Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2019 10:20 PM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, foreveryoung, kjsimons (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,097 Year: 7,133/19,786 Month: 1,674/1,581 Week: 53/443 Day: 53/34 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Chain of Being
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 29 (11238)
06-10-2002 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Andya Primanda
06-10-2002 3:31 AM


Andya: From the sound of it, I'm pretty sure your "evolutionist" is proposing the old idea (originally put forward by Lamarck ) that evolution consists of a change from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher. IOW, directed evolution - a change toward ever increasing perfection.

Gould was absolutely correct: the modern science of evolutionary biology has pretty much cleaned the clock of this old idea. Since evolution (as we understand it today) is actually just the change in the properties of populations of organisms over time, there is no requirement toward "increasing perfection". There are quite a few examples from nature that would appear to be arguing that some organisms have actually "decreased complexity" over the course of evolutionary history. Snakes losing their legs (evidenced by the vestigial pelvus in certain species of boa), eukaryote cellular organelles formed from originally free-living bacteria which have lost their ability to survive outside the cell as well as many of their original structures, certain virii, etc, are all examples of organisms that have "lost" functions/structures over time as they adapted to their environments. I'm sure you can come up with other examples.

If you'd like to get more info on which particular flavor of this fallacy your opponent is proposing (Bauer's orthogenesis, Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", etc), I can try and provide more direct refutations.

Hope this helps.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-10-2002 3:31 AM Andya Primanda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 06-10-2002 8:15 AM Quetzal has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-11-2002 1:43 AM Quetzal has responded
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 06-11-2002 12:00 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 29 (11288)
06-11-2002 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Andya Primanda
06-11-2002 1:43 AM


Too true. There have been many beautifully elegant theories that have been unceremoniously overthrown by the weight of evidence - and not just in biology. From the inheritance of acquired characteristics to cold fusion, the one thing that science teaches more plainly than anything else is that just because we "want" something to be a certain way, doesn't make it so. IMO, that's why the whole endeavor is so endlessly fascinating and engrossing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-11-2002 1:43 AM Andya Primanda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-13-2002 5:13 AM Quetzal has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 29 (11464)
06-13-2002 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Andya Primanda
06-13-2002 5:13 AM


Ouch, you're way out of my league on that one, Andya. Neurobiology and the evolution of intelligence is waaaay beyond my technical competence. Sorry. Suggest you get him to tell you what scientists in particular are supportive of his GCB concept. Maybe we can take it from there - I do have a couple of people I could contact who'll at least give some good references.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-13-2002 5:13 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Scientist, posted 03-14-2013 1:21 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 29 (11563)
06-14-2002 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Zhimbo
06-13-2002 3:42 PM


Excellent response, Zhimbo. Welcome to the forum.

WRT your post: in other words, the rebuttal to Andya's opponent's position on intelligence is the same (roughly) as the rebuttal to the old Escala naturae - there's no evidence that nature is required to tend toward increasing perfection or complexity. It can, in fact, go either way. Did I catch it right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Zhimbo, posted 06-13-2002 3:42 PM Zhimbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Zhimbo, posted 06-14-2002 12:29 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019