Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The supporting argument's P2 conflates the uniqueness of a derived trait with the impossibility of ancestral scaffolding, committing a continuity fallacy.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
P2 may simply be distinguishing between novelty of expression and novelty of underlying mechanisms—not necessarily committing a fallacy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Claiming scaffolding impossibility based on derived trait uniqueness could reflect parsimony rather than logical confusion about continuity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The argument structure might not conflate these concepts but rather argue derived uniqueness provides evidence *against* ancestral scaffolding present.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Derived traits can be unique to a lineage yet still require ancestral scaffolding structures that served different functions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Conflating uniqueness with independence assumes traits arise ex nihilo rather than through modification of existing biological systems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The continuity fallacy occurs when assuming absence of ancestral precedent follows from a trait's current uniqueness or specialization.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.