All these logical fallacies have been used in arguments by those who have touted mutation-driven evolution, a theory that was never substantiated by evidence from any experiment. All experimental evidence from every species shows that adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled (e.g., in my model).
Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) is central to my mammalian model of how conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man result in the fixation of new alleles required for adaptive evolution. Yesterday (9/20/13) an article was published that proved mammalian GnRH secretion integrates everything involved in the adaptive evolution of the human brain and behavior.
One week earlier (9/13/13), a refutation of mutation-driven evolution was published. In the refutation, the only experiments ever performed showed that mutations are not fixed in the organized genome of C. elegans. New alleles that result from mutations cannot cause anything because they are not fixed in the genome. C. elegans (i.e., a nematode) is one several model organisms that exemplify nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution via fixation of new alleles in my model.
Please choose the logical fallacy you wish to commit, if you intend to argue against my model, which details how new alleles are fixed, or would like to argue for a ridiculous theory with no evidence of fixed alleles in the context of natural selection. Your argument can then be evaluated based on the logical fallacy you would rather use as you continue to ignore these unequivocal biological facts: 1) nutrients must be selected for adaptive evolution to occur, and 2) nutrients metabolize to species-specific pheromones that control reproduction, and thereby control any adaptive evolution that occurs.