and creation are logical fallacies which is not only unreasonable because Religion doesn't depend solely on logic and empirical evidence but because it is pretty much a cop-out of a actual rebuttal. Just because an argument can possibly be labeled as a logical fallacy doesn't undoubtedly mean it is not a good argument...

And logical fallacies can be pointed out in evolutionary theories so how exactly effective and reasonable can you be in attempting to label an opposing argument one also??
Here is an unbiased article that points these and errors out in evolutionary theories without promoting creationist themes or anything at all. So If these exist in Darwinian Evolution how accurate can Evolution as a whole be considered?

And I just want to say that I believe much of evolution can be considered 'fact', but there is evidence that in no way can all it be.

16 Theses which refute Darwinian Evolution

Preamble

The ideas discussed on this page should be considered merely representative of common ideas expressed on the subject of evolution and Darwinism. Most current books, textbooks, and the general media, present at least some of these erroneous concepts as accepted fact. Contrary ideas such as those presented here are rarely mentioned, much less discussed.

From current appearances, the DNA molecule simply "occurred", intact as it is today, about 3+ billion years ago. What is its origin? Where did it come from, and how? This ought to be the abiding question in the entire field of both science and biology. Instead it is ignored in favor of a 150 year old explanation made by those who had no knowledge whatsoever of the origin of life.

Thus this essay attempts to present a more balanced view of current Darwinian theory. If you are a student, parent or other interested party in the evolution controversy, the ideas presented here should be useful. They are in most part, simple and straightforward enough to be grasped by those above the primary school level. If your school system presents these errors as fact, here is an opportunity to question their methods. Should you require assistance in this process, feel free to email the DT at the address below.

Please recognize that no Creationist themes are contained in this article. It discusses various ideas dealing strictly with the logic and science of evolution. The question "Does Evolution Exist?" is not considered. (Neither is any proof offered that "evolution" does not exist in some form.) A closely related question however IS addressed. That question is:

"Does Darwinian Evolution Exist?"

In other words, does Darwin's theory as currently understood, provide scientific evidence for evolution that is credible? The 16 Theses presented below argue that so far as these ideas are concerned, they fail the rules of science and logic and therefore, are in reality, a series of beliefs. If this is true, you might rightfully ask 'Why are beliefs being taught as scientific fact?'.

The arguments which follow the Theses (plus other arguments not set out by numbers) present the proof. They are unambiguous, falsifiable, and can be refuted point by point, if such arguments exist.

16 Theses indexed to the arguments

Darwinian themes that are refuted

Natural Selection


1. There is no connection at all between the two concepts "artificial selection" and (Darwinian) "Natural Selection".

2. The belief in evolution, per se, is based on several logical fallacies, one in particular, a "post hoc propter hoc" type of argument.

3. Belief that "selection" of some kind is the cause of evolution, is an example of the process of inverse reasoning, properly called "inverse logic", which is also a logical fallacy.

4. The idea that any type of action (a "cause") outside of the life of the organism is the cause of evolution is a "cause/effect" reversal.

5. Darwinian Natural Selection is ubiquitous: Kettlewell's experiment with the moths (supposedly demonstrating selection) is no proof of any aspect of evolution.

6. The cause of diversity is not a "selection" process; for analogy, this concept is supported by the operation of a hypothetical Natural Selection "machine". The output of the machine (like evolution) is not caused by any form of selection, as one might conclude, rather it is a phenomenon which is unknown.

Survival of the Fittest

7. Darwinists define the two terms, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, by their effects on organisms, as opposed to stating a detailed description of the process, or mechanism of operation, of either term; they are thus each, a non-sequitor.

8. The term Survival of the Fittest is a tautology. It predicts an undefined winner which can only be identified by the outcome of the competition in which the competitor is engaged.

9. Survival of the Fittest is also ambiguous, a misleading term that is unscientific.

10. All organisms such as the Oak tree, Fruit Fly, and others, have aspects of their organisms which are not the "fittest" by any definition.

11. If Darwin's theory was truly in operation, the number of species would be reduced from what is now evident.

12. The "fitness" of species is limited by a factor unknown to Science.

13. The "Malthusian" concept would not effect "evolution" except as to the "rate" of evolution; it promotes stasis rather than evolution.

14. Darwin's theory can neither explain the existence of the wide variety of open niches which exist on this planet, nor can any principles or laws it establishes explain the characteristics of current existing or non-existing species, or proto-species to fill the open niches.

Two Themes involving Science, used in the study of Evolution:
The "Five Senses Hypothesis"

15. Science Studies almost invariably operate under an assumption, not a part of Science, but rather a proper consideration of Philosophy. This assumption is called "naturalism". As science, it is erroneous.

16. Currently, the most prevalent interpretation of Darwinism virtually excludes all other possible scenarios as an explanation for life and all of its forms; this is a logical fallacy based on the "Five Senses Hypothesis". Darwinian Theory has inevitably become a stalking-horse for Naturalism, Secular Humanism, and other materialistic philosophies.

http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm

(The site further breaks down points and goes into a lot more detail, I suggest you take a look at the entire thing before attempting to debunk it.)


If you're going to point out errors in Religion and other theories due to lack of evidence, contrary ideas along with faulty logic and science what's stopping you from pointing them out in the theories of Darwinian Evolution?

[Zylark]

Many of these so-called errors are nothing but a misrepresentation (strawman fallacy) of evolution and science.

I'm by no means an evolutionary biologist, so I can't deal with all of them without getting a degree first, but the more obvious ones is easily refuted.

I'll do them by their numbers, too lazy to quote :

1: Two different concepts, though using the same mechanism. The difference between artificial and natural selection is simply that artificial evolution is when it is forced by another entity (like say how we humans breed dogs and cows). Natural selection is when there is no other entity forcing the breeding.

I fail to see that there is no connection as long as the same mechanism is used. That is making a selection of wanted traits. The difference is merely who makes the selection.

2: Post-hoc ergo propter hoc. This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the latin translates to "after this, therefore because of this").

Evolution do not fall into this fallacy, as there is a relation between cause and effect. We can even study this in detail by examining DNA. The author of this error list write this up as a fallacy due to his/her own fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

4: Not what evolution says. Strawman. Outside influence (like say climate change) can push evolution in new directions, but is not the sole reason of change between generations.

7: Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable. Also argument from personal incredulity. That we do not yet have a detailed description of the entire evolutionary process, do not mean that evolution do not happen. It means that we do not understand all aspects of it yet.

8: Again, misrepresentation. First it assumes just one "winner", where in reality, a specter of new species can evolve from the same ancestor species. Secondly it assumes we can make specific predicitions where infact what is done is retroactively look at the causation that lead to a certain trait.

10: Again misrepresentation. Nowhere does evolution suggest species should be the most perfect possible in their niche. It is more than sufficient that a species can survive with a reasonable degree of ability to utilize the resources in its environment. Species that don't go extinct.

---

And lastly, the two most telling signs this is written by someone without a clue as to what science really is:

---

15: Ofcourse science is naturalistic. That is what makes science such a great tool for understanding nature and gain actual knowledge. If science was to incorporate supernaturalism, it wouldn't any more be science, it would be pseudo-science. You cannot test anything that isn't naturalistic, therefore it is also worthless in the process of figuring out how nature works. Or to put it more succinct: "Goddidit!" is not an explanation, it is a lack of an explanation.

16: Here we get to the meat of the bias and ignorance the author possess. First, evolution don't bother itself with the origin of life, just the change between generations of life. Origin is a matter of bio-chemistry, not evolution. Secondly, whatever philosophies that embrace evolution, does not validate or invalidate the basic truth of evolution. There is no conflict between evolution and a deistic philosophy. There is only conflict if the deism in question promote dogmas that do not consider evolution factual. A religion can promote all kinds of nonsense, from the earth being flat, the sun revolves around the earth and so forth. That still does not change actual facts that contradict the religious dogma. And it most certainly should not lead us to re-evaluate those facts, or ignore them just because they naturalistic in origin.

[MelT]

Sorry about the length of this, but I regard you as a good honest member of GC and I really don't think it's going to help relationships on the baord if we go through another Jonathon scenario. This, you'll be happy to know, is my last word. To my mind (and that of the US judiciary), creationism has already bitten the dust.

I don't think it's a good place to start defending creationism and religion by saying: "Religion doesn't depend solely on logic and empirical evidence", it's shooting yourself in the foot, as sadly it's true. As it is the case, you're already saying that you wont believe any rebuttals - in fact, if you stick to your claim above, any time anyone has a counter case, you just need to say that you don't need proof or evidence to believe what you do, so the opposition can never win.

However, as Zylark has pointed out, the list above is a distortion of what evolution is - for one thing we've gone way beyond Darwinism in the last 70 years. If we just argue the old claims against it and ignore all the new evidence that shows evolution is correct, then it's really not representative of evolution at all.

But the problem is bigger than that. Remember that creaionism is being used to prove the bible's accuracy, and a young earth. An if we dig a bit deeper, we see that the people behind the promotion of creationism are not to be trusted and are not who they say they are. The whole YEC, ICS, ID is bankrolled by people with an agenda, who have changed their stories on the scientific evidence so many times it would make your head spin. Their in-fighting has shown that even they can't agree within themselves what it means to be a creationist.

This isn't a simple case of arguing beliefs, but arguing against an organisation that wants to have power within government, education and medicine - and the thing is that you become an unwitting pawn in this, trying to prove their claims for them, when even they say on AIG that they have no proof. I know you are purely interested in this for your own sake, but you can't use discredited 'scientists' to attack evolution, using sites like AIG.

To try and nit-pick evolution is just a red-herring, pointing people away fromthe real issues. It would be impossible, truly impossible, to have the continual geological upheavals of meteors, earthquakes and calderas we've had on earth in the 3,000 years that creationists claim. It's also unfeasible that the speed of light has changed significantly in the last 2,000 years, or the half-life of a dozen different isotopes, or that dating methods can't discern between say, 5 million years and 5, 000, or that the genetic record doesn't show that we have had hundreds of generations stretching back tens of thousands of years. If genetics was wrong then much of today's stem cell and genetic medicine - which is provably working and in action right now - would not work either. The nuclear clocks that synchronise satellites wouldn't work, GPS wouldn't work...



MelT

[metalstonerking]

Why hello Mr. Strawman! You're everywhere these days!

Really.

Stop.

Or keep going.

Im a man of humor.

[Maitereya]

ughh i try not to get involed in these silly threads but i got a thought.

the universe evolves. first we have hydrogen and it condenses into suns and explodes then we get all sorts of new things, helium carbon ect... then it evolves into planets and moons and galaxies. then eventually life, then complex life. after that the universe either grows too big which i believe is the popular theory, or condenses back into a singularity. evolution on a cosmic scale.

a virus evolves. put anti bacterial on a virus then you have a resistant strain of virus. evolution on a microscopic scale.

[notbakedenough]

Originally Posted by metalstonerking

Why hello Mr. Strawman! You're everywhere these days

Bwahahahaha I just wanna light the little straw men on fire...

Yeah...I'm stoned..... sorry.

[CoinOpBoy]

I'm really baked, but I think I got this...

So basically he's saying that Darwinism is not the "scientific" explanation that accounts for the origin of life. Darwinism at the very basic level is the assumption that there is some like crazy machine out there cranking out evolutionary mathematics into existence. Like some universal natural selection machine is computing our results. Wouldn't one think that rather than some invisible program that makes us evolve wasn't it within our own body, our own existence to achieve such a result?

If you think about it considering Darwinism as scientific fact means you believe in a matrix like existence, or wait, maybe an all-powerful omnipotent creator.

[cannabis]

^^ you're close, but well said

The point of this thread is to point out certain errors in Evolutionary theory, not to debunk it as a whole. As i stated in the OP it doesn't promote creationist themes.

It'd funny how you all accept Evolution blindly yet claim the religious have blind faith... you assume evolution to be all fact yet cannot provide evidence to some 'facts' when they are criticised...Isn't that your arguments against those who oppose all of Evolution? MelT you even said that simply "nit pick" evolution is just red hearing, I fail to see how Evolution is above criticism, If facts of a theory are proven to be wrong, reversed, not exact etc. isn't that reason to believe the whole of the theory could be challenged?

Zylark couldn't even form a rebuttal for every error presented.
laugh it up, But you guys are going to have to better than this.

[Zylark]

Why should I bother with doing them all? There are limits to how much effort I put into arguing against nonsense, and as I said in my post, I'd only do the most obvious. But why don't we flip the question? Why can't you do your own little "debunking" of evolution in your own words, but have to copy paste? I at least am versed enough in the topic to write up the creationist flaws from the top of my head. No copy-pasting needed. It is called critical thinking.

But I'll have to agree with Melt. This is just a red herring. This isn't about the science, it's about introducing religion in the class-room. It is politics, more correct, theocratic wannabeism.

edit: Oh, and if you insist on being childish in your arguments cannabis, don't be surprised if I follow up by treating you as a child. You might not like that.