« The Right to Fashion Our Lives How We Want | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

August 19, 2011

Comments

No they aren't. Objective human constructs cannot belong to a realm that has no objective existence.

"objective human constructs"

??

There is no such thing as a human-originating class that objectively exists in the platonic realm.

yawnnnnnn

Actually I just realized, the statement doesnt depend on B anyway--so long as the number of species that occupy the vertical red line are greater than 1, then the statement is still true.

Premise asserts that species exist. When people create taxonomies with the species hierarchy then species objectively exist. There is no evidence of the existence of a Platonic realm even though there is evidence of objective existence.

There is no such thing as a human-originating class that objectively exists in the platonic realm.
Who said you were supposed to beg the question again? Human originating classes objectively exist whether a platonic realm exists or not.

The red lines are arbitrary and have no right/wrong locations. There need be no red lines and no (objective/platonic/subjectiveman-made or what have you) divisions for Premise B ("species exist") to be true.

>> "When people create taxonomies with the species hierarchy then species objectively exist."

by that definition my little sisters barbie doll classification system objectively exists - right next to the laws of boolean algebra.

her system does not stand as an objective truth of course.

like i said much earlier, an objective truth is an un-earthed property of the cosmos.

But as long as there are more than one species on the vertical line, in actuality, premise B is not needed anyway.

So thats cool

Her system does objectively exist. Whether you accept the criteria used is valid or not, is a different question.

like i said much earlier, an objective truth is an un-earthed property of the cosmos
Whether you said this or not is of no import. You don't get to define "objective" and you don't get to insert your word and your definition into Premise B days later. Funny how you get to doubt every element in epistemology and then suddenly think you have dogmatic authority over the meanings of words.

It is objectively true that there is a classification system that includes "species". This truth is independent of your opinion on the matter.
It is objectively true that organisms exist and are different and can be classified as species. Again, it is independent of your opinion.
There is not an objective right or wrong classification for every organism. This is a matter or convention and is not independent of opinion - the opinions on it vary and are equally true.

Without a definition of species you can assert nothing against any classification.

Thanks Trent. You beat me to it.

Daron,

Ah so if premise B would have said:

>> "It is objectively true that there is a classification system..."

Absolutely not. Not a human-originating one.

For only classes can exist in the platonic realm. e.g. the set of all integers would exist despite the presence of minds to think them up.

Anyway, there need only be more than one species on the vertical red bar, and then, the statement is still true of course.

Trent,

you think her Barbie Doll organization classes objectively exist?

Can you explain what the words in you 7:00 comment are supposed to mean?

The system exists, like the Dewey decimal system exists. Whether there is any validity to it does not negate whether or not it exists.

It is an idea. As long as anyone remembers the system and uses it, the system exists.

when we say a class objectively exists, we mean it forever and always exists as a property of the cosmos, despite the presence of minds to examine it or dream it up.

This is reserved for classes like the set of integers, the distance light travels in a second, etc.

If i make a class to organize Barbies, this class would traditionally not be up there.

But ok, you don't want to use the classical sense of the word. I mean, personally, I think you're giving up a LOT of ground, for I see the existence of the platonic realm as one of the biggest indicators that a God exists.

But alrighty then, despite me using these words constantly in this debate and others, I did not see a need to repeat them in premise B.

(Though, I still don't know how you wish premise B would have looked...?)

So remove premise B then...I guess...

And, if there are 2 or more species in the evolution of my kitty cat, then the conclusion still follows.

when we say a class objectively exists, we mean it forever and always exists as a property of the cosmos, despite the presence of minds to examine it or dream it up.
No we don't. When we say "species exist" it means that something calls species exists. When we say "species objectively exists" it means something called species exists regardless of one's subjective opinion about it. Nobody says "species exists" meaning that long before there was a planet earth, and before life ever came to be, and long before there was ever an organism to be called a species - something called "species" existed.
But ok, you don't want to use the classical sense of the word. I mean, personally, I think you're giving up a LOT of ground, for I see the existence of the platonic realm as one of the biggest indicators that a God exists.
I guess our apologetics will have to get by without this Greek Pagan concept. I'll stick with God's mind as the Creator, standard and determiner of forms and existence.
But alrighty then, despite me using these words constantly in this debate and others, I did not see a need to repeat them in premise B.
Yeah, despite your desire to define words as you want, and dismiss words and knowledge as you want, you are not the authority.

I love how you appeal to the realm of Platonic ideals (known to exist only through innate intuition) after you spend days claiming we can't recognize human beings.

And, if there are 2 or more species in the evolution of my kitty cat, then the conclusion still follows.
Darwin recognized countless species, extant and in the fossil record, and he demonstrated that, if evolution were true, your conclusion does not follow. Species are separated by innumerable fine divisions in form much smaller than that between varieties within the same species. Thus, no member of one species gives birth to a member of another.

Daron,

Oh I see.

So this is how you read the original argument:

A: Evolution is true
B: The bounds that make up the classes of species do not objectively exist, but rather are subjective.
C: Therefor, "A species can give birth to a different species."

So the conclusion still nicely follows because, the practitioner can call anything he wants a species.

Daron,

>> "Darwin recognized countless species"

So there are more than 2 species on the vertical red line.

>> "Thus, no member of one species gives birth to a member of another."

Wrong. For if there are more than 2 species on the vertical red line, it must necessarily be the case that a member of one species, gave birth to a member of another.

The speed of light is a value measured in arbitrary units and varies depending on what is traveling through. I'd say it was value derived based on observation of the universe, but if you are considering it a class then you need to get some sleep. If it is a class, what does it contain?

Trent,

It would be considered a variable not a class. Christians physicists constantly talk about how fine tuned the universe is. They think some of these variables (maybe all) are universals and evidence a creator of the cosmos.

link

I am very sympathetic to their argument.

Wrong. For if there are more than 2 species on the vertical red line, it must necessarily be the case that a member of one species, gave birth to a member of another.
Wrong.

I haven't a clue what you are trying to say with your latest syllogism. The problem is, YOU don't know what species are. You have no bounds, no definitions, and no knowledge nor access to the knowledge needed to answer the question. So I used a common definition, and an expert in evolution, and showed you that no members of one species can give birth to members of another species in evolutionary theory. Darwin said that it would destroy the theory.

Daron,

Really?

So there are more than two species on the vertical red line.

Evolution is true.

So one might ask, if this is the case, how did the second species come to be?

ToNy.
Really?
Didn't you read it?
The second species came to be via

an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group.

Species are connected by transitional forms which are not separate species.

Now, unless you've said anything really noteworthy while I posted this I must start preparing for tomorrow morning. I know you won't miss me as you won't start reading my posts until I answer your cut and paste. :)

Good night to you and to Trent.
Thanks for hanging in there, Trent. It's been a pleasure reading your replies.

Daron,

of course

he's merely describing my very large stack of pictures.

link

Now if a researcher were to look at any given two adjacent pictures, he may indeed mistakenly see no difference at all. In that, the amount of change between any given two adjacent pictures is very small.

But if we have the premise that there are more than two species on the vertical line, then it would indeed be the case that, the accumulation of these small changes eventually gave way to a new species.

Hence, the original conclusion is true:

"A species can give birth to a different species."

So either way, with or without premise B, the conclusion is true.

Additionally, if premise B is read as objective or subjective, the conclusion is true.

I have the sneaking suspension that you don't realize that any organism of a sub-species, is PART_OF a species...

ToNy,

"""Now if a researcher were to look at any given two adjacent pictures, he may indeed mistakenly see no difference at all. In that, the amount of change between any given two adjacent pictures is very small."""""


Not so. It is not required that he see no difference. All he needs to see is a small difference allowed by the variation within a species. And then there is a small variation between that variation and the next.

""""But if we have the premise that there are more than two species on the vertical line, then it would indeed be the case that, the accumulation of these small changes eventually gave way to a new species.""""
Granted, it gave way to a creature that, if viewed separately from the chain would be called a different species from the original. These animals objectively exist, and are species, whether they are one or two species. And 'species', as a member of the classification system, a human artifact relying upon missing varieties, objectively exists.
""Hence, the original conclusion is true: "A species can give birth to a different species."""""

No, it does not follow. Day is objectively different than night. Day eventually gives way to night. A researcher looking second by second might mistakenly see no difference in the darkness as the amount of change is so small.
But we still have day at one end and night at the other. But that does not mean that there was ever a single second of day that gave way to the very next second of night. But seconds, and light and dark, and day and night all exist.

Have you thought yet about ring species?

"""I have the sneaking suspension that you don't realize that any organism of a sub-species, is PART_OF a species..."""
That is a very sneaky suspension that causes you to think that I'm plain stupid. Of course a member of the variety of a species, or the subspecies of a species, is a member of the species. And that member of the subspecies of the species never gives birth to a member of the other species. It gives birth to another member of its own subspecies.

Daron,

>> "But that does not mean that there was ever a single second of day that gave way to the very next second of night."

Sure there is

If by night you mean "a time at which light from the sun no longer impacts a detector", then indeed, there would exist a final second at which this is the case of course.

Anyway, the analogy is not congruous because night does not come_from day.

However, by premise A, each organism comes from a successor.

That would be a funny thing to mean. Then "day"would mean "when even a single photon of light form the sun is impacting a detector".

re: 7:56
The distinction is not relevant. You have two things, objectively different from one another, and no objective cut off point where one becomes the other ...
the change exists but the point on the line does not.

Now we have another nice admission from you. On order to say "sure there is" such a point you devised a nice, tight definition (subjective, of course) for 'night'.
Are you willing finally to do so for 'species'? Or do want to keep claiming we can't tell who the humans are and that therefore, you firmly believe that humans often give birth to non-humans?

Daron,

If premise B is out of the picture as an objective truth, the debate is over anyway.

For then, anything can be a species.

the statement:

"Tony is a different species than my mom"

is a completely valid statement.

If you take Premise B to equate to classes that anyone can create -- e.g. my sisters barbie doll classes, then anybody is necessarily free to answer that question however they want.

Any disagreement on the matter would be merely the same thing as when my sisters fight over if the proper taxonomic position for Malibu Barbie resides on the top shelf or the bottom shelf. Since both of my sisters have made their own taxonomy, there is simply not objectively true answer to the question--"What class does this barbie belong."

This has, of course, been my position for years. I put it aside with premise B. But, surprisingly, you do not adopt the classic definition of objective truth. And, you took premise B as subjective anyway. So eitherway, a species can birth a different species.

Aside from that:

(1) If a subject says that there are (at least) two species on the vertical line (species A and species B).
And, the subject adopts premise A: Evolution is true.
And, the subject says that each organism on the bar comes to be via birth (except for the one in the first photograph).
And, the subject (you) says that "an organism of species A can only birth an organism of species A"

Then, this final statement would be a logical impossibility. For if an organism of species A can only birth an organism of species A, then species B could never exist. For there is nothing to birth it.

And this violates (1).

If premise B is out of the picture as an objective truth, the debate is over anyway.
Who said anything about it being out the picture? You only want it out now because you can't define it the exact way you want to predetermine the outcome. Of course, you don't really have access to definitions and words, so I surely won't be deferring to you for meanings.


Any disagreement on the matter would be merely the same thing as when my sisters fight over if the proper taxonomic position for Malibu Barbie resides on the top shelf or the bottom shelf. Since both of my sisters have made their own taxonomy, there is simply not objectively true answer to the question--"What class does this barbie belong."

This has, of course, been my position for years. I put it aside with premise B.

Actually, you never put it aside. You said that if evolution is true then species give birth to other species. Your use of the word species derived from your assuming the truth of evolution. Therefore, 'species' is what it is in evolutionary discourse. And that is not a platonic form, but, rather, is a somewhat nebulous term with a variety of definitions. So, as with your sisters, at some points at least (if not all) there simply is no objectively true answer to the question "what species is this" when evolution is assumed.
You know this, it would appear to me, which is why you started trying to impose the terminology and leapt at the chance to embrace Platonism - not that you believe in it, but because it looked like some possible way for your point to carry.

And, you took premise B as subjective anyway. So eitherway, a species can birth a different species.
Nope. I've shown many times why a species cannot birth another species if evolution is true. Anyone can declare anything a species in order to make your claim, but they will need a definition (your bane) in order to do so, and they will need to get others to share their definition to do so. I am using a real and accepted (not universally, of course) definition to show you that your claim is false. In the bargain, I get to show you the vacuity of the positions you adopt in your effort to destroy knowledge and put the pro-life on the spot. In the meantime, all of the huff and puff over this issue ignores the fact that you were not answering the question "do you think humans often give birth to non-humans". And to support your answer you've sunk down to a level where anyone can call anything a species and they are as valid as anyone else. Try convincing an audience on that evidence. At the other end of the pole you've also embraced Platonic forms, which can only be known intuitively via innate abilities, and, thereby, admit that we actually do know a human when we see one, and we know that a human actually is something other than an arbitrary human construct.

When you argue to defend false premises (like it is OK to kill human babies) you will always dig your way into trouble like this because the edifice is false to begin with.

Then, this final statement would be a logical impossibility. For if an organism of species A can only birth an organism of species A, then species B could never exist. For there is nothing to birth it.

And this violates (1).

It would seem to, wouldn't it? So there must be something about "evolution" and "species" which nulls the violation. And that, of course, is found it what it means to say 'species exist'. Once again, you must think of the evidence trotted out by the Darwinists and ring species works well for this.
In the famous example of the gulls every gull in the ring coexists with a variety of the same species. But when you get around the ring the cladist has no connector between the first and last gulls and so they are called, legitimately so, different species. But never did one species give birth to another. The cladist gave birth to the new species, so to speak, by imposing his view and his definition on the organisms.
Darwin says the same thing. Generation after generation of change occurring smaller than that which exists between varieties finally adding up to a great enough change that, when ignoring the intermediaries, one can legitimately say there is a new species. But it never was born from a different species - it was born from a member of the same species. 'Species exists' in all senses of the word, but never does one species give birth to another.

And you implied that this is not only common among humans, but also said it is NECESSARILY true if evolution is true.
But ...not.

The cladist is merely one who asserts that two sets (at least) - Species A and Species B exist in the cat drawing.

Moreover, he has a complete record of all births.

Hence, for him to adopt the statement:

"an organism of species A can only birth an organism of species A"

would be a logical impossibility of course.

He could not assert this, and maintain Species B exists.

We aren't talking about whatever your cartoon shows, we are talking about what is the case if evolution is true. And if evolution is true species exist and are connected to other species via varieties (insensible, innumerable, infinite) of each.

:)

Of course we're talking about the picture.

I only pasted it 50 times.

>> "innumerable" "infinite" ?

Here, there exists a finite number of mothers between the cat and the first photograph of course.

>> "if evolution is true species exist and are connected to other species via varieties"

And these "varieties" are organisms.
And each organism is of a species.
And if our practitioner grants that two species exist,
Then, he must hold that the statement "one species cannot birth another" is false.

:)

Of course we're talking about the picture.

I only pasted it 50 times.

You pasted a lot of ... stuff ... which I am not talking about.

Here, there exists a finite number of mothers between the cat and the first photograph of course.
Other than your imaginary friend Sam I doubt anyone is too interested in how many kitties you drew. Evolutionists always think cartoon are evidence but they aren't. We are talking about evolution, not animation.
And these "varieties" are organisms. And each organism is of a species.
Yes and yes.
And if our practitioner grants that two species exist, Then, he must hold that the statement "one species cannot birth another" is false. He mustn't. By definition, every species only births a member of its own species.
And if our practitioner grants that two species exist, Then, he must hold that the statement "one species cannot birth another" is false.

He mustn't. By definition, every species only births a member of its own species.

Daron,

So your retort is, you don't want to address the thought experiment anymore (perhaps you never were...) and don't care about the logic it entails. Also, it is "cartoon evidence" and not applicable. And, as an argument, you simply restated your position.

uhm...

ok...

wow...

I...

Well that's it for me folks.

To anyone who happens upon this page in the future, here was the thought experiment in question:

image

Given that evolution is true, and the above image depicting the evolution of the feline, Daron said that an organism of one species could not give birth to an organism of a different species.

Now, I hope folks can see that, whatever species classification criteria you choose, so long as there is more than one species in feline evolution, it is obvious that his statement is false. For, indeed, if there be more than one species in the grand stack of photographs, then the organisms of the upper species necessarily were birthed by an organism of the prior species.

If, as he says: "every species only births a member of its own species", then, of course, the upper species wouldn't be there.

Anyway, it is obvious to anyone with an elementary school understanding of evolution that, every so often, the theory would imply that an organism of one species gives birth to another.

I'll leave it to the interwebs to decide if his statement is true or false.

Goodbye all, see you on the next one.

Fare thee well, ToNy,
"elementary school understanding". What a zinger.

So your retort is, you don't want to address the thought experiment anymore (perhaps you never were...) and don't care about the logic it entails
Cartoon logic has nothing to do with speciation given the truth of evolution (and discounting Hopeful Monsters, as per our first resolution).
. Also, it is "cartoon evidence" and not applicable.
Of course it's not evidence nor applicable. I could give you a picture of a dog and a cat and say, 'look, two species, one must have birthed the other'. Nonsense. This discussion was given the truth of evolution, not the fantasy evolution of an animator.
Well that's it for me folks.I guess we'll see.
Given that evolution is true, and the above image depicting the evolution of the feline, Daron said that an organism of one species could not give birth to an organism of a different species.
I say this regardless of what you've sketched out for Sam and your other sock-puppets.

For, indeed, if there be more than one species in the grand stack of photographs, then the organisms of the upper species necessarily were birthed by an organism of the prior species.Not the case at all. Be there more than one species then there be infinite numbers of varieties between them. And every variety is within the same species as its parent and its offspring - sharing as they do the same gene pool and the ability to interbreed. You'll have to step up and admit a definition of species (which you dare not) if you wish to dispute this.

If, as he says: "every species only births a member of its own species", then, of course, the upper species wouldn't be there.
I haven't looked at your cartoon, but unless you scribbled in the margins such a stipulation, and as far as you've reflected evolution, this is not the case.
Anyway, it is obvious to anyone with an elementary school understanding of evolution that, every so often, the theory would imply that an organism of one species gives birth to another.It's nice to see that you've backed off your claim that if evolution were true then, necessarily, every species will birth another. Your claim now makes clear that it was never intended, as proffered, to answer Trent's question (are you saying that humans often give birth to non-humans?).

Goodbye.
Do bookmark this thread so we can see ToNy's evolution - especially your embrace of Platonic forms. That will come in handy when you start wondering if there is really such thing as a human being.

I'm also glad to see you attempting to comment somewhat more civilly. Hopefully we'll disagree more amicably in the future.

Aargh.
I'll try to do that with repaired blockquotes.

Fare thee well, ToNy,
"elementary school understanding". What a zinger.

So your retort is, you don't want to address the thought experiment anymore (perhaps you never were...) and don't care about the logic it entails
Cartoon logic has nothing to do with speciation given the truth of evolution (and discounting Hopeful Monsters, as per our first resolution).
. Also, it is "cartoon evidence" and not applicable.
Of course it's not evidence nor applicable. I could give you a picture of a dog and a cat and say, 'look, two species, one must have birthed the other'. Nonsense. This discussion was given the truth of evolution, not the fantasy evolution of an animator.
Well that's it for me folks.
I guess we'll see.
Given that evolution is true, and the above image depicting the evolution of the feline, Daron said that an organism of one species could not give birth to an organism of a different species.
I say this regardless of what you've sketched out for Sam and your other sock-puppets.
For, indeed, if there be more than one species in the grand stack of photographs, then the organisms of the upper species necessarily were birthed by an organism of the prior species.
Not the case at all. Be there more than one species then there be infinite numbers of varieties between them. And every variety is within the same species as its parent and its offspring - sharing as they do the same gene pool and the ability to interbreed. You'll have to step up and admit a definition of species (which you dare not) if you wish to dispute this.
If, as he says: "every species only births a member of its own species", then, of course, the upper species wouldn't be there.
I haven't looked at your cartoon, but unless you scribbled in the margins such a stipulation, and as far as you've reflected evolution, this is not the case.
Anyway, it is obvious to anyone with an elementary school understanding of evolution that, every so often, the theory would imply that an organism of one species gives birth to another.
It's nice to see that you've backed off your claim that if evolution were true then, necessarily, every species will birth another. Your claim now makes clear that it was never intended, as proffered, to answer Trent's question (are you saying that humans often give birth to non-humans?).

Goodbye.
Do bookmark this thread so we can see ToNy's evolution - especially your embrace of Platonic forms. That will come in handy when you start wondering if there is really such thing as a human being.

I'm also glad to see you attempting to comment somewhat more civilly. Hopefully we'll disagree more amicably in the future.

The comments to this entry are closed.