Anselm's ontological argument can be summarized as " God is, by definition, perfect; in order for anything to be perfect, it must exist; therefore, God exists." But as @William Rea points out above the logic is sound but the original premise is false therefore the conclusion is suspect. In the case of Anselm's ontological argument it is premised upon the Bare Assertion Fallacy.
Oxford Dictionary (an accepted definition) su·per·nat·u·ral /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ adjective 1.(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:"a supernatural being"
That the "orginal premise is false" is a priori reasoning, which you use to discount Anselm's argument.
Agreed! And, as you pointed out earlier, to be discussed in the Religion & Philosophy forum where it belongs.
I agree. So I suggest that it not be discussed here, so that I do not have to make appropriate corrections.
Then all you have is circular reasoning, with a model that has no meaning. IF.. 'every life form is transitional', by definition, THEN.. 'universal descent is the only conclusion'. You merely premise the conclusion with the assumption. You can neither prove or disprove the assertion, that 'every life form is transitional'. I have framed 'transitional' as a definition of the model. We then make predictions based on that model. IF you posit transitions taking place, THEN you should have evidence for said transitions. That is simple logic. IF you have NO evidence, it does not mean that transitions CANNOT or DID NOT take place, it only means the prediction of the model lacks the evidence. Stick with science & sound reasoning. And, we have not even begun to address fossils, yet. The current point is 'transitional' forms.. some kind of genetic or other scientific evidence for this phenomena. We are looking for evidence NOW, for the current crop of organisms that we see, not dead ones. As i said, this should be a slow, methodical, point by point examination of the evidence. We can then do an overview, to see how the models fare. But it is too early to jump to the conclusions, when we have only examined one point of evidence. Don't you have any evidence for this prediction? You have nothing to support your belief in 'transitional species', other than by definition & assertion?
"I have framed 'transitional' as a definition of the model. We then make predictions based on that model." A priori much? Then the search is to find evidence that supports the premise and suppress evidence that does not support it.
Good post. The sheer variety & complexity of life is a constant source amazement, for those who study these things. I think an understanding of the chromosome & some of the terminology would be good to clarify. So much of the misunderstandings about genetics & living organisms are due to flawed beliefs about the DNA, how it is assembled, what it does, & how it can change. We have evidence that the equid line has changed chromosome numbers. It is theorized that at some point, a chromosome pair detached at the centromere, & reattached at a telomere, presumably at the fertilized egg level. We have mtDNA to indicate actual descendancy, but the chromosome pairs are different. But, under further examination, the structure of the chromosome 'arms' are the same, just rearranged at the centromere/telomere level. This is not absolutely proven fact, but is merely a theory for HOW the equid line changed at the chromosomal level. it does fit with the more empirical evidence of mtDNA descendancy, however, so it is a pretty good theory. But, we do not see the same thing with canids.. some, but not as much. Nor do we see it with hominids, especially humans. So a particular trait from one genotype does not mean it can be universally applied to ALL genotypes. Each genomic structure is different, with different rules governing their propagation. Also, as i noted in the earlier post, the number of chromosomes is not an indicator of ancestry. Here are some chromosome pairs numbers from wiki: Fennec fox Animals Vulpes zerda 64 Horse Animals Equus ferus caballus 64 Spotted skunk Animals Spilogale x 64 Mule Animals 63 semi-infertile Donkey Animals Equus africanus asinus 62 We have mtDNA evidence that asinus & caballus are related. But there is nothing to indicate any genetic relationship with the fox or skunk. So the mere number of chromosomes is not a significant indicator, but the GENETIC structure in it, is. Both the asinus & caballus are from the same root haplogroup.. they are descended from the same ancestor. Their genetic STRUCTURE is the same. the fox & skunk are not. They are a different genotype, from a different haplogroup. So it is not the number of chromosomes, but their structure, that is the indicator of ancestry. Does that help any?
No, the search is for evidence.. we then apply the evidence to the models. Do you not see the circular reasoning of assuming 'transitional forms!', and then trying to find 'evidence' for that, when by definition EVERYTHING is a transitional form? Are you following my reasoning, here, or distracted with the off topic banter?
You were provided with scientific EVIDENCE of existing life forms transitioning over 35 generation NOW! Why do you REJECT the evidence of transitioning? Is it because it disproves your theist fallacies about the ToE?
I have a limited time.. usually in the morning, to post. I cannot compete with the volume of posts on this thread, & don't intend to, or want to. but i do wish to follow the subject, & examine the evidence for the 2 major beliefs about origins. I have only examined ONE bit of actual evidence, & had hoped that others would submit more for all of us to examine. But if not, i will go on, & address other predictions of each model, & consider evidence for them. But this is not much of a 'debate', if i am the only one presenting evidence & arguments for the models. Is there no one who has some evidence for this first point, in either the UD or ID model? 'Transitional forms' is the basic premise of the UD model, so evidence for it is pretty important. If all we have is speculation, conjecture, or assertion, how can we make a scientific conclusion? edit: And, since i have been forced to ignore the many hecklers & poo slingers, if one of the ignored posters actually posts something topical, i will probably not see it. I suggest that if someone makes a valid argument, or presents evidence that is applicable to the debate, that another poster mention it, & i will take the person off ignore, if they wish to debate the subject & not just disrupt it. Sorry i have had to do this.. i could not keep focused on the subject, with the hysterical shrieking from the peanut gallery.
You have not compelled that conclusion, just asserted it. How? Why? I can only repeat what i already said, which is simple logic. If you cannot follow it, but just accuse, 'circular reasoning' from the models, i can't explain it any better. 'Transitional' is a feature of the UD model. it is not part of the ID one. So we can only look to the evidence, to see WHAT IS, & fit it into either model. I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but follow the simple definitions, & look for simple, plain instances of evidence, that would support either model. It is up to us, to find the evidence that supports either model. Without evidence, all you have is a priori.. we are looking for evidence to defeat that fallacy in the models. That is the quest of this thread.. to examine the EVIDENCE, not the assertions or fallacies, that support either model.
No need to apologize for self promotion regardless of accuracy. Its been my experience that people who make such unsolicited comments about their superior intelligence rarely if ever are able to back up such claims with any direct evidence.
usfan, if one begins a scientific process with an a priori start, then how do you prevent circular reasoning or a simple tautology?
The premise is that life continues to change in steps that are often small enough that they are difficult to detect. Over time, the aggregation of these changes becomes more pronounced. There isn"t a definition of how much change would be required to be defined as a "transition". That word usage came from those who attempt to detract from the theory. Iow, you are concocting a term, and claiming it comes from science. And, that word doesn't change how evolution works. It is not involved in the definition of evolution. There is huge evidence of change over time. And, even though evolution is usually rather slow, that includes change within the period of an active science career - so, a human can see it happen. Many such examples have been posted by several posters. I am off to wilderness where radiowaves don't penetrate for some time with friends and nature. Back in a week.
It is my experience that posters who run down other posters are extremely fearful they simply do not measure up, so they attack posters by telling them they are dumb. Which happened to me, by the way.
It is not an a priori start. It is 2 separate, diametrically opposed concepts, framed in a simple model. You then examine the physical evidence.. ANY evidence, & see how it fits into the model. All the predictions are rational extrapolations from the definitions of the model. No conclusions are made at all, until all the evidence is examined, & no a priori assumptions are allowed, for any evidence. The facts must fit the predictions.. they cannot be forced or distorted to fit. If we allowed the 'all life forms are transitional', assumption.. it would be merely a tautology.. a way of stating the premise with a synonymous term. That would be an a priori assumption. But stating the models & definitions in a plausible, non-prejudicial premise, then plugging the evidence into the models is not a priori. It is the scientific method. We make predictions, based on the definitions of the model, then apply the physical evidence, to see how it fits. That is just simple science. We are trying to prevent logical fallacies, not basing the arguments on them.
Ok, you seem to be going for the 'time' factor, to explain or excuse 'why' we do not see evidence of transitional forms. They happen, you assert, but there it takes so long we cannot see them.. the actual evidence of the transitions.. which would have some kind of genetic or scientific proof. The word 'transition' is the very basis of the model, & i am using it exactly how it is premised. Living things change, at the genetic structural level, & through cumulative, minor changes in the genome, gradually become something else. All life forms began this way, & were once a 'transition' from something else. How is that NOT the definition of the model? So, IF this is the model, we would predict some visible evidence of this transition phenomena. We would expect to see organisms, partially one form, becoming another. We would expect a gradual transition from one genetic structure to another. How else did this 'transition' take place? If you claim you can never see transitions of any kind, yet assert that they still occurred, & are still occurring, do you not need evidence to support that claim? And, if you claim that you cannot see it because of time, is that not just a convenient excuse? How can you posit such a model, if the most basic claim cannot be observed, at any stage along the 'transition'? You are merely assuming UD with your statement, 'There is huge evidence of change over time.' the only 'evidence' is the finished products, that you merely declare to be 'transitions!' You are arguing in a circle, using the assumptions of the definition to prove the premise. You look at bacteria, then wolves, & declare, 'See how they have transitioned!' But you have provided no evidence or even reasoning that can support your claim. You only have the fallacy of tautology & begging the question.
Like all your posts, that's completely and demonstrably false. Transitionals are quite notable even with us/humans. Genus Homo interbred all over the place resulting in Transitional forms like those in my Avatar: Homo naledi. Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa - WSJ By Robert Lee Hotz Sept. 10, 2015 Slideshow and Video ...In life, these creatures were long-legged, lightweight and lithe, standing a little over five feet tall, the scientists concluded. They had surprisingly modern hands and feet, yet a primitive flattened pelvis and a tiny brain barely one third that of a modern human. All in all, they seemed designed for striding with a modern gait and, possessing unusually long curved fingers, perhaps adapted for rock climbing as well, the scientists said. “We had a Combination of features that we had never seen in a single species before,” said Caroline VanSickle, a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin who helped analyze the bones. “It is just so weird.” Most likely, the bones don’t belong to a direct human ancestor, but represent one of Nature’s early Experiments in the human form, experts said. Several disputed the claim that the fossils belong to a new species. Jeffrey Schwartz, a paleo-anatomist at the University of Pittsburgh, said the remains are probably a mix of early human varieties, including a primitive species called Homo erectus that has been known for more than a century... [.....] Also Natgeo: This Face Changes the Human Story. But How? Scientists have discovered a new Species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree. By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic And of course, we and other species have Vestigal/Transitional organs of our predecessors, only explainable by common descent. and still not a shred of evidence for the ID case after 725 posts. Zip +
