Evolution conflict and division

[o_mlly]

The theory of evolution only suggests changes in degree. That is, by small steps that accumulate through time.

Yes. Again, we have no disagreement on micro-evolution events.

Evolution occurs at a species to species level. Or by speciation. The theory never suggests anything otherwise. Just small changes that over millions of years, accumulate.

If "species to species level" means that every "species" is no more than a small change (micro-evolution) from other species then we agree. But I don't think that is what you were arguing.

I think the disagreement involves the claim that un-directed mutations over time produce a novel creature. Changes that are minor (imperceptible) in short time periods produce in longer periods of time a radical (perceptible) different creature, labeled as a new "species" within a genus. Although all "species" within a genus are supposed to be "similar", there are no objective criteria for grouping "species" into genera nor are there objective criteria to assign a creature to a genera. How many genera claim only one species?

Evolutionary change through time is not done by events disconnected from prior events. Because future mutations involve a genome that retains past mutations.

Perhaps "disconnected" was a poor choice of words. The probabiltiy of mutation event n+1 is independent of the mutation event n from the virutally same probabiltiy space. Your math, I suggest, would apply to perhaps the mutuation of a clone several times in sequence.

And I don't see any logical fallacies here. If we define macro evolution as evolution at a species level, then if it is observed, then that's simply what it is, by definition.

I think that takes us back to the tautological and definitional problems of the words "species" and "macro-evolution".

That is my example. How can my example prove itself wrong?

I beleive you wrote that the hybrid should be strerile but it was not.

Speciation is just reproductive isolation as a product of mutation and descent with modification. And that's just a reality and fact of nature. So I'm not sure what there is to speculate on here.

While you and I are demonstrably different in kind than a bonobo or any other ape, to claim we evolved from them is pure specualtion.

RIP: Charlie Kirk

 

[o_mlly]

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a proof.

True. If only other evolutionists would stop their dogmatic claims as if evolution was a proven fact.

Among available explanations, evolution is the best scientific account we have for why and how new species form.

I agree iff we agree that "scientific account" is synonymous with "materialistic account". But there is a more coherent and complete account to consider.

Alternatively, if we define macroevolution simply as evolutionary change at or above the species level (speciation), then the “fallacy” disappears:

If P (speciation is true), then Q (new species will arise).
Q (new species are observed to arise).
Therefore P (speciation is true).

That isn’t a fallacy, it’s just observation.

Same fallacy. The truth of consequent does not prove the truth of the conditional.

If P (I make a sandwich), then Q (I assemble bread with fillings).
Q (I assembled bread with fillings).
Therefore P (I made a sandwich).

If the terms mean the same thing, then there is no fallacy. There is only observation.

I'm not sure I get the point. No inferred conclusion to refute.

If we agree, as I think we do, that materialism's explanation for the diverity of life has a future, ie., that it is not a proof, then we can conclude the exchange on a postive note. Thanks again.

 

[Job 33:6]

True. If only other evolutionists would stop their dogmatic claims as if evolution was a proven fact.

Ok, so your argument from logic is, to be fair, fallacious. It doesn't apply to scientific theories because theories are not derived in such a way.

I agree iff we agree that "scientific account" is synonymous with "materialistic account". But there is a more coherent and complete account to consider.

All science is materialistic or empirical by nature. You can't have a scientific account if the concept being described is supernatural or immaterial. There would be nothing to measure.

Just like when you hire a plumber, the plumber does material work. He doesn't do magic to fix your sink.

You say that you have a more coherent and complete account for how species arise and change over time. What account is that? Please don't say "God did it" because that's not science and it doesn't say anything about what God actually did. Everyone here is Christian, so we all believe "God did it". But what do you have to offer in terms of a mechanism, as a competing theory to evolution?

If we agree, as I think we do, that materialism's explanation for the diverity of life has a future, ie., that it is not a proof, then we can conclude the exchange on a postive note. Thanks again.

Evolution is not materialism. Everyone here is Christian. Evolution is simply the mechanism in which God used to create life. That's not materialism, that's evolutionary creation or theistic evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

True. If only other evolutionists would stop their dogmatic claims as if evolution was a proven fact.

You're confusing evolution (an observed phenomenon, "descent with modification", change in allele frequencies in a population) with the theory that explains it. We see populations evolving everywhere. I think you've also confused evolution with common descent. Evolution is an observed fact, while universal common descent is an inference from evidence. Plate tectonics is an observed fact. Pangaea is an inference from evidence. There is a theory of plate tectonics that explains what we see.

Does that help?

I agree iff we agree that "scientific account" is synonymous with "materialistic account".

Science is methodologically naturalistic. It seeks physical causes for physical phenomena. So far, nothing humans can do works better for understanding the physical universe. However, science is entirely blind to whatever is beyond the physical universe. For that, you need other ways of knowing. If your faith won't bring you to God, science can't help you.

Same fallacy. The truth of consequent does not prove the truth of the conditional.

Simplified:
"If speciation is observed, then speciation is true."
"We have observed new species evolve."
"Therefore, speciation is true."

Science's explanation for the diversity of life is that living systems have the capacity to evolve over time to adapt to different environments. Which so far, has been validated by all evidence gathered.

 

[River Jordan]

While you and I are demonstrably different in kind than a bonobo or any other ape, to claim we evolved from them is pure specualtion.

Do you really think evolutionary biologists just sit around all day and speculate? They have absolutely no evidence that humans are related to other primates and they instead base their conclusions on nothing but imagination? You really think that?

If only other evolutionists would stop their dogmatic claims as if evolution was a proven fact.

LOL!!! You say that just after you acknowledge the reality of microevolution. Come on, at least keep your own arguments straight.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes. Again, we have no disagreement on micro-evolution events.

If "species to species level" means that every "species" is no more than a small change (micro-evolution) from other species then we agree. But I don't think that is what you were arguing.

I think the disagreement involves the claim that un-directed mutations over time produce a novel creature. Changes that are minor (imperceptible) in short time periods produce in longer periods of time a radical (perceptible) different creature, labeled as a new "species" within a genus. Although all "species" within a genus are supposed to be "similar", there are no objective criteria for grouping "species" into genera nor are there objective criteria to assign a creature to a genera. How many genera claim only one species?

Perhaps "disconnected" was a poor choice of words. The probabiltiy of mutation event n+1 is independent of the mutation event n from the virutally same probabiltiy space. Your math, I suggest, would apply to perhaps the mutuation of a clone several times in sequence.

I think that takes us back to the tautological and definitional problems of the words "species" and "macro-evolution".

I beleive you wrote that the hybrid should be strerile but it was not.

While you and I are demonstrably different in kind than a bonobo or any other ape, to claim we evolved from them is pure specualtion.

RIP: Charlie Kirk

I would say that based on this post, your concern isn't with macro-evolution. Rather your concern is with common descent. My example given earlier with chromosome duplication in plants is an instance of sterilization.

And with that said, I would just defer to my last post. Evolution is a theory. It's not a concept argued as a logical proof. If you feel as though you have a better explanation for the evidence we see in terms of the fossil record or DNA phylogenies supporting common descent, (hopefully more than just "God did it") then you're welcome to offer that.