[W:926]The central evolution problem

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

...
Inversion Fallacy...

...
Even Angel accidentally demonstrated that you used it incorrectly when he googled what the Inverse Fallacy is and gave an example. Yet he still denied you'd got it wrong, and he still got the name wrong himself. Truly Laughable!
...

Look, man. This business of getting the "name" wrong is all in your head. Your thinking about this is googledy-goop. Inverting fallacy, inversion fallacy, fallacious modus tollens, the fallacy of denying the antecedent and the consequent, the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent, all refer to the same logical error. It doesn't have a proper name. It wasn't baptized in the Church of Google.

Even your authority Google isn't riding your hobbyhorse:
"Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

N.B. In fact your preferred "name" -- inverse fallacy -- is used by God Google to name a different fallacy:
"Confusion of the inverse, also called the conditional probability fallacy or the inverse fallacy, is a logical fallacy whereupon a conditional probability is equivocated with its inverse..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_of_the_inverse

These logic sites call it "Denying the Antecedent"--making your preferred name incorrect.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/77/Denying-the-Antecedent
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
Logical Fallacy: Denying the Antecedent

Please stop all this silliness about the name of the fallacy. For the love of God!

 

[Black Dog]

Re: The central evolution problem

I'm surprised zyzygy failed to get this. He's a voracious reader, after all.

u s a g e

And that has what to do with the definition of words???

No wonder you were being so obtuse. Nothing but some kind of red herring for an argument.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

And that has what to do with the definition of words???

No wonder you were being so obtuse. Nothing but some kind of red herring for an argument.

That's how words get their meanings.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: The central evolution problem

Look, man. This business of getting the "name" wrong is all in your head. Your thinking about this is googledy-goop. Inverting fallacy, inversion fallacy, fallacious modus tollens, the fallacy of denying the antecedent and the consequent, the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent, all refer to the same logical error. It doesn't have a proper name. It wasn't baptized in the Church of Google.

Even your authority Google isn't riding your hobbyhorse:
"Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

N.B. In fact your preferred "name" -- inverse fallacy -- is used by God Google to name a different fallacy:
"Confusion of the inverse, also called the conditional probability fallacy or the inverse fallacy, is a logical fallacy whereupon a conditional probability is equivocated with its inverse..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_of_the_inverse

These logic sites call it "Denying the Antecedent"--making your preferred name incorrect.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/77/Denying-the-Antecedent
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
Logical Fallacy: Denying the Antecedent

Please stop all this silliness about the name of the fallacy. For the love of God!

Please stop with your red herring/strawman silliness about a "name".

It's not just about getting the name wrong (which was just funny, especially when you just blindly copied gfm's word). It's more about using the fallacy incorrectly.

You yourself clearly demonstrated that gfm7175 misunderstood the Inverse fallacy and was using it incorrectly. His own words demonstrated he misunderstood the Inverse fallacy and was using it incorrectly. Every time he used the term "Inversion Fallacy" it was used when he believed someone was 'attempting to shift their own faults onto others.' (his own words). The term for that is 'projection', not "Inversion Fallacy! "Inversion Fallacy!" as he keeps mindlessly squawking.

Don't know why you're still trying to defend him. It just makes you look even more foolish.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: The central evolution problem

That's how words get their meanings.

In some cases yes. That is however just one aspect? There are many different routes to language change. Changes can take originate in language learning as I already mentioned, or through language contact, social differentiation, and natural processes in usage. You are trying to base an argument or I should say make a more complicated subject far to simple.

Meh maybe it's just me.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Red Herring. It's not really even about getting the name wrong, it's about using the fallacy incorrectly.

You yourself clearly demonstrated that gfm7175 misunderstood the Inverse fallacy and was using it incorrectly. His own words demonstrated he misunderstood the Inverse fallacy and was using it incorrectly.

Don't know why you're still trying to defend him.

Red herring? If it is, you caught, cleaned and fried that fish. Do we really need to quote the dozen posts in which you go on about this red herring? Can't you stand corrected gracefully?

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

In some cases yes. That is however just one aspect? There are many different routes to language change. Changes can take originate in language learning as I already mentioned, or through language contact, social differentiation, and natural processes in usage. You are trying to base an argument or I should say make a more complicated subject far to simple.

Meh maybe it's just me.

Yes, you're right: it is a complex process. I was just answering those members who have insisted that the meaning of words originates with dictionaries. On the contrary, dictionaries merely record meanings already in currency. Our discussion of the 1400-year career of English, I hope, will serve to disabuse them of their mistaken view. Your example "ain't" is a very goof heuristic in this case. "Ain't" was in currency and its meaning understood long before dictionaries deigned to record it.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: The central evolution problem

Yes, you're right: it is a complex process. I was just answering those members who have insisted that the meaning of words originates with dictionaries. On the contrary, dictionaries merely record meanings already in currency. Our discussion of the 1400-year career of English, I hope, will serve to disabuse them of their mistaken view. Your example "ain't" is a very goof heuristic in this case. "Ain't" was in currency and its meaning understood long before dictionaries deigned to record it.

Someone said they "originate with dictionaries" really? I did not see it. I however did not go through this whole thread either. Absolutely dictionaries are used to recorde words definitions accepted by and for the most part, agreed upon. A true social construct.

With "ain't" just like "reality" you are a little off historically speaking. "Reality" was used for the first time in 1550 in one of the Germanic tongues. "Ain't" around 18th century in Middle English.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: The central evolution problem

Red herring? If it is, you caught, cleaned and fried that fish. Do we really need to quote the dozen posts in which you go on about this red herring? Can't you stand corrected gracefully?

Meh, Your disingenuous claims won't get you *far when anyone can go back and read the posts themselves if they could be bothered. (*Other than to show how far you will go with your dishonesty.)

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Meh, Your disingenuous claims won't get you *far when anyone can go back and read the posts themselves if they could be bothered. (*Other than to show how far you will go with your dishonesty.)

To keep smiling with egg on your face is one thing; to keep snarling another.

You were wrong about the name of the fallacy, period.

You go on and on about this, in two separate threads, in more than a dozen bilious posts, out of line and dead wrong throughout, and when you are called out on the error and manner of your posts, you double down on their bad manners and call the one who caught you "dishonest." Only on the internet!

Here are just some of the posts illustrating how far from grace this silliness about nomenclature has taken you:

More like the 8th time. It's a shame that neither Angel or gfm7175 took the time to find out what an "Inverse fallacy" is, as clearly neither of them know what it means...

Uh, it's actually called the Inverse fallacy, not the "Inversion Fallacy".

But hey, don't let that priceless gaf showing that you don't know what you're talking about, get in the way of you telling another poster "you don't know what you are talking about"

It's not "Inversion Fallacy". It's Inverse fallacy.
...

The logical fallacy is called the Inverse fallacy, not Inversion Fallacy. And gfm7175 has not used it in that way at all.
...

The point is that you claimed to understand what you were talking about and accused others of not understanding, but got the name of the fallacy wrong (you mistakenly called it Inversion Fallacy).
...

Disingenuous. I was quoting you and Angel and your incorrect name for Inverse fallacy.
...

...Even Angel accidentally demonstrated that you used it incorrectly when he googled what the Inverse Fallacy is and gave an example. Yet he still denied you'd got it wrong, and he still got the name wrong himself. Truly Laughable!
...
Like I've said a few times now, you get the name wrong and you use it incorrectly when you believe someone is projecting their own faults on to you.
Are you denying your own words?

Please stop with your red herring/strawman silliness about a "name".

It's not just about getting the name wrong (which was just funny, especially when you just blindly copied gfm's word). It's more about using the fallacy incorrectly.
...

 

[Quaestio]

Re: The central evolution problem

To keep smiling with egg on your face is one thing; to keep snarling another.

You were wrong about the name of the fallacy, period.

You go on and on about this, in two separate threads, in more than a dozen bilious posts, out of line and dead wrong throughout, and when you are called out on the error and manner of your posts, you double down on their bad manners and call the one who caught you "dishonest." Only on the internet!

Here are just some of the posts illustrating how far from grace this silliness about nomenclature has taken you:

Are you still banging on about this? You got exposed. Accept it like a big boy and move on.

But thanks for proving once again the depth of your dishonesty by selectively removing anything I wrote about using the fallacy incorrectly from those posts.

Seems you will go to any lengths to "win". But if the only way you can "win" is to be dishonest, what's the point? Meh.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Thanks for proving the depth of your dishonesty by selectively removing anything I wrote about using the fallacy incorrectly from those posts.

If the only way you can "win" an "argument" is to be dishonest, what's the point?

Stop squirming, man, and own your mistake. We're talking about your rant about nomenclature here. I answered your misuse charge in another thread, and you know it. You're just trying to divert attention from your embarrassment.

Edit

I see you've changed the post I quoted above. Given your bad faith, I thought it best to add your emended version here before you accuse me of altering your post.

Are you still banging on about this? You got exposed. Accept it like a big boy and move on.

But thanks for proving once again the depth of your dishonesty by selectively removing anything I wrote about using the fallacy incorrectly from those posts.

Seems you will go to any lengths to "win". But if the only way you can "win" is to be dishonest, what's the point? Meh.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: The central evolution problem

Stop squirming, man, and own your mistake. We're talking about your rant about nomenclature here. I answered your misuse charge in another thread, and you know it. You're just trying to divert attention from your embarrassment.

The only 'mistake' I made was ever thinking anyone could have an honest discussion with you. I won't make that mistake again.

You got exposed as a very dishonest and silly little Angel and can't accept it. I get it. It probably stung a little, but you'll get over it eventually.
All you are doing now by perpetuating this, is looking even more dishonest and rather ridiculous.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

The only 'mistake' I made was ever thinking anyone could have an honest discussion with you. I won't make that mistake again.

You got exposed as a very dishonest and silly little Angel and can't accept it. I get it. It probably stung a little, but you'll get over it eventually.
All you are doing now is looking even more dishonest and really silly.

What's with the PeeWeeHermanisms?
You were wrong about the fallacy nomenclature and I called you out on it and provided the evidence.
You won't man up and own your mistake, and instead are copping a PeeWee, hoping, one, that members will not bother to check out what went down, and two, that you're going to get my goat.
You're giving bad faith a bad name!

 

[Quaestio]

Re: The central evolution problem

I'm not a psychiatrist so am not qualified to deal with Angel's pathological issues.

 

[Logician Man]

Re: The central evolution problem

I'm not a psychiatrist so am not qualified to deal with Angel's pathological issues.

anger

 

[JacksinPA]

Re: The central evolution problem

One irrefutable proof of the existence of evolution as the engine of change in life exists in the fossil record. Millions of specimens fill museums around the world. When studied individually & as related groups, they point only to the existence of a mechanism first postulated in the mid-19th century by Charles Darwin: random change in heritable factors (now known as DNA) operate in a competitive world to produce new species via a process called natural selection.

The main argument against neo-Darwinian evolution (Darwinian theory combined with Mendelian genetics & modern molecular genetics) is the supposed lack of transitional forms intermediate in structure & function between species & larger groups. This is a specious argument as such transitional forms abound: in the whales, in the horses, in the birds, etc. See
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

One familiar example is Archaeopteryx from the late-Jurassic lithographic limestones of Bavaria. When first found, there was only a single, isolated feather. Today there have been found 12 further specimens of this animal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specimens_of_Archaeopteryx.

What are the transitional features found in this creature? To start, the skull is very reptilian & has jaws armed with a number of sharp teeth, a feature commonly found in reptiles but not birds. The wings (arms) have claws at the elbows, another reptilian feature. And there is a long, bony tail, another reptilian feature.

But the main factor that shows this creature to be transitional are its full complement of feathers preserved in the fine-grained limestone shale. Feathers in the mid-19th century were a defining character of birds, not reptiles.

Taken together, these fossils indicate that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form midway between primitive reptilian dinosaurs & modern birds. While not on the main line of evolution between the 2 groups, it was an evolutionary offshoot that still teaches us a valuable lesson about how evolution works.

One major factor helps to define Archaeopteryx as a true bird: its flight feather were asymmetric. IOW, the feather is longer on one side of the central quill than on the other. This is a feature found in modern, flying birds. Such asymmetry improves the aerodynamic performance of the wing & did not happen by chance or by design: it evolved because it worked. Given even a limited flying ability, this feature would have given it a significant ability to hunt & to evade predation.

For more on this transitional fossil, see https://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Archaeopteryx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
https://www.amnh.org/learn/resources/dinosaurs_resource1.php

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

One irrefutable proof of the existence of evolution as the engine of change in life exists in the fossil record. Millions of specimens fill museums around the world. When studied individually & as related groups, they point only to the existence of a mechanism first postulated in the mid-19th century by Charles Darwin: random change in heritable factors (now known as DNA) operate in a competitive world to produce new species via a process called natural selection.

The main argument against neo-Darwinian evolution (Darwinian theory combined with Mendelian genetics & modern molecular genetics) is the supposed lack of transitional forms intermediate in structure & function between species & larger groups. This is a specious argument as such transitional forms abound: in the whales, in the horses, in the birds, etc. See
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

One familiar example is Archaeopteryx from the late-Jurassic lithographic limestones of Bavaria. When first found, there was only a single, isolated feather. Today there have been found 12 further specimens of this animal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specimens_of_Archaeopteryx.

What are the transitional features found in this creature? To start, the skull is very reptilian & has jaws armed with a number of sharp teeth, a feature commonly found in reptiles but not birds. The wings (arms) have claws at the elbows, another reptilian feature. And there is a long, bony tail, another reptilian feature.

But the main factor that shows this creature to be transitional are its full complement of feathers preserved in the fine-grained limestone shale. Feathers in the mid-19th century were a defining character of birds, not reptiles.

Taken together, these fossils indicate that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form midway between primitive reptilian dinosaurs & modern birds. While not on the main line of evolution between the 2 groups, it was an evolutionary offshoot that still teaches us a valuable lesson about how evolution works.

One major factor helps to define Archaeopteryx as a true bird: its flight feather were asymmetric. IOW, the feather is longer on one side of the central quill than on the other. This is a feature found in modern, flying birds. Such asymmetry improves the aerodynamic performance of the wing & did not happen by chance or by design: it evolved because it worked. Given even a limited flying ability, this feature would have given it a significant ability to hunt & to evade predation.

For more on this transitional fossil, see https://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Archaeopteryx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
https://www.amnh.org/learn/resources/dinosaurs_resource1.php

From the beginning of this post, and throughout the entire thread, it has been repeated and repeated and repeated:

EVOLUTION IS TRUE

So, please, stop providing us with evidence and arguments for evolution. Just stop. Please.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

From the beginning of this post, and throughout the entire thread, it has been repeated and repeated and repeated:

EVOLUTION IS TRUE

So, please, stop providing us with evidence and arguments for evolution. Just stop. Please.

So, for the unpteenth time, what is the central problem then?

 

[JacksinPA]

Re: The central evolution problem

I don't understand this woman. I'm not going to stop posting on a topic I enjoy & am familiar with. She can just stop reading my posts. Just let her click ion my handle to view my Profile & select IGNORE. Works like a charm.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

So, for the unpteenth time, what is the central problem then?

How can anyone have such a bad memory?

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

I don't understand this woman. I'm not going to stop posting on a topic I enjoy & am familiar with. She can just stop reading my posts. Just let her click ion my handle to view my Profile & select IGNORE. Works like a charm.

This was my post. It is about a specific topic, it is not about whether evolution is true. It keeps getting sidetracked onto something completely irrelevant to the original post.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

From the beginning of this post, and throughout the entire thread, it has been repeated and repeated and repeated:

EVOLUTION IS TRUE

So, please, stop providing us with evidence and arguments for evolution. Just stop. Please.

So no higher intelligence?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

How can anyone have such a bad memory?

You still have to state what the problem is.

 

[blarg]

Re: The central evolution problem

So, for the unpteenth time, what is the central problem then?

it leaves out the comforting god did it