>Bertvan
>>Science has yet to identify a "beneficial mutation" about which there is no
>>controversy.
Ralph:
>But why? You've said before that the purpose of life was to grow. Any
>mutation that gave a lifeform a better chance to grow would have to be
>considered beneficial, seems to me, and surely that would be easy to
>spot. For instance, mutations that have allowed certain viruses to be
>resistant to antibiotics has to be considered beneficial, at least from
>he virus' point of view! :) What is so hard about that?
Bertvan:
Some have argued that virus resistance to antibiotics is not an addition of
complexity. Others have argued for Lamarckism. Since I take anything a
Darwinist says with a grain of salt, I'll wait to see what some of the
scientists with whom I agree philosophically have to say on the subject.
(Denton, James Shapiro, Behe, etc.) The peppered moth and the finches beaks
have also been questioned as examples of added complexity. In any case,
biology apparently isn't overwhelmed with examples.
Bertvan:
>>Personally, I believe they happen all the time in the few
>>organs still plastic enough to be evolving.
Ralph;
"the few organs still plastic enough to be evolving". Intriguing thought.
Do you mean that some "organs" are impervious to mutations? News
to me. Which ones can I stop worrying about? :) Or do you mean
that some organs are so nearly perfect that any conceivable mutation
will be for the worse? Given the present condition of my eyes, I'd be
willing to settle for almost any change!
Bertvan:
Me too.
Bertvan
>.>The central nervous system -
>>the brain. Science can't yet analyze the brain well enough to measure and
>>identify the origin of thoughts and attitudes. Of course, there are the
>>sociobiologists who declare thoughts and attitudes to be the hard-wired
>>results of "random mutation and natural selection", but most of them
discount
>>the existence of free will. It is my belief that we constantly participate
>>in the evolution of our own brains by the use of free will. That is not a
>>scientific theory, just my own personal belief.
Ralph
>That's cool. Personal beliefs happen to the best of us. :) Participating in
>the evolution of our own brains is a neat idea. Evolution is usually
>talking about physical changes in genes but certainly there have been
>plenty of mystics who have claimed to be able to make physical
>changes in any part of their body. And I believe (whoops!) there is
>evidence that our thoughts and feelings can produce physical changes
>in our brain's structure. Of course, how can we know if these changes
>we are effecting will be beneficial? That's actually a big question, IMHO.
>Should we, maybe, be following a design? If so, which one? :)
Bertvan:
Biofeed back and the placebo effect are both examples of thoughts producing
changes in the body, and supposedly also in brain structure. You'll have to
try to answer for yourself all those questions about what is "good" or
"beneficial". I might have some opinions, but I'm not going to try to make
such judgements for anyone else.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 18:53:54 EDT