>>> t byfield <tbyfield at panix.com> 10/06/99 01:11PM >>>
> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 09:46:34 -0400 From: "Charles
> Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
>
> Isn't it true that biologists have no direct proof of any
> specific trait of any animals being developed by natural
> selection ? Is Darwinism falsifiable as formulated ?
yes and no, respectively, with the caveat that your second question would have been better put: 'is darwinism falsifi- able as understood (by me)?' and the answer to that would be: it's hard to say...
((((((((((
Charles: Is it falsifiable as formulated by you ?
Better yet , is it falsifiable as formulated by Darwin in _The Origin of Species_ ?
(((((((((((
the meaning of 'trait' is hardly self-evident. a hand with an opposable thumb is a trait, as are the convolutions in your brain, as is a latent characteristic, as is DNA that serves no known purpose, or maybe serves no purpose at all.
(((((((((((((
Charles: What is your meaning of "trait" ?
(((((((((((
> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 10:45:46 -0400
> From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
> Charles: I mean empirical proof. Yes, I recall this
> experiment, but , you know, Darwinism claims to explain
> the origin of every or many, many species of any type
> going back to the beginnings of life. There is no way to
> prove empirically that such a delicate and precise
> "instrument" as the eye of many species( to give one of
> Darwin's examples) actually developed by the mechanism of
> natural selection because critical elements of the
> empirical evidence are gone.
afaik, darwinism claims to explain *some of the dynamics that govern differentiation*, which is quite different from the theological debates you seem to be pursuing.
(((((((((((((
Charles: Well, don't worry , you know it all ,so you will save us from my theological debate. Have you met Pope Angela, Bishop T ?
Sorry to offend your highness.
> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 12:02:20 -0400
> From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
> Purely contingent on what ? Random mutations ? Is
> "preordained" the logical equivalen of your "teleology" ?
i think darwin was more interested in theorizing the machanisms that govern historical morphology than in justifying the entire world, of which random mutation is only a subset.
((((((((((((((
Charles: You are so smart. and so obscure in the way you present your enormous wisdom.
Oh and where do you infer that I think Darwin is justifying the entire world ? If you are proving that I am so wrong, such an obviously inaccurate portrayal of what I say makes it easy to demonstrate your comments don't touch what I say. You may know it all, but your posts get kind of oinky.
((((((((((((((((
Charles:> But once a trait arises as an expression of genes, it's
> recurrence is not contingent, but determined. There is no
> need for positing God/Goddess for this.
it's not at all determined: genetic expression is hardly as mechanical as you make out--it's contingent on count- less factors, as is the interaction between the results of that expression and its environment.
(((((((((((((
Charles: I didn't say fully determined by genes, oh genius.
You may think I don't know anything about this subject, but your little quips don't prove it at all.
(((((((((((((((((((9
> The notion that a trait arises within an organism and is
> passed on to the next generation as result of the needs of
> the parent organism is LaMarckian , not Darwinian.
<sigh>
(((((((((
Charles: Oh yes, the above is so stupid. What does one do in the presence of an intellect as superior to mine as yours ? Maybe bow down ( and spit).
(((((((((((((
> I don't see how Darwinian analyses make any teleological
> error, as you describe it. It is just not a common problem
> for Darwinists.
carrol didn't say anything of the sort.
(((((((((((((
Charles: Carrol and I talk about this all of the time.
I know you don't care if we communicate on this issue, and , of course, you know it all and I know nothing, but in the end , I will laugh at your arrogance, because I know a lot more about it than you think, t izziness.
CB
offlist: Carrol, what is this one's problem ? Seems to think of itself as an oracle: knows everything , but too superior to give it out except in mysterious quips and riddles. in such a t - izzy.