Chance

**johnmartin** · September 23rd 2006, 07:24 AM

Barry regarding your statement "quantifying the value of the attributes contributing to an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations." I understand this to mean that as the number of alleles change the quantity changes and therefore a trait or number of traits in a species change, which is then related to another measure called fitness as defined below.

Fitness (often denoted w in

population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory. It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29

If this is correct then I can foresee some problem as follows –

Why does a quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations need to be used as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution?
How do we know a quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations need to be used as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution?
Why not use another measure of genetic structure or genetic change as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution?
As trait is a descriptive measure of a species, then how does a trait relate to the quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations?
How does one trait relate to another trait and how does the inter-relationships of traits relate to an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations?
How does the answer to question 5 above relate to a specific measure of so called evolvability (ability to change to increase its chance of survival in a specific environment or make new adaptive changes) of a species?
Why do you assume that the mechanism of genes plus mutation and natural selection will account for apparent or real evolution of a species? What evidence do you have to make this your starting point?

That will do for now.

JM

**Barry Desborough** · September 23rd 2006, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by johnmartin

Barry regarding your statement "quantifying the value of the attributes contributing to an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations." I understand this to mean that as the number of alleles change the quantity changes and therefore a trait or number of traits in a species change, which is then related to another measure called fitness as defined below.

I'll try to clarify this by going over it in my own words. Sticking to alleles, I'm saying that the biological fitness of an allele is defined as the tendency of the allele to become more common (high fitness) or less common (low fitness) in each passing generation. For example, individuals in one generation may have one of two variants, a or b of gene 2. We say gene 2 has two alleles, a and b. Remember, all their other genes, 1, 3, 4 etc. may be the same in each individual, or may have their own variant alleles. We're only looking at one gene location at the moment.

Gene 2 alleles in generation 1
a a a a a a a a b b b b b b b b
Generation 2
a a a a a a a b b b b b b b b b
Generation 3
a a a a a b b b b b b b b b b b
Generation 4
a a b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
Generation 5
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

We say that allele b is more fit than allele a, simply because it becomes more common in each passing generation.

Now I think you've spotted a skip in the reasoning.

The word 'fitness' carries connotations from its use outside of biology. Strictly speaking, biological fitness is just a technical measure, but when we go on to consider why certain alleles are more fit than others, there is obviously something about the fitter allele that corresponds with the fact that it becomes more common. It can't be pure chance, because the numbers in our surveys and calculations are too big for that. In science, we look for the simplest explanation that fits the facts. The simplest, most natural explanation is that the fitter allele confers on the individuals possessing it the ability to reproduce, on average, more offspring than the individuals that don't possess it. Oh, I haven't mentioned inheritance either, but I think that can be taken for granted. An allele gets reproduced in subsequent generations by the well-known mechanisms of inheritance.

We don't just rely on reasoning though. The following is hypothetical, but parallels real studies of changing allele frequencies in populations. Imagine that the poulation above is a population of hummingbirds. Allele a and b produce variants of a protein that help to control the length of the beak as it develops. Allele a makes for a short beak and b makes for a longer one. All the hummingbirds are happy, because there are flowers that only need short beaks for collecting the nectar but there are also flowers that need long beaks. Then along comes a change in climate. Short beaks are at a disadvantage because the flowers they rely on don't do so well any more. The short beaks spend so much time looking for their rarer and rarer flowers, that they don't have as much time or nectar resources to put into breeding. The allele for shorter beaks becomes less and less common in the population. The longer beaks become more common.

This scenario also shows that fitness is not an absolute thing. It is always with reference to the environment. What's fit in one generation may not be fit in later generations.

JM: If this is correct then I can foresee some problem as follows –

Why does a quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations need to be used as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution? Change in frequency is the measure of fitness, and its meaning. Natural selection is the simplest explanation for why changes of frequency occur.
How do we know a quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations need to be used as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution? Change in allele frequency is one of the sources of the raw data - what happens. Natural selection is the explanation for it. Evolution is both what happens (the fact that change occurs) and why it happens (the theory).
Why not use another measure of genetic structure or genetic change as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution? It is a question of what exactly is it that changes and what it is that is differentially reproduced. To explain this would mean going into detail about genetics and heredity. Maybe in another post.
As trait is a descriptive measure of a species, then how does a trait relate to the quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations? Like the length of the hummingbirds beak, it is known that traits are controlled by genes. Change in the relative numbers of alleles changes the relative frequency of the traits they determine, control or influence.
How does one trait relate to another trait and how does the inter-relationships of traits relate to an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations? An excellent question. In the genes-eye-view I've been presenting, other genes are just another part of the subject gene's environment. This adds more complexity and more realism of the scenarios, but the principles of counting allele frequencies still hold.
How does the answer to question 5 above relate to a specific measure of so called evolvability (ability to change to increase its chance of survival in a specific environment or make new adaptive changes) of a species? The mix of different alleles for different genes in a population means that the potential number of combinations is enormous. With a vast range of slight differences, of different kinds, between individuals, the more chance there is that some combinations are better adapted to a new or a changed environment.
Why do you assume that the mechanism of genes plus mutation and natural selection will account for apparent or real evolution of a species? What evidence do you have to make this your starting point? Mutation results in change, in an increase in variation. Natural selection is merely certain variations becoming more common because they happen to get reproduced more often, because they happen make a positive contribution to the chances of reproduction. The evolution of species is not a starting point. It flows from what we have been discussing. I'll explain what I understand of it in another post, but I'll give you a chance to come back on this one first.

**johnmartin** · September 23rd 2006, 10:54 PM

I will get back to you about your post soon. I currently have assignments to complete but in the mean time you can answer this problem.

When previously discussing the notion of chance we agreed upon the dice example. This example has the following causes.

Formal cause – the dice have the substantial forms of cube, form of numbers on the cube and accidental forms such as weight, shape, color and relation.
Material cause – the dice is made of say plastic.
Efficient cause – the man rolling the dice.
Final cause – the dice are rolled to play the game or to determine an outcome of a bet. This outcome is the end intended.

The ultimate end of the game as intended for the house is to make money for the house and for the player is to make money for the player, or IOW to make money. This ultimate end has subordinated to it other ends. In every single roll of the dice the outcome or end intended is to obtain a numbered result between 1 and 6 inclusive. This end is then subordinate to the ultimate end of the game. The accidental end, which is dependent upon the intended end is the dice falling to expose one of the numbers 1 through to 6. This number is determined in a subordinate manner to the rules of the game but is unknown in any singular event until the event occurs. This then is the chance element in the game. But we know see that this chance event is bound by the

4 causes given above,
the rules of the game and an
ultimate end.

Question – how are these three points accounted for in the theory of evolution?

JM

**Barry Desborough** · September 23rd 2006, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by johnmartin

I will get back to you about your post soon. I currently have assignments to complete but in the mean time you can answer this problem.

When previously discussing the notion of chance we agreed upon the dice example. This example has the following causes.

Formal cause – the dice have the substantial forms of cube, form of numbers on the cube and accidental forms such as weight, shape, color and relation.
Material cause – the dice is made of say plastic.
Efficient cause – the man rolling the dice.
Final cause – the dice are rolled to play the game or to determine an outcome of a bet. This outcome is the end intended.

The ultimate end of the game as intended for the house is to make money for the house and for the player is to make money for the player, or IOW to make money. This ultimate end has subordinated to it other ends. In every single roll of the dice the outcome or end intended is to obtain a numbered result between 1 and 6 inclusive. This end is then subordinate to the ultimate end of the game. The accidental end, which is dependent upon the intended end is the dice falling to expose one of the numbers 1 through to 6. This number is determined in a subordinate manner to the rules of the game but is unknown in any singular event until the event occurs. This then is the chance element in the game. But we know see that this chance event is bound by the

4 causes given above,
the rules of the game and an
ultimate end.

Question – how are these three points accounted for in the theory of evolution?

JM

I didn't follow your response to Roy's post #7. I'll make a similar point to Roy -

There is a cliff at the side of the sea containing seams or iron pyrites. Storms wash out the characteristic cube-shaped crystals of this mineral and they litter the beach. Each tide, the cubes end up with different faces uppermost.

What are the four causes involved?
What are the rules of the game?
What is the ultimate end?

I have just two requests of you, John.

1) Any answers you have for these questions should be brief and clear, just as I have worked hard to be clear for you.
2) I would like your reaction to my previous post before your response to this one, even it it's just 'OK', or 'Continue'.

I'm keen to get on to discussing speciation, which you'd asked me about.

**johnmartin** · September 24th 2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

I didn't follow your response to Roy's post #7.

I was referring to this proof.

Notion of Teleological Ordering.

Wisdom is to know the ultimate of highest causes of things. To know causes is to know the order in things. Ordering is an act of the wise. For ordering of some things cannot be achieved except through knowledge of the relation and proportion of the ordered: to each other, and to something higher, which is their end. For the ordering of some things towards each other is on account of their ordering to their end. But to know the relations (a be towards another) and propositions of some things to each other is the act of him alone who has intellect. Therefore the governance of things or their ordering to their end concludes to knowledge of end as it is end through formal knowledge of end. That is knowledge of what is ordered to the end, knowledge of the relation and proportion of the latter to the former, also practical conceptualization or mental construction of the order to be realized, and bidding (an act of will) of the realization of this order.

Order of Finality Supposes Intellect – Every action of whatsoever agent is indeed teleological, that is ordered towards an end, according to the principle of finality formulated above and proven.

Ordination towards an end may be taken either

Actively as it is an orderer, which indicates one ordering to an end. (As a builder plans and order the construction of a dwelling). Active ordination towards end, existing in the orderer supposes intellect in the orderer, for it is an act of intellect, or an understand. Shown by the following argument:- To order something towards an end, is to give or dispose that it be or do for the sake of an end. But to suppose that something be for the sake of an end is to know that this end is a reason of be of it. To know the reason of be is to have intellect.

Or passively, or as it is in the ordered: and then it shows that something is ordered towards an end. (A dwelling is ordered towards being dwelt in). But passive ordination towards end may be in two ways.

i. Either by way of knowledge, or as known by the ordered, as when a soldier knows his action of charging is ordered by the commander. This mode implies intellect in the ordered and may known by the ordered by either discovery, in as much as the ordered, without the influence of an intrinsic knower instructing him, discovers his own order towards end, as is known by man that he is ordered towards an ultimate end as towards his happiness. Or by instruction in as much as the ordered through the influence of an extrinsic knower instructing him, learns his own order towards end. This is how men know they are ordered towards an end, as through the promulgation of positive law from the legislator.

ii. Or not by way of knowledge, or as unknown to the ordered as it is found in animals, plants and artificial things made by man. This passive ordination implies intellect, not in the ordered itself, but in the orderer. This unconscious passive ordination may be either

A. with knowledge of end, but materially only (not formally as end, that is as a reason of be to what is ordered toward it as end). Thus a bird knows (imagines) the nest which is the end of her gathering of sticks and mud, and is then moved to desire and gather the sticks and mud. However the bird does not know that in the nature of nest as an end is the principle of the desirability for the gathering of sticks and mud. Such an agent is said to act executively and apprehensively, not formally and electively. (This has been proven in an earlier post concerning the real distinction between intellect and sense knowledge.)

B. Or without any knowledge of end as is found in lifeless natural bodies, of plants and of artificial things. Such agents only act executively for the sake of an end.

Conclusion

From the above distinctions it is evident that every order of finality supposes an ordering intellect, that is an intelligent orderer. Agents that act on account of ends without knowledge of end in the agent acting require final causation derived from an intellect to move the efficient causation of the very agent acting. The final cause causes as end when known by intellect. An intelligent orderer is required also according to creatures that have their own intellects, as to be ordered to know is a passive ordination, which required an active ordination. This intellect must have identity of knowing (act) and essence (divine nature) and be (divine existence). God therefore is pure unordered intellect which is his very own act of understand. God is therefore the unique prime orderer.

Secondary conclusion - We see ID is the only viable option regarding origins.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principle of finality states every agent acts on account of an end.

In other words, an effect is given not only as the term of the action, but it must be the reason for the sake of which the agent acts rather than act not. For every agent produces, not an effect which is any effect at all and indifferent, but an effect determinate and per se befitting the agent even though it is able to produce also an effect per accidens. This effect per se befitting the agent merits properly the name end, as the good perfecting the agent towards which the agent tends, and the reason of be of the action. Irrational agents do not know the character of end, and plants tend not consciously to the perfection proper to them, but are naturally inclined and ordered towards that which is per se befitting them. But be ordered presupposes order, or in other words, passive ordination presupposes active ordination, which pertains to intelligence, for intelligent beings alone know the reasons of be of things, and therefore the reason of be of means. Therefore, every agent acts on account of an end, that is tends towards an end intended either by itself or by a higher directing agent.

Another indirect proof is as follows.

Every agent acts on account of an end, otherwise from the action of the agent no more would follow this than that, except by chance. However, an agent does not act except from an intention of end. For if the agent were not determined to some effect, it would no more produce this effect than that effect. For the agent therefore to produce a determinate effect, it is necessary that it be determined to something fixed, which has the character of end.

But this determination by end is appetised by the will in an intellective nature and is also determined in non-rational beings by the natural appetite instituted in its nature.

Therefore, every agent acts on account of an end.

Or in another manner

If an agent were to produce, not any effect at all and indifferent, but an effect determinate and per se befitting the agent, without tending towards it, or without intending it, it would follow that this befittingness ‘per se’ of the effect itself, not being intended, would be without reason of be, because this befittingness and this determination actually existing in the effect could not be produced unless it is already in some way in the productive action. But it cannot be in the productive action actually and formally as it is in effect, but only virtually, according as the action tends towards the effect and is ordered towards it. Therefore to deny the ordination is to deny a reason of be of the determination and goodness per se belonging to the effect.

Action is essentially intentional or tending towards what is to be produced: otherwise it would produce nothing determinate. But if in it there is only passive ordination, there is pre-required active and intelligent ordination for example an arrow is directed towards the target by an archer. This reason of be accordingly can only be end intended. It is not enough to have recourse to chance or to efficient cause alone as proven by the following –

Chance is a cause per accidens and can explain only accidental befittingness, but not essential befittingness. For example a gravedigger digging a grave accidentally finds a treasure; this is by chance. But not all effects can be per accidens, because what is per accidens happens to or is accidental to, what is per se. The gravedigger, digging the grave ‘per se’ intends the grave, and if he intended nothing per se, he would find nothing per accidens.

An efficient cause, with the final cause being rejected, is not a reason why the agent act rather than act not. For if action is not done to attain a good proportionate to the inclination of the agent, then the action itself is without reason of be. Inclination is essentially towards something, as an imperfect is inclined to the perfect. As everything has a reason of be as shown above, therefore the efficient cause does not act without the final cause.

Definitions

Final cause – the cause in the order of intention as the end of the action intended. For example intend to build a house to make money. The final cause can only be known by intellect, as it is knowledge of an end. The final cause is required to move the efficient cause to achieve the end determined by the agent.

Efficient cause – the making cause. This cause is determined in its action by the final cause as intended by the final cause. The efficient cause is the carpenter building the house.

Formal cause – the determining cause inside a thing that determines the material cause. The formal cause is caused by both the final and efficient causes. The carpenter acts to place the form of house into the timber, bricks and mortar.

Material cause – the determined cause inside a thing that is determine by the final, efficient and formal causes. The carpenter uses the timber, bricks and mortar (the matter) in his building.

Now using the principles established above, evolution will be shown to be false.

According to evolution, new species arise over time through an evolutionary mechanism of chance genetic development and natural selection, according to the rule of survival of the fittest, using transitional organisms to arrive at a new species. According to evolution, secondary contingent causes alone can account for all the species that now exist. No supreme being is required.

Irresolvable problems for evolution.

According to the principle of efficient causality, a contingent being is efficiently caused by another. The other is either a being that is not contingent, but necessary, or another contingent being, which then requires another efficient cause which is not contingent but necessary. The contingent being is indifferent to be or not be and there does not have a nature that is its’ be. The necessary be that efficiently causes the contingent be, must necessarily be. Therefore the necessary be has its nature identical with its’ be. The necessary be is God. But, this is contrary to naturalistic evolution that says evolution can account for the species around us without recourse to a necessary be, which is God. Therefore, evolution is false.
According to the principle of finality, every agent acts on account of an end. Now if the agent acts with out knowledge of the end, it can only be appetised according to the inclination in its nature. But to act in accordance with a natural appetite presupposes an orderer. There is passive ordination in the nature to act for ends in accordance with that nature. The nature is then actively ordered by other. Now order is the arrangement of many to an end. An end and means to the end can only be ordered by an intellect that understands the nature of end. This orderer cannot be ordered by other to be the first orderer. It must therefore have identity of intellect and nature and be, which is God. But this contradicts naturalistic evolution that says evolution can account for the species around us without recourse to a necessary be, which is God. Therefore, evolution is false.
According to the principle of finality, things cannot be caused by chance, as chance has an effect per accidens and presupposes causation per se. But causation per se is to act on account of an end. Therefore it is not possible to have organisms develop according to chance as chance requires causation per se, or the act of an agent on account of an end. But to act on account of an end requires a final cause, intellect and a necessary being, which is God. But this contradicts naturalistic evolution that says evolution can account for the species around us without recourse to a necessary be, which is God. Therefore, evolution is false.
According to the four causes (final, efficient, formal and material) the formal and material causes cannot act without an efficient cause. An efficient cause is required to cause the contingent cause as shown above. But an efficient cause does not cause unless there is a final cause. But final cause requires the knowledge of end, requiring intelligence. This intelligence is one with its nature and be, which is God. But this contradicts naturalistic evolution that says evolution can account for the species around us without recourse to a necessary be, which is God. Therefore, evolution is false.

JM

**Barry Desborough** · September 24th 2006, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by johnmartin

I was referring to this proof.

Notion of Teleological Ordering.

Wisdom is to know the ultimate of highest causes of things. To know causes is to know the order in things. Ordering is an act of the wise. For ordering of some things cannot be achieved except through knowledge of the relation and proportion of the ordered: to each other, and to something higher, which is their end. For the ordering of some things towards each other is on account of their ordering to their end. But to know the relations (a be towards another) and propositions of some things to each other is the act of him alone who has intellect. Therefore the governance of things or their ordering to their end concludes to knowledge of end as it is end through formal knowledge of end. That is knowledge of what is ordered to the end, knowledge of the relation and proportion of the latter to the former, also practical conceptualization or mental construction of the order to be realized, and bidding (an act of will) of the realization of this order.

Order of Finality Supposes Intellect – Every action of whatsoever agent is indeed teleological, that is ordered towards an end, according to the principle of finality formulated above and proven.

Ordination towards an end may be taken either

Actively as it is an orderer, which indicates one ordering to an end. (As a builder plans and order the construction of a dwelling). Active ordination towards end, existing in the orderer supposes intellect in the orderer, for it is an act of intellect, or an understand. Shown by the following argument:- To order something towards an end, is to give or dispose that it be or do for the sake of an end. But to suppose that something be for the sake of an end is to know that this end is a reason of be of it. To know the reason of be is to have intellect.

Or passively, or as it is in the ordered: and then it shows that something is ordered towards an end. (A dwelling is ordered towards being dwelt in). But passive ordination towards end may be in two ways.

i. Either by way of knowledge, or as known by the ordered, as when a soldier knows his action of charging is ordered by the commander. This mode implies intellect in the ordered and may known by the ordered by either discovery, in as much as the ordered, without the influence of an intrinsic knower instructing him, discovers his own order towards end, as is known by man that he is ordered towards an ultimate end as towards his happiness. Or by instruction in as much as the ordered through the influence of an extrinsic knower instructing him, learns his own order towards end. This is how men know they are ordered towards an end, as through the promulgation of positive law from the legislator.

ii. Or not by way of knowledge, or as unknown to the ordered as it is found in animals, plants and artificial things made by man. This passive ordination implies intellect, not in the ordered itself, but in the orderer. This unconscious passive ordination may be either

A. with knowledge of end, but materially only (not formally as end, that is as a reason of be to what is ordered toward it as end). Thus a bird knows (imagines) the nest which is the end of her gathering of sticks and mud, and is then moved to desire and gather the sticks and mud. However the bird does not know that in the nature of nest as an end is the principle of the desirability for the gathering of sticks and mud. Such an agent is said to act executively and apprehensively, not formally and electively. (This has been proven in an earlier post concerning the real distinction between intellect and sense knowledge.)

B. Or without any knowledge of end as is found in lifeless natural bodies, of plants and of artificial things. Such agents only act executively for the sake of an end.

Conclusion

From the above distinctions it is evident that every order of finality supposes an ordering intellect, that is an intelligent orderer. Agents that act on account of ends without knowledge of end in the agent acting require final causation derived from an intellect to move the efficient causation of the very agent acting. The final cause causes as end when known by intellect. An intelligent orderer is required also according to creatures that have their own intellects, as to be ordered to know is a passive ordination, which required an active ordination. This intellect must have identity of knowing (act) and essence (divine nature) and be (divine existence). God therefore is pure unordered intellect which is his very own act of understand. God is therefore the unique prime orderer.

Secondary conclusion - We see ID is the only viable option regarding origins.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principle of finality states every agent acts on account of an end.

In other words, an effect is given not only as the term of the action, but it must be the reason for the sake of which the agent acts rather than act not. For every agent produces, not an effect which is any effect at all and indifferent, but an effect determinate and per se befitting the agent even though it is able to produce also an effect per accidens. This effect per se befitting the agent merits properly the name end, as the good perfecting the agent towards which the agent tends, and the reason of be of the action. Irrational agents do not know the character of end, and plants tend not consciously to the perfection proper to them, but are naturally inclined and ordered towards that which is per se befitting them. But be ordered presupposes order, or in other words, passive ordination presupposes active ordination, which pertains to intelligence, for intelligent beings alone know the reasons of be of things, and therefore the reason of be of means. Therefore, every agent acts on account of an end, that is tends towards an end intended either by itself or by a higher directing agent.

Another indirect proof is as follows.

Every agent acts on account of an end, otherwise from the action of the agent no more would follow this than that, except by chance. However, an agent does not act except from an intention of end. For if the agent were not determined to some effect, it would no more produce this effect than that effect. For the agent therefore to produce a determinate effect, it is necessary that it be determined to something fixed, which has the character of end.

But this determination by end is appetised by the will in an intellective nature and is also determined in non-rational beings by the natural appetite instituted in its nature.

Therefore, every agent acts on account of an end.

Or in another manner

If an agent were to produce, not any effect at all and indifferent, but an effect determinate and per se befitting the agent, without tending towards it, or without intending it, it would follow that this befittingness ‘per se’ of the effect itself, not being intended, would be without reason of be, because this befittingness and this determination actually existing in the effect could not be produced unless it is already in some way in the productive action. But it cannot be in the productive action actually and formally as it is in effect, but only virtually, according as the action tends towards the effect and is ordered towards it. Therefore to deny the ordination is to deny a reason of be of the determination and goodness per se belonging to the effect.

Action is essentially intentional or tending towards what is to be produced: otherwise it would produce nothing determinate. But if in it there is only passive ordination, there is pre-required active and intelligent ordination for example an arrow is directed towards the target by an archer. This reason of be accordingly can only be end intended. It is not enough to have recourse to chance or to efficient cause alone as proven by the following –

Chance is a cause per accidens and can explain only accidental befittingness, but not essential befittingness. For example a gravedigger digging a grave accidentally finds a treasure; this is by chance. But not all effects can be per accidens, because what is per accidens happens to or is accidental to, what is per se. The gravedigger, digging the grave ‘per se’ intends the grave, and if he intended nothing per se, he would find nothing per accidens.

An efficient cause, with the final cause being rejected, is not a reason why the agent act rather than act not. For if action is not done to attain a good proportionate to the inclination of the agent, then the action itself is without reason of be. Inclination is essentially towards something, as an imperfect is inclined to the perfect. As everything has a reason of be as shown above, therefore the efficient cause does not act without the final cause.

Definitions

Final cause – the cause in the order of intention as the end of the action intended. For example intend to build a house to make money. The final cause can only be known by intellect, as it is knowledge of an end. The final cause is required to move the efficient cause to achieve the end determined by the agent.

Efficient cause – the making cause. This cause is determined in its action by the final cause as intended by the final cause. The efficient cause is the carpenter building the house.

Formal cause – the determining cause inside a thing that determines the material cause. The formal cause is caused by both the final and efficient causes. The carpenter acts to place the form of house into the timber, bricks and mortar.

Material cause – the determined cause inside a thing that is determine by the final, efficient and formal causes. The carpenter uses the timber, bricks and mortar (the matter) in his building.

Now using the principles established above, evolution will be shown to be false.

According to evolution, new species arise over time through an evolutionary mechanism of chance genetic development and natural selection, according to the rule of survival of the fittest, using transitional organisms to arrive at a new species. According to evolution, secondary contingent causes alone can account for all the species that now exist. No supreme being is required.

Irresolvable problems for evolution.

According to the principle of efficient causality, a contingent being is efficiently caused by another. The other is either a being that is not contingent, but necessary, or another contingent being, which then requires another efficient cause which is not contingent but necessary. The contingent being is indifferent to be or not be and there does not have a nature that is its’ be. The necessary be that efficiently causes the contingent be, must necessarily be. Therefore the necessary be has its nature identical with its’ be. The necessary be is God. But, this is contrary to naturalistic evolution that says evolution can account for the species around us without recourse to a necessary be, which is God. Therefore, evolution is false.
According to the principle of finality, every agent acts on account of an end. Now if the agent acts with out knowledge of the end, it can only be appetised according to the inclination in its nature. But to act in accordance with a natural appetite presupposes an orderer. There is passive ordination in the nature to act for ends in accordance with that nature. The nature is then actively ordered by other. Now order is the arrangement of many to an end. An end and means to the end can only be ordered by an intellect that understands the nature of end. This orderer cannot be ordered by other to be the first orderer. It must therefore have identity of intellect and nature and be, which is God. But this contradicts naturalistic evolution that says evolution can account for the species around us without recourse to a necessary be, which is God. Therefore, evolution is false.
According to the principle of finality, things cannot be caused by chance, as chance has an effect per accidens and presupposes causation per se. But causation per se is to act on account of an end. Therefore it is not possible to have organisms develop according to chance as chance requires causation per se, or the act of an agent on account of an end. But to act on account of an end requires a final cause, intellect and a necessary being, which is God. But this contradicts naturalistic evolution that says evolution can account for the species around us without recourse to a necessary be, which is God. Therefore, evolution is false.
According to the four causes (final, efficient, formal and material) the formal and material causes cannot act without an efficient cause. An efficient cause is required to cause the contingent cause as shown above. But an efficient cause does not cause unless there is a final cause. But final cause requires the knowledge of end, requiring intelligence. This intelligence is one with its nature and be, which is God. But this contradicts naturalistic evolution that says evolution can account for the species around us without recourse to a necessary be, which is God. Therefore, evolution is false.

JM

I had posted

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

There is a cliff at the side of the sea containing seams or iron pyrites. Storms wash out the characteristic cube-shaped crystals of this mineral and they litter the beach. Each tide, the cubes end up with different faces uppermost.

What are the four causes involved?
What are the rules of the game?
What is the ultimate end?

I have just two requests of you, John.

1) Any answers you have for these questions should be brief and clear, just as I have worked hard to be clear for you.
2) I would like your reaction to my previous post before your response to this one, even it it's just 'OK', or 'Continue'.

I'm keen to get on to discussing speciation, which you'd asked me about.

Now please respond to my post # 17, then to (optionally) to post # 19 by answering the questions, otherwise things will get hopelessly out of order. Your response to post # 19 will be required if you wish me to respond to your post # 20.

**johnmartin** · September 25th 2006, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

JM- Why does a quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations need to be used as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution?

Change in frequency is the measure of fitness, and its meaning. Natural selection is the simplest explanation for why changes of frequency occur.

But as alleles are not isolated, but are part of a biological whole within a species, then this measure must assume a lot. What does it assume and how do the quantity of alleles impact on say other parts of a living biological system?

JM- How do we know a quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations need to be used as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution?

Change in allele frequency is one of the sources of the raw data - what happens. Natural selection is the explanation for it. Evolution is both what happens (the fact that change occurs) and why it happens (the theory).

Sorry to repeat myself but allele count seems to be only one of many possible measures. Are there other measures. As this measure is inside the biological system, are there others within the system? Are there others outside the system? The allele count only considers the internal efficient cause of a biological system, what of the final and formal causes of those system? If they are not considered then why not?

JM- Why not use another measure of genetic structure or genetic change as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution?

It is a question of what exactly is it that changes and what it is that is differentially reproduced. To explain this would mean going into detail about genetics and heredity. Maybe in another post.

So far this is unanswered.

JM- As trait is a descriptive measure of a species, then how does a trait relate to the quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations?

Like the length of the hummingbirds beak, it is known that traits are controlled by genes. Change in the relative numbers of alleles changes the relative frequency of the traits they determine, control or influence.

JM- How does one trait relate to another trait and how does the inter-relationships of traits relate to an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations?

An excellent question. In the genes-eye-view I've been presenting, other genes are just another part of the subject gene's environment. This adds more complexity and more realism of the scenarios, but the principles of counting allele frequencies still hold.

This will be a big problem because traits are not alone, but are found along side other traits that are all in a substance. As quantity is then used to match genetic change with a descriptive trait (say hardness of teeth) then we are saying genetic quantity has either an equivalence of at least a proportion to each other, and then beyond this, this singular trait also has unknown relationships with other traits, that have unknown descriptive categories with unknown effects on change and the environment. What I’m saying is that this "simple" method to measure evolution is actually far more complex than what is first encountered. Its is so complicated that it either requires many assumptions or makes fall short of what it attempts to measure.

Let me give you some further explanation of the problems. So far there is a measure of a genetic quantity which is a number of alleles which then is related to a trait or number of traits. But trait is any of the 9 accidents of quality, quantity, posture, habit, action, passion, where, when and relation. All these accidents are found in a living substance and are all inter related with an environment. How then does a quantity (alleles) of the internal causal genetic mechanism relate to the (alleles) 9 categories including substance (traits) and then this is related to the evolvability of the substance as a whole?

JM- How does the answer to question 5 above relate to a specific measure of so called evolvability (ability to change to increase its chance of survival in a specific environment or make new adaptive changes) of a species?

The mix of different alleles for different genes in a population means that the potential number of combinations is enormous. With a vast range of slight differences, of different kinds, between individuals, the more chance there is that some combinations are better adapted to a new or a changed environment.

It also seems to me that due to the vast amount of changes possible, there are many that could be either of no benefit of adverse to the species. Evolution must then overcome this to allow the species to further develop. How is this done? I don't believe the phrase "natural selection" will cut it because its really only negative mechanism that removes members and never develops members. Over all if the changes are either neutral or negative then the species is more likely to not change much at all or become extinct. Either way this is not "evolution" which seems to be very remote.

JM- Why do you assume that the mechanism of genes plus mutation and natural selection will account for apparent or real evolution of a species? What evidence do you have to make this your starting point?

Mutation results in change, in an increase in variation. Natural selection is merely certain variations becoming more common because they happen to get reproduced more often, because they happen make a positive contribution to the chances of reproduction. The evolution of species is not a starting point. It flows from what we have been discussing. I'll explain what I understand of it in another post, but I'll give you a chance to come back on this one first.

Ok I think your starting point of an existing population is gratuitous and needs to be given solid explanation why it should exist to begin with. The standard answer no doubt relates back to abio and the philo tree, but these too also have their problems and assumptions. In the end it seems like a huge amount of assumptions plus a miniscule mechanism plus lots of time and lots of good fortune and lots of ignoring the principles of reason and many conclusions of philosophy. Please comment.

BD- There is a cliff at the side of the sea containing seams or iron pyrites. Storms wash out the characteristic cube-shaped crystals of this mineral and they litter the beach. Each tide, the cubes end up with different faces uppermost.

What are the four causes involved?

Formal cause is that cause which is most manifest to us as it is the most determinate. We then have the substantial form of water and iron pyrites with the material cause, which is the potency or limits to these, with the efficient causes such as the molecules within those substances and the action of the ocean on the cliffs. The final cause or end is to be attained is equilibrium.

BD- What are the rules of the game?

All actions are done in accordance with the natures of water, pyrites, gravity, forces, current and so on.

BD- What is the ultimate end?

Glory of God.

BD-
I have just two requests of you, John.

1) Any answers you have for these questions should be brief and clear, just as I have worked hard to be clear for you.
2) I would like your reaction to my previous post before your response to this one, even it it's just 'OK', or 'Continue'.

I'm keen to get on to discussing speciation, which you'd asked me about.

Done.

JM

**chickenman** · September 25th 2006, 05:33 AM

Sorry to repeat myself but allele count seems to be only one of many possible measures. Are there other measures. As this measure is inside the biological system, are there others within the system? Are there others outside the system? The allele count only considers the internal efficient cause of a biological system, what of the final and formal causes of those system? If they are not considered then why not?

because they are irrelevant

It also seems to me that due to the vast amount of changes possible, there are many that could be either of no benefit of adverse to the species. Evolution must then overcome this to allow the species to further develop. How is this done? I don't believe the phrase "natural selection" will cut it because its really only negative mechanism that removes members and never develops members. Over all if the changes are either neutral or negative then the species is more likely to not change much at all or become extinct. Either way this is not "evolution" which seems to be very remote.

creationists always seem to have problems with this

mutation generates possibilities, natural selection chooses from among them

most mutations are negative or neutral, but those that are beneficial spread throughout the population due to natural selection

**Barry Desborough** · September 25th 2006, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by johnmartin

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

JM- Why does a quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations need to be used as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution?

Change in frequency is the measure of fitness, and its meaning. Natural selection is the simplest explanation for why changes of frequency occur.

But as alleles are not isolated, but are part of a biological whole within a species, then this measure must assume a lot. What does it assume and how do the quantity of alleles impact on say other parts of a living biological system?

We've been over this, but I'll try and explain it again. Firstly, it is not an assumption, but an explanation of the evidence. Alleles are alternative versions of a given gene. All individuals will possess just one version of any gene at a given location, so we are looking, not at the total quantity of alleles, but the proportion of the population possessing a particular allele as opposed to an alternative one. If the allele in question tends to increase, we say it has high fitness. Now comes what you thought was an assumption. The proportion of the population possessing a particular allele increases because the allele tends to help the individual possessing it produce more offsping (possessing the same allele) than those who possess an alternative allele instead. All studies of this phenomenon confirm this explanation in detail. Genes produce proteins, which are active components in the operation of the individuals' cells. For example, one gene may be involved in the production of the protein that makes up a tortoise's shell. If there are two alleles for this protein, and one of them produces a better shell than the other, tortoises with the better shell will tend to live longer and make more baby tortoises, increasing the proportion of tortoises that posess the gene for better shells in the next generation.

Alleles are certainly not isolated. Alleles do indeed impact on other parts of the organism, often in extremely complicated, surprising and wonderful ways. The operation and impact of many of them have been studied in exquisite detail. The way in which they contribute to an individual's fitness - to how well an individual fits its environment - confirms the basic explanation that the nature and function of an allele alone is enough to explain why it influences its own reproduction.

Originally posted by johnmartin

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

JM- How do we know a quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations need to be used as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution?

Change in allele frequency is one of the sources of the raw data - what happens. Natural selection is the explanation for it. Evolution is both what happens (the fact that change occurs) and why it happens (the theory).

Sorry to repeat myself but allele count seems to be only one of many possible measures. Are there other measures. As this measure is inside the biological system, are there others within the system? Are there others outside the system? The allele count only considers the internal efficient cause of a biological system, what of the final and formal causes of those system? If they are not considered then why not?

The basic operation of natural science is one of reduction and re-synthesis. If we want to understand something, we go into the details - into the sub-components and sub-sub components until we have simple, easily-understandable parts. We then mentally re-assemble our understanding of the parts, seeing how they work together, until we have a re-synthesised conception of how the whole thing works. As a child, did you ever dismantle a mechanical toy then try to put it back together again so you could understand how it worked? That gives you the idea. Alleles are counted because that is a natural thing to do when you know how molecular biology works. I won't go into the details. You have a universe of information and explanation at your fingertips. Just use a search engine.

As for your system of causes, we are not here in this thread to try to relate your worldview with natural science and the theory of evolution, but to understand evolution. Science has a concept of causality which is different to yours. You have to make an effort to comprehend this if you want to really understand what the theory is all about.

Originally posted by johnmartin

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

JM- Why not use another measure of genetic structure or genetic change as it relates to natural selection, fitness or a measure of evolution?

It is a question of what exactly is it that changes and what it is that is differentially reproduced. To explain this would mean going into detail about genetics and heredity. Maybe in another post.

So far this is unanswered.

It is now. See above.

Originally posted by johnmartin

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

JM- As trait is a descriptive measure of a species, then how does a trait relate to the quantitative measure of an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations?

Like the length of the hummingbirds beak, it is known that traits are controlled by genes. Change in the relative numbers of alleles changes the relative frequency of the traits they determine, control or influence.

JM- How does one trait relate to another trait and how does the inter-relationships of traits relate to an allele's frequency of appearance in subsequent generations?

An excellent question. In the genes-eye-view I've been presenting, other genes are just another part of the subject gene's environment. This adds more complexity and more realism of the scenarios, but the principles of counting allele frequencies still hold.

This will be a big problem because traits are not alone, but are found along side other traits that are all in a substance. As quantity is then used to match genetic change with a descriptive trait (say hardness of teeth) then we are saying genetic quantity has either an equivalence of at least a proportion to each other, and then beyond this, this singular trait also has unknown relationships with other traits, that have unknown descriptive categories with unknown effects on change and the environment. What I'm saying is that this "simple" method to measure evolution is actually far more complex than what is first encountered. Its is so complicated that it either requires many assumptions or makes fall short of what it attempts to measure.

Let me give you some further explanation of the problems. So far there is a measure of a genetic quantity which is a number of alleles which then is related to a trait or number of traits. But trait is any of the 9 accidents of quality, quantity, posture, habit, action, passion, where, when and relation. All these accidents are found in a living substance and are all inter related with an environment. How then does a quantity (alleles) of the internal causal genetic mechanism relate to the (alleles) 9 categories including substance (traits) and then this is related to the evolvability of the substance as a whole?

Again, I'd refer back to reduction and re-synthesis. Understanding the mechanics of molecular biology leads us to allele-counting. The interrelationships between this measure of fitness and everything else - other genes, other individuals, other species, the ecology etc. are, of course, extremely complex, but they are not all intractable. You seem to expect the theory of evolution to give you a quantitative, God's-eye view of the whole shebang. It doesn't work like that. Is this a 'problem'? A problem for whom? The theory of evolution is a tool for helping us understand the biological world. It does. Your 9 accidents may be a problem for you, but only because you have to forget them in order to comprehend natural science. You don't have to change your worldview to comprehend it, just pretend to adopt it, like putting on a stage costume for a while.

Originally posted by johnmartin

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

JM- How does the answer to question 5 above relate to a specific measure of so called evolvability (ability to change to increase its chance of survival in a specific environment or make new adaptive changes) of a species?

The mix of different alleles for different genes in a population means that the potential number of combinations is enormous. With a vast range of slight differences, of different kinds, between individuals, the more chance there is that some combinations are better adapted to a new or a changed environment.

It also seems to me that due to the vast amount of changes possible, there are many that could be either of no benefit of adverse to the species. Evolution must then overcome this to allow the species to further develop. How is this done? I don't believe the phrase "natural selection" will cut it because its really only negative mechanism that removes members and never develops members. Over all if the changes are either neutral or negative then the species is more likely to not change much at all or become extinct. Either way this is not "evolution" which seems to be very remote.

That's right, that many (in fact the vast majority) of changes are of no benefit or are adverse. In fact, studies of this show a result that was surprising to me, that there are more 'no-benefit' changes than adverse ones. Possibly this is because many adverse changes are immediately fatal, or prevent development in the first place. But you are wrong to view natural selection as a 'negative mechanism that removes members'. All members are removed anyway. Those members who do better at reproducing before they are removed leave more of their genes in the next generation than the others. Any advantageous change, however rare, is amplified by this process, so you can think of natural selection as an advantage amplifier.

Originally posted by johnmartin

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

JM- Why do you assume that the mechanism of genes plus mutation and natural selection will account for apparent or real evolution of a species? What evidence do you have to make this your starting point?

Mutation results in change, in an increase in variation. Natural selection is merely certain variations becoming more common because they happen to get reproduced more often, because they happen make a positive contribution to the chances of reproduction. The evolution of species is not a starting point. It flows from what we have been discussing. I'll explain what I understand of it in another post, but I'll give you a chance to come back on this one first.

Ok I think your starting point of an existing population is gratuitous and needs to be given solid explanation why it should exist to begin with. The standard answer no doubt relates back to abio and the philo tree, but these too also have their problems and assumptions. In the end it seems like a huge amount of assumptions plus a miniscule mechanism plus lots of time and lots of good fortune and lots of ignoring the principles of reason and many conclusions of philosophy. Please comment.

We certainly don't assume existing populations, they are flying, creeping, swimming and stampeding all around us! We work back from there. We don't assume that life was different in the past. We dig up its remains and look at it. It was undeniably different. That is what is called the fact of evolution (the fact that there has been change). The only thing we assume is that there is a sensible explanation for this change. We then test possible explanations against the evidence. The principles of reason tell us that the best explanation anyone has ever come across that fits the enormous amount of evidence available, and fits it in minute detail, is the theory of evolution (the explanation of change). Good fortune doesn't come into it. You now have the knowledge to understand how simple probability and differential replication works.

Originally posted by johnmartin

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

BD- There is a cliff at the side of the sea containing seams or iron pyrites. Storms wash out the characteristic cube-shaped crystals of this mineral and they litter the beach. Each tide, the cubes end up with different faces uppermost.

What are the four causes involved?

Formal cause is that cause which is most manifest to us as it is the most determinate. We then have the substantial form of water and iron pyrites with the material cause, which is the potency or limits to these, with the efficient causes such as the molecules within those substances and the action of the ocean on the cliffs. The final cause or end is to be attained is equilibrium.

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

BD- What are the rules of the game?

All actions are done in accordance with the natures of water, pyrites, gravity, forces, current and so on.

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

BD- What is the ultimate end?

Glory of God.

<snip>

Done

JM

OK. You now know how to answer post # 18 for yourself.

Now John, remember we are here not to promote your theology or philosophy. Neither are we here to attack the theory of evolution. By all means say what you don't understand, or what puzzles you, but try to stay on thread. The thread was started in response to a request from you to be 'let in on the big jig' - to understand what the theory of evolution actually is, regardless of what you think about it.

I'll post again...

**johnmartin** · September 25th 2006, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

We've been over this, but I'll try and explain it again. Firstly, it is not an assumption, but an explanation of the evidence. Alleles are alternative versions of a given gene. All individuals will possess just one version of any gene at a given location, so we are looking, not at the total quantity of alleles, but the proportion of the population possessing a particular allele as opposed to an alternative one. If the allele in question tends to increase, we say it has high fitness. Now comes what you thought was an assumption. The proportion of the population possessing a particular allele increases because the allele tends to help the individual possessing it produce more offsping (possessing the same allele) than those who possess an alternative allele instead. All studies of this phenomenon confirm this explanation in detail. Genes produce proteins, which are active components in the operation of the individuals' cells. For example, one gene may be involved in the production of the protein that makes up a tortoise's shell. If there are two alleles for this protein, and one of them produces a better shell than the other, tortoises with the better shell will tend to live longer and make more baby tortoises, increasing the proportion of tortoises that posess the gene for better shells in the next generation.

Alleles are certainly not isolated. Alleles do indeed impact on other parts of the organism, often in extremely complicated, surprising and wonderful ways. The operation and impact of many of them have been studied in exquisite detail. The way in which they contribute to an individual's fitness - to how well an individual fits its environment - confirms the basic explanation that the nature and function of an allele alone is enough to explain why it influences its own reproduction.

The basic operation of natural science is one of reduction and re-synthesis. If we want to understand something, we go into the details - into the sub-components and sub-sub components until we have simple, easily-understandable parts. We then mentally re-assemble our understanding of the parts, seeing how they work together, until we have a re-synthesised conception of how the whole thing works. As a child, did you ever dismantle a mechanical toy then try to put it back together again so you could understand how it worked? That gives you the idea. Alleles are counted because that is a natural thing to do when you know how molecular biology works. I won't go into the details. You have a universe of information and explanation at your fingertips. Just use a search engine.

As for your system of causes, we are not here in this thread to try to relate your worldview with natural science and the theory of evolution, but to understand evolution. Science has a concept of causality which is different to yours. You have to make an effort to comprehend this if you want to really understand what the theory is all about.

It is now. See above.

Again, I'd refer back to reduction and re-synthesis. Understanding the mechanics of molecular biology leads us to allele-counting. The interrelationships between this measure of fitness and everything else - other genes, other individuals, other species, the ecology etc. are, of course, extremely complex, but they are not all intractable. You seem to expect the theory of evolution to give you a quantitative, God's-eye view of the whole shebang. It doesn't work like that. Is this a 'problem'? A problem for whom? The theory of evolution is a tool for helping us understand the biological world. It does. Your 9 accidents may be a problem for you, but only because you have to forget them in order to comprehend natural science. You don't have to change your worldview to comprehend it, just pretend to adopt it, like putting on a stage costume for a while.

That's right, that many (in fact the vast majority) of changes are of no benefit or are adverse. In fact, studies of this show a result that was surprising to me, that there are more 'no-benefit' changes than adverse ones. Possibly this is because many adverse changes are immediately fatal, or prevent development in the first place. But you are wrong to view natural selection as a 'negative mechanism that removes members'. All members are removed anyway. Those members who do better at reproducing before they are removed leave more of their genes in the next generation than the others. Any advantageous change, however rare, is amplified by this process, so you can think of natural selection as an advantage amplifier.

We certainly don't assume existing populations, they are flying, creeping, swimming and stampeding all around us! We work back from there. We don't assume that life was different in the past. We dig up its remains and look at it. It was undeniably different. That is what is called the fact of evolution (the fact that there has been change). The only thing we assume is that there is a sensible explanation for this change. We then test possible explanations against the evidence. The principles of reason tell us that the best explanation anyone has ever come across that fits the enormous amount of evidence available, and fits it in minute detail, is the theory of evolution (the explanation of change). Good fortune doesn't come into it. You now have the knowledge to understand how simple probability and differential replication works.

OK. You now know how to answer post # 18 for yourself.

Now John, remember we are here not to promote your theology or philosophy. Neither are we here to attack the theory of evolution. By all means say what you don't understand, or what puzzles you, but try to stay on thread. The thread was started in response to a request from you to be 'let in on the big jig' - to understand what the theory of evolution actually is, regardless of what you think about it.

I'll post again...

Ok Barry I'm putting on my stage clothes and saying everything is ok. Maybe after this discussion I could introduce you to reasons why evolution is wrong. Keep that teleology proof, causation and categories in the back of your mind for another day.

In the mean time please proceed. Your so far even handed approach is at a good standard.
JM

**johnmartin** · October 2nd 2006, 11:16 PM

Barry
Am I to assume this discussion is at an end?
JM

**Barry Desborough** · October 3rd 2006, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by johnmartin

Barry
Am I to assume this discussion is at an end?
JM

"Oh, no John, no John, no John no."

Just got back from being away. I'll post again soon.

**Barry Desborough** · October 3rd 2006, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by johnmartin

Ok Barry I'm putting on my stage clothes and saying everything is ok. Maybe after this discussion I could introduce you to reasons why evolution is wrong. Keep that teleology proof, causation and categories in the back of your mind for another day.

In the mean time please proceed. Your so far even handed approach is at a good standard.
JM

I very much appreciate your sentiments, John, and thanks for your patience while I've been away.

OK. Onward.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speciation.

I don't want to get into complicated discussions about the definition of species, not because it is an embarrassment for evolutionary theory (it's not), but because it is not necessary for our discussion. There is one complication that will come up though, because it is very instructive.

If we look at various organisms, we can quite easily pick out groups of them that seem to be of the same kind of creature. Domestic cats. Earthworms. Magpies. Although there are differences between individuals of the same group, they quite clearly belong to different groups. This is the 'folk psychology' idea of a species - a type, sort or kind of animal. No philosophy or theology is required to explain why we recognise different types of creatures. All sorts of other creatures can do it too, when they recognise a member of a different species, be it prey or a predator, or when they recognise a member of their own species, be it a rival or a potential mate.

One thing that anybody can notice is that different species of animal very rarely try to mate with one another. Even if two very similar species do -er - get together and produce anything, the offspring is often sterile or badly adapted for life, as in a mule, a bardot, a liger or a tigon. So why is it that attempts at cross-species mating are so rare? Well, mating is an investment in time and energy (despite the possibility that some people's wives may be quietly nodding 'no' at this point). Remember from our discussion so far that the variants of genes that are naturally preserved are the ones that contribute to their own chances of getting reproduced. Genes influence animals' traits. In higher animals, these traits include behavioural traits. Gene variants that influence behaviour such that you don't muck about trying to mate with members of different species are naturally 'favoured'.

So let's use this to try to look more exactly at what we mean by a species. Life is messy. It's difficult to be exact in all circumstances, (which is why I said 'more exact', not 'exact'), but we can use this idea of exclusive mating within sexual species. Our first stab at pinning down what we mean by a sexually reproducing species is 'a group of organisms that interbreed'. Straight away we have fuzziness. What about those exceptions, the mules? Well, let's say 'normally interbreed'. How do we define 'normal'? Well, that's a piece of string question. Do we mean 'won't interbreed' or 'can't interbreed'? Well, that depends on what you want 'species' to mean. The point is that the very idea of a species, in evolutionary theory, is not like the idea of a species in certain philosophies or theologies. There are no 'essences', no 'inherent' distinctive, black-and-white, set-in-concrete categories, and they are not needed. It is pretty clear when we have two species that are really distinct - there is no chance they would ever interbreed successfully, but it is in the fuzzy zone that things get interesting.

And so to our complication. In a ring species, (click it!) such as the Larus gull and several other creatures too, we have populations that interbreed with their neighbours, and they with theirs and so on, but the two extreme ends of the range do not interbreed. Small, genetically influenced differences between neighbours eventually add up to rather large differences in the end(s). With the Larus gull, the species forms a continuous ring of interbreeding individuals right around the arctic. The two ends of the range meet in Britain, where we have the Herring gull and the Lesser Black-backed gull. They do not interbreed. They do not recognise each other as potential mating partners. Are they different species? There's an interbreeding chain stretching right round the planet joining them together, but they do not interbreed with one another. Cut that chain by, say, a climate change in North America, stopping gene flow around the ring, and it would be difficult to say that the two isolated groups belonged to the same species. Eventually we would expect the two groups to continue to change over a long period, reducing their similarities more and more until their statuses as two distinct species became clearer and clearer. This would be an example of speciation.

I'll wait for your questions and comments on this, John.

**johnmartin** · October 4th 2006, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Barry Desborough

I very much appreciate your sentiments, John, and thanks for your patience while I've been away.

OK. Onward.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speciation.

I don't want to get into complicated discussions about the definition of species, not because it is an embarrassment for evolutionary theory (it's not), but because it is not necessary for our discussion. There is one complication that will come up though, because it is very instructive.

If we look at various organisms, we can quite easily pick out groups of them that seem to be of the same kind of creature. Domestic cats. Earthworms. Magpies. Although there are differences between individuals of the same group, they quite clearly belong to different groups. This is the 'folk psychology' idea of a species - a type, sort or kind of animal. No philosophy or theology is required to explain why we recognise different types of creatures. All sorts of other creatures can do it too, when they recognise a member of a different species, be it prey or a predator, or when they recognise a member of their own species, be it a rival or a potential mate.

One thing that anybody can notice is that different species of animal very rarely try to mate with one another. Even if two very similar species do -er - get together and produce anything, the offspring is often sterile or badly adapted for life, as in a mule, a bardot, a liger or a tigon. So why is it that attempts at cross-species mating are so rare? Well, mating is an investment in time and energy (despite the possibility that some people's wives may be quietly nodding 'no' at this point). Remember from our discussion so far that the variants of genes that are naturally preserved are the ones that contribute to their own chances of getting reproduced. Genes influence animals' traits. In higher animals, these traits include behavioural traits. Gene variants that influence behaviour such that you don't muck about trying to mate with members of different species are naturally 'favoured'.

So let's use this to try to look more exactly at what we mean by a species. Life is messy. It's difficult to be exact in all circumstances, (which is why I said 'more exact', not 'exact'), but we can use this idea of exclusive mating within sexual species. Our first stab at pinning down what we mean by a sexually reproducing species is 'a group of organisms that interbreed'. Straight away we have fuzziness. What about those exceptions, the mules? Well, let's say 'normally interbreed'. How do we define 'normal'? Well, that's a piece of string question. Do we mean 'won't interbreed' or 'can't interbreed'? Well, that depends on what you want 'species' to mean. The point is that the very idea of a species, in evolutionary theory, is not like the idea of a species in certain philosophies or theologies. There are no 'essences', no 'inherent' distinctive, black-and-white, set-in-concrete categories, and they are not needed. It is pretty clear when we have two species that are really distinct - there is no chance they would ever interbreed successfully, but it is in the fuzzy zone that things get interesting.

And so to our complication. In a ring species, (click it!) such as the Larus gull and several other creatures too, we have populations that interbreed with their neighbours, and they with theirs and so on, but the two extreme ends of the range do not interbreed. Small, genetically influenced differences between neighbours eventually add up to rather large differences in the end(s). With the Larus gull, the species forms a continuous ring of interbreeding individuals right around the arctic. The two ends of the range meet in Britain, where we have the Herring gull and the Lesser Black-backed gull. They do not interbreed. They do not recognise each other as potential mating partners. Are they different species? There's an interbreeding chain stretching right round the planet joining them together, but they do not interbreed with one another. Cut that chain by, say, a climate change in North America, stopping gene flow around the ring, and it would be difficult to say that the two isolated groups belonged to the same species. Eventually we would expect the two groups to continue to change over a long period, reducing their similarities more and more until their statuses as two distinct species became clearer and clearer. This would be an example of speciation.

I'll wait for your questions and comments on this, John.

You have stated the word species a number of times and implied there is a fuzzy area. You also admit that there are difficulties with cross breading due to its rarity and sterility. Then you conclude to speciation. Questions –

To conclude to speciation, species must be consistently defined. Please do this.

When you conclude to speciation above, what power, or what evidence is there that these small changes account for the wide variety of life we see around us? Please take into account the difficulties you have already noted of rarity and sterility in offspring as exampled by the mule, a bardot, a liger or a tigon.

You have stated that the evolution process or speciation has nothing to do with theology or philosophy. How do you conclude to this?

JM

**Barry Desborough** · October 4th 2006, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by johnmartin

You have stated the word species a number of times and implied there is a fuzzy area. You also admit that there are difficulties with cross breading due to its rarity and sterility. Then you conclude to speciation. Questions –

To conclude to speciation, species must be consistently defined. Please do this.

When you conclude to speciation above, what power, or what evidence is there that these small changes account for the wide variety of life we see around us? Please take into account the difficulties you have already noted of rarity and sterility in offspring as exampled by the mule, a bardot, a liger or a tigon.

You have stated that the evolution process or speciation has nothing to do with theology or philosophy. How do you conclude to this?

JM

I think, John, that to get anywhere further with this (a deeper comprehension of the evolutionary view), you will need to divest yourself temporarily of certain modes of thought so that the 'stage clothes' can fit. We promise not to peek when you change and when you change back again.

It appears that the main stumbling-block is this notion of definition. We don't start with definitions. What we do instead is to look at life first, and then try to find ways of making sense of it. There is a parallel that springs to mind, which may not present such a problem for you: The way people talk.

Where I live, in southwest France, there are the remnants of Occitan, or the Langue d'oc, a language that was spoken by everyone in the area long ago. It has it's own aspects that distinguished itself from both the Langue d'oil, the northern dialect which evolved into modern French, and from Catalan, which is still spoken over the border in eastern Spain (they don't like to speak modern Spanish - it's Castilian, the language of those hateful people from Madrid). However, Occitan has words and characterisics it shares with both languages from the north and the south. It can be seen to be intermediate. At one time, the sub-dialects of the Langue d'oil, Occitan and Catalan merged one into the other as you went from north to south, from village to village. Neighbouring villagers could understand one another, even if there were minute differences of accent, choices of words, ways of forming expressions etc., but the further apart people lived, the more difficult it was for them to understand one another. At some point, communication became too difficult. People were speaking different languages.

To conclude that modern French and modern Castilian are different languages which emerged from a continuum of dialects according to your requirements, we would need to have 'language' consistently defined. Can you see that a rigid definition may not be able to take into account this emergence from a continuum?

Please answer either 'yes' to the above question, or 'no', giving your reasons - and maybe a definition of 'language' of your own. I'll cover your other bullet points when you have replied.

Thread: Chance

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Re: Chance

Similar Threads

chance for pearls...

chance for pearls

What is chance?

Chance in Geophysics

It's Your Last Chance...

Posting Permissions

Who owns your DNA? Turns out you...

NSM Evotional 05/22/2013

Ticker Post: Calling "Men of...

Got a job and lost it in the same...

Born of Water and the Spirit: John...

Stoning Rebellious Children

Stoning Rebellious Children

Tooth Ache

A Crisis of Faith

Game Thread: Bringing Down the...

Blog Entries

The Scholarly Nutshell, #1

A Blog Resurrection

On Theology