A problem of Gradualism and the Survival of the Fittest within Evolutionary Theory.

[tabibito]

I learnt something today

Likewise

[TheLurch]

Not if I understand what is proposed. Early on the neutrino was a dark matter candidate - assuming it had some mass. Later discoveries showed the potential mass of the neutrino was way too small to account for what we see, even though there are a LOT of neutrinos whizzing by at any given time.

In the time it takes you to count to 1, over a trillion neutrinos will pass through your body. Over an entire lifetime, a typical human will have 3 neutrinos interact with an atom in their body.

[sylas]

Sylas?

Way outside my areas of expertise. I was being a bit presumptuous even posting as much as I did. Cheers -- sylas

[Tassman]

I agree.

But I don't think there is any value in replying to his misunderstandings with misunderstanding of your own.

I'm not replying with misunderstandings of my own. Issues like Evolution and the hypothesised existence of souls are matter for scientific inquiry NOT metaphysical speculation. Hence by you engaging with JM on Thomism perpetuating his misunderstanding, not I.

[Roy]

Which you thoroughly reject as an atheist. Amazing to see the double standard applied. The atheist now appeals to the creator to have TE accepted as a theory without naturalism, when in fact the atheist rejects the creator and embraces naturalism along with TE.

Er, moonbat, I'm not appealing to the creator. I'm showing that TE does not have naturalism as a foundation.

[rogue06]

Er, moonbat, I'm not appealing to the creator. I'm showing that TE does not have naturalism as a foundation.

And Alfred Wallace, the co-founder of the Theory of Evolution, was definitely a theistic evolutionist.

[Roy]

There's no such thing as Aristotle's matter as potency. Potency is a Thomistic concept.

False.

Then show where Aristotle talks about matter being composed of 'act' and 'potency', rather than merely having the 'potentiality' to take on a form.

False. Hence the substantial form of the brazen sphere does not cause quantity and therefore the substantial form of the brazen sphere does not have mass. But brazen spheres do have mass, from an accidental form sealed by matter.

And similarly, the substantial form of a tree's soul would not cause quantity, but the tree's soul would have mass since it is material.

Quantity is an accident, which requires an accidental form and not a substantial form. Therefore the soul does not have mass or weight, for the soul is a substantial form and not the accidental form of quantity.

If the soul is a substantial form then it is not material, just like the substantial form of a brass sphere is not material, but is something that is applied to matter.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the soul is a substantial form, in which case it is not material, or it is material, in which case it is not a substantial form.

The reason is simple. You don't get Thomas or Aristotle. Your reading of both is wrong. That's just the way it is

The reason is simple - it's that as usual you are assuming a predetermined conclusion and misusing concepts and logic you don't understand to create false 'proof's.

[Roy]

Science makes mistakes from time to time, so I'm not interested in entertaining the notion of plant sense life that is untenable as proven in Thomistic philosophy.

It's not proven, it's assumed - and it's now been discovered to be a false assumption.

But rather than attempt to rework Thomism in the light of new information, JM prefers to stick his fingers in his ears and yell 'Is not! Is not! IS NOT!!!

[Tassman]

And Alfred Wallace, the co-founder of the Theory of Evolution, was definitely a theistic evolutionist.

Well Darwin was a Deist of sorts and Wallace was a Spiritualist, which was fashionable at the time, not a theistic evolutionist as we understand the term today. Neither were Christians.

[rogue06]

Well Darwin was a Deist of sorts and Wallace was a Spiritualist, which was fashionable at the time, not a theistic evolutionist as we understand the term today. Neither were Christians.

IIRC Wallace's interest in Spiritualism came just a bit later in his life.

[JohnMartin]

Science makes mistakes from time to time, so I'm not interested in entertaining the notion of plant sense life that is untenable as proven in Thomistic philosophy.
It's not proven, it's assumed - and it's now been discovered to be a false assumption.

But rather than attempt to rework Thomism in the light of new information, JM prefers to stick his fingers in his ears and yell 'Is not! Is not! IS NOT!!![/I]

How would you know? No proof has been presented for such a claim from Thomism on this thread.

JM

[JohnMartin]

There's no such thing as Aristotle's matter as potency. Potency is a Thomistic concept.
False.
Then show where Aristotle talks about matter being composed of 'act' and 'potency', rather than merely having the 'potentiality' to take on a form.

Matter as potency is found in the definition in Aristotle's metaphysics.

Negative Definition - That which through itself is neither some thing nor of some sort nor of some quantity nor signifies any other of those things which signify determinacy of being. (Metaphys VII)

Matter as potency is also taught by Aristotle in Metaphysics -

"We have now outlined the nature of substance, showing that it is that which is not predicated of a stratum, but of which all else is predicated. But we must not merely state the matter thus; for this is not enough. The statement itself is obscure, and further, on this view, matter becomes substance. For if this is not substance, it baffles us to say what else is. When all else is stripped off evidently nothing but matter remains. For while the rest are affections, products, and potencies of bodies, length, breadth, and depth are quantities and not substances (for a quantity is not a substance), but the substance is rather that to which these belong primarily. But when length and breadth and depth are taken away we see nothing left unless there is something that is bounded by these; so that to those who consider the question thus matter alone must seem to be substance. By matter I mean that which in itself is neither a particular thing nor of a certain quantity nor assigned to any other of the categories by which being is determined. For there is something of which each of these is predicated, whose being is different from that of each of the predicates (for the predicates other than substance are predicated of substance, while substance is predicated of matter). Therefore the ultimate substratum is of itself neither a particular thing nor of a particular quantity nor otherwise positively characterized; nor yet is it the negations of these, for negations also will belong to it only by accident.

False. Hence the substantial form of the brazen sphere does not cause quantity and therefore the substantial form of the brazen sphere does not have mass. But brazen spheres do have mass, from an accidental form sealed by matter.
And similarly, the substantial form of a tree's soul would not cause quantity, but the tree's soul would have mass since it is material.

Quantity is an accidental, caused by an accidental form and sealed by secondary matter. Mass is an accidental property folwing quantity. A material soul is only a material substnatial form, which does not have quantity. For as substantial form is in the order of substance and not accident.

Quantity is an accident, which requires an accidental form and not a substantial form. Therefore the soul does not have mass or weight, for the soul is a substantial form and not the accidental form of quantity.

If the soul is a substantial form then it is not material, just like the substantial form of a brass sphere is not material, but is something that is applied to matter.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the soul is a substantial form, in which case it is not material, or it is material, in which case it is not a substantial form.

Non sequitur. The substantial form of a brass sphere is material. You are in error. The soul's of plants and animals are material. The soul's of men are spiritual. Your argument is a jumbled mess of confusion.

A material soul does not equate to any particular quantity or mass or weight. A material soul united to primary matter along with the accidentl form of quantity which is united to secondary matter, does have quantity. But the quantity is not caused by the soul, but by the accidental form of quantity.

The reason is simple. You don't get Thomas or Aristotle. Your reading of both is wrong. That's just the way it is.

The reason is simple - it's that as usual you are assuming a predetermined conclusion and misusing concepts and logic you don't understand to create false 'proof's.

False. You often make rudimentary errors in philosophy.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Which you thoroughly reject as an atheist. Amazing to see the double standard applied. The atheist now appeals to the creator to have TE accepted as a theory without naturalism, when in fact the atheist rejects the creator and embraces naturalism along with TE.

Er, moonbat, I'm not appealing to the creator. I'm showing that TE does not have naturalism as a foundation.

The atheist is caught again in another trap. The Evo monster gets uglier by the day. If Evo is not founded upon naturalism, then it's founded upon supernaturalism, which infers a creator. Now as an atheist, you both embrace TE and the supernatural creation, which you must deny as an atheist.

Simply comical to watch TE and atheism unravel.

JM

[Tassman]

Er, moonbat, I'm not appealing to the creator. I'm showing that TE does not have naturalism as a foundation.

Theism is "the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe" (Merriam Webster), so clearly Theistic Evolution implies a Creator who operates via the natural universe..

[Roy]

How would you know? No proof has been presented for such a claim from Thomism on this thread.

Perhaps there is some other method of finding out about Thomism than reading this thread?