On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 10:51:27 -0800 Massie <mrlab@ix.netcom.com> writes:
in part:
>Here is that great elastic word again, evolved. And, it seems to mean
>almost anthing depending on the agenda of the user. What I want to
>see
>is invention of a new organ. To make it clear, how about a sonar for
>the
>fruit fly. Not small changes but something that clearly passes the
>proported irreducible complexity barrier. We stipulate small changes
>and changes in gene frequencies and improved hardiness and longer
>legs.
>Has there been a fruit fly that developed a sonar in these laboratory
>tests?
>
>Perhaps we should refer all knowledge statements to the experts.
>Sagan
>officially was trained as a planetary astronomer so lets burn his
>books
>about life, evolution, no-God, and the like. Lets have all such
>people,
>regardless of any self education or intellectual skills relagated to
>only making statements in their official sphere. Then, we can have
>the
>correctness of evolutionary thinking determined by evolutionary
>biologists. High bandwidth people will be banned from working outside
>of what they are officially responsible for and their certification.
>For example, all moral guidelines will be determined by the
>specialists
>such as philosophers like for instance Marx.
>
>Futher, anytime an inbreed profession is challenged from the outside,
>instead of responding to the issue, all that is necessary is that they
>brand the intruder with a comment such as "Sagan is not a biologist."
>
>This certainly makes my life easier because now I will know that
>instead
>of thinking I can go to the writings of those certified to pronounce
>truth.
>Bert M..
**********************
In other words, unless a fruit fly turns up with a modification that
would be of no use to it (which is contrary to natural selection), and
which is probably physically impossible in a creature the size of small
dipterans, you will not believe? My very small bit of reading on the
_Drosophilae_ suggests to me that they have naturally differentiated into
a large number of ecological niches.
As for your remark on Sagan, there is an obvious extreme that some people
go to, not needing to know anything about any opinion that disagrees with
theirs. This is far different than noting that a chap is wrong in an area
and concluding that he does not know enough about it to be quoted. I have
recently been in contact with some works that I ignored after a couple
pages because I detected an anti-science/pseudo-science bias. Only if I
were studying half-baked ideas would I have any reason to read further.
Philosophic bias may have the same result in other areas. Time may have a
similar effrect. While a historian of science may need to delve into
vitalitic writings, these are not a rational requirement for a biological
researcher today. All these are far different from an arbitrary
dismissal.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 18 2000 - 17:41:14 EST