V, I know what you are going to say next... The organisms are the environment too!!
Darwinism as taught ascribes selection pressures to 'simple' things like resource potential (food, water, climate) and genetic fitness (heh, are you a stud or not heh, heh). A 2nd order effect (?) would be the environment being modified by other organisms. So lots of bacteria in the Cambrian time setting a bias now for oxygen breathing life. 3rd order symbiotic life forms say like gut bacteria in ruminants where in a sense they are picking one another. 4th order - Intelligent Intervention or Design. An organism interfering with the nuts and bolts of life properly - breeding (like using a compiler) or directly GM (like tinkering with the compiler's machine code) or even mega-directly by artificial life (writing ones own machine code for a different processor). The last includes the possibility of ET seeding even God if you can prove it. Now where's that taught? Darwinism is much more subtle than the maxim "survival of the fittest". If he'd been around today I'm sure he would have contemplated the 3rd and 4th items more. P.S. wouldn't it be nice if more science today was cross-disciplinary even across the arts/humanity divide. R. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 August 2005 12:24 To: [email protected] Subject: OT RE: Intelligent design, DARWIN=ENVIRONMENT DETERMINES FITNESS *ONLY* Below originally written yesterday before the thread. I'm progressively reading the entries. On Jed's topic, yes, life would have to have started somewhere but it doesn't mean that every bit of life had to start ab-initio. Where's the logic in that?! What I'm trying to say (below) is that Darwinism says that the ENVIRONMENT SOLEY determines the fitness of organisms. What if an organism's fitness is determined by another organism or MODIFIED DIRECTLY BY IT. Did Darwin encompass such an idea. Evolution needs to be modified for this scenario. The BIG IRONY is that Darwinism is being taught like a religion. ... written yesterday offline .... V, In fact it doesn't even need ET intervention (Intelligent Intervention II?), take any species leaving symbiotically and with the ability to modify another organism or make choices for it (rather than the environment picking the fittest which is the Darwinist's mantra). Thus animal and plant breeding Take great apes, some have the ability to make tools, bedding, etc. And I'm sure there are other examples with lower organisms where one organism NOT THE ENVIRONMENT is picking what is fit. Besides there are mysteries in genomes on this planet, junk DNA, the Cambrian explosion, Eukaryotic cells, Microchondrial DNA... An open minded biologist/biochemist perhaps could help in something I only take a passing interest in (biology a fascinating science, chemistry too, not some mere derivative of mathematical physics as the 'Gods' would have us believe). Surely though the old model (Darwinism) must be up for questioning? I say if you are going to teach anything as ('scuse the pun) 'gospel' that you explain the LIMITS to the theory and what it would take for it to fail. I give an example of an honest teacher, not jaded or idea-less (remember the old George Bernard Shaw maxim, those who can..., maybe we should add 'and those who can't get cushy jobs in big institutions doing pointless research') should say to his class I am going to teach you 1st Law, 2nd Law, Relativity, Darwinism such and such... Now I've never seen an exception to such and such a law and no-one has BUT if there was this is the necessary condition and no giggling, eyes rolling or other suggestions of madness to even contemplate such. So the teacher rather than jading that boundless potential which is the young, teaches them to think and how to construct arguments for the most contentious of issues should it ever arise. (I've rarely come across a teacher who likes teaching or even likes the young but that could be a Brit thing.) No I don't agree with Intelligent Design with divine intervention - it is a cop out on thought. Possibly, giving it the slightest credit, design an experiment or fact gathering process to show how it could be so and don't mention the bible or damnation for even asking. I think that too much science is being taught like religion and the discoverers as prophets or gods. They are just people with bank balances, relationship problems, quirks, bigotries, highs and lows and they go to the toilet just like everybody else does. R. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 August 2005 10:00 To: [email protected] Subject: Intelligent design, RE: [ BOB PARKS-WHATSNEW] Vorts, Sorry if I don't fully participate for long. There are so many messages on Vortex. What the slurrers against ID fail to admit is the possibility of extra-terrestrial intervention just like a civilisation leaves industrial waste. To rule it out would be unscientific. In fact we're doing it right now as we take our first steps into GM. People don't seem to realise you have to have imagination to do science and maths, all the logic and erudition, number crunching is par for the course and any journeyman (or woman) can do that. Remi. ________________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RC Macaulay Sent: 07 August 2005 04:00 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ BOB PARKS-WHATSNEW] John Coviello wrote.. >This week's column could have been called What's Not New. Government and politics mixing in America, what's new about that? Unfortunately, our current crop of politicians really seems to be using religion for political advantage in a cynical way to win votes. Are people tired of this already? Time we sent the religious righters back to wherever they came from and start running our government to benefit all for a change? I read the whats new article by Bob Parks with interest ,in particular regarding the comments about " intelligent design". The idea of intelligent design comes from university campus student science groups. The ideas represent the students challenge to the university to peer review the Darwin junk science theory or discard it. Ever look at Parks picture posted at U of M ???. Notice the set of his jaw ? Me thinks he protestest too much. Richard
