[asa] Re: [asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others

From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Date: Thu Oct 23 2008 - 15:40:04 EDT

Again, Michael, you are presenting a fraction of the meanings of 'evolution.' It simply cannot be allowed that either geology (Fossil Record) or biology has a hegemony in this conversation. Speaking of 'natural history' as if it could be 'falsified' (again Popper) is disingenuous. We must question the limits of 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' (as mechanisms) in a broader sense.
There is a larger conversation that you seem unprivy to, Michael. Popper opened up much more than you seem willing to acknowledge, e.g. in raising the topic of 'evolutionary epistemology.' I wonder if you'd be willing to consider the 'changeology' of evolutionism in a different light if you admitted how Darwinism works (and is now obsolete) in anthropological terms. - Gregory

--- On Wed, 10/22/08, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Subject: [asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others
To: "Dave Wallace" <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>, "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Received: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 7:01 PM

That is not the case. What about humans in the Cambrian or trilobites in the
Holocene, of if the peppered moth went another way.

Note that the fossil record gives a historical version of the order of
evolution. If things were in a different order then evolution is caput.

There are many other examples

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Wallace" <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
To: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:46 PM
Subject: Fwd: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy
and Others

> With regard to cotton thread and UEM, well said Iain, although I would
> point out that in one of his books Karl Popper regarded Darwinian
> evolution as a UEM since it was difficult to postulate reasonable
> predictions that would falsify it. To my mind especially the RM + NS
> mechanism is problematic in this respect.
> Dave W __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 23 15:40:42 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 23 2008 - 15:40:43 EDT