>And again I would remind you that contingency simply means that events
>occur independently of any direct action and/or desire on the part of
>nature or living organisms.
Bertvan:
>>"What one 'prefers' is not supposed to be relevant to science."
Kevin:
>Exactly, which is why your rejection of "neo-Darwinian" evolution without
>apparent cause is so puzzling.
Bertvan
Hi Kevin,
I regard "events occur independently of any direct action and/or desire on
the part of nature or living organisms" to be an unproven assumption.
For most of history, life consisted of one-celled organisms, bacteria which
exchanged genetic material. They were related, but not by common descent.
Can you say that exchange of genetic material among bacteria was "without any
direct action and/or desire on the part of nature or living organisms"? The
first multi-celled organisms may have been the result of symbiosis. They
would also have been related, composed of that great pool of shared genetic
material called bacteria, but not by common descent. Can you say symbiosis
is "without any direct action and/or desire on the part of nature or living
organisms"?
Thank you again for the definition of Darwinism. It was comprehensive,
required a lot time and effort on your part, and took a while for me to
digest. I have no objection to Darwinism as a theory. To tell the truth, I
don't even object to efforts to impose it upon the theory upon everyone.
That only stirs those of us who disagree to action.
Bertvan