In other words you are going to dodge my Q. That is the typical pattern of Darwin devotees when they are asked hard core, data based, Qs to defend their faith. But why not help a fundie see the great evo. light? Don't just tell me that because I don't "get" the joke some internet poster made that I don't understand evolution. Help me understand! Use actual data. Use science. Answer my Q and clear up my confusion. Waiting....
You continue to follow the pattern of Darwin devotees when asked hard core data based Qs. First there is the total refusal to deal with the Q asking for data. Next, they try to change the subject to something else.
I will play along with one of the areas you mentioned. Then I will list some more Qs which you will also likely ignore. In other words I'll answer one of your Qs and then it's your turn.
"Nested hierarchy" starts out with an unproven, theoretical
assumption that life forms which have
similarities in certain ways are "related" and therefore have a common ancestry. There is absolutely no way to prove that whatsoever. Yeal, there are similarities but there is no data to show one life form came from another.
I'll give two examples to show how logical fallacies are being used to support the "evidence" of "nested hierarchies." First Correlation Does Not Imply Causation or Affirming the Consequent.
Yeal there are similarities between some groups of animals as there are between Lucy and people.
So what? Snakes and worms have significant similarities. Birds, bats and bees fly. Bats and whales, both mammals, have sonar. An octopus and a spider each has 8 legs. People and parrots and parakeets talk. Cockatoos and people like to dance to music. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Assumptions (theories presented as facts, remember?) about the past based on what we see now should not be called evidence, because it's not evidence it's just the Affirming The Consequent logical fallacy.
Then there is the Cherry Picking logical fallacy. The similarities I just mentioned and many such, like that humans and some frogs have similar hand type structures - though they come from entirely different sorts of genetic information - and that sharks and dolphins have "similar homology" etc. etc. are not used to support the "nested hierarchy". Only similarities which fit their theory need apply.
As I mentioned above, from Lucy to you there are (by their time reckoning, not mine) 3 million years of "missing" links. That is the absolute pattern you will find with the "nested hierarchy" when it comes to the fossil record that supposedly supports Darwin's "Tree", namely aeons of "missing", really nonexistent, links.
Assumptions about the past with no real data to back them up other than "similar homology...." etc. leads us to the Presuming Omniscience, or magic crystal ball that sees into the past, logical fallacy.
Next, Fallacy Of the Single Cause. It goes like this. "We see a similarity! We have already taught you to believe that if there is a similarity it's due to evolution. No other possibility is to be considered."
Now I will paste some Qs for you to answer. As I said, Darwin devotees dodge Qs, try to change the subject and sometimes afterwards even dare to claim, when they no way did, that they answered the Qs. But let's see how you do this time. Your turn....
Before looking at the Qs you might want to Google Quotes Showing The Credulity of Evolutionists to see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other scientists, including evolutionists (!) admitting there is no...evidence... for evolution! If they don't buy it, why should you?
Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that. After all, we have been examining bacteria since 1670, pretty much 24/7 around the globe, and they multiply at rocket rates.
I'll give you the real evidence. See if you can refute it. Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria. Always have. Ditto sponges, jelly fish etc. Bacteria can be fossilized. Examples have been found in so called "earliest, Cambrian" layers of the earth, and they are all just bacteria, w/no evidence they are turning into anything else at all. We are told that nylon eating bacteria are evidence for evolution. Yeal, they made a change. But change is not evolution. Dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc. have been changed for thousands of years. They give evidence against evolution because all that change has led to are....dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc.
Evolutionary literature tells us that nylon eating bacteria are a poster child for evolution because they learned to eat nylon from factory run off into their ponds. Nylon eating bacteria have not so much as changed their species even. They go right back to normal eating patterns in normal ponds. So explain how they are turning into uber bacteria climbing up Darwin's Tree to turn into you? Explain that now, don't dodge it. Give any evidence whatsoever that any bacteria whatsoever ever stopped being a bacteria. Theories which have no evidence to back them up, when presented as scientific fact, make only for pseudo science.
Kindly don't say, "Change is evolution." It is ultra easy to prove that is totally untrue. That's one of evolution's big myths. All those bacteria, fish, birds, bugs, plants, people, etc. etc. keep
changing and changing. And they all stay bacteria, birds, bugs, plants, people etc. etc. So what change really shows is that it does NOT lead to evolution! Therefore kindly paste no links showing how eboli virus, and snow flake yeast etc. have changed - sometimes in intelligently designed (!) high tech labs, or whatever, wherever. Kindly send nothing about how bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. Notice that all the eboli viruses, snow flake yeast and bacteria are still just eboli viruses, snow flake yeast and bacteria. Again, the real evidence is there alright and it is showing change is not leading to evolution at all.
Back to Dawkins, he teaches that time, space, matter and energy and you,. everything, comes from....nothing. Rotfl! What kind of "science" is that? Doesn't science, doesn't common sense, show that nothing comes from nothing? In fact, they show us that an effect can never be greater than its cause.
Qs, # 2 We are told that natural selection leads to evolution. Again, we see change, indeed, through natural selection. Look at all those countless varieties, for ex. of fish in the waterways and birds in the air....all staying fish and birds. Cite observed data that demonstrates an occurance of unique genetic information resulting through natural selection - not just the reshuffling of, or elimination of, genetic information that is already available in the life form. Name the life form and verify its before and after states.
In order to turn a reptile into one of countless other varieties of reptiles there is only the need to shuffle, or eliminate, some genetic material it already has, through natural selection or even human intervention. To turn a reptile into a bird you would need totally new, bird, DNA for things like wings, feathers, beaks etc.
(Funny how, with evolution supposedly being the norm, there is not one example of any such changes with the countless billions of reptiles found on the planet, and ditto the countless fish that are not seen turning into reptiles but into anything but fish. Find me a toe on a single fish, a feather on a single reptile, for ex.. living or fossil. And no those supposed "protofeathers" found on some ancient reptile fossils have been described by some....evolutionists....as being only collagenous fibers.)
Tell me where science has ever observed any such things happening with DNA. It is all very well to say "Well, it all happened so long ago...." What evidence is there in that? How do you tell a missing link from a nonexistent link?
Qs, # 3 We are told that mutations are the 2nd mechanism leading to evolution. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, mutations happen all the time. Generally they are harmful, and the few "beneficial" ones are debatable. Even if they are beneficial in some very slight way, though, where is the evidence that mutations build on one another like leggos to create new structures, say to turn a fin into a foot? Fish don't have DNA for feet. To change a fin into a foot you need new. foot, DNA. Explain how mutations could create DNA. Give evidence for where that has ever been seen to happen. In fact, explain how DNA came about period by any mechanism. Please don't tell me that the sickle cell anemia mutation is leading to evolution, as some evolutionists have claimed. No, it just replaces one horrible disease for another through bent blood cells. How is that going to make the hapless victims more likely to produce healthy, viable, offspring? How do bent blood cells have the capacity to turn the victims some day into uber people, climbing up Darwin's Tree?
Do your research in peer reviewed evolutionary literature and when you do check for theoretical faith based words like "Probably....must have...likely....we can infer...it appears that...similar homology [Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy which undergirds all of evolutionary theory]....millions of years ago [stated as Gawd's truth scientific fact though such happenings in those periods of "time" are untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable....ev-i-dence-less.]...etc." I promise you, you will always find those kinds of "fuzz factor" words, usually in the first paragraph. And I promise you that speculations piled on logical fallacies piled on presumptions mixed in with sophistry will almost always be counted as "evidence" in the peer reviews.
Qs, # 4 Pick any "transitional" fossil you like, Lucy the Australopithecus, whatever. Then answer these Qs with data, with evidence. How do you know it ever had a single descendant significantly different from itself in any way much less that it eventually changed from say Ambulocetus, a little animal with four legs and hooves, into a great whale? How do you know a "transition", like Tiktaalilk and all the others, isn't just what it looks like - what the only evidence shows - a dead end, extinct, life form? And btw look at modern day lobe finned fish that are virtually the same as Tik.
Research the history of how they told you another lobe finned fish, Coelacanth, WAS a transition. They used their Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Fallacy of the Single Cause , etc. and Presuming Omniscience magic crystal ball that sees into the past to tell people that. Tons of peer reviews said the presumed to be extinct Coelacanth was turning into a reptile. Then they found some live ones. You can see the pretty blue...fish period...swimming on Youtube. There are countless billions of fossils out there but that's an example of the best they can do to prove there are transitional forms.
Please don't say "walking catfish". They are 100% fish with 100% fins used in a novel way, similar to "flying fish" which no way are turning into birds. Fish and dolphins, etc. have astronomically more "characteristics of" and "similar homology" features than ambulocetus and a whale. Ditto Tiktaalik and a tetrapod. Again, bats, birds and bees fly. Bats and whales, both mammals, have sonar. Chimps and tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Cockatoos and people dance to music. So what? The only matching "characteristic of" ambulocetus is a minor similarity in the inner ear to that of a whale. Based on that we're supposed to believe ambulocetus turned into a great whale? Again Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Affirming The Consequent are logical fallacies, not scientific evidence. To use them as evidence is illogical, therefore antiscience.
Oh, and before you say "Geologic Column" that is a mythical construct developed by a 19th century lawyer named Charles Lyell. He never saw one and no one else has either. Sites like Talk Spin, aka Talk Origins, claim they found part of one on this entire planet. When you look at their "fine print" they say "some of the strata are out of place" i.e. they don't have a single GC to show!What does the fossil record really show? Fossils are jumbled. There are so called Cambrian and PreCambrian seashells, mollusks, etc. littering the tops of most mountains. Dino bones from the so called lower level Jurassic area stick out of mountain ranges in the northwestern states. Where I grew up, in a midwestern state, you can find extinct, ocean floor trilobites in the hills. If you want more documentation I can give you quotes from evolutionary scientists admitting that the dating of the rocks is "very subjective" and that people try to match their dates to presumed Darwinian expectations.
Been a while...ty
