The Fallacy of Instantaneouity? (i.e., if X were true, it must exist and be knowable)

Question

I have taught myself a good deal of fallacies listed here.

I did not find the fallacy I am looking for. I presuppose this is a fallacy. If this presupposition is wrong; I would like to know if it is classified as something else.
Here are 4 examples:

1. If the machine is so fast it would've finished by now.
2. If evolution were true we would have been much more advanced by now.
3. If the airplane goes at 130m/s, it would've been at its destination by now.
4. If the basic building blocks of life can be created in a laboratory; an entire planet would've created life on its own.

A single example consists of 2 parts:

1. gives the condition of a (sometimes subjective) truth.
2. Assumes that because of this truth - the process must have already finished.

The scope seems to always be with large(r) ifs; because a slow computer can be proven to not have finished its task.

I am currently under the impression that the fallacy is an appeal to probability (4), and an inductive fallacy in (1), (2), and (3). Perhaps misleading vividness?

Edit: I am becoming convinced that the fallacy of instantaneouity (temporary name to refer to the topic) is a mixture of the fallacies: appeal to probability and appeal to common sense as well as a hasty generalization.

Answer 1

This isn't a formal fallacy because the reasoning pattern is valid if used correctly. For example:

A train leaves Chicago bound for New York City at 10:07 AM. The train travels an average of 80 miles per hour and the route is 790 miles long. In New York City it is 10:20 PM. Has the train arrived?

It's perfectly appropriate to use reasoning like if the train is so fast (80 mph) then it should be here by now if in fact it is fast enough so that it should be here by now. You do the appropriate calculation or comparison and find out.

Or, for a probabilistic version:

I have been rolling these dice all morning (a thousand rolls an hour for several hours) and I have never seen double 6s. If these dice were fair, I should have seen it by now.

Well, we can just calculate to see how likely it is that a whole hour will go by without a single double-six, and then decide whether it's more likely that the dice are biased or that we just got that unlucky. If it's unlikely enough that we're that unlucky, we can conclude that the dice are biased with as much confidence as anything else we conclude.

So the form of argumentation is perfectly okay, but the calculation part is being skipped. Thus, it's an example of argument from incredulity (it's so fast that it must be done (even though I have no idea how much work there is to do!)) and/or the fallacy of incomplete comparison.

_{Answer to train:}

The train has not arrived; the trip takes 9h 52m 30s, but there's a one hour time change, so it's only been traveling for 9h 13m.

_{Answer to dice:}

The dice are biased. (1-1/36)^1000 is less than one chance in a trillion, and if it's multiple hours it's one chance in trillions of trillions. You're more likely to hallucinate a wall (or that you were rolling dice at all) than that.

Answer 2

1 2 and 3 [i couldn't parse 4] could be true but we are missing validity, and so it isn't sound. what exactly the fallacy is, would depend on why the opponent thinks that the argument is sound, when it so clearly isn't.

Answer 3

I would refer to it more as an instance of simple hyperbole, in the form of absence of degree. I dislike your name, as it is not necessarily about time. (And it has too many vowels.)

If your binoculars are so good, you would have seen him coming.

I wasn't looking right then...

If he is really that hot, then she would have looked.

She is dating your sister.

It seems to be a matter of high degree implying perfection rather than of anything specific to elapsed time.