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

[JohnMartin]

This appears to be the old false canard about entropy and evolution. Your objection needs more explanation, because the earth system has an abundant excess energy available from the sun and the eternal heat of the earth.

Your statements are irrelevant to the problems posed in this thread.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Not true. You just haven't made it to my first post where I begin addressing the points in post 45 which is one you claim supports the referenced assertion.


Jim

Your post 48 only uses the content of my post 43 and not any content in the arguments contained in post 45. You should go to post 45 and respond to the problems made there.

JM

[JohnMartin]

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: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.

So you have failed to answer the question -

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

[TheLurch]

An effect always has less being than the cause from the nature of cause an effect. Your claims are in error in principle.

I have no idea what "has less being" means when applied to biology.

[HMS_Beagle]

Jim ignores the arguments presented in posts 7, 26 and 45 and proceeds to tell me to establish . . .

Creation - top down approach.

Evolution - bottom up approach.

Jim - bottom down approach.

JM

JM - below the bottom and still digging approach.

[rogue06]

So you have failed to answer the question -

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

One way is through co-option or exaptation. That's essentially a process where a structure or system with an original function adds or changes to a new function. A classic example of this would be how feathers, which appear to have first appeared on some dinosaurs initially evolved for heat regulation and were later first co-opted for display and as they got larger were again co-opted for use in flight (first enabling some dinosaurs, maniraptoran theropods, to glide over short distances and to eventually fly)

[JohnMartin]

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

One way is through co-option or exaptation. That's essentially a process where a structure or system with an original function adds or changes to a new function. A classic example of this would be how feathers, which appear to have first appeared on some dinosaurs initially evolved for heat regulation and were later first co-opted for display and as they got larger were again co-opted for use in flight (first enabling some dinosaurs, maniraptoran theropods, to glide over short distances and to eventually fly)

The example of the feather is usually this -

Bird feathers are a classic example: initially they may have evolved for temperature regulation, but later were adapted for flight.

But this example only means feathers for flight were once feathers for warmth. So, the feathers for warmth were developed from what? The feathers must have also originally developed as a non-functional organ before the feathers functioned for warmth.

It is self-evident that in a theory that promotes all life from a common ancestor that at least some organs must have existed at some time during development that are non-functional. To posit that all organs always had some function clashes with -

1) the chance character of evolution, whereby chance acts with natural selection to cause new organs. For organs to always have function infers chance always acts with natural selection to cause immediate functionality, every time a chance event occurs. Such is not required and probably not even possible by chance.

2) the character of development of organs which must develop functionality. A development of functionality does not in principle necessitate co-option or exaptation, even if evolutionists claim co-option or exaptation account for the development of new organs. To claim one or more biological mechanisms for organ development does not necessitate that those mechanisms alone are always in operation within an organism.

3) the evolutionists claim of vestigial organs, which are no longer functional in men. If organs can exist without a function now, then they can exist at any time during development without a functional as well. If evolutionists claim organ development always involves functionality derived from another organ, or some other biological based explanation, they have to admit exceptions are the norm within TE. As exceptions exist within TE, then the rule of exception should also apply to any time of evolution history.

To claim organ development always requires organ functionality is very problematic. The question - How can an organ start off as functional when it hasn't developed yet, is a question that has a self-evident answer which is avoided by evolutionists. The self-evident answer is an outcome implied from the nature of organs and development. From the nature of organs as operative parts of a heterogenous body which act for the good of the whole, the organs cannot be organs unless they act with functionality for the good of the organism. Therefore, an organ -

1) that is partially developed and has no function is not an organ. For a non-functioning organ does not act for the good of the body.

2) that is partially developed and has a function is an organ that does not require further development. For the organ is already an organ that acts for the good of the body.

TE seems to require a little bit of 1) and 2) in relation to the development of organs and organ functionality. A functional, developing organ is both an organ with function and not an organ, but developing new function. Such is TE which speaks two ways at once regarding organ development.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I have no idea what "has less being" means when applied to biology.

The sun burn is less than the sun. The sun is the cause and the burn is the effect. The burn exists and has being. The sun exists and has being. The burn has less being than the sun.

TE requires the effect have more being than the cause. When applied to the above example, the burn has more being than the sun. Then the burn is greater than the sun. This simple example shows how absurd the false TE principle of more from less really is. TE only reduces the absurdity down to small chunks of being so the claim of speciation will be understood as part of the tree of life, which always assumes the principle of more from less. If speciation is an effect in accord with more from less, then people are disposed to beleive all life occurred according to the same principle of more from less. Of course speciation is not more from less, even if we a trained to think it is so.

Evolutionists think like this -

1. If speciation, then more from less.
2. More from less, then tree of life.
3. The tree of life, because more from less is evidenced in all biological life through speciation.
4. Therefore when biological life is observed, more from less is observed.

Line 1 is a deception. And lines 1 to 4 are all false because more from less is always false.

The creationist works with the correct principle of less from more.

1. Creation, the less from more.
2. Speciation, in accord with less from more.
3. All biological life is in accord with less from more.
4. Therefore when biological life is observed, less from more is observed.

Lines 1 to 4 are all true. So of the above two options, only creation is a viable way to understand biological life.

JM

[TheLurch]

The sun burn is less than the sun. The sun is the cause and the burn is the effect. The burn exists and has being. The sun exists and has being. The burn has less being than the sun.

You're trying to reason about the world like Aristotle did, rather than actually looking at the world for answers. The 16th century called to let you know that doesn't work very well.

[oxmixmudd]

Your post 48 only uses the content of my post 43 and not any content in the arguments contained in post 45. You should go to post 45 and respond to the problems made there.

JM

"Pride goeth before the fall". See my post 60. As I said, you had not yet gotten to the post where I began dealing with your arguments from post 45.

Jim

[JohnMartin]

You're trying to reason about the world like Aristotle did, rather than actually looking at the world for answers. The 16th century called to let you know that doesn't work very well.

Observations can never overturn principles. No observation can overturn the principle of - a part is less than a whole. So too, no observation can overturn the principle of less from more, which is stated as an effect is always less than a cause. TE always requires observations to overturn the principle of less from more, and replace the principle with the false principle of more from less.

TE is always in principle false.

JM

[shunyadragon]

An effect always has less being than the cause from the nature of cause an effect. Your claims are in error in principle.

JM

Except when there is abundant energy from the sun and the interior of the earth for the cause to be far far more energy than necessary for the result being simply an abiogenisis and natural evolution of life.

[oxmixmudd]

Observations can never overturn principles. No observation can overturn the principle of - a part is less than a whole. So too, no observation can overturn the principle of less from more, which is stated as an effect is always less than a cause. TE always requires observations to overturn the principle of less from more, and replace the principle with the false principle of more from less.

TE is always in principle false.

JM

Less from more is generally true, but only if you look at the biggest picture, and only if it is a closed system. If energy is being input into the system, it is indeed posible to get more from less from the point of view of some subset of the entire system.

Secondarily, it is often incorrect to apply more from less to evolution. A change which results in six fingers instead of fI've is not more from less. It is in fact just a simple change to a certain part of the DNA. A change that is quantifiable and which happens not infrequently.

Jim

[JohnMartin]

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.

"not on the verge of extinction" indicates the situation is not grave.

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.

"in its current environment" indicates the situation is not grave.

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)

"if the environment itself (N+1) changes" is ambiguous in relation to the initial problem I posed that focussed on the contradiction of grave and not grave in relation to small changes over long time periods. The ambiguity fudges over the problem of grave and not grave with an 'environment change'.

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

The problem remains unresolved. Jim has assumed not grave in 2 and 3, and placed an ambiguity in 4. The problem is evolution is supposed to account for an animal's fitness in an environment that can bring an animal population to extinction if the animal population does not evolve is response to a predator. The slow biological changes either occur or not. If not, the population goes to extinction. If change occurs, the biological changes occurs over a long time, where the predator threat to cause extinction is

1) grave in the short-term period, for extinction will occur due to the predator.

But also

2) not grave in the short term, for the animal has millions of years to change and thereby overcome the predator threat.

TE is one convoluted theory. Even those who espouse the theory cannot explain it, nor defend it.

TE is a complicated, convoluted hoax.

JM

[JohnMartin]

JM -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.

L - It may seem that way to someone who doesn't understand biology, but it's not true. New organs tend to form through modification of existing ones. Those modifications can include duplications, addition of new functions, increased specialization, and more.

Take the hydra, for example. It's got an internal digestive cavity, but only one orifice - waste goes out where the food came in. Add a second orifice, and it now has a pass through gut. Add an internal division, and you can have a stomach/intestine like specialization. (NB: this is an example, not what happened). The entire time, the gut is functional, but you end up with multiple organs.

This answer is only adding parts to an already existing and functioning digestive cavity. The question has only been given an answer that avoids the initial functionality of the digestive cavity. The question remains unanswered and will remain so for TE is a hoax.

JM