Darwinian Fallacy
All-Seeing-I
qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
Premise: A is a B
Premise: A is also a C
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
Evolution is Variarion
Variation is also Divergence
Therefore all Variation is Divergence
This is not observed in nature. Therefore evolution is a fallacy.
Burkhard
> Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
> qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
>
> Premise: A is a B
> Premise: A is also a C
> Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>
> Evolution is Variarion
> Variation is also Divergence
If you formalised this sentence you would get of course "B is C" not "A
is C" as your schema above requires
>
> Therefore all Variation is Divergence
>
> This is not observed in nature. Therefore evolution is a fallacy.
>
whether or not something is observed in nature is irrelevant for the
issue where or not an argument is a fallacy. Observation is about
factual truth, fallacy is a question of formally correct reasoning.
Since "evolution" is a term (denoting an event), it can't by definition
be a fallacy, only arguments are.
You would have a fallacy according to your scheme if anyone had argued:
Evolution is Divergence
Evolution is (also) Variation
therefore Divergence is Variation
This is indeed a fallacy.
Technically speaking, for a proper fallacy by association, you need
something slightly different though. Something like: All evolution
events are variation events
Some evolution events are also Divergence events
therefore All variation events are divergence events.
Fortunately enough, no biologist ever made either the first or the
second type of argument, so you are essentially talking to yourself again.
Klaus Hellnick
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
>> qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
>>
>> Premise: A is a B
>> Premise: A is also a C
>> Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>>
>> Evolution is Variarion
>> Variation is also Divergence
>
> If you formalised this sentence you would get of course "B is C" not "A
> is C" as your schema above requires
>
Um, no. All you get is that B and C are not exclusive.
Klaus
Burkhard
> Burkhard wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
>>> qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
>>>
>>> Premise: A is a B
>>> Premise: A is also a C
>>> Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>>>
>>> Variation is also Divergence
>>
>> If you formalised this sentence you would get of course "B is C" not
>> "A is C" as your schema above requires
>>
>
> Um, no. All you get is that B and C are not exclusive.
> Klaus
>
?? My point is simply that ASI illegitimately replaced in the scheme
"A" with "evolution" in the first premise and with "variation" in the
second premise. He obviously has to stick to a consistent assignment of
terms to the variables. If we assume that the first premise "A is B" is
interpreted as "Evolution (A) is Variation (B)" then the next premise
"Variation is also Divergence" must be symbolically "B is C", not "A is C"
Boikat
> Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
> qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
That depends on if the associated trait(s) is irrelevent.
>
> Premise: A is a B
> Premise: A is also a C
> Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>
> Evolution is Variarion
In part.
> Variation is also Divergence
Not always.
>
> Therefore all Variation is Divergence
False claim detected. Actually, once again it appears you are
engaging in a Strawman Argument. You've once again constructed a
false possition to refute. Sorry, ASS-I(diot), you've failed to
refute the ToE, again.
>
> This is not observed in nature.
False, since variations within a population has indeed been observed.
Your faulty premise is that varaition, though a *part* of the process
of evolution, is the whole of the ToE. You are, of course, wrong
again.
> Therefore evolution is a fallacy.
Though I find it interesting that you'e decided to study logical
fallacies (No doubt because you commit so many of them), you do not
seem to have the ability to *understand* them.
Boikat
VoiceOfReason
> Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
> qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
>
> Premise: A is a B
> Premise: A is also a C
> Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>
> Evolution is Variarion
False premise.
> Variation is also Divergence
False premise.
> Therefore all Variation is Divergence
Erroneous conclusion based on false premises.
> This is not observed in nature. Therefore evolution is a fallacy.
Ditto.
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
> > qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
>
>
> is C" as your schema above requires
>
>
>
> > Therefore all Variation is Divergence
>
> > This is not observed in nature. Therefore evolution is a fallacy.
>
> whether or not something is observed in nature is irrelevant for the
> issue where or not an argument is a fallacy. Observation is about
> factual truth, fallacy is a question of formally correct reasoning.
> Since "evolution" is a term (denoting an event), it can't by definition
> be a fallacy, only arguments are.
>
> You would have a fallacy according to your scheme if anyone had argued:
> Evolution is Divergence
> Evolution is (also) Variation
> therefore Divergence is Variation
>
> This is indeed a fallacy.
> Technically speaking, for a proper fallacy by association, you need
> something slightly different though. Something like: All evolution
> events are variation events
> Some evolution events are also Divergence events
> therefore All variation events are divergence events.
>
> Fortunately enough, no biologist ever made either the first or the
> second type of argument, so you are essentially talking to yourself again.
You rewright the formula given in wikipedia for a fallicy, and then
realizing that, at the end you have to claim the words are not
actually what they mean. Such nonsense from you.
Here. I'll put them under each other w/definations and follow the
exact formula in wikipedia:
________________________
Premise: A is also B
Evolution is also Variaton
Evolution = heritable differences (VARIATION) in their traits.
________________________
Premise: A is also a C
Evolution is also Divergence (speciation)
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species
arise
___________________________
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
Therefore all Variations are Divergence
Evolution is a fallacy.
alextangent
Straw man.
bpuharic
evolution is observed in nature. MRSA, VRSA, bacterial resistance, all
are seen in nature.
so unless the creationist, who thinks jellyfish and sharks are the
same thing because both are 'fish', has an explanation as to how this
happened,
he's wrong
Burkhard
Quite on the contrary, I just pointed out that you misapplied the
formula. If you instantiate an abstract formula of the type "All As are
Bs", "All As are Cs" etc you must replace the same symbol by the same
word throughout the argument, which you didn't (Hint: in your original
post, you replaced "A" in the first premise by "Evolution" and in the
second premise by "Variation".
and then
> realizing that, at the end you have to claim the words are not
> actually what they mean. Such nonsense from you.
>
> Here. I'll put them under each other w/definations and follow the
> exact formula in wikipedia:
> ________________________
>
> Premise: A is also B
> Evolution is also Variaton
> Evolution = heritable differences (VARIATION) in their traits.
>
You don't in fact follow the wikepdia formula, at least not to the
letter (though arguably in spirit) If you look again, the wikipedia
formula uses All quantified sentences of the form: _All_ As are, _All_
Bs are.
That's because they use modern, extensional logic. You are closer to a
syllogism, which historically was an intensional logic of concept meaning.
Both can be used, but you need to make up your mind which one you want -
as it is, you you mix them which doesn't work - look at your new version
below, where in the conclusion you suddenly get an "All" which you don;t
have in nay of the premises, always a bad sign.
So you can either, as I said, try something like "All evolution events
etc", staying close to wikipedia and get the conclusion you just stated,
or you can try "Evolution is divergence" in which case your conclusion
is "Variation is Divergence".
Doesn't make much difference, but they are slightly different fallacies.
> ________________________
>
> Premise: A is also a C
> Evolution is also Divergence (speciation)
> Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species
> arise
> ___________________________
>
>
> Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
> Therefore all Variations are Divergence
>
>
Indeed, that was my point. That now would have been a correct
application (more or less) of the the fallacy scheme. But in your
original post, the second premise was "Variation (not evolution) is
Divergence", hence a misapplication of the scheme
> Evolution is a fallacy.
No, terms are never fallacies, the entire argument is a fallacy. That
however simply means that you could not use it to show that "All
Variations are Divergence" is true - even if the premises were true.
But since nobody ever claimed that all variation is divergence in the
first place, the point is rather moot.
>
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Premise: A is also B
>Evolution is also Variaton
>Evolution = heritable differences (VARIATION) in their traits.
>
>________________________
>
>Premise: A is also a C
>Evolution is also Divergence (speciation)
>Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species
>arise
>___________________________
>
>
>Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>Therefore all Variations are Divergence
>
>
>Evolution is a fallacy.
ROFLMAO!!! i guess he kinda forgot that evolution is a mechanism THAT
CAUSES CHANGE
so the creationist's definition of change is that there is no change
such is creationist logic
Free Lunch
No, your syllogism is fallacious.
Go away and learn. Stop showing us how proud you are of your ignorance.
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
All-seeing-I
Why do you decieve and Lie for your science?
All-seeing-I
I followed the formula to a "Tee" with definations. Still you persist
in taking the simple formula and rewriting it.
Using deduction instead:
If evolution is a type of variation within the theory of evolution
and, if evolution is also speciation divergence then, the types of
variation within the theory of evolution must also be speciation
divergence.
Deduced.
But we know that is not observed. Therefore evolution can not be
deduced logically using it's own parts and definations of those parts.
Caranx latus
> Why do you decieve and Lie for your science?
It does no good to complain about someone lying if you snip away *all*
context. Are you complaining that:
a) your syllogism was *not* fallacious?
b) you are *not* proud of your ignorance? or
c) Jesus didn't say what was quoted?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
No, you did not. You cheated. All speciation is a result of evolution
but not all evolution results in speciation. You cheated when you
casually tried to slide your parenthetical claim that evolution is
speciation into the definition.
>Still you persist
>in taking the simple formula and rewriting it.
You persist in misrepresenting what evolution is. Speciation is only one
result of it.
>Using deduction instead:
>If evolution is a type of variation within the theory of evolution
>and, if evolution is also speciation divergence then, the types of
>variation within the theory of evolution must also be speciation
>divergence.
>
>Deduced.
Failed.
>But we know that is not observed. Therefore evolution can not be
>deduced logically using it's own parts and definations of those parts.
Only because you refuse to treat science with any respect.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>Why do you decieve and Lie for your science?
I see that you deleted everything to ask that question, but failed to
acknowledge that. Thank you for showing us how dishonest you are willing
to be to defend the false claims you teach.
Burkhard
When? In the first post, you used "A" for two terms, which made it
simply wrong.
In the second version you posted, things looked reasonably OK, You did
not cite to wikipedia, so I did not check what they are saying, but in
your version of the fallacy, you mixed a version that uses quantifieres
such as "a" and "all" and a version where you don't. both versions
exist, both are fallacies, so it does not matter much, but it is
technically more correct to keep them apart.
>
> Using deduction instead:
> If evolution is a type of variation within the theory of evolution
> and, if evolution is also speciation divergence then, the types of
> variation within the theory of evolution must also be speciation
> divergence.
>
> Deduced.
?? I don't get you at all. This is indeed the same fallacious argument
you have been talking about: From "if A then B" 9or A is b) and (If A
then C" does not follow that "B is C". Simple counterexamples: All
Ferraris have wheels (are things with wheels; If soemthing si a Ferrari,
it has wheels etc) ) and "All Ferraris have motors", it does not follow
that all things with wheels are things with motors - horse carriages
are the obvious counter example.
>
>
> But we know that is not observed. Therefore evolution can not be
> deduced logically using it's own parts and definations of those parts.
It is totally unclear what you try to say by this. You seem now to tray
a falsification along these lines:
If the theory of evolution were true, all forms of variation would also
be speciation.
It is (observably) not the case that all variation is speciation,
Therefore, the theory of evolution is wrong.
This is indeed a formally correct argument fo the form: If A then B, not
B therefore not A.
It is however also not very interesting, sine the first premise is
obviously wrong, and no evolutionist claims it.
>
Will in New Haven
> On Nov 26, 6:39 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
<snipped nonsensical straw-man arguments>
> Evolution is a fallacy.
You can present arguments for evolution that are fallacies. You can
then demonstrate that those arguments are fallacies. However, you
can't make a dent in the _actual_ arguments for evolution.
Ironically, this would be true if evolution _were_ a fallacy because
you are uneducated fool and an untalented debater. You could switch
sides with one of the more talented "evolutionists" on T.O. and you
would _still lose_
Give up. Have a nice Thanksgiving.
--
Will in New Haven
Dana Tweedy
> Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
> qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
>
> Premise: A is a B
> Premise: A is also a C
> Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>
> Evolution is Variarion
No, evolution is not variation. Variation is a condition caused ultimately
by mutation in a population. Variation is necessary for evolution to work,
but it's not evolution itself.
> Variation is also Divergence
No, again, variation is the differences found in a population. Divergence
is the widening of those differences, caused by a number of factors,
including genetic isolation, selection, and drift.
>
> Therefore all Variation is Divergence
Strawman. No one claims that variation is divergence.
>
> This is not observed in nature. Therefore evolution is a fallacy.
What's observed in nature is populations changing over time. With enough
change, the populations diverge into new species.
Beating up strawmen only gets you covered in straw.
DJT
All-seeing-I
He is a hypocrite that is known to lie while saying the other person
is.
John Harshman
False premises lead to false conclusions. Your first false premise is
that evolution is variation. The second is that variation is divergence.
So of course the conclusion is wrong.
It's not even a demonstration of the fallacy you start with. A proper
set of premises for that would be:
Evolution is Variation
Evolution is Divergence
Therefore all Variation is Divergence.
But the main thing to know is that this has nothing to do with
evolution, and you are the only person claiming it does.
All-seeing-I
Time is running out FL.
JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU AWAITS YOUR ANSWER.
And for goodness sake, have some intregerity. State your case without
telling lies about others.
Caranx latus
Oh, poor you. Was that a "none of the above"?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
>Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
>qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
>
>Premise: A is a B
>Premise: A is also a C
>Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>
>Evolution is Variarion
"Variarion"? Obvious typo, qwerty keyboards being what they
are, but it sounds Linnean.
>Variation is also Divergence
Not quite: "Variation can lead to divergence". Or possibly
"Divergence begins with variation." HTH
>Therefore all Variation is Divergence
That is not claimed by science.
>This is not observed in nature. Therefore evolution is a fallacy.
"That which is not claimed is not observed, therefore what
is claimed is a fallacy."
Neat! I take it your logic instructor suicided in
mid-course?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 10:22�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:58:26 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Why do you decieve and Lie for your science?
>>
>> I see that you deleted everything to ask that question, but failed to
>> acknowledge that. Thank you for showing us how dishonest you are willing
>> to be to defend the false claims you teach.
>
>Time is running out FL.
>
No, it is not.
>JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU AWAITS YOUR ANSWER.
>
There is nothing righteous about you, or your moldy canaanite rain
god.
>And for goodness sake, have some intregerity.
Hell, you can't even spell it.
>State your case without
>telling lies about others.
>
Take your own advice.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
>qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
>
>Premise: A is a B
>Premise: A is also a C
>Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>
>Evolution is Variarion
>Variation is also Divergence
>
>Therefore all Variation is Divergence
>
>This is not observed in nature. Therefore evolution is a fallacy.
You really are stupid Mudbrain.
Evolution is variation over time.
Divergence has been see to occur.
Evolution is seen in nature both through living organisms and through
the fossil and genetic record.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I followed the formula to a "Tee" with definations.
You don't understand it.
But then I've yet to see you understand anything.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>Why do I decieve and Lie for my gods?
Text corrected.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>Why do I deceive and lie for my gods?
Text corrected.
Boikat
> On Nov 26, 10:22 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:58:26 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
> > wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > >Why do you decieve and Lie for your science?
>
> > I see that you deleted everything to ask that question, but failed to
> > acknowledge that. Thank you for showing us how dishonest you are willing
> > to be to defend the false claims you teach.
>
> Time is running out FL.
You're an idiot.
>
> JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU AWAITS YOUR ANSWER.
Screw 'im.
>
> And for goodness sake, have some intregerity. State your case without
> telling lies about others.
Irony.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
Troll.
Boikat
Projection.
Boikat
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
You are, and a lying one at that.
--
Bob.
The truth is like ice water, it shocks you when it hits you, but no
one's ever died from it. Do yourself a favour and try it sometime.
Dave Oldridge
7710f8...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
>qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
>
>Premise: A is a B
>Premise: A is also a C
>Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>
>Evolution is Variarion
>Variation is also Divergence
>
>Therefore all Variation is Divergence
>
>This is not observed in nature. Therefore evolution is a fallacy.
Are you determined to demonstrate your stupidity? If so, you have pretty
much succeeded. Stupidity is often a side effect of hanging out in
demonic cults.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
I don't see any lies from him. But I have seen a lot from you.
Davej
> [...]
> This is not observed in nature. Therefore evolution is a fallacy.
What is observed in nature?
1. Children resemble their parents but are not exact copies of their
parents.
2. Survival is a struggle and a great many die before reproducing.
3. Most species are already extinct. We find only their fossilized
bones.
4. Animals on isolated islands resemble their mainland counterparts
but are different.
5. Selective breeding of animals for relatively short periods of time
can yield distinct results.
All-Seeing-I
I can always tell when I win because you start up with the persoanl
attacks.
Good. Now back in your cage, Ape.
Desertphile
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 9:56 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> <snipped nonsensical straw-man arguments>
>> Evolution is a fallacy.
In the same sense that sunlight is a fallacy.
> You can present arguments for evolution that are fallacies. You can
> then demonstrate that those arguments are fallacies. However, you
> can't make a dent in the _actual_ arguments for evolution.
Creationists have been trying to do that for over 300 years.
Charles Darwin came along and shut up most of them.
> Ironically, this would be true if evolution _were_ a fallacy because
> you are uneducated fool and an untalented debater. You could switch
> sides with one of the more talented "evolutionists" on T.O. and you
> would _still lose_
>
> Give up. Have a nice Thanksgiving.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Stuart
> Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
> qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
>
> Premise: A is a B
> Premise: A is also a C
> Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>
> Evolution is Variarion
> Variation is also Divergence
>
> Therefore all Variation is Divergence
>
Nothing is better than God.
Something is better than Nothing.
Therefore Something is better than God.
QED.
STuart
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>I followed the formula to a "Tee" with definations. Still you persist
>in taking the simple formula and rewriting it.
>
>Using deduction instead:
>If evolution is a type of variation within the theory of evolution
?? what the hell does THIS mean?? creationists cant even write a
meaningful sentence.
>and, if evolution is also speciation divergence then, the types of
>variation within the theory of evolution must also be speciation
>divergence.
how one arrives at this conclusion after his premise is known only, i
suppose, to creationsits.
normal people can't think like creationsits because we stopped
believing in wizards when we were 7
>
>Deduced.
>
>
>But we know that is not observed. Therefore evolution can not be
>deduced logically using it's own parts and definations of those parts.
when i was in nursing school, i saw the results of MRSA. evolution is
a fact
creationism is a 2000 year failure. that's also a fact
Caranx latus
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:07:26 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >I followed the formula to a "Tee" with definations. Still you persist
> >in taking the simple formula and rewriting it.
>
> >Using deduction instead:
> >If evolution is a type of variation within the theory of evolution
>
> ?? what the hell does THIS mean?? creationists cant even write a
> meaningful sentence.
Whatever you do, don't suggest to [M]adape that confused language like
this clearly demonstrates how superficial his command of evolutionary
concepts is or he'll throw a wobbly.
Mike Dworetsky
Conclusions based on your actual posts and their content do not amount to a
personal attack. I'd agree that they are pretty accurate descriptions,
based on several threads you started recently, including this one, as well
as all the older ones.
My, he really cut you to the quick, didn't he?
>
> Good. Now back in your cage, Ape.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Boikat
> On Nov 26, 9:20 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 6:39 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >>> Association fallacy asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently
> > >>> qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
>
> > >> is C" as your schema above requires
>
> > >>> Therefore all Variation is Divergence
> > >>> This is not observed in nature. Therefore evolution is a fallacy.
> > >> issue where or not an argument is a fallacy. Observation is about
> > >> factual truth, fallacy is a question of formally correct reasoning.
> > >> Since "evolution" is a term (denoting an event), it can't by definition
> > >> be a fallacy, only arguments are.
>
> > >> You would have a fallacy according to your scheme if anyone had argued:
> > >> Evolution is Divergence
> > >> Evolution is (also) Variation
> > >> therefore Divergence is Variation
>
> > >> This is indeed a fallacy.
> > >> Technically speaking, for a proper fallacy by association, you need
> > >> something slightly different though. Something like: All evolution
> > >> events are variation events
> > >> Some evolution events are also Divergence events
> > >> therefore All variation events are divergence events.
>
> > >> Fortunately enough, no biologist ever made either the first or the
> > >> second type of argument, so you are essentially talking to yourself again.
>
> > > You rewright the formula given in wikipedia for a fallicy,
>
> > Quite on the contrary, I just pointed out that you misapplied the
> > formula. If you instantiate an abstract formula of the type "All As are
> > Bs", "All As are Cs" etc you must replace the same symbol by the same
> > word throughout the argument, which you didn't (Hint: in your original
> > post, you replaced "A" in the first premise by "Evolution" and in the
> > second premise by "Variation".
>
> > and then
>
> > > realizing that, at the end you have to claim the words are not
> > > actually what they mean. Such nonsense from you.
>
> > > Here. I'll put them under each other w/definations and follow the
> > > exact formula in wikipedia:
> > > ________________________
>
> > > Premise: A is also B
> > > Evolution is also Variaton
> > > Evolution = heritable differences (VARIATION) in their traits.
>
> > You don't in fact follow the wikepdia formula, at least not to the
> > letter (though arguably in spirit) If you look again, the wikipedia
> > formula uses All quantified sentences of the form: _All_ As are, _All_
> > Bs are.
>
> > That's because they use modern, extensional logic. You are closer to a
> > syllogism, which historically was an intensional logic of concept meaning.
>
> > Both can be used, but you need to make up your mind which one you want -
> > as it is, you you mix them which doesn't work - look at your new version
> > below, where in the conclusion you suddenly get an "All" which you don;t
> > have in nay of the premises, always a bad sign.
>
> > So you can either, as I said, try something like "All evolution events
> > etc", staying close to wikipedia and get the conclusion you just stated,
> > or you can try "Evolution is divergence" in which case your conclusion
> > is "Variation is Divergence".
> > Doesn't make much difference, but they are slightly different fallacies.
>
> > > ________________________
>
> > > Premise: A is also a C
> > > Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species
> > > arise
> > > ___________________________
>
> > > Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
>
> > Indeed, that was my point. That now would have been a correct
> > application (more or less) of the the fallacy scheme. But in your
> > original post, the second premise was "Variation (not evolution) is
> > Divergence", hence a misapplication of the scheme
>
> > > Evolution is a fallacy.
>
> > No, terms are never fallacies, the entire argument is a fallacy. That
> > however simply means that you could not use it to show that "All
> > Variations are Divergence" is true - even if the premises were true.
> > But since nobody ever claimed that all variation is divergence in the
> > first place, the point is rather moot.
>
> I followed the formula to a "Tee" with definations. Still you persist
> in taking the simple formula and rewriting it.
>
> Using deduction instead:
> If evolution is a type of variation within the theory of evolution
Evolution is not a "type of variation within the throry of evolution"
> if evolution is also speciation divergence then, the types of
> variation within the theory of evolution must also be speciation
> divergence.
Wrong, since your first statement is not only wrong, but meaningless,
therefore your conclusion is wrong and meaningless.
>
> Deduced.
>
> But we know that is not observed. Therefore evolution can not be
> deduced logically using it's own parts and definations of those parts.
This is true when your definitions are bogus.
You've again demonstrated that when it comes to logic, you're a non-
starter, adn a total failure.
Boikat
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
keep dreaming Ape.
Mike Dworetsky
Wrong attribution, but still a pretty lame riposte, Trilobite-boy.
All-Seeing-I
your momma is a Trilobite
Boikat
It's somewhat easy to see how you would think that (because you're
stupid), since you thorugh trilobites were cambrian mammals.
Boikat
heekster
Keep guessing ament.
You were wrong when you said that trilobites were Cambrian mammals,
and you were wrong when you said that Mike's momma was a trilobite.
The popcorn is ready, and we await your next astonishingly imbecilic,
and remarkably ignorant claim.
Ye Old One
Stop trolling Ape.
--
Bob.
You are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Your mother, and your father if you had one, were apes.
--
Bob.
Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had
enough oxygen at birth?
Mike Dworetsky
heekster
He knows a trilobite is something, he just hasn't figured out what,
yet.