Here is evidence to evolution. Is there any fallacies in the evidence given below?

Question

Anaylize this given what David Hume stated about causation.

-Why are there different human races?
-Why are there worthless chunks of DNA (IE introns) in every organism's genome?
-Why do we have an appendix?
-Why do we have a third undeveloped eyelid (nictating membrane)?
-Why do we have a tail bone (caudal vertebrae of coccyx)?
-Why do we have gills in fetal development?
-Why do we have muscles in our nostrils and ears?
-Why do we have wisdom teeth?
-Why do we get goosebumps?
-Why are our eyes most attuned to see red objects on a green background?
-Why are we made (70%) of salt water and not dust?
-Why doesn't penicillin work anymore?
-Why does the flu come back every year?
-Why are our retinas backwards?
-Why are our brains contralateral to our bodies?
-Why are there genetic defects?
-Why do species go extinct?
-Why do boa constrictors have hip bones and undeveloped hind legs?
-Why do manatees have fingernails on their fins?
-Why do baleen whales have pelvic bones?

Answer 1

Just a little help for those who have no way to analize David Hume

causation

Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect). According to David Hume, when we say of two types of object or event that "X causes Y" (e.g., fire causes smoke), we mean that (i) Xs are "constantly conjoined" with Ys, (ii) Ys follow Xs and not vice versa, and (iii) there is a "necessary connection" between Xs and Ys such that whenever an X occurs, a Y must follow. Unlike the ideas of contiguity and succession, however, the idea of necessary connection is subjective, in the sense that it derives from the act of contemplating objects or events that we have experienced as being constantly conjoined and succeeding one another in a certain order, rather than from any observable properties in the objects or events themselves. This idea is the basis of the classic problem of induction, which Hume formulated. Hume's definition of causation is an example of a "regularity" analysis. Other types of analysis include counterfactual analysis, manipulation analysis, and probabilistic analysis.

For more information on causation, visit Britannica.com.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
problem of induction

Problem of justifying the inductive inference from the observed to the unobserved. It was given its classic formulation by David Hume, who noted that such inferences typically rely on the assumption that the future will resemble the past, or on the assumption that events of a certain type are necessarily connected, via a relation of causation, to events of another type. (1) If we were asked why we believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, we would say that in the past the Earth turned on its axis every 24 hours (more or less), and that there is a uniformity in nature that guarantees that such events always happen in the same way. But how do we know that nature is uniform in this sense? We might answer that, in the past, nature has always exhibited this kind of uniformity, and so it will continue to be uniform in the future. But this inference is justified only if we assume that the future must resemble the past. How do we justify this assumption? We might say that in the past, the future turned out to resemble the past, and so in the future, the future will again turn out to resemble the past. The inference is obviously circular: it succeeds only by tacitly assuming what it sets out to prove, namely that the future will resemble the past. (2) If we are asked why we believe we will feel heat when we approach a fire, we would say that fire causes heat — i.e., there is a "necessary connection" between fire and heat, such that whenever one occurs, the other must follow. But, Hume asks, what is this "necessary connection"? Do we observe it when we see the fire or feel the heat? If not, what evidence do we have that it exists? All we have is our observation, in the past, of a "constant conjunction" of instances of fire being followed by instances of heat. This observation does not show that, in the future, instances of fire will continue to be followed by instances of heat; to say that it does is to assume that the future must resemble the past. But if our observation is consistent with the possibility that fire may not be followed by heat in the future, then it cannot show that there is a necessary connection between the two that makes heat follow fire whenever fire occurs. Thus we are not justified in believing that (1) the sun will rise tomorrow or that (2) we will feel heat when we approach a fire. It is important to note that Hume did not deny that he or anyone else formed beliefs about the future on the basis of induction; he denied only that we could know with certainty that these beliefs are true. Philosophers have responded to the problem of induction in a variety of ways, though none has gained wide acceptance.

For more information on problem of induction, visit Britannica.com.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer 2

uhhh...I read your list. Most of them are stupid. Several are fallacious. Get a better list of questions to promote evolution if that is what you are out to do. Do you want me to write it for you?

Please. I will pay you. I beg you. Stop using the gills in fetal developement argument. It's not true. Nobody of any repute actually believes it to be true. There is no reason it should be true. I'm serious. There is money here waiting for you to claim it.

And the tail bone anchors the muscles of excretion. Seriously. If it didn't have a function it would be a bizarre evolutionary development. Do you think the tail mutated away one vertebra at a time, and this one is last to go? (there are actually 4) That's not how it works. There are no fossils of tails getting smaller and smaller.

And the whale pelvis - it houses the uterus.

Penicillin - see breed creation. This has nothing to do with random mutations. This is how it works. In every 100 bacteria (I made up the number) there is 1 that is resistent to drug X. That is it's only advantage over other bacteria, so when not exposed to drug X, it remains in it proportion of 1 in 100. Person infected with 100 bacteria takes drug X. Drug X kills all of them but that 1, which the body then has the power to kill itself.

In a hospital, the person may be so sick his body does not have that power. That 1 then divides into a colony of 100, and Drug X no longer works on that colony. That's not evolution. That Germ was not created through mutation. The other germs simply went extinct. No new genetic info was added, only one breed of that bacteria was killed off, and the other became more represented in a pouplation whete it already had representation.

Most of your examples are like this.

Please. People. If you want to use Answers to promote your various religions, can we have a rule that only people who have read the Bible can use it in their arguements; and only people with a working knowledge of evolutionary theory can use it in theirs. I think that would be good for all of us.

Answer 3

A few.

(1) There are not different human races. There is only one human race. Race is a social construct.

(2) Early research suggested that about 98 percent of the DNA in humans and other organisms had no function. So lots of folks, already heavily influence by the theory of evolution, assumed that this DNA was “evolutionary junk." That became the orthodox view.

However, recently, scientists have discovered that “junk” DNA plays a vital role in the body by yielding special forms of RNA (ribonucleic acid) that are vital for life. Worthless chunks of DNA?

(3) The appendix was once thought to be vestigial as were several other organs. Although some evolutionists still claim this is so, organs once thought to be vestigial in nature are now known not to be vestigial at all. The appendix, for instance, figures in the antibody responses. The pineal gland regulates the body clock.

That's a start for you.

Hannah J Paul

Answer 4

You haven't really provided any evidence one way or the other, just posed some interesting (and some improperly worded and designed to confuse) questions. For example, we don't have "gills" at any time in our life cycle, we have something that appears similar to gills, but never performs that function (but then David Hume died over 200 years ago and probably never knew this). Also, several of these questions have been used to question evolution. For example, why would we have chunks of worthless DNA? If we evolved following the survival of the fittest, wouldn't those worthless chunks have been filtered out in the process? Evolution when used to describe minor changes and adjustments to environment is not questioned, it's when it is applied to the origin of everything that it becomes impossible to prove. Good luck!

Answer 5

Atheists can get extra appropriate suggestion using fact they have not got self assurance that a God supplies them animals and fish with eyes i could upload to eat. So, they could no longer get extreme ldl cholesterol and strokes and heart affliction. Genesis 9:3 :each and every shifting situation that lives would be nutrients for you. And as I gave you the eco-friendly flowers, I supply you each and every thing. Leviticus 11:a million-40 seven:And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, asserting to them, “talk to the human beings of Israel, asserting, those are the residing issues which you will eat between each and all the animals that are on the earth. in spite of areas the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, between the animals, you would be able to eat.

Answer 6

You leave out an awful lot but I realize you can't write a book in a yahoo chat question. One that is interesting is the shared point mutation breaking the vitamin C pathway in primates.

Answer 7

-first one. genetic variance. there have been cases of albinos, and children who look nothing like their parents can still mate.
-seven. we're animals, it helps, but we can survive without them. this doesn't support evolution.
-nine. muscles under our skin raise in defense, likely a mechanism for cold protection. also suspected to be from early man's hairiness making him seem larger. but again, micro-evolution.
-fifteen. unpredictable mutations. but this is microevolution, as it's still the influenza virus, just differents strain.
-sixteen. how is this evidence? species go through mutations because of an error in spermatogenesis, vagnial disorders, carcinogens and other dna altering agents, etc. the majority of mutations are unbeneficial.
-seventeen. humans are responsible for over hunting. survival of the fittest and evolution have many clashes.
-eighteen. to allow easier copulation

micro-evolution

Answer 8

Oh yeah I'm seeing 1000 God Did it

Jesus does Miracles!
God Bless U All!

answers coming up.

Answer 9

So what one question in there would prove evolution? The truth is that science doesn't have an answer to most of those questions. Don't you think they need to answer those questions first and then draw their conclusions, not draw the conclusion and then work the question into the answer.

Answer 10

great questions / some evidences
please repost ad infinitum.

perhaps the religious, dangerous, judgemental, malicious, hipocritcal looney tunes will evolve too.

i might ask : does education aid evolution ?

or will myth, ritual, superstition, and repression keep the neanderthals in power ?