Evolution and Increased Diversity

Yes, that's a loose statement. It takes the extremely selfish-gene position. Would it be more reasonable to say that phenotypes of some organisms are capable of modifying habitates? I'm thinking of plaque production by oral bacteria, or of beaver dams. OK. Maybe a "punctuated" increase of three families of marine life per million years since the Permian Extinction is of no particular importance to the concept of increasing diversity. Or maybe it is. It must seem more special and important to me than it does to you.”HM

RAZD, I knew you didn't mean to imply purpose. Since the term ad hoc applies mostly to human affairs I have avoided using it in an ecological or evolutionary context. Didn't want to appear teleological, you know.”HM

Not always. Sexual selection and genetic drift are not associated with changes in the environment. That's pretty much the whole point. Evolution does not always lead to an increase in diversity. It due to envionmental factors. Nah, I don't think its peculiar to Earth.

Genetic drift is usually caused by environmental factors that reduce population size. No? Sexual selection could be the result of climate change or predation. No? Any particular reason why other than speculative faith?”HM

It doesn't matter if it can, the point is that it is not that it must. Which you've already agreed to in saying that evolution can lead to a decrease in biodiversity.Evolution does not necessarily lead to an increase in diversity. Case closed. By "it" I was not referring to "life". I was referring to "the macroscopic increase in biodiversity".And the reason is that I have no reason to think otherwise.

Catholic, take another look at Sepkoski's graph in Message 14? Yes, on a relatively short-term basis evolution can lead to decreasing diversity, which is shown in Sepkosky's graph, but on a long-term basis it clearly has increased. What data do you have to show that would contradict this?”HM

None. I don't deny that diversity has increased.What I deny is that the process in the Theory of Evolution must lead to an increase in diversity.I'm not saying that it hasn't or that it won't, I'm just saying that it is not true that it must.

---

Also,Your argument is of the fallacy Post Hoc ergo propter hoc, which literally mean "After this therefore because of this". We have an evolutionary process and we have an increase in diversity. You're saying that because the increase in diversity comes after the evolutionary process then it is because of the evolutionary process. It is just a correlation and that does not necessarily imply causation (wait, this is all sounding familiar, kinda like my first message in this thread).here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html

quote:

---

Exposition:
The Post Hoc Fallacy is committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its "effect". Of course, it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition. Thus, post hoc evidence may suggest the hypothesis of a causal relationship, which then requires further testing, but it is never sufficient evidence on its own.

---

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

Catholic, would the theory of the expanding universe qualify as Post Hoc ergo propter hoc because it is a fallacy "...committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its "effect""?”HM

It doesn't really matter and is not on topic.But I would say that it is not that fallacy becuase it is not based solely on the supposed cause preceding its effect. There are other indictations that the universe is expanding.But let's not get into that here.

But you brought it up, and now you're taking the OT dodge instead of defending it. Aren't there some Latin words that describe that maneuver? Maybe: Post ego fumo nonblowum procto?”HM

I didn't bring up the expanding universe, you did. What doesn't matter is if the expanding univers theory is a fallacy or not, which is what I was referring too by "it". Defending what?That the expanding universe is not a fallacy? I most certainly did defend it right here when I said:

quote:

---

But I would say that it is not that fallacy becuase it is not based solely on the supposed cause preceding its effect. There are other indictations that the universe is expanding.

---

So what the hell are you talking about?Your comprehension skills are lacking...

I was talking about evidence, hard evidence, that biodiversity increases over macroscopic timeframes. And I produced the evidence. That part of evolution is not included in the ToE, and I took the position that it should be. No need to start in with the insults. Just show me some evidence that biodiversy on Earth did not increase over macro timeframes.”HM

HM, Why would you want that? No-one is claiming that biodiversity hasn't increased, least of all Catholic Scientist, who has clearly stated that he did not dispute an increase. I think the point being made is that evolution doesn't exclusively increase diversity.

---

Mutate and Survive

What is a random event?

And it occurred after evolution. Thus the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.The question is whether evolution causes it or if it is a result of some other cause and effect.It has not occurred on Mars, where life would also involve evolution.Therefore there is some other cause and effect going on.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : sp

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.