The illusion of evolution and how it works

[SpecialFrog]

Rhed, questioning your qualifications is not an ad hominem. If you claim insight into the poem Beowulf that overturns the conventional views on the subject but you have no familiarity with Old English, it is reasonable to question whether you actually have sufficient domain knowledge.

 

[Rhed]

Rhed, questioning your qualifications is not an ad hominem. If you claim insight into the poem Beowulf that overturns the conventional views on the subject but you have no familiarity with Old English, it is reasonable to question whether you actually have sufficient domain knowledge.

I said:

But as someone with integrity like yourself, surely you wouldn't be using the cheap shot logical fallacy "ad hominem". Would you?

Definition of ad hominem:
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

Before you intrude into a conversation, it's good for check the context before questioning someone's knowledge.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Rhed, this is a public discussion board.

And while your definition is correct, it is really only an ad hominem fallacy if the criticism has no bearing on the argument.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Rhed, questioning your qualifications is not an ad hominem. If you claim insight into the poem Beowulf that overturns the conventional views on the subject but you have no familiarity with Old English, it is reasonable to question whether you actually have sufficient domain knowledge.

I said:

But as someone with integrity like yourself, surely you wouldn't be using the cheap shot logical fallacy "ad hominem". Would you?

Definition of ad hominem:
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

Still bollocks, because the comment wasn't directed at you, but at your understanding.

Before you intrude into a conversation, it's good for check the context before questioning someone's knowledge.

Before you start wibbling about logical fallacies, it's a good idea to actually have some fucking idea of what they are and how they operate.

Oh, and when you post in a public discussion forum, there's no such thing as intruding in a conversation.

 

[JRChadwick]

Still waiting for a response!

I doubt you could have watched a meaningful amount of the main speech in the last ten minutes. I have to ask; what, in your opinion counts as demonstrable proof? Would we have to observe an entire phylum of animals evolve over the last 535 million years since the Cambrian?

When scientists in a lab modify an organism's DNA randomly? What is the end result?

Why would geneticists randomly modify a life form's DNA? How would that help anything? And that is not an answer to my question.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Why would geneticists randomly modify a life form's DNA? How would that help anything? And that is not an answer to my question.

Well, plant breeders do irradiate plants to trigger increased mutation rates in order to get novel traits. That is almost certainly not what he means, though.

 

[Alligoose]

But as someone with integrity like yourself, surely you wouldn't be using the cheap shot logical fallacy "Argument from authority". Would you?

Surely, you understand that nowhere in his post did he make an argument from authority. He is merely establishing whether or not you are educated on the subject. Which, as you've shown, you are not.

For reference, an argument from authority states "I am right because this guy agrees with me and he's an authority" despite not being verified or agreed upon as an authority in the relevant subject matter. See the following:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I hate it when I'm wrong. Good catch. I try to check my stuff before I hit submit, but in this case I didn't. The correct logical fallacy is "ad hominem".

Ah, thanks for admitting to the correction!

I must apologize, but it's still not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be, " you're wrong because you're a Jerk, Arse, etc. " Here, there was merely an attempt to establish your knowledge about the subject.

Language here can get colorful, but I haven't seen much, if any, ad hominem arguments from the forum regulars.

This is the league of reason, after all. If someone used an ad hominem, it would be quickly pointed out.

 

[Alligoose]

When scientists in a lab modify an organism's DNA randomly? What is the end result?
Why would geneticists randomly modify a life form's DNA? How would that help anything? And that is not an answer to my question.

You get modern corn, bananas, and apples.

This has been done, Rhed, to great success.

Edit: reading comprehension fail. I missed the word "randomly." The answer is... do scientists actually do this? If so, why?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Language here can get colorful, but I haven't seen much, if any, ad hominem arguments from the forum regulars.

To be fair, and strictly accurate, I did call Rhed a moron, which was most definitely an ad hominem, but it wasn't a commission of the ad hominem fallacy. I attacked the man, but I didn't dismiss the argument on the basis of any perceived personal trait, which is what's required to commit an argumentum ad hominem (to give it its full Latin designation).

If I'd said, 'your argument is wrong because you're a moron', I would have committed the fallacy (it's a species of the genetic fallacy, wherein an argument is dismissed purely on the basis of some property or characteristic of the arguer). However, I detailed (somewhat abrasively) what was wrong with the argument and then called him a moron, thus no fallacy was committed.

It's a subtle distinction, but an important one in logical terms.

This is the league of reason, after all. If someone used an ad hominem, it would be quickly pointed out.

This statement does actually commit a form of the genetic fallacy, and indeed properly an argumentum ad verecundiam, the Latin designation of the argument from authority.

Just sayin...
Edit: Tags

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Language here can get colorful, but I haven't seen much, if any, ad hominem arguments from the forum regulars.

To be fair, and strictly accurate, I did call Rhed a moron, which was most definitely an ad hominem, but it wasn't a commission of the ad hominem fallacy. I attacked the man, but I didn't dismiss the argument on the basis of any perceived personal trait, which is what's required to commit an argumentum ad hominem (to give it its full Latin designation).

If I'd said, 'your argument is wrong because you're a moron', I would have committed the fallacy (it's a species of the genetic fallacy, wherein an argument is dismissed purely on the basis of some property or characteristic of the arguer). However, I detailed (somewhat abrasively) what was wrong with the argument and then called him a moron, thus no fallacy was committed.

It's a subtle distinction, but an important one in logical terms.

This is the league of reason, after all. If someone used an ad hominem, it would be quickly pointed out.

This statement does[/] actually commit a form of the genetic fallacy, and indeed properly an argumentum ad verecundiam, the Latin designation of the argument from authority.

Just sayin...

Says you.

Just saying...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

It's on page 1 for this topic. I'll re-post it.

A study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees shows that they are about 30% different.
Below is a diagram of the "Comparison of chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://pagelab.wi.mit.edu/pdf/2010%2520-%2520Chimpanzee%2520and%2520human%2520Y%2520chromosomes%2520are%2520remarkably%2520divergent%2520in%2520structure%2520and%2520gene%2520content.pdf&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwjt9dnQyfzGAhUMWx4KHREuA-4&usg=AFQjCNHbhzKQaPRITrNQaP9y_chyCPZjwg&sig2=dpCZIraSNF_BxVLloIge4g

It's to scale, so if you look closely, you'll see a "break" with two slashes indicating they had to cut some of it out because it was too large.

Now if anyone compares the two without prejudice, one can clearly say they are not related. Evolutionists on the other hand make up ad hoc explanations and say..."well they evolved much faster than we thought in the last 5-10 million years. Nature concluded that since the separation of the chimpanzee and human lineages, comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.

Since evolution is a fact to them, and since humans and chimp share a common ancestor, they come up with storytelling such as:

"We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour."

Did you count the rescuing devices used to save a theory? If you take the human-ape ancestry away from the equation, then there is no issue. Notice the ad hoc explanations to fit a theory. Too many ad hocs run into a logical fallacy called Ockham’s Razor.
Genetics prove evolution except when it doesn’t. A win-win here also. If humans share a common ancestor, and the DNA doesn’t match, then it chose one of the above rescuing devices. You can’t falsify common descent.

I destroyed all this shit here.

Curiously you did not respond. You have also not responed to any, of my other corrections of your nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Says you.

Just saying...

:lol:

 

[Alligoose]

Language here can get colorful, but I haven't seen much, if any, ad hominem arguments from the forum regulars.

To be fair, and strictly accurate, I did call Rhed a moron, which was most definitely an ad hominem, but it wasn't a commission of the ad hominem fallacy. I attacked the man, but I didn't dismiss the argument on the basis of any perceived personal trait, which is what's required to commit an argumentum ad hominem (to give it its full Latin designation).

If I'd said, 'your argument is wrong because you're a moron', I would have committed the fallacy (it's a species of the genetic fallacy, wherein an argument is dismissed purely on the basis of some property or characteristic of the arguer). However, I detailed (somewhat abrasively) what was wrong with the argument and then called him a moron, thus no fallacy was committed.

It's a subtle distinction, but an important one in logical terms.

This is the league of reason, after all. If someone used an ad hominem, it would be quickly pointed out.

This statement does actually commit a form of the genetic fallacy, and indeed properly an argumentum ad verecundiam, the Latin designation of the argument from authority.

Just sayin...
Edit: Tags

Bah, you Bastard! Hoisted by my own petard.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Not to worry, I have a plethora of explosive devices should you need one. :lol:

 

[Rhed]

When scientists in a lab modify an organism's DNA randomly? What is the end result?

You get modern corn, bananas, and apples.

This has been done, Rhed, to great success.

Edit: reading comprehension fail. I missed the word "randomly." The answer is... do scientists actually do this? If so, why?

They do it to test neo-darwinism (modern synthesis) . Ever since Mendel showed inheritance was passed down to offspring and not blending of inheritance, neo-darwinism reconstructed its theory to include mutations. To test this theory, add mutations to a genome and see how it responds, a phenomenon called Epistasis:

Epistasis is a phenomenon that consists of the effect of one gene being dependent on the presence of one or more 'modifier genes' (genetic background). Similarly, epistatic mutations have different effects in combination than individually.

A mutation can be either "beneficial” or “deleterious". An epistasis can either be synergistic (positive) or antagonistic (negative).

Positive epistasis between beneficial mutations generates greater improvements in function than expected.

Positive epistasis between deleterious mutations protects against the negative effects to cause a less severe fitness drop.

Negative epistasis between beneficial mutations cause smaller than expected fitness improvements.

Negative epistasis between deleterious mutations cause greater-than-additive fitness drops.

To test neo-Darwinian evolution scientists have worked with RNA viruses:

The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/43/15376.abstract


So in order for neo-Darwinian evolution to work, you need positive epistasis and beneficial mutations. That did not happen.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I guess Rhed is just going to ignore this. Oh well.

 

[Rhed]

I guess Rhed is just going to ignore this. Oh well.

You said:

Now answer that question if you wish to still make a big deal about the ~70% similarity between chimpanzees and humans Y chromosomes. I will get you started (falsely assuming the chromosomes are the same size) pairing the Y chromosome back with its partner would make the difference only ~15%. In addition, until this question is answered, your point is moot.

Yes, yes, It would be 98% after you remove 97% of the DNA and ignore the insertions and deletions of bp.

 

[red]

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/43/15376.abstract

So in order for neo-Darwinian evolution to work, you need positive epistasis and beneficial mutations. That did not happen.

Ummm, you either did not understand the article, or were not aware that it showed you drew an incorrect conclusion (more likely both).

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I guess Rhed is just going to ignore this. Oh well.

You said:

Now answer that question if you wish to still make a big deal about the ~70% similarity between chimpanzees and humans Y chromosomes. I will get you started (falsely assuming the chromosomes are the same size) pairing the Y chromosome back with its partner would make the difference only ~15%. In addition, until this question is answered, your point is moot.

Yes, yes, It would be 98% after you remove 97% of the DNA and ignore the insertions and deletions of bp.

:facepalm:

Citation for your claim.

Honestly, is this how it will be with you? Are you just going to ignore the vast majority of what I write and make unsubstantiated claims in every post?

 

[Rhed]

Yes, yes, It would be 98% after you remove 97% of the DNA and ignore the insertions and deletions of bp.

:facepalm:

Citation for your claim.

Honestly, is this how it will be with you? Are you just going to ignore the vast majority of what I write and make unsubstantiated claims in every post?

97% of the three billion letters of the Human Genome is described as ‘junk DNA’; only 3% of our DNA appears to code for proteins

http://www.thehumangenome.co.uk/THE_HUMAN_GENOME/Junk_DNA.html

In 2014, now it's "People Use Just 8.2% of Their DNA, Study Finds"

The results are higher than previous estimates of 3 to 5 percent, and significantly lower than the 80 percent reported in 2012 by the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project (ENCODE), a public research project led by the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute to study the role of the 3 billion total letters in human DNA
http://www.livescience.com/46986-human-genome-junk-dna.html


.