Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a basic, biological process
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 262 of 306 (181135)
01-27-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Quetzal
01-27-2005 9:14 AM


Re: Natural Selection
IYI
I had specifically written to Henery Morris, trying to find out if creationists "predicted" the gaps. I had read subsequently that some ICRers were dismayed in debate that evos had taken up the place of this gap as theirs. That is HOW it comes about that creos might fell disposed to place MORE significance in the word "macro" than your correct analysis lead withstanding. I find discontinuous systematics to be able to void this hermenutic AND still possibly "interpolate" the gap. But THEN you would have said that DOING THIS, would not be science. I happen to think that Gould DID go to the species level with too much imagination.
I just can figure out than, who to really associate sans debate the word "interpolate" with given that I myself suggested that CREATIONISTS might have predicted or now retrointerpolated the placements where the gaps are the same facts but different interpretations on each side of the sand in the sediment.
This was over a decade ago or so and so there has been changes. Your post is very clear and good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Quetzal, posted 01-27-2005 9:14 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Quetzal, posted 01-27-2005 7:54 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 268 of 306 (181317)
01-28-2005 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by happy_atheist
01-27-2005 8:16 PM


Re: Natural Selection (again!)
Even though evolution is largely dominated by anglosaxon scholarship I do suspect the popular appearence and use of the e-word IS differnt across the pond. We hear the word so often here in advertisments for things not biological that perhaps we do not have mostly pointers to real cases and thus have the sense of abetter criticism of it? I dont know. Full-formed might just be say, a duck with web feet, a sider that is not a bee, and the hold fast of a plant in fast moving stream and this would not relieve the burden placed on the word "order" in the post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by happy_atheist, posted 01-27-2005 8:16 PM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by happy_atheist, posted 01-28-2005 11:00 AM Brad McFall has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 274 of 306 (181637)
01-29-2005 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by happy_atheist
01-28-2005 11:00 AM


Re: Natural Selection (again!)
Thanks very much for your perspective. I am always interested in hearing how the word is taken over there by you. I dont really think there are national differences of organacism as some elite here, at Harvard etc, think, but instead just different relations of apperception and will are likely being differentially taught. Hearing from you has helped me a bit on this. I THEN try to think about continental philosophy but that is not for this thread etc as indeed the poster responded above in proper context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by happy_atheist, posted 01-28-2005 11:00 AM happy_atheist has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024