Hello Piotr,
1. The Gene Mutations, Gene Recombinations, the Selection of the
Fittest, but also Viruses and Retroviruses are NOT FOR NOTHING.
They are basic mechanism of LIFE. Based on them :
- the Space of Choices are UNIFORMELY, EXHAUSTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY
investigated,
- THE INFORMATION is transfered inside the same or among different
species.
- Also the best choices are kept and the bad one are removed.
(but what really means "fittest", "best" or "bad choice" only God
know, and we can considered their meanings out of the scientific
scope).
2. Regarding the 'wing' example (as 'organ used to can fly'),
I 'apply' Platon to 'a genetic context' (so your reference
to 'planes' is a non-sense here: 'plane wings' are only bad copies
made by humans of the 'life wings').
What I wanted to say is that the "model of wing" was "fully
coded" in the genes before the "first wing" appeared on Earth, so
the 'idea of wing', pre-existed its first apparition (and I can
added, even its first 'coded description', if we will think of what
a 'code' or a 'description' really mean).
As for the 'wing apparitions' , life 'could had' at the
begining 'a first bad wing' , but for sure 'a wing', not an 'eye' in
that place.
The Darwinian models failed to explain this, because they cannot
accept the pre-existance of the model. At least, Lamarck (before
Darwin) arrive with a coherent explanation here, but the reality of
the genes didn't confirm (at least until now) its theory.
3. Your argument with the 'generalisation' is a wrong one.
But, strictly speaking on what generalisation is, your
definition is wrong too. 'The generalisation' is 'a generalisation of
something': in order to group some samples under a same concept we
have to know FIRST what the concept really is (to define/to know/to
posses its inner meaning).
So THE CONCEPT IS NOT DEFINED, BASED ON OR STARTING WITH ITS
SAMPLES (even one or 1,000,000).Contrary Only based on the pre-
existing inner definition of the concept, we can group the samples.
(I mean 'pre-existing' term, relative to the moment when some samples
are grouped under its 'umbrella')
If not, How we could be able to group (or not to group)
samples, without having/knowing FIRST the criteria that we have to
use for this grouping.
Sorry to say but your argumentation is related somehow to the
Marxism (is not a bad point,the Marxism is a strong theory) and for
sure is closer linked to the Materialism in general.
BUT please don't make confusion between Materialism and The
Scientific Method. They have nothing to do one with the other. The
Scientific Method, completely ignore the preconditions :
creationism , materialism, marxism etc...as out of its scope.
I close this thread from my side here.
Regards,
marius alexandru
P.S. I only want to add : The Darwinian Theory belong to the
Materialism too.
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> 08-01-04 00:41, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Related to "old" or "neo" Darwinian models of evolution, I prefer
> > in place, Platon explanation that the 'idea of the wing' pre-
exist
> > the "wing apparition". At least this is a simple and coherent
> > explanation, in place of "darwinian explanations" : we don't
know
> > what we expect but "evrika" "a wing have appeared"
>
> You prefer it to what? Do you mean that flies, birds, bats and
planes
> have wings _because_ there is a preexistent "idea of a wing" that
> endeavours to manifest itself in the physical world? Sorry, but
it's
> circular gibberish to me, incompatible with science. "The idea of a
> wing" is a human generalisation. All those "wings" are classified
under
> the same name (in English, but not necessarily in every possible
> language) because we find them analogical according to a certain
(rather
> arbitrary) functional typology.
>
> > Now more concrete on the subject, your affirmation that :
> > "Genetic drift is an important factor in it, since most
> > mutations are now known to be selectively neutral"
> >
> > could hardly be proved.
>
> It _has_ been proved. Most mutations are as neutral as makes a
difference.
>
> >
> > I doubt that with the current genetics models somebody can be
sure
> > that the mutations are "neutral" in "most cases" related to
> > the "selection criteria".
> > Some simple questions here :
> > 1) in this case what are the mutations for ? Not to generate
> > possible "better samples"?
>
> No. Mutations have no purpose. They are not "for" anything. They
just
> happen.
>
> > 2) can somebody tell us for sure with the current genetics
models
> > what "the fittest" means in all cases, to can declare
> > the "neutrality"?
>
> Please rephrase this question. I can't understand what you mean.
>
> > 3) Who can say 'when' (after how many generations) and 'why'
(on
> > which conditions) the kept changes will be use for?
>
> They are usually neutral in the conditions in which they originally
> appear. If they turn out to be advantageous in a new situation --
well,
> that's a quirk of fortune that happens from time to time, but is
not the
> ordinary course of things. To begin with, most genetic innovations
have
> no phenotypic effect at all. Some 45% of human DNA consists of
fragments
> of genes "borrowed" from various viruses in the course of
evolution.
> They have to be "silenced" (by making them heavily methylated).
>
> We are straying off-topic, so let's make this non-linguistic
excursus as
> brief as possible.
>
> Piotr