Originally posted by Leonhard
View Post
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.
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.
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.
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.
The same is true here, gradualism is taken for granted, but it’s not an assumption of evolutionary biology.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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)
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
Comment