Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?

From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 08:03:14 BST

  • Next message: Jonathan B. Marder: "RE: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?"

    Hi Jonathan,

    Thanks, that's very helpful. (I'm fascinated by these questions, just conscious of a well of
    ignorance in my perspective!).

    Sam

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <jonathan.marder@newmail.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 7:31 AM
    Subject: RE: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?

    > Hi Sam, Dave M. and all,
    >
    > JONATHAN before
    > > >Evolutionary Theory predicts that you have more in common with a gorilla
    > > >than with a locust - MOLECULAR GENETICS CONFIRMS THIS.
    >
    > SAM
    > >Please could you break down that last point for me. I can see how the first
    > ones are genuine
    > >predictions, but it isn't immediately obvious to me why evolutionary theory
    > would *predict* that I
    > >have more in common with a gorilla than a locust.
    >
    > JONATHAN
    > Let me first apologise for sloppy phrasing. What I meant to say that
    > similarities/differences between species were widely studied before Darwin's
    > time and formed the basis of Linnaean classification. Based on the empirical
    > evidence (appearance etc.) it is obvious even to the most ardent creationist
    > that humans are more similar to gorillas than to locusts. Now along comes
    > Darwin and says that humans and gorillas share common ancestors (locusts do
    > too, but you have to go a few generations further back!). This is already
    > not just observation but theorizing. The prediction would be that Linnaeus's
    > phylogeny tree on 18th century biological knowledge would be similar to the
    > 20th century phylogenetic tree produced by analyzing DNA sequences. This is
    > the case.
    >
    > DAVID M.
    > I would like the Darwinian
    > fan club to explain to me how Darwin is compatible
    > with teleology?
    >
    > JONATHAN replies:
    > Teleology has no place in Darwinism. It is Lamarckian.
    >
    > DAVID M. continued:
    > My answer would be that it onlt tells
    > a small part of the evolution story, we need to seek
    > a new MOW context, unfortunately Darwin sits in a
    > SOM context, hence it cannot talk about purpose
    > without reducing it to half of the SOM dualism, the
    > matter half.
    >
    > JONATHAN
    > You may interpret Darwin in whatever metaphysical context you choose. If you
    > choose an inappropriate one, you will make Darwinism look ridiculous.
    > I suggest that you look at my Causality essay on the MoQ website (
    > http://www.moq.org/forum/marder/jonathanmarder1.html (
    > It's already been there a while (since 1998), but it's farily short and
    > (IMHO) still as relevant to the MoQ as ever.
    >
    >
    > Regards to all,
    >
    > Jonathan
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 08:05:18 BST