Lines of Evidence

Ophiolite said:

By Darwinism I take it you mean the Modern Synthesis, or such adaptations of it as have been appropriate to for the voluminous new evidence produced from many fields.

And you are right in one sense. Why indulge in a fatuous concept such as belief when one can accept evolution based upon the multiply validated experiments and observations that support it. Belief is for amateurish weather predictions and thoughts of which menu item may be tastier, not for something serious like evolution.

You believe whatever you like, I shall accept what the evidence points to.

Click to expand...

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

Click to expand...

Zosimus said:

I deny evolution?

Click to expand...

What I have said, and I firmly reiterate, is that it is impossible to determine whether macroevolution occurs.

Click to expand...

Zosimus said:

Let me see whether I understand your argument clearly.

You have a theory (we'll call it MS for Modern Synthesis) that makes predictions (we'll call that E for evidence).

So:

If MS then E
E
therefore MS = True

Is that the argument? Because it looks suspiciously like the "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy, which can be found at Affirming the consequent - RationalWiki

Click to expand...