Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>CL>It's an example of convergent evolution, different organisms with
>>different genes having analogous phenotypes; a familiar concept.
>>As to putting together organic parts, the symbiotic theory of the origin
>>of cellular complexity seems to fill the bill.
>
>First, as per my previous post in another thread, the Margulis' "symbiotic
>theory" is not about "the origin of cellular complexity" but only of the
>origin of eukaryotes from prokaryotes. Margulis theory therefore
>*presupposes* the existence of prokaryotic "cellular complexity".
Margulis proposed a specific theory about certain organelles in certain
cells. But it doesn't take much imagination to see that the important thing
is the introduction of a new evolutionary mechanism, one that transcends
the practical limitations of microevolution.
>Second, these molecular motors are present in *all* known living cells, and
>are essential for their very existence. The ATP which powers all of life in
>even the simplest cells, is a particularly elegant molecular pump driven by a
>proton motor. If Cliff's "convergent evolution" explanation is not just
>`hand-waving', it is necessary for him to explain how there could be any
>"evolution" *at all* before there were these molecular motors.
The problem of incipience. It's there at every level.
>AC>There is one little problem with this analogy.
>>
>>All the participants in the economy are intellegent.
>
>This is a version of what Johnson calls "Berra's Blunder":
I wasn't thinking of a world without intelligent agents acting within the
world. This objection seems to imply that the existence of intelligence
in itself, in an agent within the economy, proves ID.
>AC>There would
>>be two possibilities: a hopeful monster, or a clumsy intermediary.
>
>Agreed. The problem for `Huxleyites' like Gould (and Cliff?) is that to get
>the designing done in the first place, they need natural selection to be, as
>Darwin put it: "daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the
>slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up
>all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever
>opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to
>its organic and inorganic conditions of life." ("The Origin of Species,"
>p.84)".
I guess the ID world is a more relaxing one. Everybody just goes along
with the program.
>But when if that is not enough to explain major design changes in a short
>time, they need a "a hopeful monster". However, then they need this ever-
>vigilant natural selection to not notice this "clumsy intermediary". So
>natural selection becomes a type of deux ex machina, to be summonsed to
>centre stage when needed, and sent back to the wings when not!
Something you cannot do to ID.
>CL>I have never seen the term 'materialism' promoted by those you call
>>'materialists'.
>
>If they believe that "matter is all there is", then they are "materialists"
>in the *philosophical* (not the greedy for money) sense*:
In philosophy there is materialism and idealism. Idealism doesn't
necessarily imply belief in ID.
>See above. Cliff has in fact produced no evidence that those "working
>scientists" who fit the dictionary definition of philosophical "materialists"
>object to the term.
They may be philosophical idealists of various kinds, while rejecting ID.
I have not claimed that they object to the term, but I think they might if
they thought about such things.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 05:34:59 EDT