Ran into the following thread on a Philosophy group I follow.
THIS POST IS ABOUT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS BELIEF: THAT PALAEONTOLOGICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
The argument is as follows:
Whenever we observe the fossil records we notice the following, that is to say, that it does not show us what species looked like before; particularly because what they looked like before no longer exists.
If the fossil record does not show us what species looked like before, then the fossil record cannot be perceived as adequate and sufficient grounds for believing this, that is to say that any biological change occurred, establish, because the establishment of change is not possible unless we’ve experienced what anything looked like before. And subsequently the fossil record cannot be perceived as adequate and sufficient grounds for believing this, namely that any biological change happen.
The process by which the inheritable traits or the expressed genotype of species changed with modification over a period of time by means of natural selection, random mutation, and environmental changes is a kind of biological change. Hence the fossil record cannot be perceived as adequate and sufficient grounds for believing this, that is to say, that the process by which the expressed genotype or the inheritable traits of species changed with modification over a period of time by means of natural selection, random mutation, and environmental changes occurred. And subsequently there is no paleontological evidence for biological evolution. And yet proponents of biological evolution believe this, namely that there is paleontological evidence in favor or biological evolution. However this does not correspond reality. Truth is what corresponds to reality on grounds of the correspondence theory of truth. Therefore their belief is false.
Not only that! For it is also important to take note of the following, that is to say, that whenever the proponent of biological evolution uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of biological evolution his or her evidential case entails the equivocation fallacy; particularly because it entails the equation of the bones of the species with the species even though there is a clear distinction between the bones of the species and the species. For every evidential case, the evidential case violates the law of identity if [and only if] it entails the equivocation fallacy. And subsequently whenever the proponent of biological evolution uses the fossil record to make an evidential case he or she has necessarily violated the law of identity. Every case that violates the law of identity also violates the law of non contradiction because the violation of the law of identity implies the following, namely that the proponent of biological evolution is claiming this, namely that species is what it is and not what it is at the same time. Hence whenever the proponent of biological evolution uses the fossil to make an evidential case in favor of biological evolution he or she has violated the law of non contradiction. An evidential case is logically coherent or logically possible if [and only if] it does not entail a contradiction. Hence the proponent’s evidential case is necessarily not only logically incoherent but also logically impossible. Every case that is logically incoherent is false because truth is coherent in the context of the coherence theory of truth. Therefore the evidential case [from the fossil record] and in favor of biological evolution is false.
DR did, at least for a few comments, stay in the conversation…..
JR: The fossils of shelled creatures most definitely DO show us what they looked like before. A shell is the external layer of such a creature and therefore faithfully reveals their appearance.
DR: Cherry picking! Plus my post is about body fossils and not trace fossils or living fossils. Give up!
JR: That will be all the mollusks and Arthropods. You are stupidly thinking only of creatures with an endoskeleton. And, even then, there are fossils that have preserved the soft parts. This happens in ice, peat bogs, resin and tar pits. You are the one who needs to give up and go back to school.
JR: Why do you come here to parade your ignorance?
DR: The fossil records do not show us what any specie looked like before. The nature of the fossil does not even matter.
JR: Check out the Cretaceous era. No endoskeletal fossils there but the rocks are entirely made out of dead creatures.
MW: How sad, to be so religiously delusional as to feel compelled to repeatedly advertise your inability to comprehend the basics of life, DR.
Here is the point where I ended up in a dialogue with a fellow who demonstrated even less understanding of science than the O. P.
AM: Dinosaurs were made up… people here couldn’t tell a fossil from bird shit.
MW: If you’re trying to out-stupid the OP, nice try, but you’ll need to try harder than that.
AM: MW you have zero input on the subject. You know nothing about the real world, stick to sci-fi and fantasy… clearly you are outclassed here.
Dave Mundt DR Your argument is without merit, because it is based on false premises.
- Your claim that the fossil record does not record the appearance of long-dead creatures is false. The fossil record preserves the bones, and, often a record of the skin and other soft tissues of said creatures. This is easy to verify by some research of the archaeological reports generated from this data.
- The data about the creatures and plants that existed during the various eras DO show distinct changes in the creatures. The living creatures that persist are the ones that had the characteristics giving the best chance of survival under changing conditions, and those characteristics came, often, from genetic mutation. the basic definition of evolution is the adaptation to changes in the world, via genetic changes that provide an advantage for survival.
- You imply that, because the fossil record is incomplete, that it is meaningless. Alas, reality is that the world is imperfect, and so, gaps happen. However, IF there is a reasonable path to traverse that gap, going from the earlier genetic structure to the later one, it is not unreasonable to accept that as a valid connection. Occam’s Razor is useful here.
- You make the claim that there is no connection between the bones of a creature and the creature itself. That, in and of itself, should invoke questions…as in most creatures, the skeletal structure IS a defining aspect of the creature. After all, it is trivial to cloth a skeleton in flesh, and end up with a quite valid representation of the creature. I refer you to the forensic technique of Facial Reconstruction, as an example. it is rather more difficult to start with the flesh and reconstruct the skeleton.
- Frankly, some of the argument you present above seems overly obfuscated, perhaps in an attempt to create such a confusing shower of words that it is difficult to know how to respond.
Finally…If Evolution is a fallacy, as you claim…what is the alternative you would suggest?
AM: Another comment from someone who can’t form a thought of his own. Where did all you idiots come from? Most illogical post I’ve seen here in days… and that’s saying a lot. Here’s some common sense for you… YOU HAVE NEVER DONE ANY OF THE EXPERIMENTS YOU JUST MENTIONED!
MS: It’s kind of ironic how AM claims that Dave can’t “form a thought of his own”, and that he made the “most illogical post” But you’ve done nothing to demonstrate either..
Is this because you are projecting, and really it’s you who can not form a thought of your own, and so your reaction is necessarily illogical as you’ve apparently got nothing whatsoever to back up your claim. All you’ve managed so far, is a typical creationist script.. What DOES say a lot however, is your claim in the other post where you say dinosaurs were made up.. Not only would this demonstrate denial of reality, but this is a contradiction – unless you have done the experiments necessary to demonstrate that dinosaurs are made up, and you’ve got the evidence to back it up..
With this, the combined effort of your multiple posts would firmly place you in the category of tinfoil hat wearing creationists. I would say that it’s an accomplishment, but it’s kind of an inevitable progression if you take the initial scientific illiteracy and combine it dogmatic denialism at any cost.. What’s the most embarrassing, is that you’d actually go online to express these beliefs.. As if there’s not better educated 7 year olds that could be poke holes in your methodology.. But you really went for it and put it out there for everyone to see. Well done! I’d almost suspect that it’s a social experiment where you’re willing to sacrifice your credibility for the sake of making an example of yourself.
AM: My logic that he’s never done any of the experiments himself, trumps both of your comments put together… wall of parroting shit you have been told without any real thought behind it. Both of you full of ego and not being rational or logical. You can’t prove dinosaurs… fact. Get over it… you both have blind faith in what you are told. Morons
Dave Mundt AM: Ok, I have a few minutes…I will go one more round with you.
- True…I have not performed the experiments myself. However, I am well acquainted with both scientific literature, and archaeologists, and, I have no issue with taking as truth the discoveries discussed in the journals, and, by archaeologists. There have been some mis-steps, and misunderstandings while unraveling the fragmentary story of history as recorded in the geologic strata, but, when these are discovered, they are publicized, and corrections to the body of knowledge are made. Are you saying that the only valid conclusions come from experiments that one does themselves? If so, and if you are capable of being an expert in a multitude of fields, I applaud your efforts. However, alas, I fear that the reality is rather different…
- You have pretty much destroyed any validity to your argument by descending to ad hominem attacks immediately. I suspect the pool of people who would agree that calling someone a moron is a robust and insightful way to present an argument that you intend to be a valid argument. As a part of this, by the by, I notice that nowhere in your remarks do you present evidence, or even a convincing premise, to rebut my comments. If you would like to try again, I would be willing to entertain a dialogue.
- Finally, you totally ignored my question I asked at the end of my reply…That indicates to me that you HAVE no answer for it, and so leads me to believe you are simply posting nonsense to get your name visible in FaceBook. However, let me try one more time here… “If Evolution is a fallacy, as you claim…what is the alternative you would suggest?”
AM: “However, I am well acquainted with both scientific literature, and archaeologists, and, I have no issue with taking as truth the discoveries discussed in the journals, and, by archaeologists.” I too have read their discoveries and I don’t take it as truth, so we differ right there.
I go with my observations over any other mans… period.
Fool me once, shame on you… and I’ve been fooled by mainstream science for far too long to let it continue when “their science” doesn’t jive with reality, sorry… I hope you and everyone else wakes up to this someday. It is destroying our world.
Dave Mundt AM: Your post brings up some interesting, and rather revealing issues.
- Why do you discount the discoveries published in scientific journals?
- So…you DO believe that only your own reality has meaning and truth. How is that working for you? And, how does it affect how you interact with the world?
- How have you been “fooled by mainstream science for far too long”? Also, what would it take for us to become “Woke?”
AM: I’m sorry for attacking you, that’s on me. I didn’t respond to any points because it was more of the same I had just been discussing with someone else.
Dave Mundt AM Discussing in THIS thread?
AM: “If Evolution is a fallacy, as you claim…what is the alternative you would suggest?” I thought that question was posed to David, but i shall answer it.
It’s simple, just because a theory is out there, doesn’t mean we actually *know* the alternative….it’s unknown, why do we need theories when we have reality? Why are we so hard pressed to figure out what happened 1 billion years ago when we are so divided here now and cant figure out how to get along now?
Teaching kids about a dinosaurs does nothing for humanity… none at ALL.
Do you know when they claim to find the first bone? Nobody before 1824 ever found these? Egyptians? Then they carbon date them millions of years ago… with no proof, it’s a fairy tale to me… they didn’t exist, it’s part of Darwin’s society with links tied to him. It supported his “theory” he was an author… it’s BS, im not buying it nor do I have to because you guys don’t have empirical evidence that supports it… you have “he said she said”
Dave Mundt AM Sir; there is so much obfuscation in your reply it is nearly impossible to reply to it… So, I will, touch on a couple of general points.
- Again, you are not answering the simple question I posed. So, let me rephrase slightly. Do you believe that living things are exactly the same from the moment they appear on the Earth, until either the point they vanish, or, the current day?
- I am not entirely sure I understand your comments about “theory” and “Reality”. Are you saying that life is exactly the same now as it has been since it appeared on the Earth (and as a part of that, when do YOU believe life appeared on the Earth?)
- What logical connection is there between dealing with the issues of today’s society, and gathering data about Earth as it was millions of years ago?
- I disagree that teaching youth about the long and complex history of the Earth and the changes that have happened during that time is useless. I see it as giving them a broad base of knowledge and understanding, which will, hopefully, allow them to make better decisions when they take over running the planet.
- I fail to understand your comments about when the first dinosaur bone was discovered, and your implying that since that was in the 1800s, there was no way any dinosaur bones could be millions of years old. It is quite possible for items to be buried for very, very long periods of time – and since the process of fossilization is quite well understood – Millions of years is not out of the question. Simply because the movement of the Earth’s crust had not presented these buried fossils where they could be found does not mean that they are not ancient. As for the Egyptians…We simply do not know if they found, or realized, what a fossilized bone looked like. Their culture was not so much focused on Earth Exploration, so it is quite possible they may have run across bits of fossils sticking up out of the ground, and, simply did not record them.
- This, by the by, is strike 2.…
AM: 1. I did answer your exact question, but you want to be condescending and try to re-phrase it… “Again” wasnt necessary since you were talking to David before and not me. So calm down.
I’ll answer your rephrased question. No it hasn’t been the exact same, all life has adapted, but nothing is from one species to another…. and even then, there is unknowns… it’s not important to life now, so we disagree on that with your 4th point. Which makes us disagree on quite a bit.
2. Theory is any idea, from logical to downright insane… and don’t give me the “laws” of a theory shit… there is no scientific proof of the globe, dinosaurs, space, evolution, and many other things we were told. Reality is what we see around us in the NOW.
When? I don’t know , I don’t care, it doesn’t matter at all.
3. explain carbon dating? how is this so accurate? Where do these numbers come from? Even so, what does this do for us, it’s not changing anything now. It’s a waste of time.
5. Question is, How did this go unnoticed through ALL of history up until 1824? “It is quite possible for items to be buried for very, very long periods of time – and since the process of fossilization is quite well understood” This is what you are told, you don’t know exactly how long something can be buried for or not, you are taking peoples word for this. Now you don’t know what the Egyptians could of found? Same goes for everything else in your argument… how do you ever really know? you don’t and this topic is a waste of time.
6. by the way its strike 3
AM: Don’t know what the Egyptians may of found or not, but knows things can be buried for millions of years… see the fallacy?
Dave Mundt AM: I agree. You are out. Thank you for an interesting and amusing discussion. I will close by reminding you that community colleges are inexpensive, and easily available, if one cannot use the internet.
AM: Dave Mundt I’ll pass on paying to be indoctrinated unless I need to regurgitate some information to get a degree to scam other people for a living.
There are a number of interesting (at least to me) issues in this dialogue. For example, Neither DS, nor AM seem to be interested or capable of simply addressing the points I raise, or questions I ask. Instead of providing evidence to support their claims, they either mock, insult, or deflect.
To me, this is a perfect example of how the current administration was able to occupy the Oval Office, and, garner support for some truly Evil actions. The roots of this ignorance and hubris go back decades, though, to the time when folks like this were in elementary, middle, and high schools. The failure of the schools to teach basic skills of critical thought, data analysis and library skills has left us with millions of citizens such as the two we interact with in this thread. They have generated a world view out of thin air, fueled by nothing but fantasy, misunderstanding, and being gulled by conspiracy loonies. They demonstrate NO understanding of science, and, actually are so sure of themselves they reject the tools of science outright.
Assuming that we, the progressives and Liberals in the country, can regain control of the government for a few administrations, I hope that one of the issues addressed will be to clean up the attitudes that have caused the above, vital life skills to be discarded from the educational system.
God Help Us All
Bee man Dave