Inductive disannullment of evolution theory

[Colossians]

The author reserves copyright over this work.

________________________________________________


The author reserves copyright over this work.
　
　
　
　
　
________________________________________________

INDUCTIVE DISANNULLMENT OF EVOLUTION THEORY

　
Because the ‘lifeness’ of a life-form is coextensive with its particular functionality, the necessarily-infinite number of (infinitesimal) (qualitative) gradations which go into making up a life-form’s function-level renders each and every life-form no less a conceptual candidate for a first-life instance than any other. (This follows directly from the fact that a point in any continuum has no thickness or breadth.)
There is therefore no theoretical basis upon which the evolutionist might define a first-life instance in contrast to an evolved instance: no matter how basic the qualitative function-level of a conceived first-life instance, such function-level can always be conceptually reduced an infinitesimal amount, thus rendering such first-life instance no first-life instance at all, but (in hindsight) an evolved instance.
And so on ad infinitum.
Evolution theory is therefore bereft of a theoretical starting point.
　
　
　
　

In concluding …

Contrary to the evolutionist’s claim, abiogenesis and the supposedly-subsequent progressivity which he refers to as "evolution", are not separate and stand-apart at all, but in fact one and the same problem: the two aspects are inductively coextensive.
Evolution theory is therefore seen to rest on an illegal dichotomy, and must accordingly be dismissed from the discourse of science.

 

[Nithavela]

 

[Maddox]

This scientific and peer reviewed analysis is certainly worth a Nobel prize or failing in that maybe Sarah Palin could do brief presentation on the subject using shorter words while staying loyal to the amount of original thought and factual information presented in the text.

 

[mzungu]

Pure balderdash!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's another poe

 

[Mobezom]

That's a lot of words. It's a shame that they don't mean anything

And it reeks of the continuum fallacy or similar.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Messages:
1,173
Likes Received:
4

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The author reserves copyright over this work.

________________________________________________

INDUCTIVE DISANNULLMENT OF EVOLUTION THEORY

Because the ‘lifeness’ of a life-form is coextensive with its particular functionality, the necessarily-infinite number of (infinitesimal) (qualitative) gradations which go into making up a life-form’s function-level renders each and every life-form no less a conceptual candidate for a first-life instance than any other. (This follows directly from the fact that a point in any continuum has no thickness or breadth.)

There is therefore no theoretical basis upon which the evolutionist might define a first-life instance in contrast to an evolved instance: no matter how basic the qualitative function-level of a conceived first-life instance, such function-level can always be conceptually reduced an infinitesimal amount, thus rendering such first-life instance no first-life instance at all, but (in hindsight) an evolved instance.

And so on ad infinitum.

Evolution theory is therefore bereft of a theoretical starting point.

1. origins of life are out-of-scope in context of evolution. so whatever objection that is raised to evolution, based on the origins of life, is equally out-of-scope

2. "the necessarily-infinite number of (infinitesimal) (qualitative) gradations" Please demonstrate that bolded part.

In concluding …

Contrary to the evolutionist’s claim, abiogenesis and the supposedly-subsequent progressivity which he refers to as “evolution”, are not separate and stand-apart at all

False. Evolution deals with existing life, only.

Evolution theory is therefore seen to rest on an illegal dichotomy, and must accordingly be dismissed from the discourse of science.

If you think that you can use 2 paragraphes of mere words (which are even just a bunch of misrepresentations), to simply discard +150 years of research and piling on of evidence.... then you are simply delusional.

 

[AV1611VET]

... I love this thread!

 

[Loudmouth]

The author reserves copyright over this work.

________________________________________________

INDUCTIVE DISANNULLMENT OF EVOLUTION THEORY

Because the ‘lifeness’ of a life-form is coextensive with its particular functionality, the necessarily-infinite number of (infinitesimal) (qualitative) gradations which go into making up a life-form’s function-level renders each and every life-form no less a conceptual candidate for a first-life instance than any other. (This follows directly from the fact that a point in any continuum has no thickness or breadth.)

There is therefore no theoretical basis upon which the evolutionist might define a first-life instance in contrast to an evolved instance: no matter how basic the qualitative function-level of a conceived first-life instance, such function-level can always be conceptually reduced an infinitesimal amount, thus rendering such first-life instance no first-life instance at all, but (in hindsight) an evolved instance.

And so on ad infinitum.

Evolution theory is therefore bereft of a theoretical starting point.




In concluding …

Contrary to the evolutionist’s claim, abiogenesis and the supposedly-subsequent progressivity which he refers to as “evolution”, are not separate and stand-apart at all, but in fact one and the same problem: the two aspects are inductively coextensive.

Evolution theory is therefore seen to rest on an illegal dichotomy, and must accordingly be dismissed from the discourse of science.

Watching someone try to make their first philosophical argument is sometimes like watching a child try to play the piano for the first time. All the right keys are used, but in no particular order.

 

[Ophiolite]

The author reserves copyright over this work.

Rest easy. No one else will wish to claim authorship.

 

[Mobezom]

The author reserves copyright over this work.

________________________________________________

INDUCTIVE DISANNULLMENT OF EVOLUTION THEORY

Because the ‘lifeness’ of a life-form is coextensive with its particular functionality, the necessarily-infinite number of (infinitesimal) (qualitative) gradations which go into making up a life-form’s function-level

Recommendation: Stop trying to show off, and use actual intelligent words. Functionality rather than function-level, ferex. And "lifeness" isn't a thing. There are certain requirements for life. These can be fulfilled, in their basic components, by naturally occurring compounds. This is known as abiogenesis.

renders each and every life-form no less a conceptual candidate for a first-life instance than any other. (This follows directly from the fact that a point in any continuum has no thickness or breadth.)

No, it doesn't directly follow from that. That is utterly nonsensical. And besides, yes, certain life-forms are better conceptual candidates for first-life. A bacteria is a better candidate than I am. The simplest life-like things would have been protocells, which are RNA ribozymes within a phospholipid bilayer membrane. These would have been capable of reproduction, and thus evolution would take place; the original protocells did not originate from reproduction, and thus they are the first life-like things.

There is therefore no theoretical basis upon which the evolutionist might define a first-life instance in contrast to an evolved instance: no matter how basic the qualitative function-level of a conceived first-life instance, such function-level can always be conceptually reduced an infinitesimal amount, thus rendering such first-life instance no first-life instance at all, but (in hindsight) an evolved instance.

And so on ad infinitum.

What? This makes no sense. Infinitesimals have no physical relationship to reality. There is a point, tracing back life, when it was so simple that it could have originated from nonliving chemicals. And you should really learn more about the definition of life. (Besides, protocells provide a clear boundary of life-and-non-life, so this is moot.)

Evolution theory is therefore bereft of a theoretical starting point.

And it doesn't need one. It describes an increase in fitness over time, based on mutation and natural selection.

In concluding …

Contrary to the evolutionist’s claim, abiogenesis and the supposedly-subsequent progressivity which he refers to as “evolution”, are not separate and stand-apart at all, but in fact one and the same problem: the two aspects are inductively coextensive.

You don't know what those words mean. Coextensivity is "having the same scope", but they don't have the same scope at all! This is obvious - life-to-more-fit-life =/= non-life-to-life.

Evolution theory is therefore seen to rest on an illegal dichotomy, and must accordingly be dismissed from the discourse of science.

And you don't understand how science works either. Illegal operation - science has crashed! Yeah, no.

 

[Nithavela]

Watching someone try to make their first philosophical argument is sometimes like watching a child try to play the piano for the first time. All the right keys are used, but in no particular order.

That was a philosophical argument? I thought this was a recepy for ravioli.

Now I know why they taste so bad.