Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 4:20:00 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>>
r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:10:03 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>>>>
r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Darwin did in fact define species immutability when he said "most naturalists" accepted each species created independently.
>>>>
>>>> Only he didn't. What he says on the page you cited is not a definition
>>>> of immutability, he gives an explanation of what (according to the
>>>> tradition) causes immutability, two very different things
>>>>
>>>> Explanations can be right or wrong, definitions can't (they can be
>>>> helpful or unhelpful; generally accepted or idiosyncratic; ordinary
>>>> meaning or technical meaning; but not true or false)
>>>>
>>>> You've also confused definitions with factual statements in your posts
>>>> about Behe and IC, where you wrongly claimed that according to him
>>>> "can't evolve" was a part of the definition of IC rather than one of the
>>>> consequences of being IC.
>>>>
>>>> You make the same mistake here again. The Darwin quote does not say what
>>>> "immutable" means, but what causes immutability
>>>
>>> Your claim about causation is undeniably true, but to say what Darwin said to exclude a definition of immutability is asserted without rhyme, reason, or argument.
>>
>> The argument and evidence is simple: the text simply does not give a
>> definition.
>
> Never said the text at issue offered a formal definition. What I did say: What's written, by Darwin, conveys my definition of species immutability.
You said it contained a definition, I showed you that it doesn't.
>
>> Definitions are typically introduced as "For the purpose of
>> this study, I define X as Y" or "with X, we mean Y", or "X stands for
>> the more complex Y" or some other easily recognizable expression that
>> the author is introducing a definition.
>
> I understand; but I'm now clarifying what I said. What Darwin wrote equates to a good definition of species immutability. Neither "immutability" nor "species" appear in the definition. And the proposed definition clearly conveys what is meant by species immutability. If each species is created then the concept of speciation does not exist in nature.
And once again that is stating an (alleged) consequence of species
immutability, but not a definition.
If it had been meant as a definition, it would have been piss poor
indeed, both for scientific and theological purposes.
For starters, definitions establish synonyms, and synonyms can be
exchanged salva veritate in all contexts. Which means you can now prove
that "God could not have created species to be mutable" is true - proof
by definition that God's powers are significantly limited.
The "definition" does not tell you anything about what the person
proposing it thinks a species is, how much variation he considers
consistent with "immutability", and if e.g. things such as mass
extinction are counterexamples (A species that is extinct has changed a
lot, you know, in one way of looking at it).
That is for a good definition of species immutability, we should get at
least some idea how a world with immutable species looks different from
one with mutable ones
>
>>
>> Darwin does none of this, rather the text plainly postulates a
>> consequence of creation, i.e. immutability
>
> Answered above.
>
>>
>> >
>>> Darwin, in the quotation, described independent creation then referred to what he described as immutability.
>>>
>> Yes....
>
> Thanks.
>
>> ....but he does not define one through the other
>
> Not formally, I agree. He does not actually say anything about a definition, but strongly implies when he writes each species created independently THEN refers to all of the same as species immutability, which he says is not true.
Indeed. As you say, he indicates that he does not think that the
statement is true. Which is the best evidence you can think of that he
did not consider it a definition. Definitions aren't true or false, they
are mere conventional abbreviations.
So by saying that e considers the statement false, he also treats it as
something different from a definition - that is, as a factual claim
about the world.
>
> It seems your protest is based only on absence of explicit mentioning of a definition while ignoring the brilliance of the conveyance as **also** implying a definition.
No, my protest is based on your continuing confusion between definitions
and statements of facts, hypothesis or explanations.
>
>>
>>> So one can rightly define immutability as independent creation of each species.
>>>
>> Only one can't, and Darwin doesn't. He states an (alleged) consequence
>> of independent creation, that is immutability.
>
> Said consequence, however true, doesn't exclude an implied definition. Since your argument is based on the fact that Darwin didn't actually say he was defining immutability,
Not just on that, though it is a strong indicator. Scientists tend to
say when they introduce a definition. But at least as important is how
he treat the statement - that is as something that is he thinks is
actually false.
> you can't use the consequence to imply exclusion of a definition. Since the consequence is actually implied, other implications can be valid as well.
No idea what you try to say here.
>
>>
>> As a simple thought experiment, we could have found out that species are
>> indeed immutable, but for reasons other than independent creation (e.g.
>> a more robust DNA with no mutations, or a "reset button" that reverts to
>> the original form of a species once too many mutations are accumulated.
>>
>> Even though in this case species would not change (hence be for all
>> intents and purposes immutable), they still would not have been created. ]
>>
>> Conversely, god could of course have created species that are highly
>> mutable (omnipotent, remember)
>>
>> So "independent created" and "immutable" are connected through a
>> contingent empirical fact - God chose to create species as immutable,
>> that is why they are that way.
>>
>> But that is a causal explanation, not a definition that merely
>> determines word meaning but does not say anything about the world
>>
>
> I see no relevance between your thought experiment and the issue at hand.
That does not surprise me. The reason is that you don't understand what
definitions are, and what role they play in scientific theories.
My thought experiments show that "being created" is neither necessary
nor sufficient for species to be immutable. Since definitions give
necessary and sufficient conditions, it can't be a definition of species
immutability.
>
> Ray
>