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

[JohnMartin]

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?

The intellective soul in man is the principle of all the vital operations of man, including the intellective, sensitive and vegetative operations. The operations of vegetative, sensitive and intellective life are in the powers of the soul, which are rooted in the essence of the soul. The intellective soul is properly spiritual, but virtually (according to power) material, whereby the one soul of man has all the powers to perform the intellective, sensitive and vegetative operations. The intellective operations are properly spiritual, and the sensitive and vegetative operations are according to power, material. For the intellective operations occur without an organ, but the sensitive and vegetative operations occur with organs to grow, nourish, generate and attain sense knowledge through the senses.

The soul of man is essentially one, but according to power (virtually) three. The intellective soul in man is then in act within the body, wherever the soul acts as the substantial form of the body, to inform the matter of the body and thereby cause man as a composite of body and soul acting with operational powers. The soul is where it is in act, but is not divisible per se, or accidentally, for the soul is not extended by the quantity of the body. For the soul as the substantial form of the body is not per se quantic, or extended, and thereby not subject to the quantity of the body.

The point of contact of the intellective soul with the body may be stated as - wherever the body is informed by the powers of the soul which cause vegetative and sensitive life of the body. When the operations of vegetative and sensitive life are not in the body, the soul no longer informs the body.

JM

[rogue06]

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

It's fiction only because you say it is so.

The various steps are amazingly easy to take place. Nearly all cells, including those found on "skin" respond in some fashion to light. All you need is one that is more sensitive to it than others to, through selective pressure, become increasingly sensitive until you have a primitive photocell like those seen on jellyfish, leeches and worms. Why would it be selected for? Because an ability to detect the presence of light provides many advantages to the organisms that can do so ranging from giving it the ability to move toward or away from it to noticing when it is blocked like when a potential predator comes between it and the organism.

Next all you need is for a few of these type cells to form next to one another forming a patch of light sensitive cells. Again, since this confers an even better ability to detect light it will be selected for.

Now all you that you need is for it to appear upon a bump or a depression. This will allow the organism to better determine the direction that the light is coming from and since again this confers a distinct advantage it will be selected for.

Sticking with the depression or indentation, increasing its depth (to a point) increases the ability to determine direction.

cup_eye.gif

Now if the epithelium continues to grow along the outside of this cusp you end up with an eye that works like a simple pinhole camera. If it retains fluid in the cavity, it will allow what is being detected to come into increasingly sharper focus.

0000000000000ins.jpg
Some of the stages briefly covered so far

And on and on.

Admittedly, this is an over simplification of the process (what do you expect for a few short paragraphs?) but it should suffice to demonstrate that the evolution of an organ like an eye is no great insurmountable mystery. In fact, scientists estimated that eyes have independently evolved somewhere between 40 and 60 times in various parts of the animal kingdom, occasionally utilizing radically different principles.

[rogue06]

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

We see this taking place again and again as an organism goes from the embryonic stage to full adulthood.

[HMS_Beagle]

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.

Science doesn't posit a 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 formed eye in the evolutionary history. There were at times however fully formed but simpler eyes with 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 the capability of an extant eye.

Moonbat and science = oil and water. The two just don't mix.

[HMS_Beagle]

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

So is the existence of a blithering scientifically illiterate goober.

[tabibito]

Ah - that's what a goober is. Always wondered.

[TheLurch]

The acts of generation, nourishment and growth which cause cells to form into a mature organism do not infer more from less, but only more is caused by mlutiple causes.

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

The contradiction definitely remains. It's the contradiction between you using multiple causes as an explanation when it suits you, and dismissing it when it doesn't.

[shunyadragon]

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

There are no contradictions here. The changes do occur as described in the science of evolution. Some result in the extinction of species, and some result in the evolution of different species. You need more than a superficial lack of understanding of the science of evolution.

[shunyadragon]

Ah - that's what a goober is. Always wondered.

The goober is a wet snot ball and John Martin qualifies.

[Tassman]

The intellective soul in man is the principle of all the vital operations of man, including the intellective, sensitive and vegetative operations. The operations of vegetative, sensitive and intellective life are in the powers of the soul, which are rooted in the essence of the soul. The intellective soul is properly spiritual, but virtually (according to power) material, whereby the one soul of man has all the powers to perform the intellective, sensitive and vegetative operations. The intellective operations are properly spiritual, and the sensitive and vegetative operations are according to power, material. For the intellective operations occur without an organ, but the sensitive and vegetative operations occur with organs to grow, nourish, generate and attain sense knowledge through the senses.

The soul of man is essentially one, but according to power (virtually) three. The intellective soul in man is then in act within the body, wherever the soul acts as the substantial form of the body, to inform the matter of the body and thereby cause man as a composite of body and soul acting with operational powers. The soul is where it is in act, but is not divisible per se, or accidentally, for the soul is not extended by the quantity of the body. For the soul as the substantial form of the body is not per se quantic, or extended, and thereby not subject to the quantity of the body.

The point of contact of the intellective soul with the body may be stated as - wherever the body is informed by the powers of the soul which cause vegetative and sensitive life of the body. When the operations of vegetative and sensitive life are not in the body, the soul no longer informs the body. JM

All you've done is baldly assert that "the soul acts as the substantial form of the body, to inform the matter of the body". If the soul is immaterial HOW does it "inform" the material body? Where's the point of contact between the two? Alternatively, if the soul has some sort of material component, where is it located and how does it survive death?

[JohnMartin]

Science doesn't posit a 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 formed eye in the evolutionary history. There were at times however fully formed but simpler eyes with 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 the capability of an extant eye.

Moonbat and science = oil and water. The two just don't mix.

Here we see yet another problem with TE. The series of eyes in the eye development are simultaneously said to be developing, but each eye in the series is fully functional. TE development is not real organ development when opponents claim development requires a 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 formed eye in the evolutionary history. TE proponents then counter with the standard answer that each eye is not partially formed functionally. The TE proponent answer is to equivocate on the word, 'develop' and reduce 'develop' down to the less sophisticated eye relative to the human eye as the end product of the sequence. Yet every member of the series need not develop further than its own functionality towards the human eye. So, all TE claims of eye development are only extrapolations of eye patterns over a group of eyes found in diverse organisms. The extrapolation -

1) does not provide any reasons regarding how any member of the series developed from 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 formed eye. For TE to be a robust theory, TE should account for such a problem concerning the reality of development per se, rather than the development relative to the human eye. As TE cannot account for development per se of any eye, for such development would fall under the contradiction whereby an organ is said to be both functional when developed and non-functional during development, where both organ function and non-function are for fitness.

2) does not provide any sufficient motive for any change from one eye to another eye. Any appeal to fitness is insufficient to provide motive, for fitness as a motive does not account for the current eye which already contributes towards fitness, nor does any improvement in any eye guarantee any change in fitness of a population.

3) does not provide account for the dual causes of bodies, which remain the same and change. TE only implies one cause of change as the cause of the series of change and the members within the series that do not change. The extrapolation used within the inductive method to formulate a series does so with a lack of causes that cause both the stability and the change within the series.

4) relies upon the false mechanistic understanding of biology, apart from the truth of hylomorphism. The series is then a false series which assumes the development of the eye can and has occurred just as TE proposes, when in fact the series never occurred, for the eye (and any other organ) is not a product of mechanistic development. The eye (and all other organs) is an operative part of a heterogenous whole which functions for the good of the whole. If the mechanistic understanding of the eye is correct, then the eye is only a part, or an organ when the eye is fully developed to function for the good of the whole.

There is never any sufficient reason given why a fully functional eye must continue to develop towards another version of a fully functional eye. TE is a misreading of the data which is actually a hierarchy of life, and projects gradualism into the hierarchy.

JM

[JohnMartin]

All you've done is baldly assert that "the soul acts as the substantial form of the body, to inform the matter of the body". If the soul is immaterial HOW does it "inform" the material body?

Through the act of life manifested in the powers of vegetative and sentive life.

Where's the point of contact between the two?

The act of life caused by the soul is enacted through the vegetative powers of life, to inform the body with vegetative life. The soul's essence is spiritual, but the soul's powers are both spiritual and material. The material powers cause life in the body. The spiritual powers cause the intellective life within man apart from any organ of the body.

Alternatively, if the soul has some sort of material component, where is it located and how does it survive death?

The material powers of vegetative and sensitive life have there root cause in the essence of the soul. The powers of the soul remain with the soul after the soul leaves the body.

There is a series by Gardeil on the Introduction to the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. The work on psychology would answer your questions on the soul.

JM

[JohnMartin]

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
There are no contradictions here. The changes do occur as described in the science of evolution. Some result in the extinction of species, and some result in the evolution of different species. You need more than a superficial lack of understanding of the science of evolution.

You deny the obvious problem and then make an act of faith in TE that continues to contain the problem.

JM

[JohnMartin]

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

We see this taking place again and again as an organism goes from the embryonic stage to full adulthood.

Development of organs from conception through to adult life is not comparable to TE's claims of new organs developing over millions of years. The development of organs over one life is that which has been arranged by nature through the author of nature. The changes to each organ over one life is in accord with the stability of nature to remain one nature. Therefore, we observe the human organs always develop in a human manner, in accord with human nature. We see the same organs develop in the same manner. TE requires new organs to develop in a new manner, whereby the development occurs over millions of years. The diversity between what we observe in organ development in man and that required by TE should bring us to question the veracity of TE.

The organ development in man over one life is a development in accord with the process of generation and growth. Any non-functional organ 1) does not develop into a new organ previously not existing in the human species. 2) develops functionality in accord with the laws of biology that do not require TE. 3) develops functionality at the appropriate time of growth as dictated by the author of nature.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Admittedly, this is an over simplification of the process (what do you expect for a few short paragraphs?) but it should suffice to demonstrate that the evolution of an organ like an eye is no great insurmountable mystery. In fact, scientists estimated that eyes have independently evolved somewhere between 40 and 60 times in various parts of the animal kingdom, occasionally utilizing radically different principles.

The explanation on eye evolution, like all other similar explanations begs the question concerning the nature of biological life as being mechanicist, rather than hylomorphic. The development from skin to an eye is only a mechanicistic dream. There is no evidence that skin can transform into an eye, other than men want TE to be true,so they make up a series that never occured, and never can occur.

Skin develops to form the eye. What a joke.

What's next?

The eye sees the sky and develops into wings?

Wings are good for fitness.

What a complete joke.

The eye and wings act so the thing develops rockets.

Rockets are good for fitness.

What a complete joke.

JM