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

[TheLurch]

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

So, there we have it. Multiple causes are fine for John when they're convenient, but can be dismissed out of hand when he doesn't.

And that's not even getting into the issue of his resorting to magic to avoid admitting he can't explain basic biological development without it. Here in reality, development is pretty well understood (i did developmental biology for most of my research years).

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=tabibito;453551]My comment says:
Point A: "JM makes up rules of evidence which enable him to deny the existence of any evidence which supports the veracity of the theory of evolution."

Simply, JM denies the 'objective verifiable evidence' for the science of evolution.

Point B: "Atheists make up rules of evidence which enable them to deny the existence of any evidence which supports the veracity of the existence of God."

False, atheists do not make up the rules for Methodological Naturalism, they accept these rules as describing the nature of our physical existence. They simply make the philosophical assumption that there is no evidence beyond the physical world. That is not making up the rules.

The yard-stick is one and the same for both ... I never said that they were measuring the same thing.

No the yard-stick is not the same for both.

[JohnMartin]

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.

If all parts of the developing organ are always functional, how then does the evolutionist claim with an consistency that the organ is developing? If each part is functional, or always has a function, what criteria are used to determine if an organ is functioning and thereby developing as required of TE?

How is the evolutionist's belief in organ development from other organs anything different to naturalist, biological alchemy? If chemical or metallic alchemy are both false, why not biological alchemy as well?

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)

If the modified structure confers an advantage assumes that the modified structure may not confer an advantage. Hence a modified structure has little to do with fitness or TE. Your answer has a bias that hides the problem.

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 there are many states as you claim, the many states are not grave. The non grave state does nothing to cause the development of new organs for the organs need not change to provide fitness for the population. The grave state does not provide sufficient time for organs to develop and provide fitness.

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

And again Jim is boxed into a corner and responds with vitriol.

TE has at least one contradiction. TE is false.

JM

[JohnMartin]

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

So, there we have it. Multiple causes are fine for John when they're convenient, but can be dismissed out of hand when he doesn't.

And that's not even getting into the issue of his resorting to magic to avoid admitting he can't explain basic biological development without it. Here in reality, development is pretty well understood (i did developmental biology for most of my research years).

So, there we have it. The evolutionist shifts the goal posts again and makes an evidence free assertion.

Developmental biology would only study the empirical aspect of biology. The evidence for the soul in biological life is developed in philosophical psychology.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Simply, JM denies the 'objective verifiable evidence' for the science of evolution.

There is no such evidence for TE which contains at least on contradiction.

JM

[JohnMartin]

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?

I will discuss, or present arguments for the existence of the souls in plants, animals and men in another thread. The reality of the soul is known through the use of reason which arrives at the doctrine of hylomorphism. From there we conclude that the soul is the substantial form of the living body a the root cause of all acts of life.

JM

[rogue06]

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

JM

You blather about one thing and then respond when it is terminally rebutted with something irrelevant to the claim demolished. You are truly the pigeon on the chessboard.

But if you're legitimately interested in the evolution of an organ (which I seriously doubt that you are), let's take a brief look at the eye.

Dan-Erik Nilsson and Susanne Pelger's mathematical model on how long it would take for a patch of light sensitive cells to evolve into a lensed eye like that seen in many fish is, if you pardon the pun, a real eye opener. Back in 1994 they found that it would take roughly 364,000 generations -- which equates to less than half a million years.

They found that it took roughly 400 steps for the photoreceptor layer and pigment layer to form a retinal pit which continued to deepen until after approximately 1000 steps until it formed into a pin-hole camera eye. After this the lens shape continued evolving and the iris flattened allowing better focusing thereby providing improved optical properties.

In the end they found that the complete evolution of an eye like those found in a vertebrate or octopus took less than 2000 steps.

And, as the title of the paper implies (A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve), Nilsson and Pelger bent over backwards deliberately choosing extremely low, conservative numbers in their model -- exceedingly pessimistic assumptions in their calculations -- so in reality it probably would have taken much less time to take place. For instance, they assumed that for every 101 organisms that got a certain mutation which provided them improved vision that 100 without this improvement also survived. This assumes that you are essentially as well off without the improvement in vision as you are with it which in the real word is extraordinarily unlikely.

[JohnMartin]

You blather about one thing and then respond when it is terminally rebutted with something irrelevant to the claim demolished. You are truly the pigeon on the chessboard.

But if you're legitimately interested in the evolution of an organ (which I seriously doubt that you are), let's take a brief look at the eye.

Dan-Erik Nilsson and Susanne Pelger's mathematical model on how long it would take for a patch of light sensitive cells to evolve into a lensed eye like that seen in many fish is, if you pardon the pun, a real eye opener. Back in 1994 they found that it would take roughly 364,000 generations -- which equates to less than half a million years.

They found that it took roughly 400 steps for the photoreceptor layer and pigment layer to form a retinal pit which continued to deepen until after approximately 1000 steps until it formed into a pin-hole camera eye. After this the lens shape continued evolving and the iris flattened allowing better focusing thereby providing improved optical properties.

In the end they found that the complete evolution of an eye like those found in a vertebrate or octopus took less than 2000 steps.

And, as the title of the paper implies (A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve), Nilsson and Pelger bent over backwards deliberately choosing extremely low, conservative numbers in their model -- exceedingly pessimistic assumptions in their calculations -- so in reality it probably would have taken much less time to take place. For instance, they assumed that for every 101 organisms that got a certain mutation which provided them improved vision that 100 without this improvement also survived. This assumes that you are essentially as well off without the improvement in vision as you are with it which in the real word is extraordinarily unlikely.

The paper has a mechanics view of biology that promotes the construction of organs over time through the addition of biological parts. The mechanics view of biology is materialist and false. And because hylomorphism is true, the evolution of the eye and any other organ is not possible biologically. According to hylomorphism, all living bodies tend to remain as they are and resist change in form. For what is in act, is in act. And that which is in act, remains actual, and not another act. So, according to formal cause, the biological organs are tied into the body as parts of an integral whole, made one by the substantial form (soul) of the living body. The soul that informs all the parts, and unites all the parts, is the soul of that particular body and no other. The union of body and soul causes the living body to tend to remain as it is, composed of parts that are integral to the body. Those parts of the living body are then not disposed to become other parts of other organs, or other organs through slow change.

The apparent historical evidence for the evolution of the eye is a fiction based upon a misreading of the evidence, which assumes a mechanics, rather than a hylomorphic understanding of what a living body is. The so-called development of the eye as found in the fossil record is really only a comparison of diverse organisms with diverse eyes over time and place. Such diversity of eyes, and living bodies over time and place, as witnessed in the fossil record is far better accounted for through a creation event where all the living substances are complete, with each body as an integral living whole. The creation event has the cause of the soul as the creator, who made the first souls in union with the first bodies. Subsequent generations of living bodies then gave rise to some further accidental changes in biological life, whilst keeping the union of body and soul along with the tendency for the body to remain an integral whole, composed of a select number and order of organs within each body.

There are many other reasons to reject the evolutionist reading of biological life. For example, the transcendentals of being, which are - one, something, true, good and the beautiful all mitigate against the notion of any ongoing development of organs over long time periods.

One - the unity of being tends to cause things to remain one with themselves and not become another thing. The unity caused by being is contrary to the claimed tendency of biological life to have an ongoing tendency towards diversity. Ther unity of being acts with the soul as the formal cause of a living body to cause a living body to remain itself and generate like bodies, with the same tendencies towards remaining the same as the parents.

Something - being causes a thing to be something rather than another thing. Something implied a living body will tend to be a living body, with its integral parts, rather than a living body, with parts placed together through composition, or aggregation (like a pile of rocks). Being as something infers a living body will tend to be the something, rather than another thing over time.

True - being tends to cause the thing to be known according to what it is. Evolution requires a thing to also be known according to what it is going to be in the future, or what it always tending to be, other than what it is now. The truth of being tends contrary to evolution which requires a thing is known to be what it is, for the thing is what it is, and not what it may be thought of as being something else (as the evolutionists require).

Good - being tends to cause things to be appetible. Good is a mode of being whereby the living thing is attractive to other living things. The goodness of the living thing tends to cause the thing to stay good, and stay appetible to other living things. The universal tendency for the good is a strong indicator that things, such as living bodies always tend to remain what they are as good, and not another.

Beautiful - is a mode of being concerned with the triumph of form. When a thing is beautiful the form is a complete act, which does not tend towards a further complete act. The beauty in living bodies tends towards those bodies remaining as they are and not something else. The contradiction of beauty in the ugly as a loss of form also tends towards the stasis of living bodies in the beautiful. For the ugly, which follows from evolutionary gradualism, corresponds to a lack of unity and a tendency towards death. The ugly then will tend to narrow the acts of bodily generation towards that which is beautiful and the corresponding constancy of triumph of form which brings stablitiy rather than change.

The modes of being, which are universal, along with the formal cause of life, which is universal in living bodies are strong reasons to reject TE and the evolutionary narrative.

JM

[Tassman]

I will discuss, or present arguments for the existence of the souls in plants, animals and men in another thread. The reality of the soul is known through the use of reason which arrives at the doctrine of hylomorphism. From there we conclude that the soul is the substantial form of the living body a the root cause of all acts of life. JM

Who concludes “that the soul is the substantial form of the living body”? Biologists certainly don’t. This is just a rehash of the discredited doctrine of ‘vitalism’.

Vitalists (and you, it seems) argue that life could not be reduced to a mechanistic process. But all experiments intended to show the inadequacies with mechanistic explanations failed. Biologists now consider vitalism to have been refuted by empirical evidence, and hence as belonging to the realm of religion rather than that of science. Williams (2003) - ‘A Cultural History of Medical Vitalism’. Cited Wiki.

[JohnMartin]

Who concludes “that the soul is the substantial form of the living body”? Biologists certainly don’t. This is just a rehash of the discredited doctrine of ‘vitalism’.

Vitalists (and you, it seems) argue that life could not be reduced to a mechanistic process. But all experiments intended to show the inadequacies with mechanistic explanations failed. Biologists now consider vitalism to have been refuted by empirical evidence, and hence as belonging to the realm of religion rather than that of science. Williams (2003) - ‘A Cultural History of Medical Vitalism’. Cited Wiki.

The action of Non-ling and the Living are Diverse.

Heteromotive action is action whereby a thing is moved by another. Automotive action is action whereby a thing is moved from itself, and not by another. For all the activity of the non-living, is hetero-motive or directed outwardly, towards entropy. Whilst the living has activity which is auto-motive or directed inwardly, towards tension. Accordingly, there is an infinite gulf between the lifeless and the living. For a lifeless thing acts mechanically and physico-chemically, it always fails from acting vitally (according to life). For a thing to act more perfectly mechanically and physico-chemically is to act more effectively according to heteromotive action with an outward term of the act as entropy. However auto-motive, action has an influence inwardly, and towards tension.

To account for the diversity of the non living and the living, only vitalism with the formal cause as the cause of inward action towards tension accounts for the living. A mechanicist understanding of a living body reduces the living body down to an ordered construction of parts which ignores the distinctions made above concerning the species of action and the ends of those actions, which are diverse in the living and the non living.

Once the distinction between non living and living are understood, the formal cause of auto motion and the immanent end of the action as tension is known as the soul, which is also the first act of a living body.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The paper has a mechanics mechanicist view of biology that promotes the construction of organs over time through the addition of biological parts. The mechanics mechanicist view of biology is materialist and false. And because hylomorphism is true, the evolution of the eye and any other organ is not possible biologically. According to hylomorphism, all living bodies tend to remain as they are and resist change in form. For what is in act, is in act. And that which is in act, remains actual, and not another act. So, according to formal cause, the biological organs are tied into the body as parts of an integral whole, made one by the substantial form (soul) of the living body. The soul that informs all the parts, and unites all the parts, is the soul of that particular body and no other. The union of body and soul causes the living body to tend to remain as it is, composed of parts that are integral to the body. Those parts of the living body are then not disposed to become other parts of other organs, or other organs through slow change.

The apparent historical evidence for the evolution of the eye is a fiction based upon a misreading of the evidence, which assumes a mechanics mechanicist, rather than a hylomorphic understanding of what a living body is. The so-called development of the eye as found in the fossil record is really only a comparison of diverse organisms with diverse eyes over time and place. Such diversity of eyes, and living bodies over time and place, as witnessed in the fossil record is far better accounted for through a creation event where all the living substances are complete, with each body as an integral living whole. The creation event has the cause of the soul as the creator, who made the first souls in union with the first bodies. Subsequent generations of living bodies then gave rise to some further accidental changes in biological life, whilst keeping the union of body and soul along with the tendency for the body to remain an integral whole, composed of a select number and order of organs within each body.

There are many other reasons to reject the evolutionist reading of biological life. For example, the transcendentals of being, which are - one, something, true, good and the beautiful all mitigate against the notion of any ongoing development of organs over long time periods.

One - the unity of being tends to cause things to remain one with themselves and not become another thing. The unity caused by being is contrary to the claimed tendency of biological life to have an ongoing tendency towards diversity. Ther unity of being acts with the soul as the formal cause of a living body to cause a living body to remain itself and generate like bodies, with the same tendencies towards remaining the same as the parents.

Something - being causes a thing to be something rather than another thing. Something implied a living body will tend to be a living body, with its integral parts, rather than a living body, with parts placed together through composition, or aggregation (like a pile of rocks). Being as something infers a living body will tend to be the something, rather than another thing over time.

True - being tends to cause the thing to be known according to what it is. Evolution requires a thing to also be known according to what it is going to be in the future, or what it always tending to be, other than what it is now. The truth of being tends contrary to evolution which requires a thing is known to be what it is, for the thing is what it is, and not what it may be thought of as being something else (as the evolutionists require).

Good - being tends to cause things to be appetible. Good is a mode of being whereby the living thing is attractive to other living things. The goodness of the living thing tends to cause the thing to stay good, and stay appetible to other living things. The universal tendency for the good is a strong indicator that things, such as living bodies always tend to remain what they are as good, and not another.

Beautiful - is a mode of being concerned with the triumph of form. When a thing is beautiful the form is a complete act, which does not tend towards a further complete act. The beauty in living bodies tends towards those bodies remaining as they are and not something else. The contradiction of beauty in the ugly as a loss of form also tends towards the stasis of living bodies in the beautiful. For the ugly, which follows from evolutionary gradualism, corresponds to a lack of unity and a tendency towards death. The ugly then will tend to narrow the acts of bodily generation towards that which is beautiful and the corresponding constancy of triumph of form which brings stablitiy rather than change.

The modes of being, which are universal, along with the formal cause of life, which is universal in living bodies are strong reasons to reject TE and the evolutionary narrative.

JM

Three amendments made above.

Also the paper on the evolution of the eye is a fiction, for every eye with every of the almost 2000 steps must always overcome the tendency for the eye and all other organs to remain the same organ as an organic part of a stable, integral whole body. Such is the problem with papers which falsely assume a mechanicist understanding of biological life. Too much is assumed and the maths is really only a demonstration of scientists ability to project a false world view into biology and imagine the changes to the eye are really possible, when in fact the nature of living bodies and the nature of being are contrary to such changes ever occurring.

The paper on eye evolution, like all other similar papers begs the question concerning the nature of biological life as being mechanicist, rather than hylomorphic. The paper is only further evidence of materialistic, naturalist based sophistry within the academy.

JM

[JohnMartin]

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

The existence of the soul with it's powers are easily deduced.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Three amendments made above.

Also the paper on the evolution of the eye is a fiction, for every eye with every of the almost 2000 steps must always overcome the tendency for the eye and all other organs to remain the same organ as an organic part of a stable, integral whole body. Such is the problem with papers which falsely assume a mechanicist understanding of biological life. Too much is assumed and the maths is really only a demonstration of scientists ability to project a false world view into biology and imagine the changes to the eye are really possible, when in fact the nature of living bodies and the nature of being are contrary to such changes ever occurring.

The paper on eye evolution, like all other similar papers begs the question concerning the nature of biological life as being mechanicist, rather than hylomorphic. The paper is only further evidence of materialistic, naturalist based sophistry within the academy.

JM

Further thoughts on the paper about the evolution of the eye.

The paper shows a diagram where the shape and form of the eye changes over time. The diagram hides the problem of the 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 formed eye which will always have a form that is less than a whole eye. The formation of the eye infers the notion of the ugly, which is a deficiency of form within the eye. The ugliness within the eye will cause the eye to act against the good of the body, rather than for the good of the body. For the good of a part of the body always tends towards the good of the whole of the body. And as ugliness is a lack of good, then the ugly eye will never act for the good of the body. Consequently, the series of eyes cannot occur as indicated in the eye evolution paper. Why? The partially formed eyes are evil and will always act against the good of the body, causing the body to be disadvantaged and consequently the population to be less fit.

Ugliness of an eye is not overcome through the addition of biological causes, to improve the eye over multiple generations. The ugly eye will always tend towards ugly in accord with the tendency towards stasis as caused by the modes of being, and never towards the fulness of form of the completed eye. This is another reason the eye diagrams are always drawn in a manner to hide any defect (the ugliness) of the partially formed eye. The partial formation of the eye is included in a well-structured eye that is thought to already have its own form and thereby benefit the body. But such an arrangement of the eye only infers the partially formed eye is already fully formed with a particular beauty and proportion, and will tend to remain the species of eye, with its assumed partial formation, and not change into another species of eye.

The formation of the eye from other simpler eyes is only one of many evolutionist fictions invented against the correct understanding of what an organ is, what a living body is, and the nature of being which always tends towards stasis and not change. The ever changing improvements to the eye is only an evolutionary fiction that requires that the less perfect are always disposed to the more perfect, when in fact the less perfect is only ever disposed to remain less perfect within a hierarchy of being, which contains degrees of perfection. Some bodies have organs and functions which are more perfect than other bodies. The diversity of perfection should lead us to conclude there is a real diversity and hierarchy of perfection within biological life which is contrary to the incrementalism of perfection assumed by evolutionism. TE then falsely sees the hierarchy of perfection in biological life as evidence for gradualism. When in fact gradualism is almost always excluded through the tendency of perfection to be retained within the hierarchy of perfection according to the modes of being, rather than the evolutionist assumption of an ever slow increase of being over time.

Deductive reasoning from the nature of being, of living body, and of organs as parts of a body will always conclude against evolutionism. Therefore evolutionists frequently use the inductive method to hide the false principles assumed as foundational to TE which are always contrary to reason. For example the following are always assumed within TE, but are always false -

1. Naturalism
2. Materialism
3. Empiricism
4. Mechanicism
5. Principle of more from less.
6. Matter always has a tendency to improve in perfection.

JM

[Roy]

If all parts of the developing organ are always functional, how then does the evolutionist claim with an consistency that the organ is developing?

All parts of most people's brains develop over the course of their life while always being fully functional.

Yours may be an exception.

[Tassman]

The action of Non-ling and the Living are Diverse.

Heteromotive action is action whereby a thing is moved by another. Automotive action is action whereby a thing is moved from itself, and not by another. For all the activity of the non-living, is hetero-motive or directed outwardly, towards entropy. Whilst the living has activity which is auto-motive or directed inwardly, towards tension. Accordingly, there is an infinite gulf between the lifeless and the living. For a lifeless thing acts mechanically and physico-chemically, it always fails from acting vitally (according to life). For a thing to act more perfectly mechanically and physico-chemically is to act more effectively according to heteromotive action with an outward term of the act as entropy. However auto-motive, action has an influence inwardly, and towards tension.

To account for the diversity of the non living and the living, only vitalism with the formal cause as the cause of inward action towards tension accounts for the living. A mechanicist understanding of a living body reduces the living body down to an ordered construction of parts which ignores the distinctions made above concerning the species of action and the ends of those actions, which are diverse in the living and the non living.

Once the distinction between non living and living are understood, the formal cause of auto motion and the immanent end of the action as tension is known as the soul, which is also the first act of a living body.JM

For all your obscurantist gobbledegook you haven't explained how can an immaterial entity, such as your hypothesised soul, can interact with the material body. Where's the point of contact?