>
http://scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php
> According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged
> from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into
> something else over time and all species have come into being in this
> way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually
> over millions of years.
>
> If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should
> have lived during the immense period of time when these
> transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should
> have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had
> acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they
> already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures,
> which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian
> traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary
> creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as
> "transitional forms".
>
> If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions,
> even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these
> creatures should be present in the fossil record.
Congratulations, you have commited, (add echo) The Hasty
Generalization! Since the premise assumes that the entire earth has
been uncovered and we can see all remains of dead animals. When in
reality only a small part of one percent of fossil bearing areas have
been uncovered let alone studied. This show is only going to get
better and better as more and more areas are revealed. This possibly
without even digging as scanning techniques get better.
The only real places studied are places exposed like the Grand Canyon
or the Rift Valley in Africa, these areas are few and far inbetween,
and a few other places..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift_zone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYVS_Yh6dTk
if a bucket contains blue, red, green and orange marbles, then a
sample of three marbles cannot possible be representative of the whole
population of marbles. As the sample size of marbles increases the
more likely it becomes that marbles of each color will be selected in
proprtion to their numbers in the whole population. The same holds
true for things others than marbles, such as people and their
political views.
--------------------------------
Hasty Generalization
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a
population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the
following form:
1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of
reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization,
Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:
1. X%% of all observed A's are B''s.
2. Therefore X%% of all A's are Bs.
The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant
the conclusion. If enough A's are observed then the reasoning is not
fallacious.
Small samples will tend to be unrepresentative. As a blatant case,
asking one person what she thinks about gun control would clearly not
provide an adequate sized sample for determing what Canadians in
general think about the issue. The general idea is that small samples
are less likely to contain numbers proportional to the whole
population. For example, if a bucket contains blue, red, green and
orange marbles, then a sample of three marbles cannot possible be
representative of the whole population of marbles. As the sample size
of marbles increases the more likely it becomes that marbles of each
color will be selected in proprtion to their numbers in the whole
population. The same holds true for things others than marbles, such
as people and their political views.
Since Hasty Generalization is committed when the sample (the observed
instances) is too small, it is important to have samples that are
large enough when making a generalization. The most reliable way to do
this is to take as large a sample as is practical. There are no fixed
numbers as to what counts as being large enough. If the population in
question is not very diverse (a population of cloned mice, for
example) then a very small sample would suffice. If the population is
very diverse (people, for example) then a fairly large sample would be
needed. The size of the sample also depends on the size of the
population. Obviously, a very small population will not support a huge
sample. Finally, the required size will depend on the purpose of the
sample. If Bill wants to know what Joe and Jane think about gun
control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would (obviously)
be large enough. If Bill wants to know what most Australians think
about gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would be
far too small.
People often commit Hasty Generalizations because of bias or
prejudice. For example, someone who is a sexist might conclude that
all women are unfit to fly jet fighters because one woman crashed one.
People also commonly commit Hasty Generalizations because of laziness
or sloppiness. It is very easy to simply leap to a conclusion and much
harder to gather an adequate sample and draw a justified conclusion.
Thus, avoiding this fallacy requires minimizing the influence of bias
and taking care to select a sample that is large enough.
One final point: a Hasty Generalization, like any fallacy, might have
a true conclusion. However, as long as the reasoning is fallacious
there is no reason to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
