Hi KO, I don't understand the relationship of of short-lived genes to long-lived individual.
Joe On 11/26/08 1:19 AM, "kieffer odigaunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > The dynamic aspect of evolution is the variation and mutation of the genes > in successive generations. > The static aspect of evolution is the algorythmic process of replication and > the natural selection of 'better' genes. > Need we ask what is good? No, it is in our bones. This is biological > evolution. > > -KO > > > 2008/11/25 Joseph Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> On Tuesday 25 March Joe writes: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Evolution is not a syllogism. Different levels are involved from lower to >> higher. The lower has no definition for the higher level, which speaks an >> undefined language to the lower level. Is mathematics a universal >> language? >> >> The higher is undefined and cannot enter into a lower syllogism. Logic >> fails when confronted by reality. Mathematical reality cannot explain >> evolution. Magnus proposes a dynamic Big Bang to start mathematical >> calculations. IMO the Social Level lies outside of mathematical >> calculation. What? Counting the population doesn¹t matter? Idiot! Do >> you >> mean that mathematics does not add to what I know? Idiot! >> >> Individual consciousness is an existential level of evolution to the social >> level. Individual consciousness starts a parallel octave of evolution of S >> only. It modifies O (gorilla) for its own purposes. Intellect, higher >> social, and higher intellectual levels are of S only. Wait a minute >> intellect is SO, and social is SO. Idiot! You can only train a chimp so >> far. >> So how is metaphysics speaking an undefined language? How can I know what >> you are talking about? Value! Mystical value is outside of mathematics. >> Yes, but not very far! E,G. quantum! Just far enough to show that >> evolution is not a syllogism. >> >> There is no therefore in evolution to the social level! Only an apple and >> sleep! >> >> Joe >> >> On 11/25/08 12:26 PM, "X Acto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Bo: >>>> Not describing how things really are, is impossible. Forwarding a >>>> theory that opens by declaring "..this is NOT how things are" is >>>> stillborn. >>> >>> Steve: >>> >>> Not at all. >>> >>> Albert Einstein: >>> "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, >>> however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our >>> endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to >>> understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the >>> moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the >>> case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism >>> which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may >>> never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain >>> his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with >>> the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the >>> meaning of such a comparison." >>> >>> Bo: >>> I'm not rying to play the Sophist, but at this high ground there are some >>> strange "inside out" turning of metaphysical socks. >>> >>> Ron: >>> The turning of the sock you mention is the shifting from the particular >>> to the universal. The whole arguement is that you insist that Quality >>> may be universally defined when Pirsig and the rest of us say that >>> Quality is of a particular expereince and may not be argued to >>> the universal.. >>> >>> Pyrrhonian skeptic Sextus Empiricus first questioned induction, reasoning >> that >>> a universal rule could not be established from an >>> incomplete set of particular instances. He wrote[1]: >>> >>> "when they propose to establish the universal from the particulars by >> means of >>> induction, they will effect this by a review of either >>> all or some of the particulars. But if they review some, the induction >> will be >>> insecure, since some of the particulars omitted in the >>> induction may contravene the universal; while if they are to review all, >> they >>> will be toiling at the impossible, since the particulars >>> are infinite and indefinite." >>> >>> from wiki >>> >>> >>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
