Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger

[TomD]

From TomD’s reply nr 16:

1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life

This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?

No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.

[Sempronius]

From TomD’s reply nr 16:

1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life

This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?

No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.

Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?

[TomD]

From TomD’s reply nr 16:

1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life

This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?

No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.

Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?

Nope. Every offspring is of the same species as its parents. Every individual remains the same species throughout its entire life. But it doesn't follow then that no new species can arise. It's like this: A gives birth to B and B to C and C to D and D to E. A is the same species as B and B is the same as C and C is the same as D and D is the same species as E. However, E is not the same species as A. This is because gradual changes between generations over time eventually become so big that the organisms are no longer classified in the same species. This may seem counter intuitive because we tend to think of species as equivalence classes. If that were the case, then if A and B are the same species, and B and C, and C and D and D and E, then it follows that A and E are of the same species. However, modern biology does not treat species like equivalence classes.

[TomD]

From TomD’s reply nr 16:

1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life

This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?

No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.

Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?

Here is a helpful illustration to see what I am getting at:

Suppose I lined up a billion people from left to right. The first person had 1 dollar to his name, the second 2 dollars, the third 3, etc. The first person in the line is dirt poor. The last person is filthy rich, he's a billionaire. Moreover, there are no two people next to each other in this line such that the person on the left is poor and the person on the right is rich. But it does not follow that simply because person 1 is poor and person 2 is poor and person 3 is poor etc. that person 1 billion is poor.

A similar thing is going on with species. Imagine we lined up successive generations from left to right. The first organism in the line and the last would be of different species. But it does not follow that there are some two organisms in the line such that the organism to the left is of species A and the organism to the right is species B.

[Quaremerepulisti]

You see, what you and others of your ilk fail to understand is that science is not, and has never been, a relevant vehicle for determining the truth. It is a philosophical category error to believe so.

Then there is simply no common ground upon which to base a discussion.  Your statement is at bottom irrational and it is impossible to have a rational discussion beginning with an irrational premise.  The basic premises are these:

1.  There are regularities in nature.
2.  These regularities can be observed and classified (or modeled, if your prefer), and one can arrive at a very high probability one's model is correct given enough data, even if due to the problem of induction one cannot arrive at absolute certainty.  These models, then, allow you to make accurate (enough) predictions.
3.  These regularities are due to ontological things like substance and accident even if one cannot arrive at a one-to-one backwards correspondence.

Not only are these irrational to deny, all Christian apologetics is toast if you do.  There's no "evidence" Jesus performed miracles or even existed.  What you have in front you that claims to be the "Bible" may be completely unrelated to what was actually written down thousands of years ago.  Even if He did rise from the dead or walk on water, that might not be a miracle; it's just one of those things that happens from time to time.

I await your retraction and apology regarding the myth of ring species and hubristric claims to truth on this matter.

Wait, what?  I thought you just said science was not a relevant vehicle for determining the truth.  How then can you claim to know the truth that ring species are a myth? 

[Sempronius]

From TomD’s reply nr 16:

1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life

This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?

No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.

Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?

Here is a helpful illustration to see what I am getting at:

Suppose I lined up a billion people from left to right. The first person had 1 dollar to his name, the second 2 dollars, the third 3, etc. The first person in the line is dirt poor. The last person is filthy rich, he's a billionaire. Moreover, there are no two people next to each other in this line such that the person on the left is poor and the person on the right is rich. But it does not follow that simply because person 1 is poor and person 2 is poor and person 3 is poor etc. that person 1 billion is poor.

A similar thing is going on with species. Imagine we lined up successive generations from left to right. The first organism in the line and the last would be of different species. But it does not follow that there are some two organisms in the line such that the organism to the left is of species A and the organism to the right is species B.

Thats exactly how some sophists argued to make everything uncertain. John Locke spoke about them but cant remember where to find the passage..

The reasoning went like this:

When does a man become drunk? When he drinks one drop of alcohol?
-No
-Two drops?
-No

And so on.. eventually the person would have to say yes sometime and then the sophist would say
- So your saying that he’s sober at the 956:th drop of alcohol but becomes drunk at 957?

[TomD]

From TomD’s reply nr 16:

1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life

This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?

No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.

Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?

Here is a helpful illustration to see what I am getting at:

Suppose I lined up a billion people from left to right. The first person had 1 dollar to his name, the second 2 dollars, the third 3, etc. The first person in the line is dirt poor. The last person is filthy rich, he's a billionaire. Moreover, there are no two people next to each other in this line such that the person on the left is poor and the person on the right is rich. But it does not follow that simply because person 1 is poor and person 2 is poor and person 3 is poor etc. that person 1 billion is poor.

A similar thing is going on with species. Imagine we lined up successive generations from left to right. The first organism in the line and the last would be of different species. But it does not follow that there are some two organisms in the line such that the organism to the left is of species A and the organism to the right is species B.

Thats exactly how some sophists argued to make everything uncertain. John Locke spoke about them but cant remember where to find the passage..

The reasoning went like this:

When does a man become drunk? When he drinks one drop of alcohol?
-No
-Two drops?
-No

And so on.. eventually the person would have to say yes sometime and then the sophist would say
- So your saying that he’s sober at the 956:th drop of alcohol but becomes drunk at 957?

It doesn't make anything uncertain, it just shows that some words do not function to carve out ontological features of the world. Rather, they function for specific purposes. In the case of species, the word is meant as a useful classification tool in modern biology that is rooted in different biological features of organisms. What you say here is no argument against modern biology using the term in this way. Moreover, the majority of my posts here on this thread have been arguing again and again that regardless of your assessment of "species" as it is used in modern biology, Father Ripperger's argument against evolution rests on an equivocation of this term.

[Habitual_Ritual]

From TomD’s reply nr 16:

1) If parents always give rise to offspring of the same species, it follows that no new species can ever arise from preexisting life

This is the outdated defintion.. and the new one is that parents can sometimes give rise to offspring of different species?

No. First of all that is a premise at work in Father Ripperger's argument, not a definition of "species." Be that as it may, the denial of (1) is not "parents sometimes give rise to offspring of different species." Everyone agrees that offspring are the same species as their parents. So the antecedent of (1) is agreed on by everyone. Whether or not the consequent follows is what is at issue.

Ok, so parents gives rise to offspring and those offsprings can sometimes evolve to different species?

Nope. Every offspring is of the same species as its parents. Every individual remains the same species throughout its entire life. But it doesn't follow then that no new species can arise. It's like this: A gives birth to B and B to C and C to D and D to E. A is the same species as B and B is the same as C and C is the same as D and D is the same species as E. However, E is not the same species as A. This is because gradual changes between generations over time eventually become so big that the organisms are no longer classified in the same species. This may seem counter intuitive because we tend to think of species as equivalence classes. If that were the case, then if A and B are the same species, and B and C, and C and D and D and E, then it follows that A and E are of the same species. However, modern biology does not treat species like equivalence classes.

These are lovely sentiments. Sadly empirical science does not support, or have data proving this kind of gradual change over time. In fact this gradualism is the outmoded view of things today, given the complete lack of transitional data. Hence we see ideas such as punctuated equilibrium proposed as way to explain away the lack of data

[Habitual_Ritual]

So, I had a thought. It has been proposed that Father's views on evolution are fallacious as a result of his outmoded views on speciation. I do wonder what the arrival date of the new mode of thought was incidentally? Be useful info to have.

Anyway, thus far the major takeaway is this as far as I can determine: Evolution, as a philosophy of nature, cannot be critiqued due to the ever evolving and ever new modalities of thought that seem to pop up with some regularity when it comes to key definitions. All this does of course,  speaks to the lack of a solid data for evolution as a theory. As it is built on nothing, it becomes very easy to redefine things that don't exist to begin with, 'species' being but one example.

There have been many accusation in this thread of goal-post shifting and changing targets etc, and yet, is not Evolution's constant definition changing not the biggest goal-post shift of all? It is a convenient way to slip around all the embarrassing lack of data or new (and real) scientific discoveries that make evolution an ever less likely proposition.

Just a thought

[Habitual_Ritual]

Father Ripperger is working with an understanding where species are treated like equivalence classes. Modern biology rejects this kind of use for the term.

Modern biology may very well reject the idea of equivalent classes, but based on what exactly? what data or evidence is cause for this rejection? Or is this rejection simply an ideological position?

The realty is that since the dawn of recorded time, observation of the animal Kingdom supports Father R's definition and not the gradualist theoretical invention.

[Habitual_Ritual]

Then there is simply no common ground upon which to base a discussion.

Good.

[TomD]

Anyway, thus far the major takeaway is this as far as I can determine: Evolution, as a philosophy of nature, cannot be critiqued due to the ever evolving and ever new modalities of thought that seem to pop up with some regularity when to comes to key definitions. All of this does of course, is speak to the lack of a solid data for evolution as a theory. As it is built on nothing, it becomes very easy to redefine things that don't exist to begin with, 'species' being but one example.

There have been many accusation in this thread of goal-post shifting and changing targets etc, and yet is not Evolution's constant definition changing not the biggest goal-post shift of all? It is a convenient way to slip around all the embarrassing lack of data or new (and real) scientific discoveries that make evolution an ever less likely occurrence.

Just a thought

1. Once again, you fail to address the arguments in this thread. My response #72 you haven't responded to. But this really was a response to your question regarding how modern biology uses evolution. The real issue is Father Ripperger's equivocation, something you have yet to address. In response 57, 63, and 65 I lay forth how to go about responding to this, and it seems that you have ignored these, or at least I am unclear as to your answer. I do not want to speak for you, but my interpretation of your responses is that you agree I accurately represent Father in no.16 and 21, but you disagree that this argument is an equivocation. Is this accurate? If so, then I would like you to show how it is not an equivocation, given that you agree that Fr is using a different definition of "species" than modern biology.

2. "It becomes very easy to redefine things etc." This is extremely misguided. It isn't about "redefining" 'species' in order to draw philosophical conclusions at all. It is about coming up with a definition that is useful when it comes to classifying organisms we observe. You seem to be caught in this idea that when modern biologists define "species" it must be carving out some deep ontological division in nature that can be then used to draw serious metaphysical conclusions. That is not what is going on at all, as I explained in no. 72 and others but you seem to be unable to acknowledge.

3. "Isn't evolution's constant definition...the biggest goal-shift...etc." Again, yet another shift in targets. You still aren't addressing my actual argument. The problem with Father Ripperger is that he is equivocating on "species" in the argument as I understand him and explain in 16 and 21. If you think modern biology is misguided because of their use of the term "species," then fine. That is a problem for taxonomists I suppose. The issue is that Father Ripperger's argument depends on an equivocation. And this is true even if you don't like any number of the definitions used by modern biologists for "species." I have said this in about 10 different comments on this thread now and you seem to keep planting your feet and criticizing modern biology rather than responding to the charge of equivocation.

[TomD]

Father Ripperger is working with an understanding where species are treated like equivalence classes. Modern biology rejects this kind of use for the term.

Modern biology may very well reject the idea of equivalent classes, but based on what exactly? what data or evidence is cause for this rejection? Or is this rejection simply an ideological position?

The realty is that since the dawn of recorded time, observation of the animal Kingdom supports Father R's definition and not the gradualist theoretical invention.

Have you not read these responses? I can only say this in so many ways: it doesn't matter, for the purpose of whether or not Father equivocates, whether or not you think his definition is more useful than modern biology's. It does not matter why they reject an understanding of species that denies they are equivalence classes. What matters is that Father use a consistent understanding of species throughout his argument. But I have argued he does not. And every single time you criticize modern biology's use of the term "species," you are affirming that (1) and (2) of Father's argument employs different understandings of the term. In other words, you are affirming that Father is equivocating. Which is precisely my point.

[Habitual_Ritual]

More than once you have confirmed the vague nature of, and unwillingness of science to settle on a definition for species, beyond some vagaries surrounding 'sciences' rejection of a fixed (rigid) definition for species. There is no basis for this rejection in empirical science as best as I can determine. It is pure ideology. This conversation has reached an apogee and an impasse; Father uses an erroneous definition of a term that refuses to be defined.

We are done

[Habitual_Ritual]

\ Father's argument employs different understandings of the term. \

No, Father uses the the only definition that makes sense given the data. What is senseless is claiming that no real definition exists. It is pure slight of hand. If anyone is equivocating it is the non-committal evolutionist and his refusal/inability to define terms.

Oh...and evolution is dumb. Just so we are clear. That is my rigid definition, based on the data