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

From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 03:58:20 BST

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD Dealing with S/O pt 2"

    Jonathan,

    > 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.

    No argument. I only mean by "species come into existence", that there were
    no horses and now there are horses, there were dinosaurs, and now there
    aren't.

     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.

    I haven't disputed their occurrence, in fact I explicitly said they are
    real.

    > IMNSHO, this provides a perfectly adequate basis for understanding how
    > biological diversity arises.

    Biological diversity yes, growth in complexity more dubiously. Sentience,
    no. Since materialism requires the last of these, and (given spacetime
    assumptions) sentience cannot arise from non-sentient material, why assume
    the immaterial is irrelevant in the
    first two?

    Please note that I am not saying that biologists should be doing anything
    different as far as their science goes. They should be looking for material
    and efficient causes for change, since that is all they can look for, as
    scientists. It is the metaphysical addition that I object to. For biology it
    makes no real difference. Psychology is another matter.

    - Scott

    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 : Mon Sep 08 2003 - 04:00:42 BST