*********************************************
*This is off-topic in alt.fan.noam-chomsky. Stop sending it*
*********************************************


"Ash" <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ck45ia$6mu$2@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

Philippic wrote:

"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:kcg9d.253664$787.220444@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

*********************************************
*This is off-topic in alt.fan.noam-chomsky. Stop sending it*
*********************************************

"Philippic" <slxee1oxgxr@slxo1xgxr.com> wrote in message
news:Z_e9d.78$cu1.64@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

*********************************************
*This is off-topic in alt.fan.noam-chomsky. Stop sending it*
*********************************************

*********************************************
*This is off-topic in alt.fan.noam-chomsky. Stop sending it*
*********************************************

Learn to use a killfile, whiner.

Learn to keep your ***** where people want to see it, web-polluter.

*********************************************
*This is off-topic in alt.fan.noam-chomsky. Stop sending it*
*********************************************

We don't want to see your whining

*********************************************
*This is off-topic in alt.fan.noam-chomsky. Stop sending it*
*********************************************

In article <6bc4e164.0410082208.a894477@posting.google.com>,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk (bernard connor) wrote:

Bob's Boyfriend <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:<together-8CBA2C.14005308102004@news.isp.giganews.com>...

In article <6bc4e164.0410080911.3dfdb697@posting.google.com>,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk (bernard connor) wrote:

Bob's Boyfriend <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:<together-A8D7EF.13214307102004@news.isp.giganews.com>...

In article <6bc4e164.0410070913.7ed5f8e5@posting.google.com>,
bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk (bernard connor) wrote:

Bob's Boyfriend <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:<together-8EBDC0.03455907102004@news.isp.giganews.com>...

In article <d753a705.0410061721.1fc93aa@posting.google.com>,
m.richardson@utas.edu.au (Richo) wrote:

Bob's Boyfriend <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:<together-334101.18051405102004@news.isp.giganews.com>...

In article <NIidnZSI2LBXkP7cRVn-uQ@io.com>,
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:

"Voice of Truth" <voiceoftruth227@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:816e1d8c.0410051305.3b28a053@posting.google.com...

Darwinism as the fear of God

How about Darwinism as The Unfortunate Truth?

I don't like evolution. It's not like evolution is our
friend. It
isn't.

We're not standing on the shoulders of giants, we're standing
on
mountians
of the dead, courtesy of evolution.

And we could easily become just another layer in that
mountain.

The god concept produces the same result. Millions of souls in
a
heaven
or hell requires mountains of dead bodies on earth. To complete
the
god
notion plan of mortal life and an immortal soul death must
visit
the
human body.

Godisms and darwinisms are both flawed concepts.

I am never quite certain what "Dawanism" is supposed to be.
I will take it to mean belief in the validity of science as a way
of
learning about the actual world.
If "Dawanism" says something we don't like - e.g. that we are
mortal
-
then that is not a flaw.
"Dawinism" exists to tell us how things actually are - and if we
dont
like how things actually are then that is not a flaw.
A flaw in "Dawanism" would be not telling us how things actually
are.

Godisms are very differnt - if you dont like god #3645 -
invent/imagine/"learn about" another and believe in that one.

It is possible to disagree with conventional or traditional notions
WITHOUT believing in a god concept.

Writing or talking about Darwin-ism is nonsensical. If Darwin had
never existed, biological science would not be significantly
different
to day. Lamark proposed evolution by the inheritance of acquired
caharacteristics in the late 18 th century . Wallace reached the same
conclusions about the origin of species, hence it is the
Darwin-Wallace theory of natural selection. Without Darwin, Wallace's
Theory would have been accepted.

So why all the fuss about Darwin?

Bernard.

Your response suggests that you could know the present through a change
in the past.

I stand corrected: Darwin-Wallacisms

Of course we cannot predict subsequent events, if one person i.e.,
Darwin were removed from history.

My point was that without Darwin, Wallace provided a convincing
argument for Natural Selection.

Which for me, is counter to arguments of cause and effect. What you have
essentially described is that two men, independent of each other were
able to come to similar conclusions at slight different places and times.

However, in one article that I read there is an implication that Wallace
borrowed Darwin's ideas.

Fortunately, they were both safely in a Proetstant country, unlike
Galileo.

Bernard.

I know of no evidence which suggests that Wallace borrowed ideas from
Darwin. I understand that it was almost on the eve of publication of
"The Origin of Species" that Darwin receieved a communication from
Wallace which showed that they had both come to the same conclusions.

Many of Darwin's ideas were confirmed, to his satisfaction, through his
travels. Wallace was poor and would not have travelled to these places
nor would the same information been available to him prior to his
experience of Darwin and their mutual and professional friends. It's
possible that others might have documented species information from the
Galapagos Islands that Darwin observed, but I consider that unlikely.

It seems that Darwin's ideas were a 20 year process or so. It also seems
that Wallace formulated an entire theory within a few days and without
having performed the research that Darwin did when the letter was sent.
It also seems that Wallace's ideas emerged only after meeting Darwin and
mutual friends.

Further, Darwin's ideas were formulated with his training in specific
disciplines. Wallace was trained in law. On its face, it seems that what
is taught in law is unlikely to encourage ideas of natural selection and
evolution of species. Wallace is further said to have had no prior
exposure to botany until later years when he was a teacher.

Darwin on the other hand appears to have been of considerable wealth and
was able to fund his own research and spent many years doings so. When
Wallace finally travelled to that part of the world, it seems to be 20
years _after_ being exposed to Darwin and ideas of speciation and
specialization in that region.

While I consider it possible to that two people can come to a similar
conclusion based on similar evidence or even different evidence, there
seems to be little to suggest that Wallace would have considered the
same questions and in the same way. Let alone, a similar frame of
reference for processing that information.

Whatever about Galileo's manner, it was plain silly that it took ca
300 years for a Pope to admit the Galileo was right after all. In
contrast, Joan of Arc was rehabilitated, 20 years after she was burnt
by English clergy as a witch.

The Vatican was very worried about altar girls, I think that a
committe has been examining this difficult problem for 20 years. Is
there any sign that they will reach a conclusion in the near future?

Bernard.