Terry ended that
Moose's Url with,
quote:
John's paradigm could handle a young created earth teeming with created life -
My paradigm could handle an old created earth teeming with created life -
It was nice to see some truth revealed caused perhaps in part by your interdigitation between the two because JAD said,
quote:
Berg postulated in the conclusions section of Nomogenesis:
"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e. polyphyletically."
I am in position to say he was wrong and neither is anyone else because no one has yet observed the appearance of even a single primary form. All we have observed are trivial modifications of preexistent forms.
What I do find very revealing is this attempt, as Terry observed, "to divide and conquer." I must agree. I find this very encouraging because it discloses just how fragile the aimless, random and of course Godless view of the great mystery of evolution really is.
and so I could easily ADD Georgi Gladyshev to make a trio about of that dynamic duo as he GG has discussed especially on the social level of macrothermodyanics "divide and conquer". I had dismissed it as politics at first but now I am getting a second thought/read thanks to your attempt at comparision to Ham and Ross. I know Ross is wrong. Ham I actually spoke with.
What is CRITICALLY important was where John Davison said,
quote:
Darwinism is quintessential mysticism, a whole world of illusion and deception proposed and perpetuated by a bunch of homozygous atheist muddleheads who are quite incapable of recognizing that everything in the universe was planned . Fuirthermore there is every tangible reason to believe that the plan has been
This is what Popper said in 72 and Dr. Gladyshev is not remiss to recall this Sir.(from Objective Knowledge/Of Clouds and Clocks p225)
"For if we accept a theory of evolution (such as Darwin's) then even if we remain skeptical about the theory that life emerged from inorganic matter we can hardly deny that there must have been a time when abstract and non-physical entites, such as reasons and arguments and scientific knowledge, and abstract rules, such as rules for building railwayss or bulldozers or sputniks or , say, rules of grammer or of counterpoint, did not exist, or at any rate had no effect upon the physical universe. It is difficult to understand how the physical universe could produce abstract entites such as rules, and then could come under the influence of these rules, so that these rules in their turn could exert very palpable effects upon the physical universe. There is, however, at least one perhaps somewhat evasive but at any rate easy way out of this difficulty...that the existence of anything non-physical is just 'an illusion', perhaps, at any rate unimportant, since everything would go on as it does even if there were no such illusions."
I dont think that this is the case anymore today. This IS somewhat mystical it seems to me as THE WAY out. Heirarchical thermodyanmics can remove possibly for sure Popper's intial "skepticism" but we still have to deal with the DELUSION as Georgi has associated with Boltzmann FROM the illusion and there probably is some "plan" involvable, regardless I think I KNOW what it was that is preventing the body science from recognizing the "Created Species referred to polyphyletically" here. It might be noted that some continental biologists accused Croizat of operating with polyphyletic groups.
I think the error came from Nelson and Platnick's assesment of Lyell for as JAD said, we have much to learn about time. Perhaps now would be the time to also analyze Gould's concept of diversity.
N&P had in Systematics and Biogeography/Space/Biogeographic History -
Lyell accepted the reality of Candolle's regions, but believed that, to some extent at least, they were capable of causal explanation with the facts then on hand. He theorized that the number of living species is in equilibrium. He believed that some species had suffered extinction in the past and that, therefore, there should be a creative principle responsible for the emergence of new species, such that the equilibrium could be maintained. New species, he imagined, were created one at a time, in one region or another.
Lyell's concept o f"creation" is not micraculous creation, but creation according to natural law and process. he was not specific about the nature of creative laws and processm but he did argue against the idea, as expounded by Buffon and Lamark in particular, that the process involved evolution - or transmutation, as it was then called - of species."
It is probably not coincidence that in the continued discussion of teleology Mayr changed his wording from "system" to "process".
continuing with N&Ppage394-5
One of the more remarkable items in the pre-Darwinian period is a paper by Alfred Wallace (1855), entitled On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species. Wallace believed that his "law" -newly discovered by himself - ...Wallace's argument, in effect, was a commentary on Lyell's vague and unspecific remarks about "creation" of new species.
So now with Terry and JAD and Georgi we no longer have something AS vague and unspecific. Sure JAD seems a bit jaded calling em "muddleheaded" but what can science do if it is in the throws of a paradigm shift. How big & if religous comparision continue to spark the result is anyone's guess.
Thanks again for the dialog with those two.
{Added some blank lines between paragraphs and otherwise tweeked the formatting a bit. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-07-2005 02:47 AM
™ Version 4.2
