Boris,
Thanks for responding. I know about time limitations because I have quite a few myself. However, I hope we can have a fruitful discussion on this or maybe even perhaps other subjects. Rarely do I get the chance to speak with others who are as knowledgeable as you are. I know what you mean about having to speak in simplistic concepts to convey your points. All too often do I have to do the same thing. Most people aren’t interested in learning or thinking for that matter, but I digress.
I will try to make this as brief as possible and still get my points across. I can get quite loquacious when I get the opportunity to speak on a matter that is not only important to me but speak with someone who can understand what I am saying (even if they don’t agree with me).
You said:
Mind expanding on this a little? What do you mean by "fallacy of composition in logic"? Personally, I think it's a pretty classic example of induction. Though, we do not arrive at macroevolution through mere induction. When we examine the mechanisms behind evolution (namely, accumulation of mutations in the genetic code, assimilation of foreign material, symbiosis), it is relatively easy to conclude that such processes need not be limited either by timespan or by the magnitude of changes they may eventually engender.
The fallacy of composition and it’s opposite, fallacy of division, are the case of assigning values or attributes to a whole that are the values or attributes of it’s parts or assigning a value of a whole to a part of that whole. Example: All the things in the universe that we know of are created by living beings, hence, the universe was created by a living being as well. This is the same as saying, all bacterium, reptiles, birds, insects show instances of speciation, therefore, all of life evolved. Yes, it is induction. Induction used incorrectly becomes the fallacy of composition. Mammalian speciation is only a hypothesis, and an unproven one at that. Science itself is a string of deductions and induction’s, which form hypotheses that are tested and finally form a theory. No theory is “safe” from being re-evaluated and corrected. The theory of evolution needs correcting badly, for it contains error.
Here is some of the research I have done on this:
I would like to explain the difference between a cline, a ring species, and a complex.
A deme is a small local population, such as all the deer mice or all the red oaks in a certain woodland, or all the perch or all the waterstriders in a given pond. Though no two individuals in a deme are exactly alike, the members of a deme do usually resemble one another more closely than they resemble the members of other demes. There are at least two reasons for this: (1) the individuals in a deme are more closely related genetically, because pairings occur more frequently between members of the same deme than between members of different demes; and (2) the individuals are exposed to more similar environmental influences and hence two more nearly the same selection pressures.
Notice that intergradation is between “similar” demes. We expect some interbreeding between deer mice from adjacent demes, but we do not expect interbreeding between deer mice and house mice or between deer mice and black rats or between deer mice and grey squirrels.
There is usually so much gene flow between adjacent demes of the same species that differences between them are slight. Thus, the frequencies of alleles A and b may be 0.90 and 0.10 in one deme and 0.89 and 0.11 in the adjacent deme. But the further apart geographically two demes are the smaller the chance of direct gene flow between them, and hence the greater the likelihood that the differences between them will be more marked. If, for example, we collect samples of five hundred deer mice each from Plymouth county, Mass., Crawford county, Pennsylvania, and Roanoke county, Virginia, we will find numerous differences that enable us to distinguish between the three populations quite readily-much more readily than we could between populations from three adjacent counties in Mass. or from three adjacent counties in Pennsylvania.
When a character of a species shows a gradual variation correlated with geography, we speak of that variation as forming a cline. For example, many mammals and birds exhibit north/south clines in average body size, being larger in the colder climates farther north and smaller in the warmer climates farther south. Similarly, many mammalian species show north/south clines in the size of such extremities has the tails and ears; these exposed parts are smaller in the demes farther north. The Brazilian Spiny Rat (Proechimys trinomys iheringi is but one of these examples. It may impress some people that it was found in the Amazon because there is an inference that such a place holds the key for the “mysteries” of evolution but our own deer mice exhibit the same characteristic.
The various isolating factors that cause clinal morphological features are ecogeographical, habitat, seasonal, behavioral, mechanical, and gametic.
The idea of a complex in mycology is one that stands between a ring species and a cline. In many cases not only do the various individuals have major taxonomic differences but sometimes will not interbreed. I know I said earlier that they can but there is a dispute among mycologists in the matter and I hold that they are more like a cline than a ring species. Some mycologists disagree with me and hold that certain species are unable to interbreed. The issue is simply not that easy. I am not going to get into my argument with my fellow mycologists here in this discussion. It would require more time than I have to devote to it. The complex Gymnopilus spectabilis is a complex and well below the level of sentience required for non-speciation.
Again, I reiterate the difference between life forms is drawn at the level of neural network complexity.
Boris I would like to respond to more of your letter so if you see this please wait until tomorrow to respond. I would like to add more information but I have some things to do and won’t be able to post until tomorrow. Thanks
I think you have a very good attitude and I agree with you about certain “religious people”.
Till then, Adlerian