Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is more faith than religion?
TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 30 (78973)
01-16-2004 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Brad McFall
11-24-2003 11:23 PM


Ok, my opinion is that any belief of beginning origin has a leap of faith sooner or later, when evidence can not prove something.
open to comments....
[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 11-24-2003 11:23 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 05-08-2004 12:44 PM TruthDetector has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 30 (106600)
05-08-2004 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by TruthDetector
01-16-2004 10:34 PM


Richard Lewontin claimed that organism CANNOT (and he meant no matter the evidence I take it) be extricated from its melilu and G. Gladyshev says something someWHAT similiar in that the organism at best is but cells quasi-closed ( I will be having an extensive post later to detail all of this with two examples (one in frogs and the other lichens) but if in this case where NO evidence can prove it, I will be working where once some evidence is in IF, then this will open metaphysicsal areas FROM EXISTING phenomenology (that exists today for instance)where not only IS NO LEAP OF FAITH needed. ( I will be dissucing the word "adaptation" and showing(hopefully) how adaptation to Gladyhev's law can come from TWO genetic sources thus Lewontin will be wrong both about the moral relations of the Darwinian indivually (possibly) and where your question will reappear in our convestaion (if the genes involved get empirically determined and not merely have the ideas presented as I will...)and as to the inability to seperate organism and ENVIRORNMENT (milelu) for the Gladsyhev princle can operate population gentically in any independet manner EVEN WHILE THIS KIND OF COADAPTION (I will describe) IS DIFFERNT THAN CO-EVOLUTION. Some issues of co-evolution however could be part and parsled FROM the adaption in macrothermodynanics but after the data is in there is still space IN THIS TIME to find that faith can be useful further when the synthesis is integrated with even larger levels of selection (as IF GOULD WERE CORRECT) (I doubt that that will survive but it might)(there is not apatation/exaptation suffiently on this explanation I am creating.).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by TruthDetector, posted 01-16-2004 10:34 PM TruthDetector has not replied

  
Monsieur_Lynx
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 30 (109947)
05-23-2004 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brad McFall
05-02-2002 11:19 AM


I'm noticing that though this forum appears to be a fair way to discuss evolution and creation, there is this tendancy to label creationists as "fundamentalists" or "ignorant". People have even taken to ad hominem attacks, where a view that suggests a common designer to all life is ridiculed, rather than analyzed.
Okay, I'll attempt to show some reasoning behind this ID view. I've studied evolution for a while, and got fed up with the "evidence" for it. Why is it considered faith-based?
1)So, I'm sure many of you have heard of the observed instances of evolution. Bacteria evolve over time--they develop immunity (so if someone wants to make a dumb argument that asexual populations remain constant, they never change, they're wrong!). That is, bacteria produce other kinds of bacteria. No one really disputes this--however, if this is used as an argument that *all* life is descended from a single cell, well, then there's a problem.
Or for example, speciation. We've observed the formation of new species. For example, I believe a population of plants was produced that couldn't mate with the original population, and hence must be called a new species. Okay, so this is wonderful for a creationist view--now, rather than saying that God created every conceivable species of beetle out there, you could simply say that once a couple of beetles were created, over time they evolved, they produced different kinds of beetles, even new species of them.
Yet again, it's the same difficulty, showing that plants produce plants, or that beetles come from other kinds of beetles is hardly evidence that trees, rabbits, iguanas, humans, and fungi all evolved from a single cell. I believe this later statement is something that has to be taken on faith.
2)Transitional forms--so, for a creationist, assumptions such as the first single-celled creatures somehow evolved into 2 sexes, or somehow evolved into multicellular creatures, assumptions such as these don't need to be made. Rather, they would probably take either the Hindu/Muslim/Judeo-Christian account of creation, and say well, once we have 2 of every basic kind(ok, for bacteria & protists, 1 of every kind would suffice), then we simply let each population be fruitful and multiply. Gaps such as how egg-laying reptiles produced mammals that give birth to live young, well they don't need to be explained at all. We don't need to assume that transitional forms between mammals and reptiles existed. Nor do we need to assume that all mammals share a common ancestor (if they did, would the common ancestor lay eggs or produce live young, or maybe some weird cross between the 2?)
3)So faith is required on both sides of the debate. Whereas a creationist would see similarities of DNA and similarities of fossils and look for a common designer behind it [what evidence is there for this?], an evolutionist would see the same similarities and **believe** that they had all descended from a common ancestor [what evidence is there for this]
4)Unfortunately the origin of life is something that we cannot directly observe, so yes it is a matter of faith. If the objection is raised, we can see the results of evolution. Well, we can take those results (homologous structures, fossils, microevolution) and use it to support the creationist view as well.
I realize I haven't been entirely fair to the evolutionary standpoint. Yes, it's quite easy to poo-poo evolution--"haha, they say iguanas, trees, humans, just about any damned creature they can think of came from a single cell. They can't explain how males and females or even multicellular organisms evolved from a single cell, but they INSIST it happened!! Let's go find those missing links!"
But hopefully both sides are more mature than that, and can actually analyze it [more importantly analyze what's meant by "evolution"]. The purpose should be to come up with a rational account of how life got here, and hopefully there will be more of that on this forum.
Cheers,
Monsieur Lynx

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brad McFall, posted 05-02-2002 11:19 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by AdminNosy, posted 05-23-2004 1:17 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2004 5:44 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied
 Message 25 by Brad McFall, posted 05-25-2004 5:52 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 19 of 30 (109948)
05-23-2004 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Monsieur_Lynx
05-23-2004 1:00 AM


Welcome
Welcome, M. Lynx!
I hope you enjoy your visits here. Your post is certainly well worded and organized. That bodes well for your time here.
Please review the forum guidelines.
Unfortunately you've accidently stepped on on already. Your post is not particularly on the topic here. You did mention faith in it but I think that's not the main point(s) of your post.
Please take the ID part to the appropriate theads in Intelligent Design (or propose a new topic of your own). Likewise any comments about the origin of life can be discusses in that forum.
I think you'll find that all your points have already been brought up in existing threads (though perhaps not as well stated).
Others, please refrain from jumping on the points here directly.
I think that that comments about being "taken on faith" might be fair game here but direct refutation of the specific points would best be referred to the appropriate threads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 05-23-2004 1:00 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 05-24-2004 6:30 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 30 (109961)
05-23-2004 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Monsieur_Lynx
05-23-2004 1:00 AM


That is, bacteria produce other kinds of bacteria. No one really disputes this--however, if this is used as an argument that *all* life is descended from a single cell, well, then there's a problem.
Obviously, nobody makes that assertion. Why would they? What would the adaptive power of bacteria have to do with the relationships between organisms?
Common heredity is inferred from a number of evidences, including genetic evidence, taxonomic evidence, and the improbable convergence of cladistics and stratiography. But it's not inferred from the ability of bacteria to adapt.
Okay, so this is wonderful for a creationist view--now, rather than saying that God created every conceivable species of beetle out there, you could simply say that once a couple of beetles were created, over time they evolved, they produced different kinds of beetles, even new species of them.
Right, but that's a model that fails on a number of levels, but mostly Occam's Razor - if a model where all species decended from a number of different kinds and a model where all species decended from one kind give the same results - those results being the species we see today - why would we go with the model with more original kinds? If everything alive can be traced back to one kind, why assume there has ever been more than one kind?
Then again, if you believe that those models don't give the same results, then surely you can answer the question no creationist has ever been able to:
Given two different species, how do you determine if they're decended from the same kind, or from different kinds?
I believe this later statement is something that has to be taken on faith.
Not in the least. It's a scientific conclusion based on evidence from genetics, taxonomy, and the convergence of stratiography and cladistics.
Nor do we need to assume that all mammals share a common ancestor (if they did, would the common ancestor lay eggs or produce live young, or maybe some weird cross between the 2?)
Well, we don't need to assume that there's a transitional form between mammals and reptiles - we can observe that there are. And yes, they do lay eggs.
So faith is required on both sides of the debate.
No, there's not. At least, I don't consider it "faith" to tentatively accept conclusions that explain evidence and observation. That readiness to reject any model that becomes contradicted by evidence, which is what scientists have, is not what I would consider a characteristic of "faith."
On the other hand, the tendancy of creationists to pick the conclusion first and then ignore any data that doesn't support it is what I would consider typical of a position held by faith.
Like all science, there's no faith involved in evolution.
Unfortunately the origin of life is something that we cannot directly observe, so yes it is a matter of faith.
No more than we have to take it on "faith" that you were born of woman, in a uterus. Afer all, you don't remember, do you? And none of us were there, right?
It's simply the most likely explanation of your origin, just as evolution is the most likely origin of all species.
The purpose should be to come up with a rational account of how life got here
They've already done that, though. It's called "evolution." You should look into it - it's a lot different than what you've presented here, so I suspect you don't know all that much about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 05-23-2004 1:00 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 05-23-2004 12:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 21 of 30 (110003)
05-23-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by crashfrog
05-23-2004 5:44 AM


Life not Species
Crash, in your last two points you didn't notice that Lynx is talking about "life" not "species".
This is still just barely manageing to stay on the "faith" part of this topic. However, how it is relating to 'religion' is becoming unclear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2004 5:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2004 12:00 AM NosyNed has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 30 (110059)
05-24-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by NosyNed
05-23-2004 12:28 PM


Crash, in your last two points you didn't notice that Lynx is talking about "life" not "species".
Hrm, I guess I assumed that since his entire post described evolution as the proposition that all life shares common ancestry, his attempt to suddenly shift the goalposts was by accident.
I would presume that nobody would be dumb enough to talk about evolution as the proposition that all life shares common ancestry, and then switch horses right at the end and talk about something totally different. But then, maybe that was his intent? Who knows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 05-23-2004 12:28 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 05-24-2004 12:48 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 23 of 30 (110068)
05-24-2004 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
05-24-2004 12:00 AM


Shifting
I think he just has it all muddled up in his mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2004 12:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 24 of 30 (110212)
05-24-2004 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by AdminNosy
05-23-2004 1:17 AM


Re: Welcome
I have no time to day to try to make sure that you are NOT correct. you may be. It WAS indeed something for me to find in Pickering article on Hamilton reference to PURE KINDS relative to issues of Kantianism and non-materialist message symbolism, while Hamilton admitted he had not given the symbols of science the same sense he gave words in language but had been looking MORE himself for the scientific value OF the symbolizations.
It may be that there IS something new in the cat's linyx. I have no more time today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AdminNosy, posted 05-23-2004 1:17 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 25 of 30 (110479)
05-25-2004 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Monsieur_Lynx
05-23-2004 1:00 AM


what your cells got to do wih me!
For me it all depends on the biophysical parameterization of the cell. If the cell can not simply be explained as a sum of chemicals no matter how stabelized (like organicist biologists like to say that a kind of organism is not just the physcis and chemistry of its proximately functioning organs)(this depends on if life might have orginated in more than one place or not) the vicosity of the cell would not be determinative of any cell and there would be a category to think of form-making in that is not simply a parameter in an equation while it would be that . I would not say this is faith but in the vernacular it "does take more faith to believe as an unbeliever believes" than it did to see where the sun does shine.
That IS another reason I need.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 05-23-2004 1:00 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 26 of 30 (110484)
05-25-2004 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Martin J. Koszegi
11-24-2003 11:15 PM


Gee, I feel like kind of an ass for not responding to this. I left poor Martin hanging 6 months ago when I'm sure I intended a reply. Since the thread is now alive again....
Point #1: evolution results in the promotion of a meaningless existence.
Response: This is by no means a necessary corollary to a mechanistic understanding of the natural history which precedes us. Nor does a well-ordered and fact-based naturalistic explanation of phenomena preclude supernatural belief or any other religious system in the mind of the person who creates or uses it.
Point #2: 20 billion years is not enough time for the observed complexity to be produced at known rates of change.
Response: We observe minor changes taking place in species during periods of weeks, months and years. Evolution on some scale is thus an observable fact. You argue that the rates are not fast enough. How fast do they need to be? It is accepted that several mutations are present in each individual born.
Point #3: Reptile jaw/ear bones and transitionals.
Response: I won't excessively rip off mark24, who has posted about this topic enough to make any idiot into an expert on the process and inspired my offhand mention thereof... you can find what he's posted and learn the following: there are forms in the middle with two jaw joints, and the jaw bones were always part of the hearing system. Thus, their migration is part of a specialization process by which their chewing function was phased out and their hearing function was greatly expanded.
Point #4: Genetic and chemical composition erroneously equated.
Response: We are talking about genes which show signs of past mutations. Thus, if the formula for H20 were complex enough to bear the signature of past change, you would have a point. But it's just H20. We have a broken gene whose loss of function can be clearly identified as a particular type of random mutation. All the other apes possess the same pseudogene. This is clear evidence that the mutation was fixed in our common ancestor at a time that species had no requirement for the function provided by that gene.
Point #5: unsupported assertion merits no response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 11-24-2003 11:15 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by almeyda, posted 06-02-2004 5:36 AM zephyr has not replied
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 06-02-2004 7:14 PM zephyr has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 30 (112334)
06-02-2004 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by zephyr
05-25-2004 6:14 PM


quote:
Point #2: 20 billion years is not enough time for the observed complexity to be produced at known rates of change.
Response: We observe minor changes taking place in species during periods of weeks, months and years. Evolution on some scale is thus an observable fact. You argue that the rates are not fast enough. How fast do they need to be? It is accepted that several mutations are present in each individual born.
What changes are you speaking of? Mutations resulting in loss of information or added information. One specie turning into a whole new specie?.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by zephyr, posted 05-25-2004 6:14 PM zephyr has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 28 of 30 (112478)
06-02-2004 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by zephyr
05-25-2004 6:14 PM


POINT THIRD
OK Z, this buds for you--
Mark and I are on a joint sabbatical so I have not tied or tried to integrate my response with his pond so it's the North vs the South instead nowawaydays... I think I might even be able to suggest why some frogs DESPITE sexual selection(_on whatever expert you, I or Mark might sally by...)still call themselves to a bat's lunch plate but first the bird and frog for the reptiles breakfast IN its JAWS (which was not a long movie etc). I will guess that frog's call others to a destination but birds call others to a launching pad. In a well known book a Christian at the turn of the last century (not the immediately last, ha ha) wrote on Birds in Siberia and he spoke or rather I SHOULD say wrote, about the place a bunch of birds migrated FROM so if I am correct about the bat dividing all of this then the information carrier is a LONGITUDINAL wave that is MADE transverse in birds but only serially so in frogs such that there is a homolgy between the dewlap of the Anole and the haning turbucle of teh apodian below what in horned toads the spike on the back of the head functions to arouse during windy days above. OK "sounds" mad! but the point is I used REASON to THINK it. I did not use faith!!!!!!
There would be something faith like in thinking that this could be thought without the existence of something like a biogeographic homology and so either I MUST be discounted as a mad disgrunted non Mark communicator or else the place IN THE MIND OF A REASONABLE PERSON must be found to reflect on the same content. I leave the rest to the wandering cyborgs of the net web in the frog's or ducks' feet. It cant be in hand but you know I dont type a TOE of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by zephyr, posted 05-25-2004 6:14 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by zephyr, posted 06-03-2004 9:38 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 29 of 30 (112593)
06-03-2004 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Brad McFall
06-02-2004 7:14 PM


Re: POINT THIRD
Um.
???
Oh, and Almeyda... all those types are observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 06-02-2004 7:14 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 06-05-2004 2:24 PM zephyr has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 30 (112921)
06-05-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by zephyr
06-03-2004 9:38 AM


Re: POINT THIRD
I had said,
quote:
What is the general responsibility or response to the ICR position that taught evolution is a "religion"? The only thing I can think of is that it is then some kind of horizontal ritualized pedagogy (assuming this is not a bluff for either side). I know that one can not equate teachers of evolution and a fraternity and when the next thing I hear is that it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than creation this appears fundamentally evangelistic to me.
It can not be the case if evolution is true that it must be learned the same way as 7+5=12 because I can count to these numbers and and verify an instance. I have never been able to verify in resemblence/similarly this evolution that taugt me not this but the existence of taxogeny to which I have alluded.
I assume taxa aside that the debaters simply are trying to position concepts of the environment post-Scopes. That being the extent to which GATES considers any meaning to word "ecosystem" than the transition to an object economy it seems that NOMA is really about GOUld denying that a ding an sich exists and has nothing to do with any creative difference of Catholicism and Panbiogeography (which addresses the common line in humans) and any reformed creationism the mass of catholics may be witholding.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
and you managed to reflect on the word "type"
then I said
......
OK Z, this buds for you--
Mark and I are on a joint sabbatical so I have not tied or tried to integrate my response with his pond so it's the North vs the South instead nowawaydays... I think I might even be able to suggest why some frogs DESPITE sexual selection(_on whatever expert you, I or Mark might sally by...)still call themselves to a bat's lunch plate but first the bird and frog for the reptiles breakfast IN its JAWS (which was not a long movie etc). I will guess that frog's call others to a destination but birds call others to a launching pad. In a well known book a Christian at the turn of the last century (not the immediately last, ha ha) wrote on Birds in Siberia and he spoke or rather I SHOULD say wrote, about the place a bunch of birds migrated FROM so if I am correct about the bat dividing all of this then the information carrier is a LONGITUDINAL wave that is MADE transverse in birds but only serially so in frogs such that there is a homolgy between the dewlap of the Anole and the haning turbucle of teh apodian below what in horned toads the spike on the back of the head functions to arouse during windy days above. OK "sounds" mad! but the point is I used REASON to THINK it. I did not use faith!!!!!!
There would be something faith like in thinking that this could be thought without the existence of something like a biogeographic homology and so either I MUST be discounted as a mad disgrunted non Mark communicator or else the place IN THE MIND OF A REASONABLE PERSON must be found to reflect on the same content. I leave the rest to the wandering cyborgs of the net web in the frog's or ducks' feet. It cant be in hand but you know I dont type a TOE of it.
So let me now SAY the TOE or toe of it all. Since then then you must have thought it necessary to "correct" me??? or was that only the word for the "?" character????? It is sad that spider-man thinks none of this makes sense for it is true I dont much appreciate that kind but sense tingly spidy it does and does have...
In the Eassay on Classification, Lou-A(gassiz) said(disrespecting the vernacular use of the same word to the Mollusk ("tongue") or see also Croizat "hold fast"),"Fully to appreciate the meaning of this diagram...Again these legs may have only one toe, or two, three, four, or five toes, and the number of toes may vary between the fore and the hind legs. The classification adopted here is based upon these characters...Who can look at this diagram, and not recognize in its arragnement the combinations of thought?"
NOW, If you UNDERSTAND (you may not and there is nothing wrong with it) Croizat's Corpyus & Panbiogeography to have answered
(or created a methodology to approach any such answers...)
the last A question in section 4, "If all these relations are almost beyond the reach of the mental powers of man, and if man himself is part and parcel of the whole system, how could this system have been called into existence if there does not exist One Supreme Intelligence, as the Author of all things?"
you can be ready to COMPREHEND me in short or long versions.
So if the FISH has 5 or 11 toes/phalanges it DOES NOT matter. I will suggest that the ordinal number of birthPLACES (in question by A himself but written without info of Mendel on species change IN GARDEN or COUNTRY)(some ONE at least such place on Earth) OCCURED by THERMAL CURRENTS chaning the spatial difference of igneous, metamorhic and sedimentary rocks into the generational difference (by cause and effect) of dominance and recessiveness and that this is due to the INTERACTIVITY of organic and inorganic temporal hierarchies (Gladsyhev, "It is easy to verify that the principle of substance stability can be applied to monotypic atoms"). In other words becuse of the layered nature of sedimentary rocks relative to the ChANGEd atoms in metamorphic rock compared to igneous rock in a "SPOT" (not Noah's Ark) on Earth the thermal currents which change the relation of rotation and revolution to CHEMCIAL EQUILIBRIA by electromotive force is the social cause of the disagreement about "centers of origin" in biogeography and ARE the same particles Mendel found in the garden area.
We still need to know if the chemical equilibriums of the rocks FACTUALLY results in contiguites of sexual selective length such that resultant electricity can circuit on thermal contact (rotation of the Earth) but the idea that the number of toes is a direct result of the equilibirum of organic and inorganic temporal hierachies seems possible when not rather more fundamentally detailing the difference of dominance and recessive for any cell in the sequence that the categories of rocks is generationally spaced for the geography it rotated and revolved in.
This does NOT remove every reference to GOD in the next exposition of Croizat on the basis of Agassiz's reflective sholium but until macrothermodynamics has its inorganic and organic heirarchies better integrated it seems the BEST explanation for the faliure of biology students short of alien abduction which the possibilty of is most likely by microbes unable to eat me if I stay here. I do not expect while I might prospect for life on Mars life from radio signals.
The "horizonalism" is finally well specified by me this time. For this place is only Mendel's symbol "/".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by zephyr, posted 06-03-2004 9:38 AM zephyr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024