RE: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 13:06:12 BST

Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Dealing with S/O"

Previous message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Evolution of levels"
In reply to: abahn@comcast.net: "Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?"
Next in thread: abahn@comcast.net: "RE: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Fish (Spencer) and Andy,

OK, so we seem to agree there is absolutely nothing in the world but
theories, and all theories (including Darwinism) are open to question. So
this is just the usual circular argument bootstrap problem again - no
absolute foundations anywhere.

Moving on however - pragmatically - which bits of Darwinism (my key,
succinct statement of it) don't fit your own thoughtful experience about
what's true in the world.

(I find none, and I've read Gould, Gell-Mann, Dawkins, Jones, Blackmore,
Goodwin, etc - people who are far from unanimous agreement. See here
http://www.psybertron.org/2003_03_01_archive.html#90521661 for example. Goo
and lightning have nothing to do with Darwin BTW - again I apologise for
constantly defending Darwin, but mis-representation is something that winds
me up. And to think, I didn't vote for Darwin in the BBC's "Greatest Briton"
poll.)

Ian.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of abahn@comcast.net
Sent: 15 September 2003 05:02
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?

Spencer,

You said:
"If evolution was SIMPLY the "survival of the fittest/survival of the
highest
quality," I would agree. But to think that millions/billions of years ago
some goo got zapped by lightning and created that which would bring about
philosophy, science, and the MOQ takes a bit more imagination than we are
asked for. Actually, we aren't asked anything at all, except for total
adherance by those that believe their credentials make their words worth
more than the questions we ask or the thoughts in our heads."

Andy: WHenever anyone asks you for total adherence you should walk in the
opposite direction. The above has nothing to do with the theory of
evolution.
"Goo getting zapped by lightning"? That you should question Darwinism is
without question. But, I really don't know which people you are refering to
with the big credentials.

Nobody ever handed evolution to me as anything other than a theory. It is
all
theories all the way around. Nothing but theories, bud. Evolution and the
rest
of it. So you just got to find some good theories, work them over, revise
'em,
find some new theories, create a few additions, and then hand them off to
someone else as new theory. All there is to it.

Regards,
Andy

> "It took the work of many to establish speciation mechanisms, genetics
etc,
> but the core fact is clear. No?"
>
> I suppose some of my own upbringing and subsequent research and education
> come into play when talking "evolution" so forgive me if I don't make much
> sense...I'm good at that.
>
> My problem with evolution is the fact that it is handed to us on a silver
> platter, complete with "evidence" supporting it, but forgetting to include
> that it is merely a theory. IF evolution was "clear," there would not be
so
> much interest in the debates surrounding it. I don't just mean the
mystical
> interpretations and arguments. e.g. Creationism.
>
> If evolution was SIMPLY the "survival of the fittest/survival of the
highest
> quality," I would agree. But to think that millions/billions of years ago
> some goo got zapped by lightning and created that which would bring about
> philosophy, science, and the MOQ takes a bit more imagination than we are
> asked for. Actually, we aren't asked anything at all, except for total
> adherance by those that believe their credentials make their words worth
> more than the questions we ask or the thoughts in our heads.
>
> There are intellectuals at the same knowledge/experience/education level
as
> those that purport evolution that disagree with it...based solely on
> scientific reasoning/experimentation/evidence...therefore, in the halls of
> scientific/intellectual thought, the core facts are NOT clear...thus, my
> problem with thinking that it is.
>
> Spencer Bailey
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 4:38 PM
> Subject: RE: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?
>
>
> > Fish,
> > Which bit of "evolution by natural selection, survival by fitness for
the
> > environment over many generations of the organism" don't you buy ?
> > Ian
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> > [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Fish O. A. Stick
> > Sent: 15 September 2003 01:59
> > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > Subject: Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Spencer
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:21 AM
> > Subject: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?
> >
> >
> > > Sorry if this is all cleared-up but I've been away from the forum on
> > holiday
> > > for almost 2 weeks and have just been catching up today. I saw a long
> > debate
> > > on the rights and wrongs of Darwinism in there somwhere. Surely the
> facts
> > of
> > > Darwinism are clear, whatever groundwork others did before Darwin, and
> > > however much others have extended its understanding since.
> > >
> > > Darwin's undisputed genius was to suggest evolution by natural
> selection,
> > > survival by fitness for the environment over many generations of the
> > > organism, whatever causes the original novelty (mutation). It took the
> > work
> > > of many to establish speciation mechanisms, genetics etc, but the core
> > fact
> > > is clear. No ?
> > >
> > > Ian Glendinning
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>

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

Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Dealing with S/O"
Previous message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Evolution of levels"
In reply to: abahn@comcast.net: "Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?"
Next in thread: abahn@comcast.net: "RE: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 13:07:46 BST