Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theory of Evolution and model of evolution
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 5 (416187)
08-14-2007 12:06 PM


Does the Theory of evolution dissolve if one were to attack the current model? Does radical restructuring of the current model mean that the tenants of evolution are proved false? By this I mean the Gould statement that to discover a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian era would prove evolution false(granted this example is extreme). I personally think this only leads to the fallacious logical leaps that alterations such as we are seeing now with the recent hominid fossils is a victory to creationist and IDologists. I feel its false but would like some better supported input to this idea. Is the Model of Evolution = The Theory of Evolution? Or should we distinguish them from each other?
Go to Message 3 - AdminPaul
Edited by AdminPaul, : Point to the right post

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPaul, posted 08-14-2007 2:35 PM EighteenDelta has replied

AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 5 (416196)
08-14-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EighteenDelta
08-14-2007 12:06 PM


I think that this is a reasonable topic but it could do with some improvements to the original post. There are some minor things like the fact that "tenant" should be "tenet" but there are some other issues I would like to see addressed.
Firstly, the use of "model" is confusing. Typically it would apply to the explanation of how species evolved rather than the reconstruction of ancestry. "The historical course of evolution" or even "phylogeny" would be better.
I also think that maybe you could expand it a little more. Maybe split it into two paragraphs and give a little more of your own thoughts.
And one point unrelated to this particular thread. I think that it would be a good idea if you trimmed your signature a bit. You've got three quotes and the longest is about the same length as the post on it's own. It really doesn't look very good on the screen if the .sig is bigger than the post - or even the same size. I suggest that you choose just one and change it from time to time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EighteenDelta, posted 08-14-2007 12:06 PM EighteenDelta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by EighteenDelta, posted 08-14-2007 3:45 PM AdminPaul has replied

EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 5 (416206)
08-14-2007 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPaul
08-14-2007 2:35 PM


Not sure if I am supposed to edit the original post or clean it up and make a second one, so I will try the later option first. Not sure if I have enough of my own opinions included, but I think my stance is pretty clear. I think my opinion is irrelevant since I am asking where others stand IMHO.
-------------
Does the Theory of evolution dissolve if one were to attack the current views on the history or time lines of species? Does radical restructuring of the current tree of evolution mean that the tenets of evolution are proved false? This relates to remarks such as made by Gould where he states that to discover a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian era would prove evolution false(granted this example is extreme). Is the currently accepted time line of Evolution of life on earth equivalent to The Theory of Evolution? Or should we distinguish them from each other?
I personally think this only leads to the fallacious logical leaps that alterations such as we are seeing now with the recent hominid fossils is a victory to creationist and IDologists. I feel its false but would like some better supported input to this idea. Do we throw the whole thing out with every new piece of evidence? I think about this every time I see the stuff about how humans and dinosaurs co-existed, yes I think its ridiculous to believe, but even if it were proved, would that negate all of evolution or just our currently accepted time line?
Evolution is dead!!!! Long live evolution!!!
-----------------------
As far as my sig, I am lazy, unimaginative and indecisive but reduced it anyways.
Edited by EighteenDelta, : not very bright

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPaul, posted 08-14-2007 2:35 PM AdminPaul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminPaul, posted 08-14-2007 3:55 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 5 (416207)
08-14-2007 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by EighteenDelta
08-14-2007 3:45 PM


Generally we'd prefer you to edit the original post. It's a bit less confusing when we promote the topic. But that'll do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by EighteenDelta, posted 08-14-2007 3:45 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 5 (416211)
08-14-2007 4:00 PM


Thread copied to the Theory of Evolution and model of evolution thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024