The Post Hoc Nature of Evolutionary Explanation

This is a great example of the shoddy, fallacious reasoning that underpins evolutionary science. This article relates how scientists have wondered why sex would first evolve when asexual cloning is a more efficient, safer, less resource intensive form of reproduction. By all accounts, asexual cloning as far as bacteria and “simple” organisms are concerned appears more adaptive than sex. Yet, sex first evolved in these simple organisms. How is this to be explained?

Consider this passage:

“Around 2 billion years ago in a world ruled by microbes, a bacterial species formed a close symbiotic partnership with another simple cell – an archaeon. The interaction was so tight that bacterial symbionts eventually colonised the insides of archaea and were gradually transformed into mitochondria – the organelles of our cells specialising in energy production. The chimeric cell grew and expanded, using the genetic material of both partners and the newly available mitochondrial energy source to forge a cell of unparalleled complexity, inventing countless eukaryotic features along the way – including sex.”

Did you catch that? This is all a story of what may have perhaps happened 2 billion years ago. There were no scientists observing any of this take place 2 billion years ago. There is no fossil record that can provide evidence that any of these molecular processes actually happened. It is all 100% speculation based on what these biologists believe to be the case about organisms today.

In logic, we call this the post hoc fallacy and post hoc analysis. We already know that many organisms today reproduce sexually. Given that fact, you can cook up any number of an infinite variety of explanations for why that is the case. You can then cull that infinite set of explanations according to your assumptions about what must be the case, e.g., certain ideas about cellular biology, genetics, and of course, Darwinian evolution. And then you pick whatever story accommodates your assumptions, but that story tells you more about your presuppositions and your understanding of the world rather than explaining the phenomenon in question or giving you new information about the world.

Post hoc explanations and “just so” stories plague all of evolutionary biology, but people think that science is still being done. They don’t realize that science is not supposed to be riddled with logical fallacies. At minimum, a scientific theory must be logically valid if it has any hope of being factually true. Amazingly, logical reasoning is not a degree requirement for science majors. At least not at Harvard or any of the American universities I know.

This is a great example of the shoddy, fallacious reasoning that underpins evolutionary science. This article relates…

Posted by Daniel Haqiqatjou on Wednesday, June 22, 2016

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

You sir is spreading misunderstanding of science and scientific method. I don’t have a problem with your opinion about science even though I strongly disagree with it and think it is very misguided. I do worry about the fact people reading this are being misguided into believing that science has no basis to tell us about nature and life itself. Your statements about logical validity and fallacies are more applicable to religious beliefs and not scientific methods which is something that you haven’t been exposed enough to make a judgement about.


You dont believe that scientist should be concerned about “logical validity and fallacies”, only religions should be concerned with that? Do u think ur defending science making statements like that.

mirtazapine prices

My wife and i were very thankful when Raymond managed to round up his survey while using the precious recommendations he was given while using the weblog. It is now and again perplexing to simply possibly be releasing tips and hints which usually the others might have been trying to sell. We really take into account we now have you to thank for this. Those illustrations you made, the straightforward website navigation, the relationships your site make it possible to promote – it is mostly unbelievable, and it is making our son in addition to us understand this topic is satisfying, which is certainly very vital. Thanks for the whole thing!

venlor prices

A lot of thanks for each of your hard work on this web page. Kim really likes getting into investigation and it’s really easy to understand why. Many of us know all of the dynamic method you make invaluable steps on this web blog and as well as improve participation from people on that idea so our girl is certainly learning a lot of things. Have fun with the remaining portion of the new year. You are conducting a pretty cool job.