Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

[Don McIntosh]

The explanatory logic of evolution, at least as it's commonly stated, fails because it assumes (wrongly) that what is true of the parts of a complex system may be validly inferred to hold for the whole as well. Thus my argument:

1. Evolution posits that the function of any complex biological system can be adequately explained as the accumulation of countless minor functional adaptations of its individual components.
2. To say that a characteristic of the whole system can be adequately explained in terms of a characteristic of its individual components is to say that a whole is equal to the sum of its parts.
3. To say that a whole is equal to the sum of its parts is to commit the fallacy of composition.
4. Evolution is a fallacy.

Note that I am not suggesting that all inferences from parts to whole fail to hold, but that the line of reasoning is fallacious on its face because in fact many such inferences do fail to hold. Given that specifiably complex biological systems are structurally heterogenous, there is no prima facie reason to think that what is true of the parts will be true of the whole. Evolution theorists therefore bear the burden of proof, namely, to explain why anyone should expect such an inference to hold in the case of specifiably complex systems.

Read the entire paper here:
https://www.academia.edu/38735629/Black ... lly_Flawed

Questions for debate: Is evolutionary theory a fallacy? If so, does that make it false?

[Bust Nak]

My argument is that their reasoning runs afoul of the fallacy of composition.

I am still not clear on why this would be the case. Earlier you gave an explanation of a house. If you have explained each component of your house, then how have you not explained the whole house? You said if those subsystems aren't arranged together in a carefully pre-planned way, there is no house. Sure, but it's not clear why the explanations of the subsystems would somehow not add up to be the plan for the whole house.

[2ndRateMind]

I am still not clear on why this would be the case. Earlier you gave an explanation of a house. If you have explained each component of your house, then how have you not explained the whole house?

Emergent phenomena. Describing the properties of a bird's feather does not explain why that bird can fly. Similarly, the properties of a brick do not explain a house.

But it would be equally wrong to suggest that because the bird can fly, the reason for those feathers is the functional purpose of the bird. So that is why I think Don McIntosh is looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope, when he says:

In other words, to explain the parts is to explain the whole.

I don't believe this is what Darwin, or Dawkins, or anyone else actually thinks.

Best wishes 2RM

[Bust Nak]

Emergent phenomena. Describing the properties of a bird's feather does not explain why that bird can fly. Similarly, the properties of a brick do not explain a house.

Right, but describing all the properties of a bird (which would include it's lift generating properties and its weight) would explain why that bird can fly, right? Similarly, explaining the origin of each component of a house, would combine to form the explanation of the origin of the house. Where is the fallacy of composition?

[2ndRateMind]

Emergent phenomena. Describing the properties of a bird's feather does not explain why that bird can fly. Similarly, the properties of a brick do not explain a house.

Right, but describing all the properties of a bird (which would include it's lift generating properties and its weight) would explain why that bird can fly, right?

Sure. But then you want to know the secondary, and more fundamental, justification. Given that (most) birds can fly, what is it that explains why a bird can fly? And that is what Darwin was concerned with, and the question he demonstrated that is best dealt with by looking at cause, not purpose.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Diagoras]

Emergent phenomena. Describing the properties of a bird's feather does not explain why that bird can fly. Similarly, the properties of a brick do not explain a house.

Right, but describing all the properties of a bird (which would include it's lift generating properties and its weight) would explain why that bird can fly, right?

Sure. But then you want to know the secondary, and more fundamental, justification. Given that (most) birds can fly, what is it that explains why a bird can fly? And that is what Darwin was concerned with, and the question he demonstrated that is best dealt with by looking at cause, not purpose.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Bolding mine

This looks to me like you are repeating the question that’s been already answered in the post above. Did you mean something different?