Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
40 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 37 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 877,936 Year: 9,684/23,288 Month: 699/1,544 Week: 91/322 Day: 11/80 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Chain of Being
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 29 (11132)
06-07-2002 9:35 AM


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]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 06-07-2002 9:48 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 06-07-2002 12:55 PM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 29 (11234)
06-10-2002 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John
06-07-2002 9:56 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John, posted 06-07-2002 9:56 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 06-10-2002 4:25 AM Andya Primanda has responded
 Message 10 by John, posted 06-11-2002 11:49 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 29 (11280)
06-11-2002 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Quetzal
06-10-2002 4:25 AM


[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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 06-10-2002 4:25 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 06-11-2002 3:53 AM Andya Primanda has responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 29 (11461)
06-13-2002 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Quetzal
06-11-2002 3:53 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 06-11-2002 3:53 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 06-13-2002 7:34 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Zhimbo, posted 06-13-2002 3:42 PM Andya Primanda 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 © 2020