Inductive disannulment of evolution theory
Nov 9, 2016 9:09:30 GMT
Post by Colossians on Nov 9, 2016 9:09:30 GMT
The author reserves copyright over this work.
_______________________________________________
INDUCTIVE DISANNULMENT OF EVOLUTION THEORY
Because the ‘lifeness’ of a life-form is coextensive with its particular functionality, the necessarily-infinite number of (infinitesimal) (qualitative) gradations which go into making up a life-form’s function-level renders each and every life-form no less a conceptual candidate for a first-life instance than any other. (This follows directly from the fact that a point in any continuum has no thickness or breadth.)
There is therefore no theoretical basis upon which the evolutionist might define a first-life instance in contrast to an evolved instance: no matter how basic the qualitative function-level of a conceived first-life instance, such function-level can always be conceptually reduced an infinitesimal amount, thus rendering such first-life instance no first-life instance at all, but (in hindsight) an evolved instance.
And so on ad infinitum.
Evolution theory is therefore bereft of a theoretical starting point.
In concluding …
Contrary to the evolutionist’s claim, abiogenesis and the supposedly-subsequent progressivity which he refers to as “evolution”, are not separate and stand-apart at all, but in fact one and the same problem: the two aspects are inductively coextensive.
Evolution theory is therefore seen to rest on an illegal dichotomy, and must accordingly be dismissed from the discourse of science.
_______________________________________________
INDUCTIVE DISANNULMENT OF EVOLUTION THEORY
Because the ‘lifeness’ of a life-form is coextensive with its particular functionality, the necessarily-infinite number of (infinitesimal) (qualitative) gradations which go into making up a life-form’s function-level renders each and every life-form no less a conceptual candidate for a first-life instance than any other. (This follows directly from the fact that a point in any continuum has no thickness or breadth.)
There is therefore no theoretical basis upon which the evolutionist might define a first-life instance in contrast to an evolved instance: no matter how basic the qualitative function-level of a conceived first-life instance, such function-level can always be conceptually reduced an infinitesimal amount, thus rendering such first-life instance no first-life instance at all, but (in hindsight) an evolved instance.
And so on ad infinitum.
Evolution theory is therefore bereft of a theoretical starting point.
In concluding …
Contrary to the evolutionist’s claim, abiogenesis and the supposedly-subsequent progressivity which he refers to as “evolution”, are not separate and stand-apart at all, but in fact one and the same problem: the two aspects are inductively coextensive.
Evolution theory is therefore seen to rest on an illegal dichotomy, and must accordingly be dismissed from the discourse of science.