From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sun Aug 17 2003 - 20:42:20 BST
Scott, you said ...
If you keep the randomness, then it is very difficult to see why natural
selection would move things toward greater complexity. Amoebae are better
survivors than dinosaurs, etc. Complexity adds more things that can go
wrong, and so reduces the odds of survival (ask any computer programmer).
Ian says ...
Difficulty is no proof of falsity. "Complexity" is not a necessary outcome.
Cearly in an environment where simpler equals better, Darwinian evolution
produces simplification. Your amoeba example proves the point. I know Gould
makes a big thing (counter to Dawkins) about bacteria being much more
successful lifeforms than man. All I say is "better" is a value judgment
anyway, so who's to say whether or not amoeba are better than man ?
(Pisrig's MoQ I reply) Amoeba have pretty limited social lives (unlike
Dinosaurs) and non-existent intellectual patterns (unlike man) I believe.
Darwin has come a long way since his death, and I think our misunderstanding
is that you hold a fairly primitive view of his legacy.
My understanding of Darwinism is updated by Gould, Dawkins, Pinker and Jones
amongst others.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Scott R
Sent: 17 August 2003 16:35
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Chance and natural selection
Jonathan,
Ian:
> >> I believe evolution is the best model of any kind of reality.
> >> MOQ layers are a good summary of just such a reality IMHO - stable
layers
> >> building dynamically on layers over many generations.
> >> I see no conflict or paradox between MOQ and Darwin.
>
> Scott
> >You seem to be equating "Darwinism" with "evolution". Darwinism is
> evolution
> >by chance and natural selection. I reject that (and I think the MOQ does
> >too). Quality is not chance.
>
> I strongly disagree with Scott - he needs to be careful where he puts the
> word "chance" in the above sentence. Darwinian evolution proceeds by
> mutation and selection. The mutation part has a random direction - or as I
> have said before, its only direction is AWAY from what came before.
However,
> selection has a very definite direction - towards greater survivability,
or
> to put it in quality terms, towards BETTERNESS.
I usually hear it called "random mutation", and that is the chance I am
referring to.
If you keep the randomness, then it is very difficult to see why natural
selection would move things toward greater complexity. Amoebae are better
survivors than dinosaurs, etc. Complexity adds more things that can go
wrong, and so reduces the odds of survival (ask any computer programmer).
As I've said many times, the only reason to take Darwinism seriously is
because it is required if one wants to maintain a prior commitment to
materialism. When the materialist then tries to add the supposed emergence
of sentience and consciousness to the Darwinist framework, he or she is
moving from the implausible to the impossible. There is thus no reason to
maintain the implausible.
- Scott
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 : Sun Aug 17 2003 - 20:42:41 BST