1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Argument for evolution

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Jaiket, Jan 21, 2021.

  1. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,708
    Ratings:
    +2,283
    Religion:
    Something else
    I thought I'd have a pop at a syllogism. It's a bit rough and ready so constructive comments are welcome.


    Premise 1: The differences between species are accounted for by differences in genome.

    Premise 2:
    The nature of genome replication means it cannot proceed without some mutation creeping in.

    Conclusion
    : Differences will naturally arise between populations.


    Does the conclusion follow from the premises? I'm not sure, but it could probably be refined into something better.

    Are the premises good/useful? Give reasons.

    It seems to me that P1 is solid, but P2 is maybe not so. I haven't talked about adaptation through natural selection, selective pressure, etc so it's a pretty simplifying argument.

    Edit: I should have said P2 difficult to argue against, not so sure about P1.
     
    #1 Jaiket, Jan 21, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  2. ADigitalArtist

    ADigitalArtist Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,196
    Ratings:
    +11,455
    Religion:
    Irreligious Agnostic Atheistic Apatheist
    What about p2 do you think is less solid? We can tell that perfect replication isn't something that occurs naturally. Not even with identical twins.
     
  3. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,708
    Ratings:
    +2,283
    Religion:
    Something else
    Ha, I mixed them up. P2 seems solid but P1 not so much.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Quintessence

    Quintessence Tale Weaver
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    21,331
    Ratings:
    +15,548
    Religion:
    Druidry
    I think your P1 may feel weak to you because it is missing some important components biologists use to assess species boundaries. Classifying something as a different species isn't just a matter of genome differences amongst populations of individuals, it is also a matter of geography and organism behavior. The concept of species is often taught in a simplified, more black-and-white fashion at the high school level, but if you go deeper than that, things get a lot more... fuzzy?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,708
    Ratings:
    +2,283
    Religion:
    Something else
    Thanks for the comment, it was immediately helpful.

    Aye this is fair. I'm aware that at some point species is something of a matter of "convention".

    I had in mind something like the difference between members of species distinct enough that we would have no issue there. Take a chimp and a human. It would be reasonable to say that the differences between these two are due to the differences in their genomes, yes?

    I know there are epigenetic factors that could be fairly significant also.
     
  6. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    18,836
    Ratings:
    +9,599
    Religion:
    None
    Those are different genera.
     
  7. Quintessence

    Quintessence Tale Weaver
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    21,331
    Ratings:
    +15,548
    Religion:
    Druidry

    Quite a few things in life sciences are, in part because biology is just messy (sometimes quite literally). Living things don't follow absolute or incontrovertible rules, perhaps because they are more than the sum of their parts would suggest. Attempting to boil a biological organism down to its genetic code is problematic, because actual expression of genes is mediated by environmental factors. Even so, classification of organisms underwent some serious revisions with the advent of more rapid genetic analysis. It's still going on, and the general framework for classifying species does to some extent become a matter of convention.



    Yes, but it's also more than that, right? For mammals, things are honestly pretty cut and dry. It's when you start getting into the organismal groups humans don't tend to give a crap about that species designations can become kind of messy. That's something I came to learn as I studied more about plants in particular. When plants basically spew their sperm all over the air, it lands on whatever it wants and you end up with hybridization between what are usually considered different species. The hybrids aren't always viable (meaning they can't reproduce in self-sustaining populations) but sometimes they are and viability is one of the requirements for something to be a distinct species. Plants are just weird. Cool weird, but weird. Mammals are super boring by comparison. But I'm obviously biased with that assessment. :D
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
Loading...