I have yet to hear an explaination of 'the Chromosome Challenge' from Einstuck. All he has engaged in is an unsupported accusation of 'CONSPIRACY!' and 'BIAS!', where he accuses scientists of being typically deceitful and biased. His argument amounts to 'OF COURSE these evolutionists are going to skew the evidence to support evolution. It's so obvious, the burden of proof doesn't rest with me to support my assertion of bias, it rests with the skeptics!'
This amounts to nothing more than a 'Poisoning the Well' logic fallacy, via a Circumstantial Ad Hominem attack.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
Einstuck has engaged in a classic example of 'Poisoning the Well' via the use of a Circumstantial Ad Hominem.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html
As my sources explain, when an opponent 'poisons the well', the argument is no longer about the topic at hand, but about the credibility of the arguer, which is an irrelevancy. A Circumstantial argumentum ad hominem aims to discredit the argument by attacking the arguer themselves. This personal attack often includes the claim that the opponent has a 'personal interest' in the matter that they are discussing (aka. they are biased), hence their arguments cannot be trusted.
Quite simply, this is logically fallicious. Merely because the Catholic Church has a history of concealing child abuse, does not invalidate their moral arguments regarding the ethical bankruptcy of the Nazi regime.
Merely because a Republican supports privitization does not automatically invalidate his arguments in favour of privitization.
Einstuck has consistently failed to attack the argument that the genetical observations presented in this thread are a powerful indicator of common descent.
He has also failed to provide a valid alternative explaination as to why we observe such genetical similiarities which strongly indicate common descent.
Instead, he has ATTACKED THE ARGUERS THEMSELVES, which is nothing more than a 'poisoning the well' fallacy (a pre-emptive circumstantial ad hominem attack). This would equivalent to be attempting to debunk a Creationist argument by touting that obviously their statements are false, 'because they are Creationists, and hence they will obviously be biased in favour of Creationism due to their religious beliefs'.
In fact, Einstuck's line of Circumstantial Ad Hominem can be used against ANY opponent. "Of course he interprets that evidence according to *insert subject*, because he is an avid supporter of *insert subject*, and would be heartbroken if his views of *insert subject* were debunked.
Everyone is biased to someone degree, however, this gives no indication on whether their ARGUMENTS contain bias.
Quite simply, Einstuck himself admitted that "(He is) not challenging the data, just exaggerated claims as to its significance."
Hence, Einstuck needs to stop engaging in argumentum ad hominem, and give a robust explaination as to why the fusion of 2 chimp chromosomes into a single human chromosome is not excellent evidence of common descent. He needs to explain why the argument pushing common descent as a valid explaination for the genetic data is flawed, NOT why the argumenters themselves flawed.
Arguments about 'bias' being common amongst scientists is not only a red herring, it is a poisoning the well fallacy. An argument stands or falls on its own merits , not on the credentials and 'biases' of the one pushing the argument.
I will ignore any further attempts by Einstuck to engage in 'poisoning the well' fallacies, and will only address his rebuttals to the ACTUAL CHALLENGE. Any attempt at shifting the burden of proof regarding the honesty of scientists will be ignored, because not only is 'shifting the burden of proof' a logic fallacy, the honesty of scientists is irrelevant when it comes to the challenge at hand.
I'm sick of being led on a wild goose chase. Are there any Creationists here who are willing to address the challenge itself, instead of engaging in logic fallacies galore?
This amounts to nothing more than a 'Poisoning the Well' logic fallacy, via a Circumstantial Ad Hominem attack.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
Einstuck has engaged in a classic example of 'Poisoning the Well' via the use of a Circumstantial Ad Hominem.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html
As my sources explain, when an opponent 'poisons the well', the argument is no longer about the topic at hand, but about the credibility of the arguer, which is an irrelevancy. A Circumstantial argumentum ad hominem aims to discredit the argument by attacking the arguer themselves. This personal attack often includes the claim that the opponent has a 'personal interest' in the matter that they are discussing (aka. they are biased), hence their arguments cannot be trusted.
Quite simply, this is logically fallicious. Merely because the Catholic Church has a history of concealing child abuse, does not invalidate their moral arguments regarding the ethical bankruptcy of the Nazi regime.
Merely because a Republican supports privitization does not automatically invalidate his arguments in favour of privitization.
Einstuck has consistently failed to attack the argument that the genetical observations presented in this thread are a powerful indicator of common descent.
He has also failed to provide a valid alternative explaination as to why we observe such genetical similiarities which strongly indicate common descent.
Instead, he has ATTACKED THE ARGUERS THEMSELVES, which is nothing more than a 'poisoning the well' fallacy (a pre-emptive circumstantial ad hominem attack). This would equivalent to be attempting to debunk a Creationist argument by touting that obviously their statements are false, 'because they are Creationists, and hence they will obviously be biased in favour of Creationism due to their religious beliefs'.
In fact, Einstuck's line of Circumstantial Ad Hominem can be used against ANY opponent. "Of course he interprets that evidence according to *insert subject*, because he is an avid supporter of *insert subject*, and would be heartbroken if his views of *insert subject* were debunked.
Everyone is biased to someone degree, however, this gives no indication on whether their ARGUMENTS contain bias.
Quite simply, Einstuck himself admitted that "(He is) not challenging the data, just exaggerated claims as to its significance."
Hence, Einstuck needs to stop engaging in argumentum ad hominem, and give a robust explaination as to why the fusion of 2 chimp chromosomes into a single human chromosome is not excellent evidence of common descent. He needs to explain why the argument pushing common descent as a valid explaination for the genetic data is flawed, NOT why the argumenters themselves flawed.
Arguments about 'bias' being common amongst scientists is not only a red herring, it is a poisoning the well fallacy. An argument stands or falls on its own merits , not on the credentials and 'biases' of the one pushing the argument.
I will ignore any further attempts by Einstuck to engage in 'poisoning the well' fallacies, and will only address his rebuttals to the ACTUAL CHALLENGE. Any attempt at shifting the burden of proof regarding the honesty of scientists will be ignored, because not only is 'shifting the burden of proof' a logic fallacy, the honesty of scientists is irrelevant when it comes to the challenge at hand.
I'm sick of being led on a wild goose chase. Are there any Creationists here who are willing to address the challenge itself, instead of engaging in logic fallacies galore?
Last edited:
