From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 00:55:21 BST
Hi David,
You said: "Well evolution means that life forms have changed over time. Pretty
sure they have evolved from more simple to complex, and that species have dies
out and others have emerged. Darwinism=a mechanism to account for this
evolution.
And I am with Karl Poepper when he says that it is clearly not a testable
scientific hypothesis, but has proved to be a useful research programme."
Andy: A useful research programme is good enough for me.
You said: "When I say read the science journals I mean that I am less
optimistic than you that science has come to a theoretical dead end with
Darwin."
Andy: I don't know where I said or implied this. If I did I take it back.
You said: "I think the success of Darwinism is simply the success of accepting
that we need to explains biology in the context of evolution. Yes, Darwinism has
greatly added to our knowledge. Yes, Darwin was a great scientist."
Andy: That is all I am saying. And that his influence has benefitted science
not detracted from it.
You said: "and the book that ends with Darwin for a few chapters is about the
idea of evolution that was around for a some time before Darwin. But we are not
too aware of the work in Germany in the English speaking world -never mind."
Andy: Well, if we need to do some revisionist history, then someone can do
that. I don't have any idea of the Germans or the Japanese, or the Chinese.
Perhaps some Native American also proposed an evolutionary theory. I am sure
this is all true. But Darwin is responsible for the evolutionary theory we know
today. At least, that is how history has handed it to us.
You said: "But, like a number of other people, I am not convinced by random
mutations and naural selection. Sure natural selection will eliminate species
and individuals. But random mutations?! RANDOM!"
Andy: I am not convinced either. There are other components of random in
evolutionary theory other than just mutations. And I am unsure of the notion of
random. But that is another topic.
You said: "Which a couple of wild life programmes."
Andy: Do you mean watch?
You said: "The complexity of bio-chemistry and life is staggering. Ever done any
engineering and tried to get the stuff to work? Now imagine that you only do it
by putting the parts in a box shaking them and trying again if they are no good.
Andy: A little confused here. I am also staggered by the complexity of life.
Everyday. What is the point?
You said: "Go ahead I'll give you five million years to try. In the future they
will laugh that we thought this a few hundred years after we thought the earth
was flat."
Andy: And a few hundred years after that someone else will be laughing at them
for their theories. People laugh at me right now--every day. Why should we be
concerned what people will care in five hundred years.
You said: "Fine, you find Darwinism convincing. I do not."
Andy: I don't find it convincing as in it is true. I find it has been a very
useful theory.
You said: "PS I am obviously not a fundmentalist."
Andy: Thank God!!--uh.. I mean, Darwin. :)
You ask: "How could Darwinism ever produce animal instincts?"
Andy: Darwinism doesn't produce animal instincts, but some theorists have use
Darwinism to explain them.
You Ask: "How do genes produce behaviour?"
Andy: I don't think Genes produce behavior. Genes store information.
Darwinism explains how this information is passed over generations. Jeez, Now I
really got to think--remember. There are two types of information passed in
...Oh, damn! Now I have to dig out my old textbooks. Where the hell are they?
You said: "I think this is a confusion of levels. That Darwinists try to explain
such things show that they are very confused."
Andy: Or we all are.
You said: "A wasp knows how to paralyse a caterpiller without killing it so its
young can grow inside it and feed off of it. Random mutations?! The wasp seems
to have precision knowledge of the nervous system of the caterpiller."
Andy: Amazing isn't it. Now these are the examples I remember Sheldrake
giving. And I also believe there has been some consensus in the journals or the
evolutionary community, that natural selection in evolution can explain these
precise traits in nature just fine. I am not going to. because I can't. Just
like I can't tell you how chinamen don't fall off the bottom of the Earth. I
will let the physicists and the biologists do that.
You said: "I do not believe in design as a useful explanation either. Not just
so confident that we have really got to grips with what is going on here."
Andy: Of course we don't.
You said: "Most people cannot think out of the Darwinism box because there is no
other game in town."
Andy: I am waiting for someone to suggest another game. Until then I will the
most useful thing we have.
You said: Don't mean its right.
Andy: I never said it was
You said: "There are a number of well known problems with neo-Darwinism but
there a very few suggestions as to how they can be addressed."
Andy: So what are we to do then?
You suggest: You should read Peter Bowler's book on the history of the idea of
evolution, it is very interesting to see what people thought before Darwin in
the same way as it is good to go back to the Greeks to look at a non-Christian
perspective.
Andy: I am sure it would be good. I might put it in the pile. But, time is
short.
You said: "My disbelief about our current understanding of biology is similar to
what the cosmolgists feel about the laws of physics when they refer to the
anthropicprinciple."
Andy: uh?
You said: I would also recommend Prigogine's The End Of Certainty as putting a
big question mark over how the different levels of complex systems are not fully
dependent on the lower ones. If this is the case how can genes cause their
structure, if they don't how can the selection of genes explain evolution? As R
Sheldrake says, genes make enzymes, do enzymes build bodies?"
Andy: I read Prigogine. I don't remember him endorsing Sheldrake. I have made
the point about levels of complex systems many times. YOur questions on genes
is a good one? I do not know the answer.
You said: We really do not know as much as some people imply.
Andy: definately agreed!
You said: "Most of Darwinism is 'plausible speculation' by their
own admission. It is annoying.
Andy: Why do you find that annoying? I would call that integrity and honesty.
You said: "We know evolution must have taken place but we cannot come up with a
good explanation for it."
Andy: We have come up with a good explanation for it. We can improve upon it
though.
You said: "See the book by the anthropologist Jeremy Narby for a possible was in
which information is passed from the environment to genes, rather than by
slection only."
Andy: Please, enough with the reading list already. I have a library overe
here of unread books I need to get to.
You said: "He comes up with his strange suggestion by asking certain S.American
tribes how they got such amazing knowledge of the properties of plants."
Andy: Sounds interesting. But I don't think this would refute darwinism or
make it unuseful
You said: "darwin, yes great, had its day, I am more interested in what are the
possible future developments in natural science."
Andy: I am interested in that also. I don't find the interests mutually exclusive.
You suggest..again: " You should also read some of Robert M Young as he is a
world authority on the history of Darwinism, here's his site:
http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/index.html"
Andy: Thanks for the suggestion. I am always looking for an authority. But,
really, is this how you go through life. SOmeone says something and you
recommend they should read so and so. I mean, I have gotten a lot of useful
knowledge out of books. I love books. I have my head buried in a book more
often than I have it buried between my wife's thighs, and don't think she hasn't
made mention of this amidst threats for divorce. You have read some things and
I have read lther things. Neither of us is any closer to any truths. We are
not getting closer. When Darwinism is replaced we will be no closer to the
truth of the matter. We will only have found a theory which better helps us to
cope. And IU will rejoice with you when that day comes. In fact it has already
come and it changes everyday.
Thanks
Andy
regards
Davdi Morey
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 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 01:11:19 BST