Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA04433 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 22 Dec 2001 07:08:45 GMT Message-ID: <001d01c18ab6$fdfd4740$0687b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <BD734B9C-F658-11D5-83BA-003065A0F24C@harvard.edu> 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 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> > 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