This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...

[Cargést]

I don't really give a shit, to be honest.  There are a number of theories, the most prominent of which nowadays seems to be evolutionary theory; however, the explanatory power of this theory is as great as or lesser than that of any other theory, and it seems to be supported as well as or worse than other theories.

Of course the archetypes exist before human categorisation.  The scientist identifying a certain organism as being of a previously undiscovered species is simply the discovery in physicality of the manifestation of that archetype.  If a species is recategorised, it is because the taxonomists who first categorised the species are held to have been wrong in their classification of the organism.

I don't explain the existence of different species: currently, the main contender seems to be creationism, which is heavily supported by the fossil record, as well as by various other aspects of genetics, microbiology, and, greatest of all, Tradition.  It doesn't particularly matter to me, where the shape of our bodies came from; we exist, and that's that.  I'm far more concerned with what we are and how we can be: these things will never change.

Tradition holds that everything is an imperfect instance of its perfection; that the imperfect physical is derived from the perfect metaphysic.  "Imperfect" and "perfect" are not used to refer to value, but to refer to states.  Any one chair is imperfect in its constant recombination; though it remains the same chair, its contents are never static.  Chairness itself is a constant, unchanging pattern to which all instances of chairness refer; this eternal quality is perfect.

Clearly, from this understanding, an animal, itself an instance of a perfect form, could never have its progeny become instances of another perfect form, unless that perfect form were identical to the first; in that case, no new species has evolved, though there may be within the species the possibility of the appearence of distinct organisms lacking the ability to interbreed, being too disparate within the archetype for them to procreate.

I am being exactly as hard on Bill as he was on me, and I'm interested to see how far I can push it.  Perhaps I can be as dismissive of his evidence as he was of my insistence that evidence could get us nowhere in our discussion of metaphysics.

This was highly informative as to the creationist arguments against evolutionary theory.  I tried to read a rebuttal, but it was so filled with misunderstandings of the critique that I gave up.

Edit: Occam's Razor always favours the position which posits a sole ontological entity over any other position.  Tradition posits the One; evolutionary theory posits a whole mess of things.

Edit 2: magic can only be considered an "irrational" explanation if it has never been experienced.  If it has been experienced, it becomes a known object, and thus the potential subject of rational enquiry, as with any other thing.  I'm not sure if I've ever experienced "magic" (yet!), but I certainly don't discount the possibility under the vain assumption that I have any real idea whatsoever as to the nature of the universe.  To clarify: it is impossible to deduce from the lack of experience of a thing that it cannot exist.  In fact, it is irrational to do so, and yet the majority of atheists are guilty of falling into that trap.

May I also make the following bold statement: we will never "know", in a factual sense, of the origins of life, or of the mechanism of speciation, just as we will never "know" about the origin of the universe.  These things occurred in a past which is locked away from us by the apparent passage of time.  We can develop theories, and perhaps good ones at that, which can attempt to explain what meagre remnants there are of past ages of Life, but they can only ever be theories.  We can also, however, learn about the metaphysic, and notions of origins might arise from that study.

[BillHopkins]

I don't explain the existence of different species: currently, the main contender seems to be creationism, which is heavily supported by the fossil record, as well as by various other aspects of genetics, microbiology, and, greatest of all, Tradition.  It doesn't particularly matter to me, where the shape of our bodies came from; we exist, and that's that.  I'm far more concerned with what we are and how we can be: these things will never change.

Are you really willing to weigh in and say the body of evidence is heavier on the creationist side? Is that how you're going to roll? I gave you evidence of a transition fossil in the youtube video from a great PBS doco on evolution. There are more transitional forms outlined there. What is going on?

Here are some more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils#Prominent_examples !

If the species does not successfully evolve into a new one - one sufficiently different from the old to be successful in its new habitat - it will die out.  If the habitat is such that the animal doesn't have to evolve into a new species, why would it evolve into a new species?  If a new set of behaviours is introduced, to which the animals in a certain area tend, and which they become more accustomed to over life and over generations, but for which the increase in the resultant genetic traits leads to problems in other areas, the animals must either abandon the behaviours - revert to normal? - or die out.  I'm not even taking literal interpretations of evolutionary theory, and it's not working.

If you would accept that at the point of being pushed too far, the species will revert to normal, then where is there any evolution occurring beyond mere variance?  There is now not even the acceptance of evolution; the idea that one species came from another is still not even supported.

Edit: following up on my notion on the limitations of variance, it seems that the only actual experiments conducted in attempts to prove cross-species evolution - those on fruit flies and those on e. coli - auggest that variation only occurs within certain limits, and that organisms approaching those limits become less apt for survival than their better balanced cousins.

First, we need to focus hard on the idea underlying your position in these last few posts, that when species reach a certain level of specialisation, they fail as organisms.  This is where you present the idea:

It's incredibly simple: an organism's progeny cannot diverge too far from the archetype of that organism; there is no place for such abberations in the divine plan (or whatever you want to call it, I'm just rubbing it in).  If there is such divergence, the animals suffer, they are incapable of surviving, they cease to procreate.  It happens every time somebody selects for a specific trait in dog, cat, horse, plant, fish, bird, insect, or whatever populations (except perhaps viruses?  That would be very interesting, especially given their apparent [instantial] simplicity, but the sheer number of individual forms they can take shows the single "Virus" to be a very complex Form).

(1) How were different breeds of dogs selected, if when there is "divergence, the animals suffer, they are incapble of surviving"? Different dog breeds were presumably selected for specific traits (size, behaviours). Or do you think each breed of dog was divinely created, or some type of metaphysical archetype!

Similarly When, for example, dogs were domesticated from wolves, as another poster as thankfully alluded to, did this variation render the resulting organisms 'dead'. No. Tralfamadorian put it well:

Cargest, how do you explain how different species came into being here on planet earth? Magic? Like, "POOF! And then there were Bonobos!" ? C'mon. If wolves would've died off if their 'variances' became too great, then how'd the domestic dog come about? Do you realize how irrational and conceited you're being?

Whether or not wolves and dogs are different species is a contested issue, sure, because sometimes they can be interbred and sometimes they can't. However you can surely admit that this is an example of speciation on its way?

If you don't accept this it's like you saying to someone who has walked 3/4 of the way down a road that they are not really walking to the end of the road.

(2) Where do you get this idea from (sources - so I can learn about it myself)?

----

This is a good couple of paragraphs on the creationist challenge from macoevolution. I'm heartened to see it explains what I said a few posts ago better (though not about your most recent challenge, of course).

Creationists argue that speciation has never been seen. Here’s part of a December 31, 2008, posting by Jonathan Wells on the Web site of the antithetically named Discovery Institute: “Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again, to produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwin’s theory. And this sort of speciation has never been observed.”

The claim makes me think of the trial where a man was charged with biting off another man’s ear in a bar fight. (Incredibly, Mike Tyson was not involved.) An eyewitness to the fracas took the stand. The defense attorney asked, “Did you actually see with your own eyes my client bite off the ear in question?” The witness said, “No.” The attorney pounced: “So how can you be so sure that the defendant actually bit off the ear?” To which the witness replied, “I saw him spit it out.” We have the fossils, the intermediate forms, the comparative anatomy, the genomic homologies—we’ve seen what evolution spits out. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=an-immodest-proposal

Awaiting clarification on the issue of 'overspecialistion', I can't see how macroevolution is a hole in evolutionary theory. Just because we can't see species biting the dust in front of us isn't much of a surprise. We don't see the murderer stabbing his victim in front of us, but we sure as shit might have good evidence that it happened.

[Tralfamadorian]

I don't really give a shit, to be honest.  There are a number of theories, the most prominent of which nowadays seems to be evolutionary theory; however, the explanatory power of this theory is as great as or lesser than that of any other theory, and it seems to be supported as well as or worse than other theories.

I think you misunderstand what a scientific theory is. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." (taken from Wikipedo) The theory of evolution is the only real scientific theory that explains the orgin of species.

Of course the archetypes exist before human categorisation.  The scientist identifying a certain organism as being of a previously undiscovered species is simply the discovery in physicality of the manifestation of that archetype.  If a species is recategorised, it is because the taxonomists who first categorised the species are held to have been wrong in their classification of the organism.

Taxonomy is really just our best guess at how God organized living things. To assume that just because one supposed species cannot procreate with another supposed species means that it is an instantiation of a archetype is a bit of a stretch. Taxonomy is a HUMAN endeavor; to assume it aligns perfectly with how God structured the biosphere is to display tremendous hubris.

I don't explain the existence of different species: currently, the main contender seems to be creationism, which is heavily supported by the fossil record, as well as by various other aspects of genetics, microbiology, and, greatest of all, Tradition.  It doesn't particularly matter to me, where the shape of our bodies came from; we exist, and that's that.  I'm far more concerned with what we are and how we can be: these things will never change.

I am certain that any credible biologist would disagree that the fossil record, microbiology, genetic, etc. support creationism. How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.

 And about the Tradition part... I THOUGHT THIS WAS A NIHILIST FORUM! Do not a nihilist's beleifs arise from critical thinking and not blind dogmatism? You sound like a fundamentalist Christian... "SO IT IS WRITTEN BY THE GREAT PROPHET GUENON, AND SO I SHALL BELIEVE."

You're doing the exact same thing that link you provided accuses evolutionists of doing: Accommodating. You're accommodating the alleged facts into your position.

Tradition holds that everything is an imperfect instance of its perfection; that the imperfect physical is derived from the perfect metaphysic.  "Imperfect" and "perfect" are not used to refer to value, but to refer to states.  Any one chair is imperfect in its constant recombination; though it remains the same chair, its contents are never static.  Chairness itself is a constant, unchanging pattern to which all instances of chairness refer; this eternal quality is perfect.

Irrelevant. How does the idea of Perfect Forms contradict evolution? Could there not be a Form for every incremental evolutionary instantiation of a species? How do you delineate the forms, anyway? It seems utterly arbitrary. If there's a perfect form for Chair, whose to say there's not a perfect form for... Armchair? Wicker Chairs? Blue Chairs? Chairs for Kids? What about Chairs that look like Dinosaurs? What about benches? Stools? Do not they all exist in the mind of God, and therefore have perfect Forms? Is there a perfect form for Tralfamadorian? Or Cargest? Could there be only one Form: the Form of the Universe? Whose to say I'm wrong?

Clearly, from this understanding, an animal, itself an instance of a perfect form, could never have its progeny become instances of another perfect form, unless that perfect form were identical to the first; in that case, no new species has evolved, though there may be within the species the possibility of the appearence of distinct organisms lacking the ability to interbreed, being too disparate within the archetype for them to procreate.

How utterly arbitrary. We are made of Matter. We can take a Chair, disassemble it, and make it into... A fishing rod. Matter just changed Forms. Animals, likewise composed of matter, likewise do the same thing, although in a different fashion.

Edit: Occam's Razor always favours the position which posits a sole ontological entity over any other position.  Tradition posits the One; evolutionary theory posits a whole mess of things.

Why is evolution incompatible with the idea of Oneness?

To clarify: it is impossible to deduce from the lack of experience of a thing that it cannot exist.  In fact, it is irrational to do so, and yet the majority of atheists are guilty of falling into that trap.

Agreed. Magic might very well be real!

May I also make the following bold statement: we will never "know", in a factual sense, of the origins of life, or of the mechanism of speciation, just as we will never "know" about the origin of the universe. 

Also agreed. However, that shouldn't prevent us from trying to figure it out, just because we can't know with 100% certainty.

[Cargést]

Are you really willing to weigh in and say the body of evidence is heavier on the creationist side? Is that how you're going to roll? I gave you evidence of a transition fossil in the youtube video from a great PBS doco on evolution. There are more transitional forms outlined there. What is going on?

Here are some more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils#Prominent_examples !

Yes, I've read all of them.  Some of them are no longer generally accepted as transitional fossils, as you ought know, and all of them can be explained without reference to the theory of evolution at all - these are archetypes which used to exist but died or, or, perhaps in some cases, examples of this extra-specialisation I have mentioned.  Excluding the theory of evolution for a moment, is that not a perfectly plausible explanation for the existence of such fossils?

(1) How were different breeds of dogs selected, if when there is "divergence, the animals suffer, they are incapble of surviving"?

As I have said, there is certainly the capacity for variation, and certainly the capacity for specialisation within that - however, specialisation is only useful up to a certain point.  Beyond that point, the toll on other traits causes the weakening of the animal's line; this is the "limit of variance", which I believe I mentioned.

It is plausible that, according to the union of opposites, wolves and dogs present two extremes of a "canine spectrum", which might range from "domesticated/loyal" to "feral/wild".  Observe the severe change which occurs in pigs when they are released/escape from farms: within a few weeks, they have grown in size, sprouted thick, bristly hair, and are forming tusks, and this is the same animal that was fat, unfit, pink, and tasty.

Conversely, it is plausible that wolves and dogs are entirely different animals, and that God simply made them the way they are.  The only criticisms you can draw against this claim are Occam's Razor (defeated by the truth that God is All, and God is singular - there is only one entity) or some complaint that it isn't naturalistic (which is obvious, and not really a criticism).  We only need provide an account of the transformation of one species to another if we accept that evolution must have happened - if we don't accept this, there is no need to tie species together, and God just fucking did the whole thing because he wanted to do it that way.  As far as I'm concerned, that answer is as good as evolutionary theory until I see an example of macro-evolution which isn't a case of evolutionists misunderstanding what is meant by the term "macro-evolution".

If you don't accept this it's like you saying to someone who has walked 3/4 of the way down a road that they are not really walking to the end of the road.

No, it's not.  It might appear as such to you, but for many, there is no road.  Nobody was walking anywhere.  For all your talk of objectivism, you do love to look at things from your own perspective.

(2) Where do you get this idea from (sources - so I can learn about it myself)?

You can read about the fruit flies and the e. coli in that critique of evolution I posted.  It's pretty damn interesting, considering that they blasted the things with radiation for forty years and didn't see a single "new species" arise.  Plenty of reproductory dead-ends, which are consistently claimed by evolutionists as "macro-evolution", but no instance of a fruit fly giving birth to anything other than a fruit fly.

This is a good couple of paragraphs on the creationist challenge from macoevolution. I'm heartened to see it explains what I said a few posts ago better (though not about your most recent challenge, of course).

I don't understand what the quotation is trying to say.  It seems to be asserting that evolutionists will hold that evolutionary theory is correct because they believe in it, but that seems too stupid.

Evolutionary theory is tailored to fit the fossils (and "intermediary forms", at that); of course they'll fall in line with it - trying to claim that the data to which the theory is fit is evidence for the theory is nonsense, I can't believe people don't recognise that more often.  I mean, it's not as if the theory would not have allowed any other kind of evolution, from any other kind of life!  It's so monstrously vague that bloody near anything could have happened and the theory would still be fittable.

The fossil record certainly doesn't disprove the creationist perspective - given how frequently we see vast groups of species arising unsettlingly rapidly, it makes more sense to assume that the generation of new lifeforms is a sudden event, not a gradual one.  There is absolutely no evidence to support that macro-evolution is gradual other than that one of the proposed mechanisms of macro-evolution is micro-evolution, which is certainly a gradual process.  However, the latter does not imply the former, by any means.

Awaiting clarification on the issue of 'overspecialistion', I can't see how macroevolution is a hole in evolutionary theory. Just because we can't see species biting the dust in front of us isn't much of a surprise. We don't see the murderer stabbing his victim in front of us, but we sure as shit might have good evidence that it happened.

It's been established that there are limitations to the genetic variance of a species - how then is it possible for one species ever to diverge into two?  The only option I can see is... Magic.  Poof!  Poof!  The Evolution Fairy!  (Oh wow, this is actually rather amusing - being an idiot is way more fun than trying to have a civil discussion!)

[BillHopkins]

So your think there is a capacity for genetic variance, but that this capacity has a limit, ruling out macroevolution.

Presumably, dog breeders never reached that limit? I don't think you can say that they are gentically the same and that it's jsut envornmental difference. Let's rule that out. There is genetic variation going on there. (a jack russel is not going to look like a german shepard no matter what dog food you feed it). Why, then, assume that variation can't go a little further and that species-sufficient variation is not possible? Do you have any proof of this (i.e. that variation can't go as far as speciation) for all animals?

The authors of this image would not agree with you, for instance.

"The various Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast all descended from a common ancestral population. As the species spread southward from Oregon and Washington, subpopulations adapted to their local environments on either side of the San Joaquin Valley. From one population to the next, in a circular pattern, these salamanders are still able to interbreed successfully. However, where the circle closes -- in the black zone on the map in Southern California -- the salamanders no longer interbreed successfully. The variation within a single species has produced differences as large as those between two separate species." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_052_05.html

[Cargést]

I think you misunderstand what a scientific theory is. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." (taken from Wikipedo) The theory of evolution is the only real scientific theory that explains the orgin of species.

Well, evolution hardly fits the bill of "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment".  Observation and experiment directed towards finding evolution have provided absolutely no body of facts upon which a well-substantiated explanation of the origin of life or species could be formed.

Taxonomy is really just our best guess at how God organized living things. To assume that just because one supposed species cannot procreate with another supposed species means that it is an instantiation of a archetype is a bit of a stretch. Taxonomy is a HUMAN endeavor; to assume it aligns perfectly with how God structured the biosphere is to display tremendous hubris.

I'm not trying to say that the species we identify as being species are, in fact, synonymous with the archetypes; all I am saying is that the archetypes exist, and all animals are spatio-temporal instances of those archetypes.  With a perfect taxonomy, each species would be linked to its archetype.  Funnily enough the species problem (that is, what defines "species") is a pretty big hurdle for both evolutionists and critical creationists - a lot of talking past one another must go on, since it's so vague a category.

I am certain that any credible biologist would disagree that the fossil record, microbiology, genetic, etc. support creationism. How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.

I looked at the evidence and compared it to the theory.  The theory fits the evidence very nicely, and provides a logical account of the origin of life and the variety of species which posits exactly as many "new" entities as evolutionary theory (one).

And about the Tradition part... I THOUGHT THIS WAS A NIHILIST FORUM! Do not a nihilist's beleifs arise from critical thinking and not blind dogmatism? You sound like a fundamentalist Christian... "SO IT IS WRITTEN BY THE GREAT PROPHET GUENON, AND SO I SHALL BELIEVE."

This is a Nihilist forum.  I was, and perhaps still am, a Nihilist.  In destroying all preconceptions - ALL preconceptions - I discovered that Truth was to be found in Tradition.  It is not dogmatic, but experiential, and as such can be known by anyone to be real; luckily for me, I stumbled upon it.  Life is immeasurably more wondrous, more appreciable, and more comfortable.

You're doing the exact same thing that link you provided accuses evolutionists of doing: Accommodating. You're accommodating the alleged facts into your position.

Yes, of course.  That's all we can do - we can't make a time machine to go back and observe the entire history of the planet, so we can't collect evidence as to how life originated or how life might have "evolved" (or been created).  We can try to collect evidence now to support the theory of evolution, by attempting to observe some instance of macro-evolution; at the point at which one is observed, the theory can be confirmed as being an accurate account of the origin of species, though certainly not of the origin of life, which will remain a mystery until one is sufficient in wisdom.

Irrelevant. How does the idea of Perfect Forms contradict evolution? Could there not be a Form for every incremental evolutionary instantiation of a species? How do you delineate the forms, anyway? It seems utterly arbitrary. If there's a perfect form for Chair, whose to say there's not a perfect form for... Armchair? Wicker Chairs? Blue Chairs? Chairs for Kids? What about Chairs that look like Dinosaurs? What about benches? Stools? Do not they all exist in the mind of God, and therefore have perfect Forms? Is there a perfect form for Tralfamadorian? Or Cargest? Could there be only one Form: the Form of the Universe? Whose to say I'm wrong?

Yes, I had this problem about five months ago.  I can't quite remember how many solutions there were, but there are many.  Bear in mind that things like theories of Forms, Archetypes, etc., are metaphors: they represent truths, but are not synonymous with them.  When dealing with the infinite, words are not adequate: they can point towards Truth, but cannot encapsulate it.

How utterly arbitrary. We are made of Matter. We can take a Chair, disassemble it, and make it into... A fishing rod. Matter just changed Forms. Animals, likewise composed of matter, likewise do the same thing, although in a different fashion.

Our bodies are made of matter.  We are most certainly not made of matter.  We are consciously experiencing.  Part of some experience includes perceiving a world from the perspectives of bipedal bodies.

If you make a fishing rod, then I'm sorry to have to tell you that the fishing rod is an instantiation of an archetype before the rod is made.  The archetypes exist outside of time and space - they are like algorithms or equations which map certain qualities shared by similar objects.

I was going to write a lot about how the Archetypes might work, when it comes to the variety of things and the question of what constitutes what kind of object, but I realised it would be far too long for this post - if you want, I'll PM you some ideas about such things.  Still, nothing that I could say should be taken literally; nothing anyone can say can be taken perfectly.

Why is evolution incompatible with the idea of Oneness?

It isn't, inherently.  It's incompatible with the idea of Archetypes, it seems, but I'm not entirely sure as to how the notion of Archetypes is best defined, or even accurately supported.  It's not something I pay much attention to.

Also agreed. However, that shouldn't prevent us from trying to figure it out, just because we can't know with 100% certainty.

I'll accept this, but I would subsequently caution that no man should take any theory as to such origins seriously, or as being terribly important, as we do nowadays; to do so is to place faith in fabrication, no matter how accurate a fabrication it might be.




@ Bill:

So your think there is a capacity for genetic variance, but that this capacity has a limit, ruling out macroevolution.

Presumably, dog breeders never reached that limit? I don't think you can say that they are gentically the same and that it's jsut envornmental difference. Let's rule that out. There is genetic variation going on there. Why, then, assume that variation can't go a little further and that species-sufficient variation is not possible? Do you have any proof of this (i.e. that variation can't go as far as speciation?)

Dog breeders have reached that limit many a time, as have cat breeders.  For example, I have actually met a dog so severely poodled that it was constantly ill - it was a genetically weak animal due to the rigorous breeding program which generated it.  If a cat is purebred, it is more susceptible to disease, and has both a shorter temper and a shorter lifespan.  I think the notion is something to this effect: when a certain trait is selected for in excess, either through natural or artificial processes, the gene pool of the resulting generations proceeds to shrink, until you effectively reach similar problems as can arise in cases of continuous inbreeding.  I may have misinterpreted some of it, but I think that's the general idea - it certainly makes sense to me.

Edit: in response to the image, a creationist might say that those "species" are in fact singular, and that the lizards of that species which can no longer procreate with others have simply specialised too far in a direction incompatible with those others; regardless, they are the same species.  I don't really know, but I'm trying to point out that much of what is touted as "supporting" evolution could "support" any theory that was mapped to it; evolution predicts only one thing which can be tested for, and that is the emergence of one species from another.  Until this is observed, there is no evidence.

[BillHopkins]

Edit: in response to the image, a creationist might say that those "species" are in fact singular, and that the lizards of that species which can no longer procreate with others have simply specialised too far in a direction incompatible with those others; regardless, they are the same species.  I don't really know, but I'm trying to point out that much of what is touted as "supporting" evolution could "support" any theory that was mapped to it; evolution predicts only one thing which can be tested for, and that is the emergence of a one species from another.  Until this is observed, there is no evidence.

EDIT: So... here we have an observed example of speciation (they can't breed) that could uncontroversially be put down to genetic variation by natural selection. You will take the line that variation can't go as far in other species. This seems to be sailing close to the wind of ad-hoc.

And i'm still insterested in proof for this idea that variation can only go so far in all animals. I've never come across it. Are you sure the dog's you have experienced aren't stuffed because of in-breeding? Please don't be put off if I ask for academic proof of this species-universal limit on genetic variation - as you can see how I could interpret this is a very ad-hoc 'stop' to the theory of evolution, for which variation is the key to the tree of life. 

[Cargést]

Why is an inability to breed speciation?  There are human couples who are incapable of breeding - are they a different species?  One might argue that certain mixes of races/ethnicities produces undesirable offspring; pushing that theory further, it could be conceived that two substantially dissimilar humans could not procreate, as the variance between the two is too great.  This theory takes into account the cessation of the potential for reproduction, but does not resort to positing macro-evolution as the mechanism.

I've already explained that the proof is in the critique of evolutionary theory I presented a few posts back.  It's towards the end, though I'd recommend reading the whole thing.

[BillHopkins]

Why is an inability to breed speciation?  There are human couples who are incapable of breeding - are they a different species?  One might argue that certain mixes of races/ethnicities produces undesirable offspring; pushing that theory further, it could be conceived that two substantially dissimilar humans could not procreate, as the variance between the two is too great.  This theory takes into account the cessation of the potential for reproduction, but does not resort to positing macro-evolution as the mechanism.

Some humans are incapable of breeding due to pathology, not because their genetic information cannot mix. if they were healthy and reproductively functioning properly, they could breed. This is the difference.

I've already explained that the proof is in the critique of evolutionary theory I presented a few posts back.  It's towards the end, though I'd recommend reading the whole thing.

Please treat me like a child, I don't know which post you're referring to, and this is pivotal. I've never seen an academic source for it either in your posts, unless i'm mistaken.

[Cargést]

Why is an inability to breed speciation?  There are human couples who are incapable of breeding - are they a different species?  One might argue that certain mixes of races/ethnicities produces undesirable offspring; pushing that theory further, it could be conceived that two substantially dissimilar humans could not procreate, as the variance between the two is too great.  This theory takes into account the cessation of the potential for reproduction, but does not resort to positing macro-evolution as the mechanism.

Some humans are incapable of breeding due to pathology, not because their genetic information cannot mix. if they were healthy and reproductively functioning properly, they could breed. This is the difference.

I don't see how that makes any difference at all.  If there is some mechanism other than macro-evolution of which instances are known which inhibits the ability of members of the same species to reproduce with each other, why is any other mechanism suggested in any case?

Here's an interesting review of some research, a terrible response to a good question which shows severe unfamiliarity with the associated research, a video with amusing bible references, and the post to which I'm referring is in this thread, at the bottom of one of my posts - use some initiative and find it.  You have hands and a brain, though they might become vestigial at this rate -.-

[BillHopkins]

Here's an interesting review of some research, a terrible response to a good question which shows severe unfamiliarity with the associated research, a video with amusing bible references, and the post to which I'm referring is in this thread, at the bottom of one of my posts - use some initiative and find it.  You have hands and a brain, though they might become vestigial at this rate -.-

Regarding the first, it's written by a guy with a mere masters degree who wrote 'The Bible Encounters Modern Science'. The second is well and truly overturned in all the comments to the post. The third is pretty much laughable. Some highlights:

"Do you ever think you will get a pig as big as texas. No!"
"Roaches might be able to be come resistant to bug sprary, but they will never become resistant to a sledge hammer!"
"you are never going to get a hamster, a whale to grow from corn"
"the horse and zebra had a common ancestors. and low and behold it looked like a horse"
"All varities of chickens had a common acnestrs. Anybody want to guess. Chicken. you got it"
"bears all had the same ancestor: a bear"
"Brocoli, cabbage and coli floud all had a common ancestor: a plant"

Apart from these fucking moronic statements. The only itneresting point was this:

"Genetic variation always leads to LESS VARIETY" (the duchebag offers no sources for this claim)

This is just wrong. Here is an example of how genetic variation can lead to more variety

Say Group A of the species has Has alleles A and B for a certain characteristic, while Group B has alleles B, C, and D. A young male from Group B that is Homozygous for D warnders away, and meets up with a female from Group A and they mate. She goes back to her group and has her offspring, who are heterozygous for allele D which wasn't present in that group before. A few generations down the line, a male from Group A that's heterozygous AD finds Group B, and mates with one of their females who stays with her group. Her offspring have a 50/50 chance of having the allele for A, and those offspring will introduce that allele to Group B. So both groups now have an allele, which if they were reproductively isolated would never have been present in their populations.

[Cargést]

Here's an interesting review of some research, a terrible response to a good question which shows severe unfamiliarity with the associated research, a video with amusing bible references, and the post to which I'm referring is in this thread, at the bottom of one of my posts - use some initiative and find it.  You have hands and a brain, though they might become vestigial at this rate -.-

Regarding the first, it's written by a guy with a mere masters degree who wrote 'The Bible Encounters Modern Science'. The second is well and truly overturned in all the comments to the post. The third is pretty much laughable.

Those were the results I got when I searched google for "limits of micro-evolution".  You could easily have done the same. I understand that you would like access to what I've read, but when I've already posted it, it's somewhat ridiculous to then expect it to be handed to you again (implying that you didn't read it in the first place, which seems to sum up your method in the Nietzsche thread).  Have you found the easily locatable critique, and are you reading it?  If so, I'm glad - let me know what you think, and if you know of any arguments against any of its aspects.

Edit: the Christian guy was hilarious, but he made some accurate points, hyperbole aside.  Beyond a certain level, it seems that it would be impossible for certain species to evolve certain characteristics: a horse's descendent will never have wings, a bird species will never grow to have composite eyes, and humans will never become monkeys.

[BillHopkins]

I'm out, friend.

[Cargést]

Fair enough.  See you in the Nietzsche thread at some point.  I look forward to your reply to my PM - we might get somewhere with the inadequacy of language!

[Tralfamadorian]

Well, evolution hardly fits the bill of "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment".  Observation and experiment directed towards finding evolution have provided absolutely no body of facts upon which a well-substantiated explanation of the origin of life or species could be formed.

I admit abiogenesis remains hazy and will remain that way until we synthesize life in a lab environment, which might never happen.  However, you're venturing into the realm of opinion with your claim that evolution itself isn't well supported by the facts. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accept the evolutionary hypothesis as the best explanation we currently have regarding how speciation occurs. That's not to say evolutionary theory is flawless -- it isn't. But the kinks will be hammered out in time. 

I think you're cherry picking your sources and thus getting a warped perspective on the matter. I challenge you to find an irreligious scientist who supports creationism. Most of this "creation science" is obviously biased by the beliefs of its purveyors and arises not from the selfless pursuit of Truth, but from ego driven desire for self-validation.

On a related note, I'm calling bullshit on your idea of 'limited variance'. No where have you supported these claims with evidence, and when Bill gave you proof of speciation you simply tweaked your definition. Also, you claim that reaching the extremes of variance causes disease and weakening, which is nowhere to be found in Ensatina eschscholtzii.

I'm not trying to say that the species we identify as being species are, in fact, synonymous with the archetypes; all I am saying is that the archetypes exist, and all animals are spatio-temporal instances of those archetypes.  With a perfect taxonomy, each species would be linked to its archetype.

Well I'm glad we cleared that up.

I looked at the evidence and compared it to the theory.  The theory fits the evidence very nicely, and provides a logical account of the origin of life and the variety of species which posits exactly as many "new" entities as evolutionary theory (one).

Like I said earlier, I think you're cherry picking. Here's a challenge: take a biology class next semester. Grill the shit out of your professor. Ask him/her for reading material on evolution. Or maybe try this: pretend you believe in evolution and you're trying to prove a creationist wrong. Do some research from the opposite perspective to test your own beliefs.

  [Tradition] is not dogmatic, but experiential, and as such can be known by anyone to be real; luckily for me, I stumbled upon it.

Have you experienced the Forms? How do you know they're real and not just an abstraction for understanding reality? I'm not arguing for or against the existence of Forms, I merely want to know more about them. I was under the impression that the World of Forms is inaccessible to experience; we only know of the forms through our observation of patterns.

Yes, of course.  That's all we can do - we can't make a time machine to go back and observe the entire history of the planet, so we can't collect evidence as to how life originated or how life might have "evolved" (or been created).  We can try to collect evidence now to support the theory of evolution, by attempting to observe some instance of macro-evolution; at the point at which one is observed, the theory can be confirmed as being an accurate account of the origin of species, though certainly not of the origin of life, which will remain a mystery until one is sufficient in wisdom.

Evolution fits the idea to the facts, Creationism fits the facts to the idea -- that's what I meant by 'accommodating'.

Yes, I had this problem about five months ago.  I can't quite remember how many solutions there were, but there are many.  Bear in mind that things like theories of Forms, Archetypes, etc., are metaphors: they represent truths, but are not synonymous with them.  When dealing with the infinite, words are not adequate: they can point towards Truth, but cannot encapsulate it.

Then point me towards the truth. How does one identify a Form? If we can't identify a Form, then how do we know they exist?

Our bodies are made of matter.  We are most certainly not made of matter.  We are consciously experiencing.  Part of some experience includes perceiving a world from the perspectives of bipedal bodies.

I am apologetic to the idea that the mind may be immaterial; I just fail to see how it precludes the idea of evolution.

If you make a fishing rod, then I'm sorry to have to tell you that the fishing rod is an instantiation of an archetype before the rod is made.

By this logic, then why not say the form of Reptile existed before its physical manifestation evolved from Amphibians?

The archetypes exist outside of time and space - they are like algorithms or equations which map certain qualities shared by similar objects.

If they exist outside space and time, then how do they influence the physical world? (Apologies if you've already went over this with Bill)

Are the teachings of Siddhartha canon in Traditionalism? How do you reconcile an impermanent and ever-changing universe with something supposedly constant like a Form?

I was going to write a lot about how the Archetypes might work, when it comes to the variety of things and the question of what constitutes what kind of object, but I realised it would be far too long for this post - if you want, I'll PM you some ideas about such things.

Better yet, start a new thread about Forms so others can chime in. Or PM me if you prefer. Doesn't matter to me.

Still, nothing that I could say should be taken literally;

Kinda sounds like a cop out

I'll accept this, but I would subsequently caution that no man should take any theory as to such origins seriously, or as being terribly important, as we do nowadays; to do so is to place faith in fabrication, no matter how accurate a fabrication it might be.

Personally, I live a simple life and do not let such matters trouble me. However, I will say this this: If thoughts about the nature and origin of Life and the Cosmos had not given man many a sleepless night, then we wouldn't have half as much knowledge as we do today.