From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 18:28:04 BST
Hi
Problem is Darwinism is allergic to purpose.
It explains nothing about what life is, except
negatively, i.e. what it here has not been killed off.
The positive side is random mutation, so keep shaking that
bag of genes and see if you can make a cat. You see purpose
exists in nature, e.g. human behaviour, and perhaps it is
anthropomorphic to think that nature can't make use of it
elsewhere. Of course, Darwinism has a role in evolution,
but how much? Can't help thinking not that much, just not
convincing, just so simplistic. Imagine you were a gene programmer
in a box trying to write a programme to find food. You don't
have any idea of what food is any good, or what sort of robotic body you
have,
etc,etc. Now you can write any program you like but the only information
that
gets passed back to you is it worked/it did not work. What! What sense can
this make.
Some decent info has got to go from environment to the gene programmer.
I am not saying design but I just can't buy the central dogma of info not
going from protein's to genes, only the other way. There has been some
recent
questioning of the mutation gap, where too much mutation =no evolution
because
advantages are not retained, and too little-no survival advantages are
discovered.
And no mechanism for getting into the narrow range where Darwin could work.
Darwin is the most established idea re:evolution but I am just not convinced
it
gets anywhere near complete.
regards
David M
and I swore to myself I would not get dragged into this one again!
Well done the Darwin gang, they want to build a house and they have
purchased the land, long way to go yet!
little=
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?
> Hi David M.,
>
> I agree it only tells part of the story, but I think a very important
part. As
> far as seeking a new MOQ context, the quote from Pirsig seems to imply
this is
> not necessary. Pirsig states the MOQ addresses both of our concerns by
"uniting
> these opposed doctrines within a larger metaphysical structure."
>
> Go to go. The Darwinian fan club is meeting. We have lots of work to do
if we
> are to keep the public emmersed under Darwin's world-view. :-)
>
> Andy
> > Hi
> > The quote from Pirsig is good, I agree with it
> > very much, but I think I would like the Darwinian
> > fan club to explain to me how Darwin is compatible
> > with teleology? My answer would be that it onlt tells
> > a small part of the evolution story, we need to seek
> > a new MOW context, unfortunately Darwin sits in a
> > SOM context, hence it cannot talk about purpose
> > without reducing it to half of the SOM dualism, the
> > matter half.
> >
> > Regards
> > David M
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <abahn@comcast.net>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?
> >
> >
> > > Hi Bo,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the Pirsig quote on Darwinian theory.
> > >
> > > You said:
> > > "The above solution - although valid - will never be
understood/accepted
> > as your
> > > message and a lot of similar inputs up through the years indicate.
From
> > > Spencer's and Andy's comments it sounds as if Darwin either must be
wrong
> > or right."
> > >
> > > Andy:
> > > I am just wondering what comments of mine would suggest that Darwin
must
> > be
> > > either right or wrong. My thoughts have always been that Darwinian
theory
> > is a
> > > very useful theory and helps us explain much about our experience. I
find
> > > Pirsig's thoughts you provided from Lila very illuminating on this. I
> > have no
> > > quarrel with accepting his solution at all other than his equating
> > "fittest" and
> > > "quality" with "best" at the beginning of the quote. But, he goes on
to
> > clear
> > > this up with his discussion on "undefined quality", "undefined
fitness"
> > and
> > > "dynamic quality at work." This all works for me.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > ps (David M.) You see. Pirsig does address Darwinism in Lila. And
from
> > the
> > > quote provided by Bo, it appears he has no quarrels with it at all.
:-)
> > >
> > > > Ian, and all interested parties.
> > > >
> > > > 14 Sep. you wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > All cleared-up! Sure, haven't you read LILA? But speaking of
evolution
> > > > vs creation. When this discussion was young we spent a lot of time
> > > > talking about the inorganic level because the current cosmological
> > > > theory - the Big Bang - is just as controversial as Darwin's is on
> > life,
> > > > and the MOQ solution the same (even if Pirsig doesn't treat that
> > > > issue) as the one below on biology.
> > > >
> > > > ................ LILA (Chapter 11 page 148) ................
> > > > "Survival of the fittest" is meaningful only when "fittest" is
equated
> > with
> > > > "best," which is to say,"Quality." And the Darwinians don't mean
just
> > > > any old quality, they mean undefined Quality! As Mayr's article
makes
> > > > clear, they are absolutely certain there is no way to define what
that
> > > > "fittest" is. Good! The "undefined fittest" they are defending is
> > identical
> > > > to Dynamic Quality. Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work.
> > > > There is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality
> > > > and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Neither is there a quarrel
> > > > between the Metaphysics of Quality and the "teleological" theories
> > > > which insist that life has some purpose. What the Metaphysics of
> > > > Quality has done is unite these opposed doctrines
> > > > within a larger metaphysical structure that accommodates both of
> > > > them without contradiction".(end quote)
> > > >
> > > >
.......................................................................
> > > >
> > > > The above solution - although valid - will never be
> > > > understood/accepted as your message and a lot of similar inputs up
> > > > through the years indicate. From Spencer's and Andy's comments it
> > > > sounds as if Darwin either must be wrong or right.
> > > >
> > > > Accordingly I have chosen to see the Darwinist vs Creationist - as
well
> > > > as the Big Bang and other science vs religion disagreements - as
part
> > > > of the Intellect-Society struggle and we know that these will never
be
> > > > resolved from their own premises, rather DISSOLVED by the MOQ
> > > > which sees this intrinsic level relationship.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely
> > > > Bo
> > > >
> > > > PS
> > > > You concluded:
> > > > > 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 ?
> > > >
> > > > I agree, Darwin's intellectual-objective explanation is a level
higher
> > > > than the social-mythological one, but the Quality tenet of the
higher
> > > > level out of the former must be heeded ...here as elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 19:00:56 BST