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

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post

Gradualism is assumed within modern evolutionary theory as stated in a recently published book entitled

At no point, in the quotation you provided, is it stated or implied that gradualism is an assumption. Rather gradualism is a theory that follows from the nature of biological development, but the theory of evolution in no way depends on this theory being true. Developments could have happened in random spurts and hopeful monsters as some speculated it did once. The fact that it doesn't is borne out by evidence, which again makes it a theory, not an assumption.

The word assumption is not in the quote. But gradualism is assumed as part of the theory of evolution to interpret the data. When the data does not fit gradualism, then another mechanism, such as punctuated equilibrium is evoked. Evolution assumes gradualism as part of its overall scheme to produce the phylogenetic tree and asses the fossil record. The assumption is claimed to be evidenced by evolutionists, and thereby gradualism is claimed to no longer be an assumption by a verifiable fact.

In fact, gradualism can never have any verifiable evidence in the fossil record, or any observation whatsoever in any biological life. Gradualism is false in principle, for gradualism is easily reduced to - more comes from the less. As this single principle of gradualism is self-evidently false, then any claim the evolutionists make about gradualism, or history of biological development can never be taken seriously. Gradualism is only ever an assumption which evolutionists claim is not an assumption, but part of a well-established theory. Poppycock. A false principle is never well established.

I could easily show how absurd the principle of gradualism is by apply the same principle to Mormon theology. Apparently, Joseph Smith taught God was once a man and now He is God. Mormonism is dependent upon the false principle of gradualism, which is also part of the theory of evolution. As gradualism is false, then both evolution and Mormonism are also false. In fact, evolution underplays its hand quite a bit. It starts with the nonliving and moves to an ever-increasing complexity in biological life at the tips of the phylogenetic tree. Why stop there when the tree can be extended on forever to the infinite God of something like Mormonism? After all the moderns claim Aristotle's great chain of being has been overturned with the phylogenetic tree. Aristotle's great chain of being assumes the less is from the more, whereby all being if from the prime being, which is God. The evolutionist's who claim to overturn Aristotle's great chain of being stop the tree before reaching the ultimate being which came from non-being, or the non-living.

The absurdity of the evolutionist's claims is almost self-evident. Aristotle's great chain of being assumes less from more. The evolutionist's tree and the entire theory of evolution assumes more from less. Less from more is self-evidently true and more from less is self-evidently false.

Gradualism is assumed where the author states "Organs do not appear suddenly during evolution: instead they are composed of far simpler structures. In some cases, it is even possible to trace particular molecules or physiological pathways as far back as pre-animal history."

No, that's not stating an assumption. It’s true the author does consider gradualism to be true, but he's not assuming it. You can take something for granted in an explanation. No one has to defend that we've been to the moon, each time someone opens a chapter on the history of the moon landing, or any time someone talks about how we landed on the moon.

Gradualism is always only ever assumed because there is no evidence for a false principle. Apparently, a self-professed Thomist such as yourself has missed the obvious flaw in the theory of evolution.

You're equivocating. There's a real difference between taking something for granted, in a text like this, or whether it’s a necessary assumption to a theory. They're not the same thing.

What sounds like equivocating is only stating the obvious. Gradualism is taken for granted as a principle, but because the principle is false, there is no equivocation by me. Perhaps there is an equivocation by you on the same issue.

Gradualism is also assumed where the author says, "Each organ system is presented with its function, the diversity of forms that are realized among metazoan animals, and the reconstruction of its evolution."

The same is true here, gradualism is taken for granted, but it’s not an assumption of evolutionary biology.

See above.

Gradualism is also espoused by the New England Complex systems institute

Whether an institute of higher learning espouses on a concept, does not make that concept part of the assumptions of evolutionary theory, which are far simpler and somewhat different.

Gradualism is also taken for granted by Wikipedia
Again, taking something for granted, and it being one of the founding assumptions of evolutionary biology, are different things.

They are the same when the supposed evidence for gradualism is never established, but only ever falsely reported as interpretations of observations.

Gradualism is the principle of slow change to bring about a new species. Gradualism then includes various biological mechanisms to account for gradual biological change.

No, the first sentence here is correct. The latter sentence is false. Gradualism is not the same thing as the theory of evolution. The latter would explain how the changes occurred, which requires both an understanding of competition for natural resources, biogeographical distributions, fossil records, phylogenetic, adaptionalism and genetic drift. That's the bedrock of the theory of evolution. Gradualism is just the theory that biological changes occur gradually (in punctuated equilibriums). That's it. In fact, the theory of evolution could be proven wrong, and gradualism would still be true.

The theory of evolution could never be proven true, and gradualism would still be false.

Fitness is discussed below by Wikipedia as a probability of a class of individuals.

You're correct. That Wikipedia page does use the word 'fitness'. But you didn't use the word 'fitness', which is a different concept than 'survival of the fittest'. As I and others have pointed out to you now 'survival of the fittest' was a buzzword, a slogan, and not part of either Darwin's original conception of evolution, or the modern-day account of it. Rather 'survival of the fittest' was a slogan coined by the Victorian political theorist Herbert Spencer. In particular he used this term is description of sociological developments, in what would later be understood to be Social Darwinism which has been scientifically repudiated.

The argument has been modified to include fitness.

The actual development of organs is not part of the assumptions of gradualism, but belongs to a different place. There is no 'assumption' like what you're outlying above. Which is also technically wrong, because another possibility is that an organ could have had multiple purposes, and only later did more specialized organs develop. Since you don't deal with this possibility, the rest of the argument unfortunately is wrong. (taken from post 2 above)

You say an organ may have had multiple purposes, which is just another assumption within the theory of evolution. If that organ had multiple purposes, that organ was also subject to development from simpler to more complex. The claim that an organ has had multiple purposes only delays the problem a step or two, which collapses back to the problem of organs developing gradually over time from simpler to more complex.

The argument remains unanswered with anything substantial. The theory of evolution contains at least one contradiction as indicated in the OP, and later modified to include the notion of fitness. Also, the theory of evolution has at least one false principle of - more from the less. This one false principle is enough to debunk the entire theory. In fact, once the principle of more from less is exposed, there is no possible way evolution can ever have occurred, or ever will occur. No matter how may papers and books are published and studies are performed. The principle is false and any claim of evolution is merely handwaving over the false principle of gradualism - more from less. More from less is stated as potency actualises itself. Yet ontology dictates that potency is always actualised by an act and not from potency itself. Evolutionism is only another form of the false statement that - potency (less being) actualises itself (more being). As self-actualising potency is metaphysically impossible, and as evolution theory rests upon a metaphysical impossibility, then the theory of evolution is always false.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

The word assumption is not in the quote. But gradualism is assumed as part of the theory of evolution to interpret the data. When the data does not fit gradualism, then another mechanism, such as punctuated equilibrium is evoked. Evolution assumes gradualism as part of its overall scheme to produce the phylogenetic tree and asses the fossil record. The assumption is claimed to be evidenced by evolutionists, and thereby gradualism is claimed to no longer be an assumption by a verifiable fact.

No. Gradualism and Punk Eek are not assumed. Both are empirically observed patterns of evolutionary development in the fossil record. The fact is the rate of evolution can vary widely between different species and between different epochs. That is because the rate of evolutionary change is closely tied to the stability / rate of change of the local environment, and the availability of ecological niches to fill.

You're still flailing at a silly strawman version of ToE here.

15z6fg.jpg

[HMS_Beagle]

Also, the theory of evolution has at least one false principle of - more from the less. This one false principle is enough to debunk the entire theory.

Sorry again but what you call "more from the less" has been empirically observed to be an important driver in evolution. Here's one recent example.

The rainbow trout genome provides novel insights into evolution after whole-genome duplication in vertebrates
Berthelot et al
Nature Communications 5, Article 3657 (2014) doi:10.1038/ncomms4657

Abstract: Vertebrate evolution has been shaped by several rounds of whole-genome duplications (WGDs) that are often suggested to be associated with adaptive radiations and evolutionary innovations. Due to an additional round of WGD, the rainbow trout genome offers a unique opportunity to investigate the early evolutionary fate of a duplicated vertebrate genome. Here we show that after 100 million years of evolution the two ancestral subgenomes have remained extremely collinear, despite the loss of half of the duplicated protein-coding genes, mostly through pseudogenization. In striking contrast is the fate of miRNA genes that have almost all been retained as duplicated copies. The slow and stepwise rediploidization process characterized here challenges the current hypothesis that WGD is followed by massive and rapid genomic reorganizations and gene deletions.

You might want to learn at least a bit about the actual theory before claiming to refute it.

[rogue06]

At no point, in the quotation you provided, is it stated or implied that gradualism is an assumption. Rather gradualism is a theory that follows from the nature of biological development, but the theory of evolution in no way depends on this theory being true. Developments could have happened in random spurts and hopeful monsters as some speculated it did once. The fact that it doesn't is born out by evidence, which again makes it a theory, not an assumption.



No, that's not stating an assumption. Its true the author does consider gradualism to be true, but he's not assuming it. You can take something for granted in an explanation. No one has to defend that we've been to the moon, each time someone opens a chapter on the history of the moon landing, or any time someone talks about how we landed on the moon.

You're equivocating. There's a real difference between taking something for granted, in a text like this, or whether its a necessary assumption to a theory. They're not the same thing.



The same is true here, gradualism is taken for granted, but its not an assumption of evolutionary biology.



Whether an institute of higher learning espouses on a concept, does not make that concept part of the assumptions of evolutionary theory, which are far simpler and somewhat different.



Again, taking something for granted, and it being one of the founding assumptions of evolutionary biology, are different things.



No, the first sentence here is correct. The latter sentence is false. Gradualism is not the same thing as the theory of evolution. The latter would explain how the changes occurred, which requires both an understanding of competition for natural resources, biogeographical distributions, fossil records, phylogeneticsm, adaptionalism and genetic drift. That's the bedrock of the theory of evolution. Gradualism is just the theory that biological changes occur gradually (in punctuated equilibriums). That's it. In fact the theory of evolution could be proven wrong, and gradualism would still be true.

And the fact of the matter is that we have extensive evidence of gradual changes taking place in the fossil record -- specifically among what is known as microfossils like those of the single-celled organisms foraminifera, radiolaria, diatoms and coccolithorids.

As noted by Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters":

Source: Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

In addition to their great abundance and diversity, microfossils are ideal for evolutionary studies for several other reasons. Cores of the sediments covering the deep-sea bottom have been taken by rotary drilling and by plunging a long tube into the sea bottom (“piston coring”), and both retrieve an almost continuous record of marine sedimentation over that part of the ocean floor. Some cores span many millions of years with no breaks or gaps what- soever. These cores can be precisely dated by methods such as stable isotope analysis and magnetic stratigraphy, as well as with the biostratigraphy of the microfossil groups themselves. Thus we can trace the history of many microfossil lineages through many millions of years over a single spot in the world, something that is impossible with the much less complete record of shallow marine invertebrates or land vertebrates. Finally, the biogeography of microfossils. Finally, the biogeography of microfossils is relatively simple. Most are confined to a few water masses where the ocean waters are of a given temperature, and these species range over that entire water mass (Prothero and Lazarus 1980).

© Copyright Original Source

A couple decades ago two Florida State marine micropaleontologists, Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what is essentially an intact fossil record for a type of free-floating foraminifera that contains no so-called "missing links." The pair have recorded hundreds of speciation events in the history of the foraminifera they have examined which stretches over a nearly 70 million year period and say that transitional forms between various species aren't difficult at all to detect, making tracking ancestor species to their descendants easy to do.

gradualism foraminifera.gif
Here is an example covering roughly 6˝ million years

And there are still papers being published on fossil data that shows that gradualistic evolutionary change is still recognized as completely legitimate: Gradual evolution in bacteria: evidence from Bacillus systematic and here is an earlier one: Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites.

In fact, Eldredge and Gould went out of their way to repeatedly point out that “Punk Eek” in no way supplanted gradualism but worked alongside of it as Donald Prothero notes in a review of the subject:

Source: PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AT TWENTY: A PALEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, pages 42-43

As Gould and Eldredge (1977) pointed out in their five-year retrospective on the debate, it's easy to pick one specific example of either gradualism or punctuation, but the important issue is one of generality. Which pattern is dominant among the species in the fossil record, since both are known to occur? If you sample all the members of a given fauna, which pattern is most common? In the twenty years since the paper, more and more case studies have been generated, and by now a pattern seems to be emerging (Gould, 1992; Stanley, 1992).

It is now clear that among microscopic protistans, gradualism does seem to prevail (Hayami and Ozawa, 1975; Scott, 1982; Arnold, 1983; Malmgren and Kennett, 1981; Malmgren et al., 1983; Wei and Kennett, 1988, on foraminiferans; Kellogg and Hays, 1975; Kellogg, 1983; Lazarus et al., 1985; Lazarus, 1986, on radiolarians, and Sorhannus et al., 1988; Fenner et al., 1989; Sorhannus,1990, on diatoms). As discussed by Gould and Eldredge (1977) and Lazarus (1983), this may be due to the fact that most of these organisms are either asexual clones, or show alternation of of sexual and asexual generations.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

So the observations actually reveal that both take place. It isn't an either-or situation but rather a complementary one and depends upon the circumstances. So as Prothero notes, Eldredge and Gould were aware of examples of both gradualism and PE, and like everyone else, wondered "which pattern is dominant." ... Therefore, the only question that remains is which process is the dominant one.

Source: Is evolution gradual or punctuated?: Large Punctuational Contribution of Speciation to Evolutionary Divergence at the Molecular Level

A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Further, the fact that organisms can evolve at different rates is exactly what Darwin predicted:

Source: On The Origin of the Species, First Edition

”Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly.”


Source

© Copyright Original Source

[tabibito]

Two different sources, but both on Wikipedia.

Eldredge and Gould, proposing that evolution jumps between stability and relative rapidity, are described as "discrete variable speedists," and "in this respect they are genuinely radical."[57] They assert that evolution generally proceeds in bursts, or not at all. "Continuously variable speedists," on the other hand advance that "evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediates. They see no particular reason to emphasize certain speeds more than others. In particular, stasis, to them, is just an extreme case of ultra-slow evolution. To a punctuationist, there is something very special about stasis."

If sexual creatures avoid mates with strange or unusual characteristics, in the process called koinophilia,[14][15][16][17] then mutations that affect the external appearance of their carriers will seldom be passed on to the next and subsequent generations. They will therefore seldom be tested by natural selection. Evolution is, therefore, effectively halted or slowed down considerably. The only mutations that can accumulate in a population are ones that have no noticeable effect on the outward appearance and functionality of their bearers (i.e., they are "silent" or "neutral mutations", which can be, and are, used to trace the relatedness and age of populations and species.[14][18])

This implies that evolution can only occur if mutant mates cannot be avoided, as a result of a severe scarcity of potential mates. This is most likely to occur in small, isolated communities. These occur most commonly on small islands, in remote valleys, lakes, river systems, or caves,[19] or during the aftermath of a mass extinction.[18] Under these circumstances, not only is the choice of mates severely restricted but population bottlenecks, founder effects, genetic drift and inbreeding cause rapid, random changes in the isolated population's genetic composition.[19] Furthermore, hybridization with a related species trapped in the same isolate might introduce additional genetic changes. If an isolated population such as this survives its genetic upheavals, and subsequently expands into an unoccupied niche, or into a niche in which it has an advantage over its competitors, a new species, or subspecies, will have come in being. In geological terms this will be an abrupt event. A resumption of avoiding mutant mates will, thereafter, result, once again, in evolutionary stagnation.

The explanations seem reasonable to me.

[Leonhard]

But gradualism is assumed as part of the theory of evolution to interpret the data. When the data does not fit gradualism, then another mechanism, such as punctuated equilibrium is evoked.

I'm quite impressed with how quickly you get things wrong. Gradualism is not a mechanism. Gradualism is a theory that states that biological organisms change slowly over time, whether by genetic drift, or natural selection. Punctuated equilibrium is not a different 'mechanism' because punctuated equilibrium is a not mechanism period. Its another theory, one that describes that species diversification is correlated with changes in the environment, which is exactly born out in the fossil record.

Evolution assumes gradualism...

Gradualism is not an assumption. Repeating your mistake doesn't make you correct.

The assumption is claimed to be evidenced by evolutionists

As Rogue06's post illustrates, its not a mere claim. You're attacking a strawman and refusing to actually engage in the evidence.

In fact, gradualism can never have any verifiable evidence in the fossil record, or any observation whatsoever in any biological life. Gradualism is false in principle, for gradualism is easily reduced to - more comes from the less.

Actually the usual thomistic interpretation of the evolution of organisms, is that the earliest organism contained the potentias to become all species. Then by generation and corruption, each species diversifies into subspecies. There is nothing against the laws of metaphysics in this. On the contrary, some of the early medieval thomists anticipated this idea, though they never discovered Darwin's gem of natural selection acting on a competition for resources.

Gradualism is always only ever assumed because there is no evidence for a false principle. Apparently, a self-professed Thomist such as yourself has missed the obvious flaw in the theory of evolution.

Even if it was true that there was a metaphysical problem with gradualism. It would not be true that 'gradualism is only ever assumed'. Rather then it would be that scientists were misinterpreting evidence. However as there aren't any metaphysical problems with the theory of evolution, there's no reason to argue about this.

What sounds like equivocating is only stating the obvious. Gradualism is taken for granted as a principle, but because the principle is false, there is no equivocation by me. Perhaps there is an equivocation by you on the same issue.

To demonstrate that you're equivocating all I have to do is show that you take two different notions and treat them as the same. Equivocation is basically just being careless with the definition of words, or meaning of sentences. Which you are. You have a history of not really caring what things mean precisely. Both in these discussions, or your flat earth threads, or your geocentrist threads.

They are the same when the supposed evidence for gradualism is never established, but only ever falsely reported as interpretations of observations.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The evidence is clearly established, you can read all about it if you want. No one is hiding it from you. Rogue06 even went so far as to collect quite a few select items for you.

'Falsely reported as interpretations of observations' is goobledegook, the sentence unpacked means basically "The reported wrongly, that something was an interpretation when it wasn't" That sentence is nonsense. However it does seem salvageable, and that you really meant 'False interpretations of observations reported as facts'. However that's up to you to show.

Gradualism is just the theory that biological changes occur gradually (in punctuated equilibriums). That's it. In fact, the theory of evolution could be proven wrong, and gradualism would still be true.

The theory of evolution could never be proven true, and gradualism would still be false.

What is this, kindergarden? This is the intellectual equivalent of "No you!" What I said stand, gradualism is no the same thing as the theory of evolution. You completely equivocated between the two. They're no the same theory. Gradualism if proven wrong, would not prove the theory of evolution wrong.

The argument has been modified to include fitness.

Which argument? You've made several in this thread. Your arguments? One of them? The theory of evolution?

You say an organ may have had multiple purposes, which is just another assumption within the theory of evolution.

It was actually not an assumption. You throw that word around a lot, and I'm not sure you know what it means.

You outlined a strawman version of the development of organs. You used this strawman to launch an argument in order to try to disprove the theory of evolution by reducto ad absurdum. In order to show that your argument is wrong, I don't have to give an account of the development of organs. I just have to show that one of the premises of your argument is wrong. I did that by highlighting a possible pathway of development you neglected.

[Leonhard]

I could easily show how absurd the principle of gradualism is by apply the same principle to Mormon theology. Apparently, Joseph Smith taught God was once a man and now He is God. Mormonism is dependent upon the false principle of gradualism, which is also part of the theory of evolution. As gradualism is false, then both evolution and Mormonism are also false.

Mormon Theology, and their idea that in Heaven there is notion of eternal growth and progress has nothing to do with gradualism in biology. The fact that Mormonism is false, does not show that gradualism is false. That gradualism is true, does not imply that Mormonism is correct.

Not quite sure what else to say to this. I'm quite shocked by the nonsensical comparison to be honest.

[tabibito]

Actually the usual thomistic interpretation of the evolution of organisms, is that the earliest organism contained the potentias to become all species. Then by generation and corruption, each species diversifies into subspecies. There is nothing against the laws of metaphysics in this. On the contrary, some of the early medieval thomists anticipated this idea, though they never discovered Darwin's gem of natural selection acting on a competition for resources.

Seems sound enough - the most primitive life-forms seem have some incredibly long dna sequences.

[JohnMartin]

No. Gradualism and Punk Eek are not assumed. Both are empirically observed patterns of evolutionary development in the fossil record. The fact is the rate of evolution can vary widely between different species and between different epochs. That is because the rate of evolutionary change is closely tied to the stability / rate of change of the local environment, and the availability of ecological niches to fill.

You're still flailing at a silly strawman version of ToE here.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22815[/ATTACH]

Neither gradualism, nor punctuated equalibrium have been observed in the fossil record, for both parts of the theory of evolution (TE) are based upon the principle of more from less, which is false. Evolutionists claim gradualism is not assumed within the theory of evolution, but is evidenced from multiple lines of evidence, when in fact both gradualism, and punctuated equalibrium have no evidence in any science. The can be no evidence for a false principle within a theory. Whatever mechanism is chosen within TE, that mechanism is always false, or falsely applied within TE that always has as one of its fundamental principles as more from less. The bottom up approach is expressly noted by evolutionists in opposition to Aristotle's top down approach. Aristotole correctly taught less is from the more. Evolutionists teach more is from the less. The former is true and the later is false.

There are also many other problems with TE including the falsity of materialsim, and naturalism, the denial of the soul as the formal cause of life, denial and affirmation of teleology withn the same theory, reduction of progress to chance + and extrinsic cause, etc. The entire theory is shot full of philosophical problems at the root of the theory. As all these and many other problems reamain with TE, the theory is always false.

Much from less is always false.

Less from much is always never false.

Less from much is always true in principle.

More from less is always false in principle.

TE is always false in principle.

Creation is always true in principle.

JM

[Leonhard]

Neither gradualism, nor punctuated equalibrium have been observed in the fossil record, for both parts of the theory of evolution (TE) are based upon the principle of more from less, which is false.

As I argued earlier, this is wrong. There are plenty of thomists like Edward Feser, or Oderberg who have a thorough Aristotelian view of life, who sees the theory evolution as perfectly sound. At no point is an effect ever used that was not in the cause of the specimen. Its possible for any species to develop subspecies. The earliest lifeform had the potentias to become all life. There is nothing contrary to scholastic metaphysics here.

[JohnMartin]

In fact, gradualism can never have any verifiable evidence in the fossil record, or any observation whatsoever in any biological life. Gradualism is false in principle, for gradualism is easily reduced to - more comes from the less.

Actually the usual thomistic interpretation of the evolution of organisms, is that the earliest organism contained the potentias to become all species. Then by generation and corruption, each species diversifies into subspecies. There is nothing against the laws of metaphysics in this. On the contrary, some of the early medieval thomists anticipated this idea, though they never discovered Darwin's gem of natural selection acting on a competition for resources.

Potentias means power, which is a can do. For a Thomist to beleive the earliest organism contained the potentias to become all species is only to affirm the TE principle of more (does do) from less (can do). As potency (can do, can be) does not actualise itself (does do, does be), but is actualised by another (act), then any addition of act is from act and never from potency (potentia). Your claim is emphatically false. More from less is false in principle and is metaphysicaly absurd. More being (act) is not caused by can be. More being (act) is always caused by act, and never potency. TE says the opposite, which means TE is always false.

Gradualism is always only ever assumed because there is no evidence for a false principle. Apparently, a self-professed Thomist such as yourself has missed the obvious flaw in the theory of evolution.

Even if it was true that there was a metaphysical problem with gradualism. It would not be true that 'gradualism is only ever assumed'. Rather then it would be that scientists were misinterpreting evidence. However as there aren't any metaphysical problems with the theory of evolution, there's no reason to argue about this.

It is true that gradualism is false in principle. Any theory that includes a self development principle of more from less is always false. So scientists have misinterpreted the evidence and you are in a state of denial concenring a fundamental flaw in TE.

They are the same when the supposed evidence for gradualism is never established, but only ever falsely reported as interpretations of observations.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The evidence is clearly established, you can read all about it if you want. No one is hiding it from you. Rogue06 even went so far as to collect quite a few select items for you.

I will comment further on this momentarily.

Gradualism is just the theory that biological changes occur gradually (in punctuated equilibriums). That's it. In fact, the theory of evolution could be proven wrong, and gradualism would still be true.

The theory of evolution could never be proven true, and gradualism would still be false.

What is this, kindergarden? This is the intellectual equivalent of "No you!" What I said stand, gradualism is no the same thing as the theory of evolution. You completely equivocated between the two. They're no the same theory. Gradualism if proven wrong, would not prove the theory of evolution wrong.

No. gradualism and any other principle that is a form of more from less is always wrong. The basis of TE is more from less, so the theory is always wrong.

You outlined a strawman version of the development of organs. You used this strawman to launch an argument in order to try to disprove the theory of evolution by reducto ad absurdum. In order to show that your argument is wrong, I don't have to give an account of the development of organs. I just have to show that one of the premises of your argument is wrong. I did that by highlighting a possible pathway of development you neglected.

The new example has been answered in a post above. The claim of a prior organ (O2) having multiple functions and parts of a newly developed organ (O1) came from a prior organ (O2). Your proposed outcome only delays the answer by another organ (O3). Where did the parts come from for the prior organ (O2)? Another organ (O3)? Where did the parts come for the prior organ (O3)? Your answer, answers nothing. In fact, your answer assumes the prior organ (O2) is more complex than the posterior organ (O1), which means there is no development in organs, but only a simplification. Such simplification is against TE which posits increase in organ complexity. Further, if your answer is always delayed to another organ, then there never is an answer, for the delay has no infinite regress in biological systems. Therefore your answer is delayed until you arrive at an organ that does not have multiple outcomes, or is not an organ. Such an answer is not an answer.

Alternativley your answer is circular. Organ (O1) developed from (O2), from (O3), from (O1). Circular causation is alwys false. You could also claim organ development from an outside environment. Organ (O1) from (O2) from the environment. But the environment is only another version of the O1, from O2, from O3 argument, which is false.

The problem of organ development in TE is never fully explained. How can it be when organ development is thought to occur over a long time using the false principle of more from less?

The problem restated in another manner from the OP - Organ development is said to occur for the good of the biological body. The good of the biological body is measured by the fitness of the population. If the organ is not developed and not functional, then the organ is not functioning for the good of the biological body. Consequently the biological body has less fitness. If the organ is functioning, the organ is functioning for the good of the biological body. The good of the biological body is measured by the fitness of the population. In both cases the development of a non functioning organ and the developed, fully functional organ are both acting for fitness. As fitness is a measure of the existence of a biological population, which is a good, fitness is a measure of final causation. As final causation is always the motive of action, both the development of non functionaing organs and the fuction of fully developed organs both have the same motive as fitness. As two contradictory actions can never have the same motive, TE then includes the impossible reconciliation of non functioning and functioning organs as contradictory actions for the same motive of fitness. TE is a false theory.

JM

[JohnMartin]

As I argued earlier, this is wrong. There are plenty of thomists like Edward Feser, or Oderberg who have a thorough Aristotelian view of life, who sees the theory evolution as perfectly sound. At no point is an effect ever used that was not in the cause of the specimen. Its possible for any species to develop subspecies. The earliest lifeform had the potentias to become all life. There is nothing contrary to scholastic metaphysics here.

So you say, but where is the evidence? Claiming Edward Feser, or Oderberg say so is not evidence. Potentia does not actualise itself. So more does not come from the less.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I could easily show how absurd the principle of gradualism is by apply the same principle to Mormon theology. Apparently, Joseph Smith taught God was once a man and now He is God. Mormonism is dependent upon the false principle of gradualism, which is also part of the theory of evolution. As gradualism is false, then both evolution and Mormonism are also false.
Mormon Theology, and their idea that in Heaven there is notion of eternal growth and progress has nothing to do with gradualism in biology. The fact that Mormonism is false, does not show that gradualism is false. That gradualism is true, does not imply that Mormonism is correct.

Not quite sure what else to say to this. I'm quite shocked by the nonsensical comparison to be honest.

The same principle of more from less is applied in TE and Mormonism. The tree of life infers the common ancestor is the less, from which all life now exists as a descendent. The trips of the tree of life contain life with more be and more do than the common ancestor. To deny this is to deny the fundamental notion of the tree of life - more from less.

Mormonism also claims God was once a man. Hence Mormonism uses the false principle of more from less. TE only stops its claim at the end of the tree tips because TE is limited to biology. Mormonism extends TE to have men as a biological body become God. TE is then in principle (more from less) a prelude to Mormonism.

JM

[JohnMartin]

And the fact of the matter is that we have extensive evidence of gradual changes taking place in the fossil record -- specifically among what is known as microfossils like those of the single-celled organisms foraminifera, radiolaria, diatoms and coccolithorids.

As noted by Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters":

Source: Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

In addition to their great abundance and diversity, microfossils are ideal for evolutionary studies for several other reasons. Cores of the sediments covering the deep-sea bottom have been taken by rotary drilling and by plunging a long tube into the sea bottom (“piston coring”), and both retrieve an almost continuous record of marine sedimentation over that part of the ocean floor. Some cores span many millions of years with no breaks or gaps what- soever. These cores can be precisely dated by methods such as stable isotope analysis and magnetic stratigraphy, as well as with the biostratigraphy of the microfossil groups themselves. Thus we can trace the history of many microfossil lineages through many millions of years over a single spot in the world, something that is impossible with the much less complete record of shallow marine invertebrates or land vertebrates. Finally, the biogeography of microfossils. Finally, the biogeography of microfossils is relatively simple. Most are confined to a few water masses where the ocean waters are of a given temperature, and these species range over that entire water mass (Prothero and Lazarus 1980).

© Copyright Original Source

A couple decades ago two Florida State marine micropaleontologists, Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what is essentially an intact fossil record for a type of free-floating foraminifera that contains no so-called "missing links." The pair have recorded hundreds of speciation events in the history of the foraminifera they have examined which stretches over a nearly 70 million year period and say that transitional forms between various species aren't difficult at all to detect, making tracking ancestor species to their descendants easy to do.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22818[/ATTACH]
Here is an example covering roughly 6˝ million years

And there are still papers being published on fossil data that shows that gradualistic evolutionary change is still recognized as completely legitimate: Gradual evolution in bacteria: evidence from Bacillus systematic and here is an earlier one: Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites.

In fact, Eldredge and Gould went out of their way to repeatedly point out that “Punk Eek” in no way supplanted gradualism but worked alongside of it as Donald Prothero notes in a review of the subject:

Source: PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AT TWENTY: A PALEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, pages 42-43

As Gould and Eldredge (1977) pointed out in their five-year retrospective on the debate, it's easy to pick one specific example of either gradualism or punctuation, but the important issue is one of generality. Which pattern is dominant among the species in the fossil record, since both are known to occur? If you sample all the members of a given fauna, which pattern is most common? In the twenty years since the paper, more and more case studies have been generated, and by now a pattern seems to be emerging (Gould, 1992; Stanley, 1992).

It is now clear that among microscopic protistans, gradualism does seem to prevail (Hayami and Ozawa, 1975; Scott, 1982; Arnold, 1983; Malmgren and Kennett, 1981; Malmgren et al., 1983; Wei and Kennett, 1988, on foraminiferans; Kellogg and Hays, 1975; Kellogg, 1983; Lazarus et al., 1985; Lazarus, 1986, on radiolarians, and Sorhannus et al., 1988; Fenner et al., 1989; Sorhannus,1990, on diatoms). As discussed by Gould and Eldredge (1977) and Lazarus (1983), this may be due to the fact that most of these organisms are either asexual clones, or show alternation of of sexual and asexual generations.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

So the observations actually reveal that both take place. It isn't an either-or situation but rather a complementary one and depends upon the circumstances. So as Prothero notes, Eldredge and Gould were aware of examples of both gradualism and PE, and like everyone else, wondered "which pattern is dominant." ... Therefore, the only question that remains is which process is the dominant one.

Source: Is evolution gradual or punctuated?: Large Punctuational Contribution of Speciation to Evolutionary Divergence at the Molecular Level

A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Further, the fact that organisms can evolve at different rates is exactly what Darwin predicted:

Source: On The Origin of the Species, First Edition

”Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly.”


Source

© Copyright Original Source

You have reduced gradualism down to gradual change within a species. The organs present in the prior species remain in the later species. There are only minor changes in shapes sizes and colours to note. Pigeons are always pigeons, bacteria is always bacteria and elephants are always elephants. Gradualism in TE however must occur not only in species, but account for all organs in every category the evolutionist's propose in domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. The gradualism of the tree of life must be evidenced at the trunk, all the nodes and limbs. To reduce gradualism down to minor changes at the tips of the tree is to reduce gradualism down to modification of already existing organs within an already existing population. Evolution claims much more than this. TE claims all organs arise from either gradualism (G) through mutation and natural selection, or punctuated equilibrium (PE). The evidence presented by evolutionists is only ever at the species level, where no new organs are ever developed.

How could TE ever have evidence for a false principle of more from less? It cannot. So evolutionists fudge over the problem of the false principle in the mechanisms included in G and PE and provide (misinterpreted) evidence based false claims that do not support the false principle. The sources and picture you presented are only further evidence of the scams evolutionists promote by publishing works that propose evidence that do not support the false principle.

The two papers on trilobytes and bacteria never discuss the development of new organs. The paper on trilobytes claims an increase in the number of pygidial ribs. The ribs already existed and the increase in number of ribs does not constitute a development of a new organ, but only a variation of an existing organ. The paper on bacteria discusses genes but the bacteria remains bacteria. Nothing new here either.

Punctuated equilibrium (PE) is only TE substituting the creation event for a mechanism that does not exist. PE is only another false mechanism based upon the false principle of more from less. TE not only applies a false principle, it applies the same false principle in diverse false ways. Both G and PE are false ways of undertstanding the fossil record where neither G nor PE are possible, for both are fundamentally in false principle - more from less. In fact TE claims that where G is not present, PE takes over. This claim only means when the falsity of G is not present the more false PE is claimed to take over. For both G and PE are based upon more from less, and PE has a greater claim of a greater more, from less than G does.

The false principle of TE - more from less is extendend by noting the grand scheme of TE is to propose a upward development scheme of biological life, independent of a supreme creator. In short, TE is a creation event over a long time, without a creator. TE denies the necessity of the creator and the necessity of the divine power to create. TE substitutes the top down model of creation and the power of God with the bottom up approach of abiogenesis, G and PE with TE's accompanied false philosophical worldview of naturalistic marterialism.

TE is false at many levels, including the fudging of small changes to already existing populations of species to claims of evidence that matches the false principle of more from less contained within G and PE which is falsely claimed by evolutionists to exist througout the entire tree of life.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Two different sources, but both on Wikipedia.

Eldredge and Gould, proposing that evolution jumps between stability and relative rapidity, are described as "discrete variable speedists," and "in this respect they are genuinely radical."[57] They assert that evolution generally proceeds in bursts, or not at all. "Continuously variable speedists," on the other hand advance that "evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediates. They see no particular reason to emphasize certain speeds more than others. In particular, stasis, to them, is just an extreme case of ultra-slow evolution. To a punctuationist, there is something very special about stasis."

If sexual creatures avoid mates with strange or unusual characteristics, in the process called koinophilia,[14][15][16][17] then mutations that affect the external appearance of their carriers will seldom be passed on to the next and subsequent generations. They will therefore seldom be tested by natural selection. Evolution is, therefore, effectively halted or slowed down considerably. The only mutations that can accumulate in a population are ones that have no noticeable effect on the outward appearance and functionality of their bearers (i.e., they are "silent" or "neutral mutations", which can be, and are, used to trace the relatedness and age of populations and species.[14][18])

This implies that evolution can only occur if mutant mates cannot be avoided, as a result of a severe scarcity of potential mates. This is most likely to occur in small, isolated communities. These occur most commonly on small islands, in remote valleys, lakes, river systems, or caves,[19] or during the aftermath of a mass extinction.[18] Under these circumstances, not only is the choice of mates severely restricted but population bottlenecks, founder effects, genetic drift and inbreeding cause rapid, random changes in the isolated population's genetic composition.[19] Furthermore, hybridization with a related species trapped in the same isolate might introduce additional genetic changes. If an isolated population such as this survives its genetic upheavals, and subsequently expands into an unoccupied niche, or into a niche in which it has an advantage over its competitors, a new species, or subspecies, will have come in being. In geological terms this will be an abrupt event. A resumption of avoiding mutant mates will, thereafter, result, once again, in evolutionary stagnation.

The explanations seem reasonable to me.

The "new species, or subspecies, will have come in being" is only a claim that does not address the problem of the development of new organs. The organs already exist within the population. A new species is only a classification based upon a system within TE. The classification system does not have a mechanism, or an explanation for organ development.

JM