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

[rogue06]

In principle if a threat is grave, it will cause extinction and no time is available for evoluton. If the threat is not grave, then there is not sufficient reason for evolution to occur. Either way, if the threat is grave, or not grave, there are reasons for evolution not to occur.

JM

Even in cases where the threat is grave this does not automatically lead to extinction. There are numerous instances where the number of a species has been reduced to a relative hand full but they survived and came back. Such incidents are known as genetic bottlenecks and one of the better known instances are with cheetahs. Another would be the American bison which was down to between 7-800 around the fin de siècle (end of the 19th century) and now number well over 350,000.

[JohnMartin]

Ignorant hand waving non-answer noted. JM can't explain the observed instances of more coming from less.

Beagle ignores the answer given because he probably doesn't understand it. So tell us all about the soul's powers of growth and nourishment. No answer will be given because he doesn't have an answer.

JM

[JohnMartin]

There's a huge amount of ground between the two end points "will cause immediate extinction" and "has no effect". Population can and do react and evolve to smaller selection pressures such as gradual temperature change or gradual increase in threat from predators. JM is too afraid to deal with those cases however.

So the situation that is not grave allows for some changes. Big deal. The changes do no occur in accord with TE, for TE has at least one inherent contradiction within it.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

Beagle ignores the answer given because he probably doesn't understand it. So tell us all about the soul's powers of growth and nourishment. No answer will be given because he doesn't have an answer.

JM

As soon as JM provides scientific evidence of all animals and plants having a "soul".

JM stuck his foot in his mouth and is doing his usual squirming and tap dancing. Nothing we haven't seen 100x before from the Moonbat.

[HMS_Beagle]

So the situation that is not grave allows for some changes. Big deal.

JM

It is a big deal because it shows your earlier stupid claim about "evolution is impossible" is 100% wrong.

[JohnMartin]

The second half of your statement is patently false. There are a large number of drivers of evolution that do not rise to the level of a grave threat. For example, changes in climate can drive evolution if they are gradual enough or if they force migration to an area the species is only marginally adapted. I already mentioned the issue of fitness plateas. There is no guarantee any species has reached such a plateau at any given time, meaning there is selective pressure to evolve. This evolution however introduces selective pressure on other species in the same region or competing for the same resources. And this introduces the fact that multiple species evolve together in a continued battle for success within their ecological niche.

You also forget the ever present element of disease which itself can introduce reasons to evolve both through change in a species or by changing the ecological balance of species through the extinction one or more.

There is more, but this alone is sufficient to demonstrate both the failure of your reasoning and your ignorance of the topic.

Jim

There is not sufficient reason for evolution of new organs to occur, for organs that are non functional add nothing to fitness. The contradiction remains unanswered. If a situation is grave, extinction occurs. If a situation is not grave, the organs need not exist, for organs take millions of years to evolve to attain functionality. So a situation that is not grave is not able to account for the production of additional functional organs. If new organs are produced over millions of years they occur through a non TE explanation. TE is a bogus theory, even if many claim evolution, or development has been witnessed.

All of your so called drivers do not produce any new organs.

JM

[JohnMartin]

It is a big deal because it shows your earlier stupid claim about "evolution is impossible" is 100% wrong.

The contradiction remains. The small changes are not evolution, for TE has at least one contradiction.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Even in cases where the threat is grave this does not automatically lead to extinction. There are numerous instances where the number of a species has been reduced to a relative hand full but they survived and came back. Such incidents are known as genetic bottlenecks and one of the better known instances are with cheetahs. Another would be the American bison which was down to between 7-800 around the fin de siècle (end of the 19th century) and now number well over 350,000.

No new organs attained and no evidence the contradction has been removed. TE is bogus.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Evolution is a combination of selection, random mutations, generation time, drift, etc. So it has multiple causes, and therefore doesn't violate your principle.

NB: this is not to accept that the principle is in any way valid. We still get the sun out of the strong force, whether you acknowledge it or not. But i figured why not play along?

Same old appeal to multiple mechanisms, but the contradition remains.

JM

[JohnMartin]

As soon as JM provides scientific evidence of all animals and plants having a "soul".

JM stuck his foot in his mouth and is doing his usual squirming and tap dancing. Nothing we haven't seen 100x before from the Moonbat.

Beagle tries to fob off his ignorance back on to me. Beagle didn't understand the previous statements either, so as predicted, no answer will be given, and no answer was given.

JM

[Roy]

So tell us all about the soul's powers of growth and nourishment. No answer will be given because he doesn't have an answer.

No answer will be given because you're asking about something that exists only in your foetid imagination.

[JohnMartin]

JM,

That is interesting. Where do you get the notion that oak trees have a soul? Please explain your thinking or source for this.
Thanks.

The soul is the formal cause of a living body. Any body that is alive has a soul. Plants and animals have material souls. Men have spiritual souls. Without the soul, there is insufficient causation to account for life. Materialists attempt to account for life through mechanistic explanations such as chemical reactions, but such explanations do not account for life as life in contradction to non living bodies. A non living body lacks the act of life. The act of life is a form, which requires a formal cause in contradiction to a body that does not have life and does not have the act, nor the formal cause of life.

The soul as the substantial form of a living body is a conclusion derived from an understanding of bodies in accord with hylomorphism. Hylemorphism explains how bodies remain as the same bodies, but also are bodies that change. As bodies have two acts 1) same with itself and 2) change, two causes are required to account for the two acts. The form accounts for 1) and the matter accounts for 2). The union of formal cause and material cause is hylemorphism. Hylemorphism is expressed in examples such as man, who has a human soul, as the formal cause of human life of the body. When the human soul (formal cause) is united to the body, the flesh of the body (material cause) is humanised, or informed flesh.

Similarly, with animals and plants, the soul is united to the body, to cause the body to be alive. Hence the oak tree, along with all other trees has a soul as the formal cause of life. As the soul is a substantial form of a living body, the soul is the root cause of all acts of life of the body. When a living body acts to grow, nourish and generate, those acts of life have their root cause in the soul.

Of course, TE knows nothing of hylomorphism and the soul, for TE is a materialist understanding of biological organisms that lacks deductive reasoning and relies heavily upon induction as Jim has show us on this thread. No amount of contradictions or problems stop evolutionists from following TE even when TE is shown to be false through reason. TE is only a poorly formed theory based upon atheistic, materialist naturalism. Whatever truth is contained within TE may be included in a theistic, hylomorphic, supernaturalist model that posits a creation event as the source of all complete living substances and the small changes we observe are those that are in accord with hylomorphism.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No answer will be given because you're asking about something that exists only in your foetid imagination.

Materialism is another false theory that does not account for the living, nor much of human activity.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

There is not sufficient reason for evolution of new organs to occur, for organs that are non functional add nothing to fitness.

New organs evolve in small steps from existing organs or structures. There is no expectation in evolutionary theory that at any point along the way these elements are non-functional. The words I've highlighted are your ignorance John. The evolved (changed) structure by definition offers an advantage of some sort or at the very least is equal to the unmodified structure. If the modified structure confers an advantage, it will likely be selected for. If it does not, it still can become a dominant trait through other means (a population with the modified structure becomes separated from a population without it and survives due to environmental reasons)

The contradiction remains unanswered.

There is no contradiction, only an ignorant person inserting a false dichotomy. As has already been pointed out countless times, there are many possible states between "impending and near immediate extinction" and "fully adapted with no need to evolve". This should be obvious John - and it is obvious to all watching you bury yourself in your ignorance and lack of capacity to reason.

If a situation is grave, extinction occurs. If a situation is not grave, the organs need not exist, for organs take millions of years to evolve to attain functionality. So a situation that is not grave is not able to account for the production of additional functional organs. If new organs are produced over millions of years they occur through a non TE explanation. TE is a bogus theory, even if many claim evolution, or development has been witnessed.

All of your so called drivers do not produce any new organs.

No John. You need to get you brain out of your self-congratulatory narcissism and face the cold hard reality you are as ignorant as they come. Then at least you might find a motivation to learn instead of make an absolute fool of yourself at every possible occasion.

No one can assess the validity of that which they don't understand.

Jim

[Tassman]

The acorn is a living organism with a soul. The soul has powers of nourishment and growth, which act with biological causes to bring the acorn to the full oak tree. The oak has more being than the acorn, but the process to cause the oak never breaches less from more.

JM

What is your evidence that “acorns” or any living organisms, has a soul? How can an immaterial entity, such as your hypothesised soul, interact with the material acorn?