Re: Religious Thought and Lamarckism

From: Dace (
Date: Sat Dec 22 2001 - 07:05:07 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Religious Thought and Lamarckism"

    Received: by id HAA04433 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 07:08:45 GMT
    Message-ID: <001d01c18ab6$fdfd4740$0687b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Religious Thought and Lamarckism
    Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:05:07 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Precedence: bulk

    > > And a design is still a design whether it was created intentionally
    > > or by random mutation.
    > Nice try at that change in definitions....
    > While I like the design of a snowflake, nobody designed it, and
    > it isn't a design.

    Of course not. No one is suggesting that snowflakes are formed on the basis
    of snowflake blueprints tucked away in the depths of their latticework.
    There's no universal snowflake design, whether transcendent Idea or
    homuncular snowflakeplasm. Neither intentional design nor accidental.
    There's no division between the snowflake's formal essence and its
    phenotypic expression. This is an artificial division and has no place in


    > English sux.
    > - Wade

    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 : Sat Dec 22 2001 - 07:15:10 GMT