Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA21399 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 10 May 2000 15:29:57 +0100 Message-ID: <39192CB7.63A10E4F@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:32:39 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa? References: <39190496.FB88F688@mediaone.net> <00051013281200.06148@faichney> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Robin Faichney wrote:
> Chuck:
> >I am sure that Wilson at least would definitely not agree with this statement,
> >nor would a lot of other students of evolution. The gross application of
> >statistics that allows people to come up with the "anything is possible" is
> >usually just a conceptual stopgap. For example, species usually only last a
> >maximum of x million years (I think it's an average of about 7 million, but I
> >can't recall for sure), so the time period itself is not infinite.
>
> Why should an infinite time period be required? I did say "almost anything".
> We're not talking water-into-wine here.
>
I should not have used the word infinite, but simply a very long time to develop a
complex creature.
>
> > This kind of
> >anything-can-happen statistical scenario has been used to project an x
> >probability that there is intelligent life in the universe that is within our
> >sensing range. That seemed quite reasonable - except that someone recently
> >noticed that there are vast areas of the universe where there are no planets
> >that could have deveoped complex species because meteor showers continually
> >interrupt the possibility. The earth just happens to exist behind some big
> >planets that suck in the meteors before most get here.
>
> That's an entirely different argument, and has no bearing here.
>
Yes, no direct bearing. I referred to it as an example of how statistical arguments
are often excuses to not dig into a subject.
>
> >If you had suggested a year ago your same logic, I might have agreed (although I
> >was always a bit suspicious of the argument). But when I thought about all the
> >improbable events that had to happen to actually create the human species in a
> >specified and relatively short period of time like 7 million years, I found
> >myself in agreement with Jay Gould and others who say that evolution is not an
> >all-things-are-possible proposition. I do wish that God had been more orderly,
> >but I guess he has to do what he has to do.:)
> So you're a creationist?
No. I am not saying things come of nothing, only that the results are unpredictable.
>
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 10 2000 - 15:30:27 BST