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

[TheLurch]

Here's an example of the evolution of an organ: parathyroid derived from gills, functioning in calcium regulation the entire time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4067039.stm

[JohnMartin]

Here's an example of the evolution of an organ: parathyroid derived from gills, functioning in calcium regulation the entire time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4067039.stm

Researcher Professor Anthony Graham said: "As the tetrapod parathyroid gland and the gills of fish both contribute to the regulation of extracellular calcium levels, it is reasonable to suggest that the parathyroid gland evolved from a transformation of the gills when animals made the transition from the aquatic to the terrestrial environment.

Another example of fallacious thinking of the evolutionists. A common "contribute to the regulation of extracellular calcium levels," does not provide evidence for the false principle of much from less. This is standard fair in evolutonary circles. Speculative links are made and grand claims are stated, based upon nothing more than commonality at the expense of adequate causation, whilst fudging over the false principle of more from less. Such claims and statements are thgouth to be science, when in fact such claims are only that of those who have embraced the mindless superstition of naturalist materialism and the wild speculations of punctuated equilibrium.

TE was probably largely an invention of atheists, or agnostics and has since been developed by the academy, which is infected by atheism and agnosticism. TE, atheism, and agnosticis are all false.

JM

[TheLurch]

Another example of fallacious thinking of the evolutionists. A common "contribute to the regulation of extracellular calcium levels," does not provide evidence for the false principle of much from less.

Then i guess you didn't read all the bits about common developmental origin and overlapping gene expression. You know, the sorts of things that biologists consider evidence.

[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.

An argument from authority is fallacious as it avoids the substance of the objection and proposes no substantial rebuttal to the objection. The objection that TE is based upon the false principle of more from less, which is the absurd metaphysical statement - potency actualises itself, remains unanswered.

Any appeal to Thomists who state there is a potency in some biological life should only admit such in accord with potency is actualised by another (act) and not potency actualises itself as required by TE. All the examples evolutionists give of so called micro-evolution is really only an effect of breeding whereby biological matter is mixed to cause the subsequent generations to look slightly different to the former generations. Such examples only provide evidence for potency in one generation of a population has the ability to be actualised by the act of sexual generation to produce small, accidental changes to the existing population. The act of sexual generation is the sexual act which provides the act (being) to make actual the potential (can be) in a current population. This example is quite a trivial example and a far cry from the claims of TE which purports to account for the development of organs in all biological systems within the tree of life whereby organs are claimed to have developed over millennia.

Even if you manage to cite a Thomist how seems to embrace the potentia thesis, such a Thomist can only do so without breaching the principle of less from more. No Thomist worth his salt can ever publicly embrace the false principle of more from less as required by TE.

A corollary to the recent discussion about the false principle of more from less is the evolutionist's claims about the micro-evolution to macro-evolution relationship are also false. It is often stated that only micro-evolution is ever observed for gradualism occurs slowly via descent with modification. Therefore no observation is ever made that can properly be called macro-evolution. But if macro-evolution can never be observed accoring to the long times required for descent with modification to cause new organs, then what evidence is there that micro-evolution is ever being or has been observed by anyone? There is none, because nobody can be sure that any biological change is evidence for evolution, for no change ever occurs according to the false principle of more from less.

As more from less is always false, any link between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is also false, for both micro-evolution and macro-evolution are dependent upon the same false principle - more from less. An evolutionist's certitude about what is observed as micro-evolution is a certainty based upon a misunderstanding about the claims of TE.

JM

[rogue06]

You have reduced gradualism down to gradual change within a species.

The example I provided of foraminifera evolution studied by Arnold and Parker explicitly mentions "transitional forms between various species" as well as "hundreds of speciation events"^[1]. The rest of your response is loaded with similar ignorant errors.

Please fail better or at least make an attempt to do so.







1. speciation is when a biological lineage divides into two or more genetically distinct species. It has been observed taking place numerous times both in the lab as well as in nature.

[JohnMartin]

Then i guess you didn't read all the bits about common developmental origin and overlapping gene expression. You know, the sorts of things that biologists consider evidence.

Gill theory of human glands

This research suggests that in fact, our gills are still sitting in our throats - disguised as our parathyroid glands.
Professor Anthony Graham

So says the comedian, or the circus clown.

More from less is false, so the professor has to make giant leaps using fallacious hyper speculative reasoning.

Researcher Professor Anthony Graham said: "As the tetrapod parathyroid gland and the gills of fish both contribute to the regulation of extracellular calcium levels, it is reasonable to suggest that the parathyroid gland evolved from a transformation of the gills when animals made the transition from the aquatic to the terrestrial environment.

Apparently this example by Professor Anthony Graham is reasonable, because he says so. Of course no observations are required, just make up a hyper speculative sequence that assumes men came from fish. So men have something in common with fish. It could be that men have something in common with fish because both are forms of biological life from a creation event, but such a simple outcome is not permissible within the inductive method with its naturalist, materialist assumptions and biological alchemy.

TE is another version of alchemy as evidenced in the above fish to man evoution claim (many other examples could also be given). Chemical alchemy has been abandoned and in its place we now have biological alchemy. The former was abandoned for the reactions frequently failed to occurr in accord with chemical alchemy theory. The later is embraced, because the long time periods required for biological change rule out any direct observation that can overturn the assumed principle in biological alchemy, which is - any biological organism population can change into any other biological organism population given enough descent with modification. Such a principle is only biological alchemy which is assumed but never proven. It seems the more time required to bring about the biological changes, the stronger TE becomes in the eyes of the evolutionists. The more time required for change infers less direct evidence which can overturn the assumed biological alchemy wthin TE. Yet so, stasis of many species and the complete failure of fruit flies to change much at all in modern experiments is very strong evidence that biological alchemy is a materialist fiction.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The example I provided of foraminifera evolution studied by Arnold and Parker explicitly mentions "transitional forms between various species" as well as "hundreds of speciation events"^[1]. The rest of your response is loaded with similar ignorant errors.

Please fail better or at least make an attempt to do so.

1. speciation is when a biological lineage divides into two or more genetically distinct species. It has been observed taking place numerous times both in the lab as well as in nature.

Speciation is a non event concocked by evolutionists via a classification system consisting many shades of grey. Evolutionists have many defintions of what a species is, making the claims of diverse species in the above papers very problematic. According to kennesaw State University there are not less than 11 current definitions of biological species. The diversity of defintion of what a species is, makes any claims about change of species spurious, or at least very problematic.

1) Biological species concept: Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups (Mayr, 1940).

Biological species concept: A species is a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature (Mayr, 1982).

Biological species concept: Species are the members in aggregate of a group of populations that breed or potentially interbreed with each other under natural conditions (Futuyma, 1986)

2) Cladistic species concept: A species is a set of organisms (an evolutionary lineage) between two branch points or between one branch point and an extinction event or a modern population (Ridley 1993).

3) Cohesion species concept: A species is the most inclusive group of organisms having the potential for genetic and/or demographic exchangeability. (Templeton, 1989)

4)Competition species concept: Species are the most extensive units in the natural economy such that reproductive competition occurs among their parts (Ghiselin, 1974).

5) Ecological species concept: A species is a set of organisms exploiting (or adapted to) a single niche (Ridley 1993).

See the other definitions in the above link.

Therefore the papers claims are not well founded. Lets face it TE is only really about small changes in species. Any claim beyond these trivial observations is only speculative reasoning which violates the principle of less from more, and says more from less. TE is bogus thinking which hides an atheistic agenda.

JM

[rogue06]

Here's an example of the evolution of an organ: parathyroid derived from gills, functioning in calcium regulation the entire time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4067039.stm

For those interested in the evolution of complex organs...

Source: The Evolution of Complex Organs

Abstract

The origin of complex biological structures has long been a subject of interest and debate. Two centuries ago, natural explanations for their occurrence were considered inconceivable. However, 150 years of scientific investigation have yielded a conceptual framework, abundant data, and a range of analytical tools capable of addressing this question. This article reviews the various direct and indirect evolutionary processes that contribute to the origins of complex organs. The evolution of eyes is used as a case study to illustrate these concepts, and several of the most common misconceptions about complex organ evolution are discussed.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

The entire paper is available for reading at the above link.

One of my favorite examples is the evolution of the mammalian ear (from amniote to therapsid jaws and ears, through twin jointed jaws to the mammalian ear) which has been thoroughly studied and exceptionally well documented. The illustration below is a gross over simplification that shows the beginning and end points

synapsid_ear_evolution_web.jpg

[rogue06]

Speciation is a non event concocked by evolutionists via a classification system consisting many shades of grey.

speciesdefinitely

"New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not evidence for evolution"

Operation science

"Reproductive isolation can occur in a number of ways and result in speciation from one kind of animal through events that isolate one variation (species) from another... *There are more examples of how different kinds of reproductive isolation cause speciation from a common kind of animal. Speciation events are documented for nearly every kind of animal that has been described, and recently it has been estimated that 10 percent of all animal species still hybridize (mate with other species, producing fertile offspring) in the wild, and even more when brought into contact with each other in captivity. This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended."

"Anti-creationists commonly raise doubts if new species and genera could arise in only the few thousand years since the Flood. In doing so, they only display their ignorance of both creationist and evolutionist research along these lines. In fact, the release of single pairs and seven pairs of animals [from the Ark] must have facilitated the rapid origin of new species and genera."

Speciation is the natural process by which new species are formed. A species is generally defined as a naturally-occurring population that is actually or potentially interbreeding and reproductively isolated from other such groups (Ernst Mayr 1942).[1] The formation of a new species most often occurs when members of an established population become separated, preventing mating or genetic flow between the groups. Organisms that were once capable of interbreeding will gradually develop barriers to reproduction when segregated and exposed to differential selective pressures. This process results in two or more genetically distinct groups of organisms that are no longer capable of interbreeding (species).[2]

Speciation is the leading mechanism responsible for the diversification of the created kinds of plants and animals into many physically distinct groups (see: biological evolution). The formation of new species has been a frequent part of biological history largely due to the ecological diversity of the Earth. Organisms can encounter dramatically different biomes after only a short migration, to which they must adapt. The genetic changes that accomplish these adaptations can render related groups genetically incompatible so that fertilization is no longer possible.

[JimL]

A brief discussion is presented below concerning a problem of gradualism in relation to the notion of survival of the fittest as proposed within the theory of Evolution.

Gradualism proposes all organs of biological bodies arose through a process of mutations within a population to give rise to organs that function within a living body. The functionality of an organ, or organs permits a biological population to act in a way that gives the organism a benefit and thereby provides an opportunity for the biological population to survive. The survival of the biological population is caused by the functionality of organs, which arise through a process of gradualism. But gradualism assumes 1) a time when the organ (A) did not exist, and later, 2) a time when organ (A) existed, but was not functional, and 3) a time when organ (A) was not fully functional. During these times of say several million years when the biological organism functioned without the use of the developing organ, the organism as an historical population survived.

So the theory of evolution must posit organ development over a long time period, whereby the organs develop to help the population survive. But at the same time, the population already survives without the organ development. For during the time of organ development the organ is non functional, and not required for survival. Therefore I propose that the theory of evolution contains a contradiction according to the theory's notion of survival in relation to the principle of gradualism as stated below -

1) Gradualism occurs to account for fully functioning organs and consequently the survival of the population in accord with the principle of survival of the fittest. So survival of the fittest is the good that acts as the sufficient motive not as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs.

Survival of the fittest in relation to gradualism implies survival of the fittest to be both the sufficient and insufficient motive for the development of organs. The simultaneous affirmation and denial of the survival of the fittest in relation to gradualism infers the theory of evolution contains at least one contradiction.

Therefore the theory of evolution is false.

JM

JM, even if your conclusion concerning gradualism were correct, it doesn't, as is your claim, falsify the theory of evolution. Organisms do change over time, that we know, the exact process is irrelevant. Gradualism is an hypothesis based on inconclusive evidence, as is that of punctuated equalibrium, but the fact remains that whatever the exact details of the process is, organisms do evolve. So, you have not proven what you set out to prove, or what you have asserted to have proven, that the theory of evolution is itself false, all you have done is to have pointed out what is already known, i.e. that the exact process of evolution isn't a settled issue.

[JohnMartin]

For those interested in the evolution of complex organs...

Source: The Evolution of Complex Organs

Abstract

The origin of complex biological structures has long been a subject of interest and debate. Two centuries ago, natural explanations for their occurrence were considered inconceivable. However, 150 years of scientific investigation have yielded a conceptual framework, abundant data, and a range of analytical tools capable of addressing this question. This article reviews the various direct and indirect evolutionary processes that contribute to the origins of complex organs. The evolution of eyes is used as a case study to illustrate these concepts, and several of the most common misconceptions about complex organ evolution are discussed.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

The entire paper is available for reading at the above link.

One of my favorite examples is the evolution of the mammalian ear (from amniote to therapsid jaws and ears, through twin jointed jaws to the mammalian ear) which has been thoroughly studied and exceptionally well documented. The illustration below is a gross over simplification that shows the beginning and end points

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22832[/ATTACH]

[JohnMartin]

Speciation only occurs if one embraces a particular definition of species. Which definition do we take? Who knows? Who has the authority to say? Does modifcation with descent cause new species? Maybe if we embrace a particular definition of species. What then? Does a new species align with TE, or is a new species only a game of empty semantics that requires us to ignore the probability that any new species occurs within strict biological limits that act against the TE posited tree of life and not for it as assumed by evolutionists? The claims and counter claims about species and spceciation may well be an empty word game, which in any event is simply trivial.

Take note that evolutionists only ever present trivial evidence for TE such as speciation. Such evidence never matches the grand claims made by TE, such as the single tree of life and macro-evolution. TE forces the academy to hand wave and students to give assent only by will because strong evidence is always assumed and never presented for TE. In fact TE is set up so strong evidence is never possible to find. Any age would witness the same effects of small biological changes in already existing populations. Where did all the information and organ come from? Other populations at other times are said to have the answer. So no time has the answer, and every time defers the answer to another time. TE is a fiction with an ever delayed answer that is only . . . an act of faith.

JM

[JohnMartin]

JM, even if your conclusion concerning gradualism were correct, it doesn't, as is your claim, falsify the theory of evolution. Organisms do change over time, that we know, the exact process is irrelevant. Gradualism is an hypothesis based on inconclusive evidence, as is that of punctuated equalibrium, but the fact remains that whatever the exact details of the process is, organisms do evolve. So, you have not proven what you set out to prove, or what you have asserted to have proven, that the theory of evolution is itself false, all you have done is to have pointed out what is already known, i.e. that the exact process of evolution isn't a settled issue.

TE in the absract requires at least one contradiction. So TE in the abstract is falsified before we even look at the data. Any claim that biological change is evolution is nonsensical. It's like saying we see a shape, so shape is caused by a cause as posited within a theory that contains at least one contradiction. Would anyone take such a theory serisoulsy? No. Why then take TE serisouly when the contradiction within TE is so easily exposed?

JM

[JohnMartin]

L- 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.

JM -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

A further thought on evolution and Mormonism.

Mormonism says God was once a man. Mormonism also says God has a body. Mormonism does parallel TE quite well, but TE stops at current creatures, where Mormonism claims that prior creates have already reached the level of a bodily deity. TE would also posit something like the Mormon god if enough time is granted for creatures to continue to increase in complexity, traits, power etc. Mormnism and TE are also both false faiths, based in part upon the false principle of more from less. TE requires acts of faith in the historical record as interpreted by TE, and the TE proposed biological mechanisms, along with naturalistic materialism. Mormonisn requires faith in a false prophet who promoted a false understanding of who Jesus was and did along with a false understanding of salvation and God.

Mormonism and TE look at each other as through a mirror image of the other. Each look at the other produces a greater divorce from reality.

JM

[JohnMartin]

These two related contradictions remain unresolved within TE.

From post 7.

2) The animal has a real need as determined by the surrounding environment, such as an animal needs to fly to avoid a predator. The need is fulfilled only by chance mutations and the animal continues to live among the same predators. The fulfilled need, (such as flight) occurs over millions of years, so the so called need to overcome the predator is both grave and thereby necessary to avoid extinction, but also not grave, for the process required to avoid the predator occurs over a long time period. Consequently the theory of evolution contains yet another contradiction concerning the gravity of the threat cause by a predator which both causes A) extinction in a short time, if mutations occur in the animal to bird evolution do not occur over a long time, but B) the same predator does not cause extinction in a short time, if mutations occur in the animal to bird evoltion over a long time. Post 7.

And from Post 26.

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. Post 26.

The two contradictions are related to each other.

1) The gradualism of organ development is motivated by the avoidance of extinction which is both grave and not grave, depending upon which way evolutionists try to spin the survival story.

2) The gradualism of organ development is motivated by the good of fitness, which is both sufficient and not sufficient motive, depending upon which way evolutionists try to spin the fitness aspect of the survival story.

Of course fitness is tied into the avoidance of extinction. But in both cases of 1) and 2) those darn organs never seem to change quick enough, and never have to change quick enough. TE is a version of the quickly, slowly change story according to what is required to be explained. If extinction is to be avoided, then change occurs quickly and slowly. If extnction is not to be avoided then change does not need to occur quickly or slowly, or maybe change does occur quickly or slowly. Similarly, if organs develop in relation to fitness, they do so quickly, and slowly. Quickly to have the organism live, but slowly so the next species emerges to continue to live.

These two problems are only the tip of the problematic evoutionary iceberg. Many other problems also exist in TE with regard to the notion of transitionals, development of multiple organs at the same time, ever changing environment, lack of reason for anything to exist as measured by fitness, lack of transitionals in the fossil record, the untenable biologcal mechanism to account for punctuated equalibrium, no reason for only one common ancestor, no reason for only one tree of life, the dark void in the middle of the tree of life with orgnaisms only at the tree tips, an assumed environment that is both hostile and friendly to life, and etc . . .

Such is modern science with regard to the explanation of biological life.

JM