nice read

[1denomination]

I enjoyed this page, so I'm betting you guys can tear it apart. http://www.susancanthony.com/aboutSusan/evolution.html Have fun and god bless

 

[rmwilliamsll]

it is a nice comfortable read, fundamentally the argument from personal incredulity. thanks for the link.

 

[gluadys]

I enjoyed this page, so I'm betting you guys can tear it apart. http://www.susancanthony.com/aboutSusan/evolution.html Have fun and god bless

Easily. Will this do?

Natural law.
And evolution proceeds from natural law.

Law of cause and effect.
Deals with cosmology, not evolution.

First law of thermodynamics.
Ditto

Second law of thermodynamics.
The first paragraph misdefines entropy. The second misdefines evolution.

Law of biogenesis.
Confusion of abiogenesis with spontaneous generation.

Complexity of living cell.
Argument from incredulity.

Complexity of DNA code.
Ditto

Sexual reproduction.
Factual error: humans have 23 (not 26) pairs of chromosomes and chimpanzees have 24 (not 39). Furthermore, one human chromosome appears to be a fusion of two ape chromosomes.

Factual error: a difference in chromosome number is not necessarily a bar to reproduction in closely related species. It often results in sterile offspring, but this is not always the case.

Interdependence of proteins and DNA.
Argument from incredulity. Also applies more to abiogenesis than evolution. The author has clearly not researched current theories and experiments in abiogenesis.

Complexity of the brain.
Argument from incredulity

Probability.
Garbage in, garbage out. Poor assumptions yield improbable probability scenarios.

Mutations.
Factual error. Mutations are ubiquitous, not terribly rare. And most are not harmful.

Natural selection
Factual error. Natural selection does not directly select genes. It selects phenotypes. Most genes, being neutral are not affected by natural selection at all. The author also forgets that in addition to selecting for more fit phenotypes, natural selection also selects against less fit phenotypes. In this way many harmful genes are prevented from making a significant impact on the gene pool.

Adaptation
ID misconception. Parts of a system do not have to come about all at once. And the bombardier chemicals are not so dangerous that they will cause an explosion without the inhibitor. This has been demonstrated.

“Darwin himself wrote:” = Quote mine

Convergence.
Argument from incredulity + quote mine

Transitional species.
PRATTs

Transitional leaps.
Argument from incredulity. + PRATT re “macro-evolution”.

The Anthropic Principle.
Does not deal with evolution.
Also several trips to the quote mine.

If you would like some of these answered in more detail, feel free to ask.

 

[California Tim]

When someone attempts to debunk virtually each and every single point made in an article, it is clear that an objective mind is not present. In such cases one is left wondering if the the author of the attack is capable of ever admitting an error or reasoning outside an ever-present bias. Surely at least some of what was written in the article questioned has merit.

 

[Alarum]

When someone attempts to debunk virtually each and every single point made in an article, it is clear that an objective mind is not present. In such cases one is left wondering if the the author of the attack is capable of ever admitting an error or reasoning outside an ever-present bias. Surely at least some of what was written in the article questioned has merit.

So the fact that the article is long means it must have merit? I've read entire books about space aliens, conspiracies to kill JFK and how the Gods of ancient times were refugees from Atlantis. They were all very serious. Surely at least some of what was written in the books has merit.

 

[Singing Bush]

Heh, and had she skipped sections the assumption wouldn't have been that she couldn't answer them? Evolutionists stumped! Or perhaps we should have divided up the work or sourced some of it out?

Is that best reply to her rebuttal you can present? Hopefully you're just busy, preoccupied, or unconcerned because surely you can do better, brother.