On another forum I was debating a fellow evolutionist which believes the Great Chain of Being concept. I have seen claims (mainly from the late S.J. Gould) that evolution disproves the Great Chain of Being. Is he right? How do evolution disprove the Great Chain of Being?
[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 06-07-2002]
I know that. The guy I'm debating is *supposed* to be an evolutionist, however his views are largely philosophical and not biological. He said that evolution confirms the Great Chain of Being, thereby validating his philosophical stance of perennialism. Gould in one of his books (or essays?) did something about the GCB, however I don't know how (or why) he said that evolution disproves GCB. I understand that ToE+GCB=Social Darwinism... maybe the philosophical folks (Nietzsche, etc.) are the real hijackers of ToE?
Anyway, what I am looking for is to know how evolution disproves GCB.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal: 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.[/B][/QUOTE]
Teilhard de Chardin's Alpha--Omega evolution. It's a pity that this interesting, religion-friendly concept is unscientific, but science's all about objectivism and cruel logic...
OK, I want to make the debate straight. My opposition states that progress can be defined in neural complexity and stages of consciousness. He considers that his definition is the position of many scientists.