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

[Roy]

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

If you knew enough about evolution to criticise it, you wouldn't need to ask.

I'll be happy to explain if you stop pretending you know about evolutionary theory. Otherwise it'd be a waste of time since it's impossible to teach some-one who refuses to admit they don't already know the answers.

Edited to add: It's clear from your reply to rogue that you are not interesting in actually learning the answer, only in finding reasons to reject evolution without bothering to understand it first. So I'll leave you to wallow in ignorance.

[TheLurch]

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.

A principle is nothing more than an attempt to logically reason something. Science has repeatedly shown that logical reasoning produces incorrect conclusions.

In this case, the entire Sun emerges from the behavior of protons. Glaciers emerge from the behavior of ice, which emerge from the properties of water molecules. The behavior of our brain emerges from that of individual neurons. Clustering of entire galaxies appears to emerge from the properties of dark matter particles. More has emerged from less in the natural world repeatedly - so much so that we have a term for it: emergent behavior.

Your principle is in error because it is not based on observation.

[TheLurch]

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.

Ok, so you accept that your initial argument is wrong, and the question is how the very first organs emerged. That's progress. Once you assent to that, we can start going into the evidence for organ formation.

[rogue06]

Less from more is always true. More from less is always false.

If that were the case then snowflakes could not form.

[JohnMartin]

If you knew enough about evolution to criticise it, you wouldn't need to ask.

I'll be happy to explain if you stop pretending you know about evolutionary theory. Otherwise it'd be a waste of time since it's impossible to teach some-one who refuses to admit they don't already know the answers.

Edited to add: It's clear from your reply to rogue that you are not interesting in actually learning the answer, only in finding reasons to reject evolution without bothering to understand it first. So I'll leave you to wallow in ignorance.

I think you cannot face the fact that TE is a failure along with your atheism. God has revealed there was a creation event. You reject that revelatoin, so you have chosen to embrace a hyperspeculative theory that is in principle in error. More from less is the fundamental false principle of the tree of life and macro-evolution.

TE is very easy to debunk.

JM

[JohnMartin]

If that were the case then snowflakes could not form.

Your understanding of the formation of snowflakes is wrong.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

Your inductive demonstration ignored the problem of both grave and not grave threats by the same predator by reducing the threat to non grave, and making an ambiguous claim about a change in the environment. Your example avoided the problem. To address the problem, begin with a situation of a population confronted with a predator that is a grave threat to the populaton. You will not be able to solve the problem using TE principles of slow change.

Predators that are 'grave' threats to a population is not the norm. And species DO go extinct under such a circumstance. That is not the problem with your argument. The problem with your argument is that you assume 'grave' threats always arise faster than a species can adapt to them, and that is what my inductive line of reasoning is meant to show is false. That unless you can show a grave threat to all species is necessary, your argument fails. And all we need do is look around us to see that grave threats to even one species survival is NOT the norm - let alone all.

In point of fact, mankind represents exactly such a threat to many species. We have wiped out how many so far? And yet, life goes on. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs represents exactly such a threat to 95% of species on the Earth. And yet, life continued. And on an on I can go. The flaw in your argument goes back to what Roy has been trying to tell you. You don't understand evolution at all. Evolution is not about one animal, it is about a population of animals. And the evolution of life on the Earth is not about one species but millions, perhaps billions of species simultaneously alive at one time. And as we can see - most of those do not face 'grave' threats at any single instant, or even any single epoch.

The inductive argument I gave you was designed to show that specific flaw. If you understood induction or evolution, you would understand where you have failed. But you don't understand either. And it boils down to pride John. Hubris. That incapacity to humble yourself and recognize you need to learn.

In the case here on TWEB I would say it is religious pride John. You don't listen to anyone here because you believe them/us all to be beneath you from a religious perspective. Non-RCC or non-Christian heathen who are deceived and can't possibly have a window into the truth you yourself do not have.

Pride goes before the fall John. Humble yourself. Listen to those that know more than you.

The case was given by me, which you essentially ignored.

The case you gave simply isn't a valid case - as I and so many others have demonstrated in various ways.

You created your own case and claimed there was no contradiction, when in fact the contradiction remains.

No - I showed through induction that the case you created is a strawman. It doesn't exist 'in the real' as you might say.

The initial case given by me was simple, when in fact in the real there are probably more than one threat to any population at any one time. The case then becomes more difficult to explain how a population can survive many predators with slow changes over long time periods.

Species go to extinction or near extinction in the modern age and nothing happens in the biology to change the population to adapt in time. TE is a fiction.

JM

As I said before, the instantaneous or near instantaneous appearance of a 'grave' predator is not the norm. The fossil and genetic record of life on the Earth is sufficient proof of that. When the implications of your assumptions are shown false by reality - your assumptions are incorrect.

This is the way of learning John. We all make false assumptions about things. The history of science is all about putting those assumptions to the test and abandoning them when they are shown to be false. We long since abandoned the idea that if a conclusion can be arrived at logically from a set of axioms that conclusion is necessarily true about the world. We now understand that (at best*) only in so far as that our axioms reflect what is real about the world can the conclusion be trusted. And we use science to test and refine those axioms.

Your reasoning starts with a plethora of false assumptions/axioms. Therefore, even if your logic is sound, the conclusions will almost invariably also be false.

This case is but one example.


Jim

*sometimes it is not the axioms themselves but our understanding of what they imply that is incorrect. In logical argument, the implications of the axioms are governed by well understood laws of logic. But in the real world, the consequences of an action (the physical laws driving the conclusion AND their interactions) may ALSO not be correctly understood. And science is also about testing and understanding those as well.

[rogue06]

The origin of life, and the development of forms are two different topics. That development occurs is undeniable.

This is why I keep saying that evolution is what happens after life arose, no matter how it arose^[1]. It does not matter whether it was zapped into place ex nihilo or if it came about through purely naturalistic, materialistic means. Either. Way. It. Still. Works.

Evolution is merely the name we have given to how life changes, adapts and diversifies over time. That it does so is an observable fact.

And evolution takes place because, essentially, it's unavoidable in that it is built right into the molecules. The chemistry of DNA makes it unavoidable due to the fact that DNA doesn't replicate perfectly meaning that each generation is going to be a little different from the one before it.

Now, any time you have imperfect self-replicators in an environment of limited resources, the result is going to be a tendency of those best suited to acquire and use the resources to produce more offspring.

This will continue to happen again and again, over and over as life changes and adapts to its environment.

Furthermore, no means has ever been observed that would ever prevent numerous small changes from accumulating into larger scale changes over scores of generations. Nor would prevent those larger scale changes from also accumulating over an even longer period of time.

Isn't it wondrous that God put into place such a marvelous process as evolution?













1. Evolutionary theory does not have to explain the origin of life in the same way that atomic theory does not explain the origin of atoms or hydraulic theory and fluid mechanics does not explain how fluids first came about

[JohnMartin]

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.

Ok, so you accept that your initial argument is wrong, and the question is how the very first organs emerged. That's progress. Once you assent to that, we can start going into the evidence for organ formation.

Your other statement is also problematic -

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.

1) You assumes the second orifice will have function when the second orifice may not.

2) You assume the internal division results in stomach/intestine like specialization when such may not.

3) You provide no evidence for 1 and 2.

4) You have assumed an Evo understanding of bodies as a collection of parts with various functions when in fact an organ is always part of a body. And the body is an integral whole with functional organs arranged for the good of the organism.

5) Assumed the organs develop in accord with the false principle of more from less.

If you want to present evidence for organ development you can do so.

JM

[rogue06]

Your understanding of the formation of snowflakes is wrong.

JM

Riiiiiiight.

As I said earlier, all you ever do is hand wave everything away.

[TheLurch]

Predators that are 'grave' threats to a population is not the norm. And species DO go extinct under such a circumstance.

There's an entire field of study in ecology about predator-prey relationships and how they interact to create stable, metastable, and other population dynamics. One of the most famous studies of this went on in a US National Park:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves...on_Isle_Royale

But hey, that's reality, and Jon has principles, so he has no need of reality.

[rogue06]

There's an entire field of study in ecology about predator-prey relationships and how they interact to create stable, metastable, and other population dynamics. One of the most famous studies of this went on in a US National Park:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves...on_Isle_Royale

But hey, that's reality, and Jon has principles, so he has no need of reality.

I learned about that in third grade. It's surprising that it is so far beyond JM's grasp.

But then what can you expect from someone who thinks that we live on a geocentric flat earth?

[JohnMartin]

A principle is nothing more than an attempt to logically reason something. Science has repeatedly shown that logical reasoning produces incorrect conclusions.

In this case, the entire Sun emerges from the behavior of protons. Glaciers emerge from the behavior of ice, which emerge from the properties of water molecules. The behavior of our brain emerges from that of individual neurons. Clustering of entire galaxies appears to emerge from the properties of dark matter particles. More has emerged from less in the natural world repeatedly - so much so that we have a term for it: emergent behavior.

Your principle is in error because it is not based on observation.

The inductive method cannot overturn deductive reasoning. Both methods are meant to work together to understand the world. Your examples are both speculative hypotheses about parts of science. There is no theory that can explain any observation using - more from less. If more from less is true, you could posit the formation of galaxies and the brain from nothing. Everyone knows such a proposal is false, but when the same principle is applied to your examples we are supposed to agree and move on.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I learned about that in third grade. It's surprising that it is so far beyond JM's grasp.

But then what can you expect from someone who thinks that we live on a geocentric flat earth?

No evolution can occur in such a short time, so the Moose didn't change and the threat from the wolves was not grave. Maybe the Moose already have the trait to prevent extinction. If the didn't have the traits, they wouldn't have the time to develop the traits. TE has no explanation for any animal and predator relationship that is grave. Only such relationships exist if the situation is not grave and the predators cannot cause the animal extinction. The distinct lack of time available for trait development over long time periods means TE doesn't provide any compelling reason for trait change in animals in relation to the threat of a predator.

TE is a hoax.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Riiiiiiight.

As I said earlier, all you ever do is hand wave everything away.

You hand wave the snowflakes right in and I handwave them away.

JM