From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 22:33:03 BST
Hi Scott,
You said: "I've said many times what I mean by Darwinism, and I do *not* call it
"evolution". I call it evolution by means of random genetic mutation and
natural selection."
Andy: Ok. Well, then. I think this meaning of Darwinism should be expanded
100-fold. I don't think random genetic mutations is the only thesis for
speciation proposed by theorist who call themselves Darwinists.
Your reply to my example from Mayr: " As I've said, I do not deny that new forms
can spring from old within a space-time system. But I consider it implausible
that this is how species differentiation takes place. As a computer scientist I
know how fragile computer systems are. So this is the old objection to Darwinism
that chance mutations are almost always less likely to result in survival, to
which the Darwinist reply is: given enough time the unfavorable odds will
eventually be overcome. So the anti-Darwinists attempt to calculate the odds,
and come up with less than 1 in 10 to the 150th (a number greater than the
estimated number of particles in the universe, multiplied by the estimated age
of the universe in Plank units) for some particular formation. The Darwinists
say that that calculation is wrong."
Andy: I geuss I didn't provide enough information on Mayr's theory. Always
keep in mind, I am far from a biologist. How I pick this stuff up I don't even
know. I keep waiting for someone like Jonathon to jump in and correct my
statements pertaining to Darwin and evolution, but since no one has yet, I geuss
I must be getting it at least part way right. Mayr's theory on founder
populations does not rely on random genetic mutations. It only needs (1)some
random genetic drift from generation to generation. And (2) some geographic
boundaries to separate memebers of the same species. Natural selection does the
rest. Over time two species are present instead of the one we began with.
You ask: "So I acknowledge that, while it sure looks implausible, that doesn't
mean impossible. But I consider that since,
a) it doesn't matter how complex a spatio-temporal system is, it still can't be
conscious, and
b) No science depends on Darwinism being true (something you haven't responded
to, by the way), then why maintain such an implausible theory?"
Andy: I agree that no science depends on Darwinism being true. No science
depends on economic theory being true. No science depends on Einstien being
true. We maintain theoris because it is useful to do so.
Thanks,
Andy
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 22:33:58 BST