Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

49406Re: Creationism etc

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Feb 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      It's worth pointing out that any Lamarckianism, alternatively, any dilution of the Central Dogma, such as Commoner has amply illustrated exists, undermines the notion of random, directionless evolution. This is something else that Der Staudi uncritically and conservatively supports. But it tends to be a standard part of the far left atheist milieu, that he belongs to, and he is most likely unaware how far this notion is from that of a 'rational' biology, that he would otherwise profess to support. He is, in fact, behaving irrationally by supporting perspectives such as that of Sober's.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      >
      > " To some degree the theory
      > has been protected from criticism by a device more common to religion than
      > science; dissent, or merely the discovery of a discordant fact, is a punishable
      > offense, a heresy that might easily lead to professional ostracism."
      >
      > "If the inorganic world readily accessible to our
      > perception and theorizing is a world partly characterizable (unlike the living
      > aspects of the organism) by ideas reduced toward a kind of grammar, what is the
      > fuller "speech" implied by the presence of this grammar — the speech of
      > qualitative phenomena from which alone such a grammar could be abstracted?"
      >
      > These two quotes are perhaps the signal ones, describing the problem and what is needed to move forward. What is needed is the kind of thing Goethe made a start on two centuries ago. The world as a whole is still waiting for its continuing Central European Goethean revolution. But small steps have been taken from time to time since and the book 'The Marriage of Sense and Thought' is one such step made by scientists and anthroposophists Edelgals et al.
      >
      > But what does the self-described 'radical scholar' Der Staudi say about this problem of scientific and academic self censorship and the need to find a new language for the organic. On the one hand he has declared the work by Edelglas et all 'unscientific' (WC message 21627) and on the other that he supports 'imagination and alternative forms of knowledge', claiming that they are already part of the academy, WC message 22046. This is not 'radical' or 'critical' behaviour it is timorous, conservative and backing of the status quo. It is also, of course, hypocritical and deceitful.
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > >
      > > "The general conclusion was that
      > > variation is under genetic control which is likely a self-fulfilling presumption."
      > >
      > > Yes, Steve Talbot's work is full of description of this kind of self modification (he's re-organised the relevant articles onto the Nature Institute website http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/mqual/ ,and has a culminating one here 'WHAT DO ORGANISMS MEAN? On Making the Genome Whole (Part 6)', http://netfuture.org/2011/Feb2211_182.html). This is non linear and cannot be described solely mathematically. He says in that culminating article:
      > >
      > > "...Physicists have chosen to pull back from the actual phenomena they are confronted with, viewing them as far as possible through the lens of a language blind to those qualitative, phenomenal aspects of the world where we could expect to trace any sort of a meaningful because. The kind of world they describe reflects in part the restrictions they impose upon their looking.
      > >
      > > So it is that they aim to describe the world of light and color in terms of colorless "waves" and "particles", or mere statistical non-representations — that is, in a way that makes as much (or as little) sense for someone without sight as for those with eyes to see; and they try to describe a world of sound that is indifferent to the presence of hearing ears. In general, they tell us what the world would be like if it were not like anything at all — certainly not like anything we can know through our senses, and therefore not like anything we can describe or even imagine.
      > > …
      > > Those who would like not only to re-engineer but also to understand the world have every right to ask: If the inorganic world readily accessible to our perception and theorizing is a world partly characterizable (unlike the living aspects of the organism) by ideas reduced toward a kind of grammar, what is the fuller "speech" implied by the presence of this grammar — the speech of qualitative phenomena from which alone such a grammar could be abstracted? What would we find if we looked where the physicist disdains to look — if we attempted to penetrate physical phenomena with a profound qualitative awareness of the sort that Galileo had already foresworn and the biologist cannot avoid?
      > > …
      > > Alluding to the void left by the physicist's withdrawal from phenomena into mathematical law, Stephen Hawking once asked: "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science . . . cannot answer"
      > > ...
      > > The "difficulty" of the organism is really just the difficulty of reducing it to mere physics and chemistry. Yes, very difficult indeed — but that's because the organism is alive, as we are alive, and because every biologist instinctively understands this life as offering more than lessons in physics and chemistry. As for the "nonliving" world: we imagine it is simpler to understand only because we are bewitched by the precision and predictability of the physical laws we find implicit in things — things of whose nature we know almost nothing."
      > >
      > >
      > > The re-introduction of Lamarck's ideas seems likely to happen all over the place. One thing Larmarckianism is is a breaking of the Central Dogma, which says that the genetic information contained in the cell's nuclear DNA can flow only from from there to proteins; there cannot be information flow back from the protein. Barry Commoner wrote a famous article critiquing this 10 years ago: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm , He points out, amongst other things, that the Human Genome project, that purportedly was to tell us who we are, ourselves on a CD, was only allowed to gain the hype it had by ignoring lots of well established contrary evidence. One such piece of evidence was the work from as long go as '81 that showed that a given 'gene' can result in many different messenger RNA contents, and so many different proteins. And he says:
      > >
      > > "Moreover, it has been known since the 1960s that the enzymes that synthesize DNA influence its nucleotide sequence. In this sense, genetic information arises not from DNA alone but through its essential collaboration with protein enzymes - a contradiction of the central dogma's precept that inheritance is uniquely governed by the self-replication of the DNA double helix."
      > >
      > > The sociology behind the GM crop revolution is well described:
      > >
      > > "'DNA (top management molecules) directs RNA formation (middle management molecules) directs protein formation (worker molecules).' [Ralph W.F. Hardy, president of the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council and formerly director of life sciences at DuPont] The outcome of transferring a bacterial gene into a corn plant is expected to be as predictable as the result of a corporate takeover: what the workers do will be determined precisely by what the new top management tells them to do."
      > >
      > > The sociological pressure keeping the Central Dogma in existence is likewise described:
      > >
      > > "Why, then, has the central dogma continued to stand? To some degree the theory has been protected from criticism by a device more common to religion than science; dissent, or merely the discovery of a discordant fact, is a punishable offense, a heresy that might easily lead to professional ostracism."
      > >
      > > ..
      > > But beyond the traditional scientific economy of prestige and the generous funding that follows it as night follows day, money has distorted the scientific process as a once purely academic pursuit has been commercialized to an astonishing degree by the researchers themselves."
      > >
      > > As this was the situation only 10 years ago, I hope that your:
      > >
      > > "Still there are now many modern scholars greatly unhappy about an
      > > explanation of biological process based on the thinking of physics and
      > > chemistry."
      > >
      > > is right.
      > >
      > > T.
      > >
      > > Ted Wrinch
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Maurice McCarthy <manselton@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Since evolution is a bivalent theory - created variations and only
      > > > then natural selection - for some dull reason I've imagined for years
      > > > that genetics was supposed to explain the creative constant upon which
      > > > natural selection then works. Could not have been more wrong.
      > > >
      > > > To say that some thing is produced randomly can be taken as admitting
      > > > that I have no idea how it happens, what its laws are. I'd always
      > > > thought that the "modern synthesis" of natural selection, genetics,
      > > > statistical methods and systematics (accurate, systematic
      > > > classification of species) of the 1930's had dispensed with purely
      > > > random notion of variation in 19th century Darwinism. Genetics was
      > > > supposed to have saved Darwin's theory but it looks as though a
      > > > certain 'hardening' of the modern synthesis in the 1940's led to the
      > > > dogma of one gene, one protein which was especially rife in the
      > > > 1960's.
      > > >
      > > > It surprised me learn that Cairns work was so late in the day. MInd
      > > > you its heresy may not be that mutation is shown to be non-random but
      > > > that it gives a mechanism to reintroduce Lamarck's theory of inherited
      > > > experience, at least in a certain sense.
      > > >
      > > > Still there are now many modern scholars greatly unhappy about an
      > > > explanation of biological process based on the thinking of physics and
      > > > chemistry. There is a "surplus of significance" not explained by these
      > > > methods, to use the phrase of the late, great Francisco Varela.
      > > >
      > > > The biologist and complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman is of a similar
      > > > opinion, finding that since matter is no longer thought of the
      > > > uniform, inert concept of 19th century but a highly dynamic,
      > > > self-maintaining system then complexity or "order for free" can only
      > > > be prevented in highly constrained processed or simplified thinking.
      > > > (Order for free is against the law of entropy, one of the most
      > > > fundamental in physics, which says that every thing falls apart and
      > > > disintegrates unless you stop it. The heat death of the universe is
      > > > just that unstoppable process.)
      > > >
      > > > By no means are these thinkers alone. The soul is marching back into reality.
      > > >
      > > > Maurice
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic