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

[TheLurch]

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.

What is speculative about this:
"Glaciers emerge from the behavior of ice, which emerge from the properties of water molecules."

And how is that not more from less?

[Roy]

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.

₂, etc. They can combine to form proteins, but don't actually do much by themselves.
JM: See? Evolution requires non-functional organs! I am vindicated! Evolution is a fraudulent hoax!
[devastating explosion]

[Roy]

If energy is applied to a system, then more is applied to the less. Such does not infer more from the less. For the more comes from another source to then interact with the less within the system.
...
No. TE is tied to the tree of life, which always implies more from less.

Looks like moonbat-mind thinks evolution takes place only in deep underground caves where the sun's heat cannot reach and no waters can bring nutrients. Places as devoid of sustenance as the inside of his own skull, perhaps.

[Roy]

I think you cannot face the fact that TE is a failure along with your atheism.

I think you cannot face reality.

[oxmixmudd]

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?

John has yet to creat e a thread where he shows himself even remotely capable of grasping the subject he is 'debunking'. It's always a train wreck, but like any major catastrophe, it is really hard not to watch it unfold, no matter how painful if might be. I always get sucked in by the delusion some chain of logic carefully crafted can penetrate the confusion.

I suppose I have too much faith in the capacity of logic and reason to overcome this kind of ignorance. Sobering it is. And truly sad. Because it points out to the extreme why real world problems (e.g. the violence in the middle east and the irrational hatred of groups like ISIS or the KKK) are so intractable. Reason can not correct a position that is not itself derived fom reason. The truth does not matter to those that 'already know the truth'.


Jim

[JohnMartin]

What is speculative about this:
"Glaciers emerge from the behavior of ice, which emerge from the properties of water molecules."

And how is that not more from less?

The process is only a change in state of water due to temperature drop below zero. There is no morer there at all. Water in water out, with a change of state.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I think you cannot face reality.

I surmised that some time ago.

JM

[JohnMartin]

[devastating explosion]

Do you really want to put the readers through that post? Amazing how you spend your time.

Oh . . . here comes the reply. Wait for it. . . .

JM

[JohnMartin]

Looks like moonbat-mind thinks evolution takes place only in deep underground caves where the sun's heat cannot reach and no waters can bring nutrients. Places as devoid of sustenance as the inside of his own skull, perhaps.

Looks can be deceiving for JM doesn't believe in evolution. More from less is false, always and everywhere.

JM

[Roy]

"Glaciers emerge from the behavior of ice, which emerge from the properties of water molecules."

And how is that not more from less?

The process is only a change in state of water due to temperature drop below zero. There is no morer there at all. Water in water out, with a change of state.

'Glaciers' added to cluelessness list.

[JohnMartin]

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.

I assume grave threats will cause extinction and TE has nothing to oppose this position. Non grave threats posed little to no reason for change in trait. These two statements are almost self evident. Your inductive arguent only used the situation of non grave threat to answer the problem. The rest of your post is hollow preaching.

JM

[TheLurch]

The process is only a change in state of water due to temperature drop below zero. There is no morer there at all. Water in water out, with a change of state.

So, you're saying that there is no distinction between hydrogen bonding and a glacially carved landscape?

[JohnMartin]

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.

Theistic evolution is not science. Your position is a half way house combination of Christianity-Judaism + atheistic, naturalist tree of life, TE theory.

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.

Sceptics of TE say your statement is classic bait and switch.

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.

Biological orgnaisms are not as adaptable as you suppose. The lack of adaptability caused by limits to biological change is a strong reason to reject your claims of 'unavoidable'.

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.

Or a loss of information, or stasis, or limited change due to an inbuilt limit to biological change. All of these possibles are ignored.

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

So you assume. But the fossil record is sadly missing much of the transitionals as stated by Denton.

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?

If God did do it. But one really does wonder.

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

Thank god for that, otherwise TE would be a dead duck. When science fails to produce the goods, evoke the creator God, who causes change and ongoing death as part of his wonderful creation. God at the start of the tree, no God at any other part of the tree. Something strange about that tree.

The science fiction faith continues unabaited. . .

JM

[TheLurch]

I assume grave threats will cause extinction and TE has nothing to oppose this position. Non grave threats posed little to no reason for change in trait.

Both of those statements are false. Isle Royale shows clearly that predator-prey populations undergo dynamic changes without extinction, while providing strong selective pressure. There are many other examples of the sort.

Roy, please add ecology to your list if it's not there already.

[JohnMartin]

So, you're saying that there is no distinction between hydrogen bonding and a glacially carved landscape?

There is no more from less in the water to ice change in state.

JM