Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Evolution, Genetics, and Bad Logic

Evolutionists have a habit of making assertions about the past from limited information about things not fully understood. When it comes to genetics, they're in a world of hurt. One of the hallmarks in scum-to-stalker evolution is bad logic, and they often resort to affirming the consequent. Basically, it goes like this:
1. If p, then q.
2. We have q.
3. Therefore, p.
Seems simple enough, but it leaves out the possibility of other explanations. As Jason Lisle illustrates:
1. If it's snowing, it must be cold outside.
2. It's cold outside.
3. Therefore, it's snowing out.
Not hardly!

Let's use this in a way that Darwinists do it:
1. If evolution is true, then DNA will be found in living organisms.
2. DNA is found in living organisms.
3. Therefore, evolution is true.
Evolutionists have a habit of making assertions about the past from limited information about things not fully understood. When it comes to genetics, they're in a world of hurt.
Made through the Chalkboard Message Generator at Add Letters
This leaves out pertinent data, which is something these owlhoots will do frequently. Take ERVs (Endogenous RetroViruses), for instance. Using a passel of assumptions and reasoning from evolutionary biases, we're being told that ERVs are junk, but since they're found in similar life forms, we must have a common ancestor. See how they reason? And they are the ones educating (indoctrinating) children at government-run schools.

Let's take a look-see at a bigger picture — which is something Darwinists really need to do so they won't embarrass themselves so often. Let's let a creationist provide more information.
If two students hand in an assignment containing exactly the same mistakes, their teacher will rightly suspect that one (or both) has been copying the other’s work. This is because the chance of them independently making the same mistakes is very small. Similarly, when an identical mutation is found in the DNA of apes and humans, evolutionists claim that the only reasonable explanation is that the mutation occurred in a common ancestor and was then passed down to its descendants.

There are many parts of our DNA that look like virus DNA, and some evolutionists argue that this shows that these parts of our DNA came from viruses. Our ancestors, they say, were infected by viruses which added DNA to our ancestors’ DNA, and this was then passed down to us. These short stretches of genetic material are often referred to as ERVs (Endogenous RetroViruses; see box) and are said to be ‘junk’ having no useful purpose. Since we sometimes find the same ERVs in the same locations in the DNA of apes and humans, evolutionists claim that ERVs provide strong evidence for evolution. The probability, they say, of the same viruses randomly inserting the same stretches of DNA in the same locations in human and ape DNA is negligible. It is far more likely, they say, that a common ancestor passed on its ERVs to both humans and apes.

As convincing as it sounds, however, closer examination reveals serious flaws in this argument.
To read the rest (and some interesting short technical short articles), click on "Mistakes about mistakes".


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels