From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 12:46:01 BST
Hi Andy
Fine.
The 'annoying ' reference is that it is annoying that Darwinism
is the best theory we have in orthodox science, that we want
to discuss the way evolution effects life but we are stuck with
an inadequate theory when we try to do so. The problem
I suspect is that we are prepared to talk about human beings acting with
purpose but for metaphysical reasons we do not seem to think that purpose
plays a role anywhere else in nature. The point about Sheldrake is that he
proposes a way in which we can begin to see how purpose and dynamic
driven reality might find its way into laying down static patterns in a way
more likely to produce evolution than the information passed in genes.
Genes according to neo-Darwiniam orthodoxy do not record information from
the environment in any direct way, they only mutate randomly and then pass
on those genes that happen to survive. Sheldrake asks if there is a
mechanism
for passing on onformation form one generation to the next about the
structure
of the organism at a higher level than genes. At the present time it is not
possible
to answer this question due to our limited understanding of ontogenesis and
morphogenesis.
PS I do not use the word truth, I prefer to ask plauisible explanation, and
a lot of the
problem I have with science (apart from loving it) is that it is always
talking as if closure
is around the corner, and that the current state of knowledge makes it quite
hard to believe
in something that does exist, i.e. actual human beings of everyday
experience.
Regards
DM
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> 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
>
>
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 - 12:50:15 BST