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

[JohnMartin]

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.

So the threat is not grave, for no trait change has occurred during the threat.

JM

[rogue06]

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

In the same way that thinking that God established gravity when He created everything is a half way house combination of Christianity-Judaism + atheistic gravitational theory

[TheLurch]

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

In other words, you get to define what "more from less" is in a way that makes evolution impossible, but everything else fine?

EDITED TO ADD: a test of this hypothesis. Jon, is a single cell developing into a mature organism more from less? If not, why not?

[oxmixmudd]

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

Actually John, you assume much more than that. You assume that what you call grave threats will always come to exist, and that all species will face them simultaneously. EVERYONE understand that extinctions occur, and EVERYONE understand that sometimes they occur because of the evolution of a predator that annihilates the prey faster than it can adapt. As I said earlier, mankind is itself just such a threat to many species on the Earth. But without your ADDITIONAL conditions of universailty and simultanaity, life continues to evolve.

The reality is your extra assumptions simply are not reality. They are not required. Nor are they the norm.

For your conclusion to be true, such a threat must have sufficient scope and frequency as to wipe out all species simultaneously. And that simply has not happened on the Earth for over 3 billion years. As long as some subset of life survives the threat, it can go on to evolve a new set of life. There are several mass extinctions known in the history of life on the Earth.

Source: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs-ancient-fossils-new-discoveries/extinction/mass-extinction/

Ordovician-silurian Extinction:
Small marine organisms died out. (440 mya)

Devonian Extinction:
Many tropical marine species went extinct. (365 mya)

Permian-triassic Extinction:
The largest mass extinction event in Earth's history affected a range of species, including many vertebrates. (250 mya)

Triassic-jurassic Extinction:
The extinction of other vertebrate species on land allowed dinosaurs to flourish. (210 mya)

Cretaceous-tertiary Extinction: (65.5 mya)

© Copyright Original Source

life continued in each case. As my arguments shows, in the absense of your universal, simultaneous threat - which is the NORM - life evolves.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

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.

The list would be much shorter if we listed the things John does understand ...

[Roy]

The list would be much shorter if we listed the things John does understand ...

I haven't found any yet.

[oxmixmudd]

I haven't found any yet.

very short list then - easy to maintain - very small footprint

Jim

[rogue06]

I haven't found any yet.

Hmmm...





How to turn a computer on.

How to use a keyboard.

[HMS_Beagle]

More from less is false, always and everywhere.

JM

Except for the case of an oak tree (more) coming from an acorn (less). That one simple example which refutes your nonsense scared you so badly you wouldn't touch it.

[tabibito]

JohnMartin uses the same criteria for evidence of evolution that certain atheists here use for evidence of a god, yet they see fit to criticise him for using the same yardstick that they themselves do.

[oxmixmudd]

JohnMartin uses the same criteria for evidence of evolution that certain atheists here use for evidence of a god, yet they see fit to criticise him for using the same yardstick that they themselves do.

I don't see that. Could you provide an example?

Jim

[Roy]

JohnMartin uses the same criteria for evidence of evolution that certain atheists here use for evidence of a god, yet they see fit to criticise him for using the same yardstick that they themselves do.

JM has no criteria for evidence other than whether he likes the outcome. He is incapable of understanding what evolution entails, let alone what the evidence is. He has been known to cite obvious errors, faked images, quote-mine collections, pseudoscientific drivel and even parody sites. Who in this thread has done that w.r.t. a god?

[shunyadragon]

JohnMartin uses the same criteria for evidence of evolution that certain atheists here use for evidence of a god, yet they see fit to criticise him for using the same yardstick that they themselves do.

I am not an atheist, but I find this comparison insulting to the science of Methodological Naturalism. Yes, the atheists and some strong agnostics appeal to the assumption of Philosophical Naturalism to believe and propose the conclusion that there is no evidence that God(s) exist, but their foundation is sound in Methodological Naturalism. Where as John Martin's arguments and that of many other fundamental Theists are grounded in shire self-imposed ignorance and foolishness grounded in believing that ancient mythology is some how grounded in facts.

[Roy]

Hmmm...





How to turn a computer on.

How to use a keyboard.

How do you know JM isn't using a computer that was turned on by someone-else?

[rogue06]

How do you know JM isn't using a computer that was turned on by someone-else?

0000000000can't disagree.jpg