==================
Mmmmmmm, someone uses an Aristotelean/Thomist vocabulary to understand embryology and then goes on to mischaracterize the views of a list member who takes Darwin as seriously as anyone on the list as an Hegelian.
^^^^^
CB: "Nature" has new non-Aristotelean/Thomist content since Darwin. My comments are quite seriously Darwinian to boot. R u kidding ? The Hegelian comments are a joke. "Anyone on the list" is an exaggeration. I was talking about Carrol and Miles. And by the way, Carrol at least doesn't take Darwin seriously in this discussion Hmmmmmmmmmmmm back at u.
^^^^
We won't even go into the referential problems that have cropped up in the last 15 or so years around the term "gene" or, gasp, "nature."
http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/
^^^^^^^ CB: We won't go into the problems that have cropped up with the terms "referential problems" in the last century or more. "Nature" is the least of your problems. Don't u have referential problems with "ecology" , too ? However u think u get out of the referential problems with "ecology" just use the same method and presto u'll be out of the problems with "nature". Oh and no , there r not really epistemological problems with "objective reality" , unless u just want to keep spinning around in Kantian confusion and agnosticism and doubt, so that u can do philosophy instead of changing the world. It was Hegel who put this Kantian self-debilitating mental mas...u know to task. Things-in-themselves r knowable by the test of practice, even as all our knowledge is of relative ,not absoulute, true. And See Theses on Feuerbach, especially # 2 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm