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

[Roy]

But gradualism assumes 1) a time when the organ (A) did not exist, and later, 2) a time when organ (A) existed, but was not functional, and 3) a time when organ (A) was not fully functional.

No it doesn't.

[Roy]

Maybe they are not fully functional, but they are fully formed so the wings can be used in flight. The evolutionists only assume wings that are not very functional are evidence for gradualism when in fact the wings may always have been the same old wings on chickens from the time of creation. The wings on chickens are what they are meant to be and nothing else. The evolutionists must assume otherwise about the wings, even though there is much evidence for stasis within the fossil record.

Linking to creationist quote mine sites is a great way to ensure no-one reads the rest of the post.

[oxmixmudd]

TE in the absract requires at least one contradiction. So TE in the abstract is falsified before we even look at the data. Any claim that biological change is evolution is nonsensical. It's like saying we see a shape, so shape is caused by a cause as posited within a theory that contains at least one contradiction. Would anyone take such a theory serisoulsy? No. Why then take TE serisouly when the contradiction within TE is so easily exposed?

JM

John -

TE in the absract requires at least one contradiction.

What is the contradiction? Without defining the contradiction this is unsupported assertion. An unsupported assertion can be either true or false and therefore has no value in an argument.

So TE in the abstract is falsified before we even look at the data.

Derived from the unsupported assertion with the implication this statement is in fact false. TE 'in the abstract' isn't falsified by this argument. you must first provide support for the previous statement.

Any claim that biological change is evolution is nonsensical.

Opinion and unsupported assertion. Again, a statement with no value in a logical argument and for the same reasons. It could be either true or false and is thus effectively empty - except for the reality that it is possible to show that many cases of biological change are in fact from the factors proposed by the theory of evolution, which means that such claims are based on evidence and logic, and thus the claim they are nonsensical is itself false.

It's like saying we see a shape, so shape is caused by a cause as posited within a theory that contains at least one contradiction.

IT used in such a way as to refer to two different anticedants - ambiguous as to the implied subject. Secondarily, the most likely anticedent is itself based on unsupported assertion and thus remain false until the primary logical precident has be satisfactorally resolved.

Would anyone take such a theory serisoulsy?

A question supposedly derived from the argument made. But the arguement itself is empty. The question would be far more meaningful if it argument had both merit and substance, but it has neither. So the question can be reversed - with such poorly constructed argumentation, why would anyone take your conclusion seriously?

No. Why then take TE serisouly when the contradiction within TE is so easily exposed?

Embarassing at best. This question exposes the fact that the author of this empty argument does not understand its emptiness.

Jim

[Roy]

Survival of the fittest has been altered to fitness, which is part of evolutionary biology.

1) Gradualism occurs to account for fully functioning organs and consequently the survival of the population in accord with the principle of survival of the fittest fitness. So survival of the fittest fitness is the good that acts as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs.

2) Gradualism is not required for the survival of the population in accord with the principle of survival of the fittest fitnesssurvival of the fittest fitness is the good that acts, but not as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs.

'Fitness' added to cluelessness list.

[Roy]

Neither gradualism, nor punctuated equalibrium have been observed in the fossil record, ...

Punctuated equilibrium is the name given to a pattern that was observed in the fossil record. JM's claim is like saying that the Bible code wasn't seen in the Bible, that Pacific Salmon weren't found in the Pacific, or that sloth moths haven't been found on sloths.

It's completely ridiculous.

[TheLurch]

Of course no observations are required, just make up a hyper speculative sequence that assumes men came from fish.

Except the observations were described in the article, and i highlighted them, too.

It's a really pathetic performance.

[TheLurch]

These two related contradictions remain unresolved within TE.

From post 7.

The animal has a real need as determined by the surrounding environment, such as an animal needs to fly to avoid a predator. The need is fulfilled only by chance mutations and the animal continues to live among the same predators. The fulfilled need, (such as flight) occurs over millions of years, so the so called need to overcome the predator is both grave and thereby necessary to avoid extinction

And from Post 26.

Organ development is said to occur for the good of the biological body. The good of the biological body is measured by the fitness of the population. If the organ is not developed and not functional, then the organ is not functioning for the good of the biological body. Consequently the biological body has less fitness. If the organ is functioning, the organ is functioning for the good of the biological body. The good of the biological body is measured by the fitness of the population. In both cases the development of a non functioning organ and the developed, fully functional organ are both acting for fitness.

The two contradictions are related to each other.

They are related to each other in that they both represent you misunderstanding things.

For the first, your misunderstanding is that you're assuming that any change that makes an organism more fit is necessary to avoid extinction. It's not.

For the second, you're assuming that all organs start off as non-functional. They don't. Functions are often transformed and added. Sometimes this happens with duplicate copies of an existing organ (see, for example, fin/limb evolution).

[JohnMartin]

What is the contradiction? Without defining the contradiction this is unsupported assertion. An unsupported assertion can be either true or false and therefore has no value in an argument.


Jim

See post 45.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Punctuated equilibrium is the name given to a pattern that was observed in the fossil record. JM's claim is like saying that the Bible code wasn't seen in the Bible, that Pacific Salmon weren't found in the Pacific, or that sloth moths haven't been found on sloths.

It's completely ridiculous.

The pattern in the fossil record doesn't lend itelf to the false principle of more from less as implied in punctuated equilibrium.

JM

[JohnMartin]

They are related to each other in that they both represent you misunderstanding things.

For the first, your misunderstanding is that you're assuming that any change that makes an organism more fit is necessary to avoid extinction. It's not.

I did not intend to convey that meaning. Anyway the two contradictions still stand.

For the second, you're assuming that all organs start off as non-functional. They don't. Functions are often transformed and added. Sometimes this happens with duplicate copies of an existing organ (see, for example, fin/limb evolution).

How can an organ start off as functional when it hasn't developed yet? It seems rather obvious that organs begin as non functional, then develop, then become functional over time.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Except the observations were described in the article, and i highlighted them, too.

It's a really pathetic performance.

The researchers supported their theory by carrying out experiments comparing the parathyroid gland of chickens and mice and the gills of zebrafish and dogfish.
They found both develop from the same type of tissue in the embryo, called the pharyngeal pouch endoderm.
Both structures also express a gene called Gcm-2, which is crucial for their proper development.
The researchers also found a gene for parathyroid hormone in fish, and they discovered that this gene is expressed in the gills.
Professor Graham said: "The parathyroid gland and the gills of fish are related structures and likely share a common evolutionary history.
"This new research suggests that in fact, our gills are still sitting in our throats - disguised as our parathyroid glands."

The experimental evidence is only concerned with currently existing animals. The pathways from fish to man are then only hyper speculative evidence free reasoning that projects TE into some rudimentary observations. It's the typical Evo trash.

JM

[rogue06]

Punctuated equilibrium is the name given to a pattern that was observed in the fossil record. JM's claim is like saying that the Bible code wasn't seen in the Bible, that Pacific Salmon weren't found in the Pacific, or that sloth moths haven't been found on sloths.

It's completely ridiculous.

And when examples are provided of them being found in the fossil record he merely hand waves them off saying that they don't count.

[rogue06]

Linking to creationist quote mine sites is a great way to ensure no-one reads the rest of the post.

Genesis Park makes sites like AnswersinGenesis and Institute for Creation Research look like serious scholarship in comparison.

[Roy]

Neither gradualism, nor punctuated equalibrium have been observed in the fossil record, ...

Punctuated equilibrium is the name given to a pattern that was observed in the fossil record. JM's claim is like saying that the Bible code wasn't seen in the Bible, that Pacific Salmon weren't found in the Pacific, or that sloth moths haven't been found on sloths.

It's completely ridiculous.

The pattern in the fossil record doesn't lend itelf to the false principle of more from less as implied in punctuated equilibrium.

PE doesn't imply any such thing. You'd know that if you knew what PE was, but you don't. You may think you do, but you clearly don't or you wouldn't make bone-headed blunders like the one above.

This thread won't go anywhere, for the same reason that your threads on problems with relativity/atheism/heliocentrism never went anywhere: that you literally don't know what you're talking about.

For example, this:

How can an organ start off as functional when it hasn't developed yet? It seems rather obvious that organs begin as non functional, then develop, then become functional over time.

is evidence that you haven't bothered to understand even the basics of evolutionary theory, and that your criticisms of it aren't even worth reading.

This is no surprise - you were given an open-book quiz on evolution a few years ago and failed it because you simply Googled phrases in the questions and cut-n-pasted what you found without bothering to determine whether it was relevant. Nothing has changed. Nothing will ever change until you realise that you will never overturn the achievements from decades of work by thousands of people all of whom are considerably smarter than you, based on nothing but your own faulty intuition.

But it can be fun to watch.

[oxmixmudd]

See post 45.

JM

Taking small bites:

The animal has a real need as determined by the surrounding environment, such as an animal needs to fly to avoid a predator. The need is fulfilled only by chance mutations and the animal continues to live among the same predators.

No. To see why - we can apply a bit of induction.

initial value:

1) To get to our initial state, remember that when we speak about the evolution of life, we assume life exists, has already been formed. This formation process could be Divine - God made some 'first set' of life on the Earth. Doesn't matter how the first set gets here, so long as it exists. So for the purpose of logical argumentation about the logical constency of evolution itself, we can dispense with that bit. We can assume WOLG that life exists and can survive before exploring if it can evolve.

induction:

N

2) Working from our initial state of life existing, we can note that at any given time an evolving species in a stable envrionment not on the verge of extinction already has sufficient survival characteristics to thrive, i.e. to be able to reproduce and continue to survive. Otherwise the species would not exist at that time. So the animal does not have a 'need' to evolve anything else in that environment. We can also assume that any created animal would be endowed by its creator with sufficient capabilities to survive.

N+1

3) Any evolved species that thrives (survives) in a fixed environment is NOT guaranteed to have reached maximal fitness (or a fitness plateau) for that environment. That is, there may be modifications that it could incur which will confer a greater probability of survival in its current environment, that will allow even more of its members to live to reproduce. Such modifications would tend to be selected for, as more members with such a modification will be more likely to survive. This provides the opportunity for evolution to a new state (N+1) to occur.

4) Any species at maximal fitness for the fixed envionment of N may not be at maximal fitness (or fitness plateau) if the environment itself (N+1) changes. Such changes in fitness can come from external non-biological presures (climate change, physical catastrophe), or external biological pressures (the effect of other non-maximal fitness organisms developing greater fitness which encroaches on the subremacy of the current species)

3 and 4 create the need and opportunity to evolve, but neither 3 nor 4 are necessarily required to be so extreme as to prevent survival - they may only reduce fitness relative to the previous environment.


So inductively there is no contradiction, because there is no necessary 'need' to evolve to survive at any given time.


Jim