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

A specific answer to a specific question deals with one thing and one thing alone. From that you cannot conclude ignorance or disinterest in other spheres. Perhaps you ought to know that there are ancient and well read copies of Popper on my shelves along with other works you lecture me about. It is amazing how you claim to be clairvoyant about my views (and those of others) but your clairvoyance is as accurate as the Stars column in a newspaper.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: Dave Wallace ; Iain Strachan ; Michael Roberts
  Cc: ASA
  Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:40 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others

        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

Michael
----- 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
       

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

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 15:57:47 2008