Re: Logic

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 15:17:26 BST

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Logic"

    Received: by id PAA13262 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:20:27 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:17:26 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2001 14:17:26.0838 (UTC) FILETIME=[B26ABD60:01C115DD]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: Philip Jonkers <>
    >Subject: Re: Logic
    >Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:40:42 +0200 (CEST)
    >Wade said:
    > > Evolution is not logical from a design viewpoint.
    > > It does not separate the wheat from the chaff.
    >Sorry, but no for you too Wade. Evolution might not be
    >perfectly logical with respect to a perfect intelligent
    >design, but it is logical the some degree nonetheless.
    >Also it does `separate wheat from the chaff' if I correctly
    >understand your niche. Natural selection means specific
    >adaptation. A species adapts or perishes. During the competition
    >between species only the fittest survive. Therefore, natural
    >selection does function as a sieve to separate wheat from chaff.
    >We humans wouldn't be around, being intelligent, on top of
    >the food chain and all that, if it weren't for natural selection!
    >Of all the macro-species, humans came out as winners in the
    >rat-race called biological evolution.
    I suggest you start by reading Stephen Gould's _Wonderful Life_ and follow
    it up with an order of _Full House_.

    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    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 2b29 : Thu Jul 26 2001 - 15:24:36 BST