Evolution and Creationism

[Freddy]

So, do you have an argument that demonstrates how macroevolution does not violate Leibnitz’s principle of sufficient reason?

It’s been explained. This isn’t true:

'While it is true that some perfections require a greater complexity at the material level, the possession of those perfections is still higher '.

It isn’t ‘a higher being’. And neither is this true:

‘… the substantial form of a thing must be on a higher order so that greater complexity can be brought about at the level of matter.’

There’s no such thing as a higher order (unless you’re discussing taxonomy). And cutting ‘n’ pasting from a paper explaining how greater complexity can emerge by describing the complexity as reaching a higher level doesn’t change that.

And you’re falling into the same trap that Buff does. You are compelled to use scientific literature and asking us to accept information from a source which you don’t believe is true to attempt to bolster a creationist view. The paper you quoted is nothing more than an explanation as to how macroevolution occurs.

‘This procedure is then repeated over and over again, leading to a cumulative elevation of complexity. At these steps, a portion of the ancestor population didn’t take part in the elevation, retaining its original level. Thus, when fish evolved into amphibians and reptiles, far from all fish species followed that enterprise…’

Can you explain that? You are effectively saying: ‘Look, if you take this comment I picked from this paper explaining how macroevolution occurs then it will show you that…um…macroevolution doesn’t occur.’

Not what one might describe as a great debating tactic.

 

[rossum]

As buffalo’s spokesman he has never claimed a 6,000 year old earth and @rossum knows it.

My apologies. rossum may once have known, but he forgot. Remind me, how old do you think the earth and the universe are?

 

[Freddy]

So, do you have an argument that demonstrates how macroevolution does not violate Leibnitz’s principle of sufficient reason?

And what I could also do is quote from a paper I found that illustrates that the well qualified author gives explanations for a greater complexity found in evolution as we have evolved from a common ancestor. That is, the process of macrovolution. No need for me to link to it. You did so a couple of posts ago. One must assume that you trust the contents.

‘…whereas I think the envisaged deeper principle of complexification is nothing else but natural selection’

‘This result concurs with the popular though intuitive notion of man as the summit of evolution. In fact, this contentious notion can be traced back to the medieval idea of the Great Chain of Being, indeed even to Aristotle. It is interesting to note that this obsolete idea comprises a hierarchical but not a time dimension…’

‘…because, as has often been stressed, there is no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another. It is rather considered as an illusion founded on a chauvinistic expectation of human significance.’

‘This means that evolution began with species at the lowest level of complexity, followed by species of successively higher levels of complexity.’

‘Another result of the present model is that the common descent of all organisms is manifested by the lineage with the highest level of complexity throughout the history of evolution…’

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Ekstig 1 - Ripperger 0.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s been explained. This isn’t true:

'While it is true that some perfections require a greater complexity at the material level, the possession of those perfections is still higher '.

It isn’t ‘a higher being’.

He doesn’t mean your dog is higher in being than your cat. He means both are higher in being than, let’s say, your African Violet.

Higher in being simply means higher in existence. Life is higher in being than non-life, animal life is higher in being than plant life, etc.

As a being acts, so it is. The effects (acts) evidence the substantial form (cause). If a being acts in a certain way then it possesses the substantial form that enables that act. At the material level, beings that evidence locomotion require higher complexity than non-locomoting beings. At the material level, sensory beings require higher complexity than non-sensory beings.

Beings that do not possess the enabling substantial form cannot beget beings that possess that substantial form. The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) requires that your dog could not evolve from your African Violet.

Macroevolution violates the PSR in asserting further complexity in matter without accounting for higher substantial forms.

 

[o_mlly]

And what I could also do is quote from a paper …

Then why don’t you? Or cite the post in which you claim I did.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And what I could also do is quote from a paper …

Then why don’t you? Or cite the post in which you claim I did.

What? I just did. See my post above. You just quoted from it. I guess you didn’t recognise the quotes because you never read the paper. But it’s the one to which you linked that presumably contains information in which you want us to trust. It doesn’t do what you think it does. It actually does the opposite.

I have explained this already in at least two posts and I have backed that up by giving you a chunk of information from Berkley and quoting from the very paper you did. Ripperger is simply wrong and he’s been shown to be wrong. And his conclusions that there is no macroevolution has been shown to be wrong (by the very paper to which you linked!). And his belief that the world was created in less than a week have been shown to be wrong.

Sliding your argument to suggest that Ripperger is talking about complexity and that denies macroevolition is again proved wrong by simply referencing again the paper you linked to which spends a great deal of time giving arguments for why macroevolution exhibits said complexity.

So…now that’s out of the way, did you have anything to give us on the maximum number of microevolutionary changes allowed? I did ask quite a few posts back and still no response. You can use your own definition of micro as you see fit. Whenever you’re ready.

 

[Hume]

Now, let’s see what Fr. Ripperger wrote:

While it is true that some perfections require a greater complexity at the material level, the possession of those perfections is still higher. Moreover, the more complex a thing is, the greater principle of unification is required to have that complexity work harmoniously. Essentially what this means is that the substantial form of a thing must be on a higher order so that greater complexity can be brought about at the level of matter. In evolution, further complexity in matter is asserted without accounting for higher substantial form. This again violates the principle of sufficient reason.

Hell, I’ll jump in.

First, there is no “higher and lower” in evolutionary biology. You can have more or less complexity as measured in the number of Gene’s (just one possible measure) but in a lot of cases, the change is just that - a change.

Is the Galapagos finch with the short thick beak “higher or lower” than its ancestor with a more typical beak? It’s not a particularly meaningful distinction.

Next, and probably more importantly, the PSR always always always always always breaks down when we’re trying to reason about something we don’t completely understand at an exhaustive level.

Until a few years ago, gravity was a pull by matter. Now it’s a push from displaced spacetime. This renders any older argument about gravity that employed the PSR as potentially unsound.

The PSR is like “the Duck Principle”. Its a handy tool for analysis. It’s useful and generally true that things behave in a rational manner. But it doesn’t guarantee the truth of results.

Especially, especially when we’re responding about things at the cutting edge of human knowledge. You don’t know if you’ve sufficient information to draw authoritative conclusions.

 

[Hume]

Apologies for questionable punctuation. On my phone and my autocorrect has a mind of its own.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

Really? But earth does not move at a constant speed relative to the sun. You can set yourself to be the universal frame which makes everybody else’s clocks to move at a different rate. But that does not solve the problem. We have not found a universal reference for time.

From earth’s movement, we get days and months and years and seasons, you can calculate and compensate the much you want but this is our starting. Not that the clock really matters, even if the earth stops or all clocks stop, we will still experience ‘passage of time’.

Again, there is no universal time. There is only relative time.

 

[Michaelangelo]

The constancy of the constants is sustained by Almighty God. That’s why the movement of moons, planets, comets, tides and more is so predictable. But, over time, the value of the constants could have been changed by the same Almighty God. And, oh wait, time itself is not a constant. But, God never changes (Hebrews 1:12)

Yet you don’t have a single piece of empirical data to support that claim.

 

[o_mlly]

What? I just did.

No, Fred. You did not post.

I have explained this already in at least two posts …

No, Fred. You have not explained.

giving you a chunk of information from Berkley

Yes, Fred. You did copy/paste. What you pasted did not support your position as I explained.

Ripperger is simply wrong …

Fred, that’s not an argument.

he’s been shown to be wrong.

No, Fred. He has not been shown wrong.

Sliding your argument to suggest that Ripperger is talking about complexity and that denies macroevolition is again proved wrong by simply referencing again the paper you linked to which spends a great deal of time giving arguments for why macroevolution exhibits said complexity.

Would you please try that paragraph again in English. ???

So…now that’s out of the way …

Good try, Fred. But sorry, the PSR and macro are not “out of the way”. You’re still on the hook. We know how you feel. Repeating how you feel ad nauseam is not an argument. Let us know when you have some arguments. We’re patient.

 

[o_mlly]

First, there is no “higher and lower” in evolutionary biology. You can have more or less complexity as measured in the number of Gene’s (just one possible measure) but in a lot of cases, the change is just that - a change.

Is the Galapagos finch with the short thick beak “higher or lower” than its ancestor with a more typical beak? It’s not a particularly meaningful distinction.

Does macroevolution claims a common ancestor for all living beings? Yes.
Do some beings exhibit functionalities that other beings do not? Yes.
Are not beings which exhibit all the functionalities of other beings and some additional functions considered higher functioning beings? Yes.

Species in biology is a fairly elastic; currently, 26 different definitions. The difference in finch beak size doesn’t add functionality anymore than a human with an Aquiline nose has a functionality that one with a Nubian nose lacks.

Next, and probably more importantly, the PSR always always always always always breaks down when we’re trying to reason about something we don’t completely understand at an exhaustive level.

Refreshing. Macroevolution is merely an assumption but professed by some as a law of nature, and many others as a legitimate science hypothesis. So PSR is extremely useful in testing the validity of hypotheses. And macroevolution fails the test.

Until a few years ago, gravity was a pull by matter. Now it’s a push from displaced spacetime. This renders any older argument about gravity that employed the PSR as potentially unsound.

Newton never professed an hypothesis about gravity (hypotheses non fingo). What argument concluded that gravity was a “pull by matter” or a “push from displaced spacetime”?

The PSR is like “the Duck Principle”. Its a handy tool for analysis. It’s useful and generally true that things behave in a rational manner. But it doesn’t guarantee the truth of results.

Well, the presumption that things behave in a rational manner underlies all science, doesn’t it?

Especially, especially when we’re responding about things at the cutting edge of human knowledge. You don’t know if you’ve sufficient information to draw authoritative conclusions.

Pass that insight onto the macroevolutionists.

 

[rossum]

Are not beings which exhibit all the functionalities of other beings and some additional functions considered higher functioning beings? Yes.

Then there are no “higher functioning beings” at all. The category is useless because it is the empty set.

Humans cannot produce many thousand offspring in a single year, like an Oak tree. So we are not “higher functioning” because we cannot replicate that function.

Your definition is ludicrously bad. That “all the functionalities” covers a very wide range. We do not have the lateral line sense that fish have. We cannot fly like birds. We cannot sense polarisation in light as bees can. There is a huge range of functionalities possessed by other organisms that we lack.

 

[Maximus_Power]

Humans have senses, replication and reasons trees, fish, birds and bees only have senses. Ergo humans are the higher functioning being

It’s really not all that ludicrous if you simplify it.

 

[rossum]

Humans have senses, replication and reasons trees, fish, birds and bees only have senses. Ergo humans are the higher functioning being

It’s really not all that ludicrous if you simplify it.

Humans have limbs. Insects have more limbs. Spiders have even more. And millipedes…

You are assigning an implicit value to different functions. Where is your scientifically objective method of assigning a value?

And you over-simplified. All those other organisms have replication. Even something as simple as COVID-19 has replication, and can do it a lot faster than humans can.

 

[Maximus_Power]

Read what you just wrote and tell me if any of those creatures you just mentioned has reason like a man?

 

[Hume]

Read what you just wrote and tell me if any of those creatures you just mentioned has reason like a man?

Homosapiens are the smartest species on the planet, currently. But the list of animals capable of crude reasoning is pretty long.

“This treat is over there, I can’t get to it with my beak but I can if I use that stick” - all done in whatever passes as internal language for a raven.

Humans are exceptional. We’re just not that exceptional.

 

[Hume]

Then we’re at an impasse on two issues:

1. You’re either unwilling or unable to accept the obvious limits of the PSR.
2. You’re largely unwilling to accept natural processes that take longer than a human lifespan and completely unwilling to accept natural processes that take longer than 5000 years or so - the length of recorded history.

Unfortunate, but “eh”. Most don’t have the problem so the social problems I’d encounter from the proliferation of your views are pretty non-existent.

 

[Maximus_Power]

Homosapiens are the smartest species on the planet, currently. But the list of animals capable of crude reasoning is pretty long.

“This treat is over there, I can’t get to it with my beak but I can if I use that stick” - all done in whatever passes as internal language for a raven.

Humans are exceptional. We’re just not that exceptional.

On the contrary. The difference between an animal using tools and human engineering couldn’t be farther apart.

If you think otherwise I seriously hope you aren’t a mechanic.

 

[o_mlly]

Humans cannot produce many thousand offspring in a single year, like an Oak tree.

Both have the function of reproduction.

We do not have the lateral line sense that fish have.

Both have the sensory function.

We cannot fly like birds

Both have the locomotion function. (We fly faster and farther than any bird.)

We cannot sense polarisation in light as bees can.

Both have the sensory function.

You are assigning an implicit value to different functions.

No. Only the function’s existence matters.

Even something as simple as COVID-19 has replication, and can do it a lot faster than humans can.

Leaving aside the fact that whether or not viruses are living organisms, both have the function of reproduction. Now who is injecting value judgments. Speed sometimes kills.