Re[2]: [2] The evolution of "evolution"

From: Robin Faichney (
Date: Sat 15 Oct 2005 - 09:25:25 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: [2] The evolution of "evolution""

    Friday, October 14, 2005, 11:32:12 PM, Ted wrote:

    >> "Action at a distance" is a profoundly unscientific concept.
    >> Like "intelligent design" it's an attempt to dignify ignorance and
    >> make it permanent. Can't see how a particular cellular mechanism could
    >> have evolved? Then it obviously must have been designed! Can't find a
    >> link in a supposed causal chain? Well, it must be action at a
    >> distance!

    > Nice try. Would you claim that field theory is profoundly unscientific?
    > Where there is field, there is action at a distance, be it gravitational,
    > electromagnetic, or quantum.

    Not at all. The whole point of field theory is that it accounts for what APPEARS to be action at a distance. What mediates the force is the field. We might not wholly understand it, but it is detectable and (allowing for the inherent difficulties of operating at the quantum level) measurable, unlike the influences you propose. What's unscientific is a supposed causal chain that lacks a link. The field is the link in electromagnetics etc. What's your link?

    > Of the various fields, the quantum field has
    > the greatest resonance with life, for quantum fields are probabilistic.

    Quantum fields resonate with life because both are probabilistic. I guess this typifies your thinking.

    Best regards,
    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 15 Oct 2005 - 09:42:33 GMT