Hi Glenn,
I meant "stasis" of the human species. I think I'm missing your point
or analogy.
Salu2
Eduardo
PS: I was not insulted or hurt by your soapbox statements. I actually
think that you made very good points. One day on the radio I heard a
YEC (may have been a Dr. Gish(?)) saying that stars could not be forming
(being born) today because they were all formed at the beginning of
creation (or something like that). I guess the definition of "star
birth" may change among people, however, there is basically undeniable
evidence that stars are forming all the time. That would be a case of
trying to cover the sun's light with your thumb (a Venezuelan expression
meaning "denial") and potentially confusing to younger Christians that
have been raised "protected" from science knowledge. This is something
that I confess myself having the tendency to do (remain in ignorance
that is, even the Bible says that more knowledge brings more sorrow),
this is the unrealistic attitude to avoid, we must imitate Daniel and
Joseph who learned all the 'sciences' of the pagan cultures the lived in
and yet remained obedient. In any case, you are talking to a somewhat
"rough around the edges kind of guy" who happens to be very
understanding and very hard to insult. Thanks any way.
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199710/0490.html
--------------D70605CAD7EB4EC7BA1E4495
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="0490.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="0490.html"
Content-Base: "http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/1997
10/0490.html"
<!-- received="Fri Oct 31 21:06:21 1997 EST" -->
<!-- sent="Fri, 31 Oct 1997 20:39:05 -0600" -->
<!-- name="Glenn Morton" -->
<!-- email="grmorton@waymark.net" -->
<!-- subject="Re: >Re: Design Flaw in the Brain" -->
<!-- id="199711010208.UAA06398@ns.waymark.net" -->
<!-- inreplyto=">Re: Design Flaw in the Brain" -->
<title>ASA - October 1997: Re: >Re: Design Flaw in the Brain</title>
<h1>Re: >Re: Design Flaw in the Brain</h1>
Glenn Morton (<i>grmorton@waymark.net</i>)<br>
<i>Fri, 31 Oct 1997 20:39:05 -0600</i>
<p>
<ul>
<li> <b>Messages sorted by:</b> <a href="date.html#490">[ date ]</a><a href="index.html#490">[ thread ]</a><a href="subject.html#490">[ subject ]</a><a href="author.html#490">[ author ]</a>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0491.html">Glenn Morton: "Re: >Re: >Design Flaw in the Brain"</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0489.html">Glenn Morton: "Re: >Design Flaw in the Brain"</a>
<li> <b>Maybe in reply to:</b> <a href="0478.html">Eduardo G. Moros: ">Re: Design Flaw in the Brain"</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
</ul>
<!-- body="start" -->
Hi Eduardo,<br>
<p>
I wrote:<br>
<i>>> Re: Design Flaw in the Brain</i><br>
<i>>> </i><br>
<i>>> But according to Terrance, the brain, being underspecified (informationally)</i><br>
<i>>> engages in a great survival of the fittest game among the neurons as it is</i><br>
<i>>> being formed.</i><br>
<p>
<p>
At 10:57 AM 10/31/97 -0600, Eduardo G. Moros wrote:<br>
<i>>Ok., but survival of the fittest does no necessarily mean macroevolution, it</i><br>
<i>>could simply mean stasis.</i><br>
<p>
If, as Deacon relates, a large percentage of the neurons are dying off, it <br>
can't be described as stasis. Also apparently different neurons died in my <br>
brain than in yours or anyone else's<br>
<p>
glenn<br>
<p>
Foundation, Fall and Flood<br>
<a href="http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm">http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm</a><br>
<!-- body="end" -->
<p>
<ul>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0491.html">Glenn Morton: "Re: >Re: >Design Flaw in the Brain"</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0489.html">Glenn Morton: "Re: >Design Flaw in the Brain"</a>
<li> <b>Maybe in reply to:</b> <a href="0478.html">Eduardo G. Moros: ">Re: Design Flaw in the Brain"</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
</ul>
--------------D70605CAD7EB4EC7BA1E4495--