>SJ>Goodwin seems to be saying that self-replication can only occur if
>>the whole "cellular context" is already in place? If so, this seems
>>near-conclusive evidence for Intelligent Design and a near-disproof
>>of the Darwinian blind watchmaker evolutionary paradigm?
>
Maybe the second, modified somewhat to say "evidence against
the Dawkinsonian blind watchmaker evolutionary paradigm", but
certainly not the first. Argument from the false alternative
again?
>TG>I hope that you chuckled when you wrote this. Goodwin is an
>>evolutionist and he doesn't believe that his notions undermine
>>evolutionary theory or contravene the *vast evidence* for it.
>
If its any consolation to Terry, I certainly chuckled when I
read it ;-)
SJ:===
>Well, according to your last message, you think that I'm "an
>evolutionist"! :-)
>
>I never said or even implied that "Goodwin" is not "an evolutionist".
>And whether or not he *believes* "that his notions undermine
>evolutionary theory" was not my point. My point was that what he
>wrote *does* "undermine evolutionary theory", whether Goodwin believes
>it or not.
>
Steve. Its no wonder people end up either shouting at you or
ignoring you. You read through a popular level book describing
the "new biology" and you conclude (apparently) almost immediately
that the results are evidence for PC or ID, nevermind that
Goodwin has spent many years developing these ideas and doesn't
see this overwhelming evidence you speak of.
I suspect you missed the point of the book entirely. Goodwin is
noting problems with the extremely reductionistic genocentric
view of biology, arguing instead for a holistic, organocentric
view. You took one of Goodwin's examples from a section entitled
"As the Spots Disappear, So Does the Leopard". Before giving
these examples of "inconsistencies" Goodwin writes (p.34):
"You can decide to stick with the current view,
which has its advantages, or to contemplate other
paths, one of which I now describe."
You gave us only the inconsistency and did not describe for us
the other path. You know, the one that Goodwin wrote a book
about.
[...]
>If "naked DNA" outside of a cell, does not evolve, but instead
>*devolves*, and if "evolutionary theory" requires that DNA *evolves*,
>then that "evolutionary theory" has been tested and found wanting.
>This is good support for progressive creation and intelligent design,
Argument from the false alternative time again? But you forgot to
mention Goodwin's alternative. You know, the one he wrote a
book about.
>but I wouldn't expect "an evolutionist" like Goodwin to even
>realise it, much less admit it.
>
Not a very reliable authority to be quoting then.
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================