But of course Deacon calls it like he does. After all he "believes" it.
This is a typical case of orthodoxy blocking progress in science because all
must be molded to some type of darwinian derivative. Last week I was
listening via RealRadio some archived the Science Friday program from NPR. To
my surprise the first part of the program was about some body (psychologist?)
who recently published a book on the brain. After talking repetitive about
"design" and "machines" then He went to name the designer: "Natural Selection
+ Mutations", unless "you are a creationist" he added.
If you or anybody else is interested here is the URL:
Glenn Morton wrote:
> Hi Eduardo,
> At 09:34 AM 11/3/97 -0600, Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
> >Hi Glenn,
> >I'm not sure that it can be termed "survival of the fittest". In the same
> >plant, for example, we see each branch/leaf seeking sunlite. We can say that
> >a given plant is competing with other plants for sunlite, but, can we say a
> >plant competes with itself?. What it looks like competition to us may just be
> >a natural "mandatory" response (phototropism +). What I mean is that the
> >plant is not really competing but just following a law. The same goes for the
> >roots (geotropism -). BTW, nobody knows yet why these things happen in terms
> >of basic mechanism. I think our interpretation may be a case of Western
> >Anglo-Saxon competative philosophy imposed on nature. Another point. The
> >exact dimensions of our bodies are not coded in the DNA, otherwise we would
> >die before loosing or gaining weight. But all the necessary machinery to
> >properly response to the environment is in us. An adult tree, every spring,
> >produces all its leaves, but the number of leaves, their locations, and the
> >individual designs are never the same, yet the general shape of the leaves is
> >remarkably similar from leaf to leaf and from year to year. Just thinking.
> >What do you think?
> Deacon calls it a competitive selection and an evolutionary logic He is the
> expert in brain construction, not me. I wouldn't want to go against his
> observation until I know a whole lot more about the field.
> Foundation, Fall and Flood