Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 12:49:35 BST

  • Next message: Richard Loggins: "Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)"

    Jonathna
    Sure, Darwinian research programme is
    interesting, let it keep going, but I am concerned
    that not enough people/research funds are thinking
    out of this box.

    DM
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <jonathan.marder@newmail.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 11:25 AM
    Subject: RE: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

    > Hi Scott, Andy, Dave M. and all,
    >
    > SCOTT said:
    > I don't know of a single case where one species has been
    > observed to come into existence due solely to random genetic mutation and
    > natural selection. In fact, I doubt that one could ever determine that:
    the
    > doubter could always say, how do you know there were no other factors
    > involved?
    >
    > JONATHAN replies:
    > Clearly, Scott seems to be under a misconception as to how species "come
    > into existence".
    > The idea that species definitions are inherent in nature though, is
    > completely wrong. What constitutes a species, and when a "new" species
    > should be recognised is a decision taken by consensus of the biological
    > research community. The biological literature is full of this. I just did
    a
    > search for the keyword "new species" in the PubMed database, and came up
    > with over 4000 hits, 177 of them papers published this year (2003).
    > The fact that genetic mutation and selection occur is indisputable - both
    > have been observed and documented.
    > IMNSHO, this provides a perfectly adequate basis for understanding how
    > biological diversity arises.
    >
    > DAVID M.
    > No evolution without Darwin this is just bad information,
    > check your history of science, e.g. A.R.Wallace. There have also been many
    > other evolutionary theorists. See Peter Bowler's book on the history of
    > evolution. Darwin is only a few
    > chapters. Sure Darwin is almost the only game in town now, and this is
    > causing a great stagnation in thinking.
    >
    > JONATHAN replies:
    > According to Occam's razor, Darwin's model is the winning paradigm - this
    is
    > the model that biologists have accepted by consensus, and I know of no
    > simpler or more persuasive explanation. Rather than "causing a great
    > stagnation in thinking", the opposite is true - there has been a
    tremendous
    > flowering in biology since Darwin, that was boosted enormously by Watson
    and
    > Crick's discovery of a hereditary mechanism. Without the double helix (or
    > something similar), Darwin may well have ended up in the scientific
    dustbin,
    > but without Darwin, Watson and Crick would have been a mere blip on the
    > landscape of structural chemistry.
    >
    > Jonathan
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 - 12:55:56 BST