"John W Edser"  wrote in message
news:apkb49$28c7$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> "TomHendricks474"  wrote
>
> > TH:
> > EVERYTHING is testable. That is not the issue. The issue is that you
have
> a
> > catch 22 about HOW it can be tested.
>
> JE:-
> Everything is testable?!?
>
> How many angles can dance on the head of a pin?
> How do you test who is and who is not, a Jew?
> Can you test the proposition that a line
> can validly be simultaneously straight and curved?
> Is the correct test for a witch just a certain mole
> or should the more objective dunking chair
> be employed?
> Is the test for a false Christian any Christian
> who does bad things thus proving that no
> Christian can ever do a bad things?
>
> The amazing history of the idiocy of human
> mind  is a rich resource, against your claim.
>
> > TH:-
> > Only your rules.
> JE:-
> OK lets hear yours...
>
> > TH:-
> > I go by the scientific method. Those bigger rules allow me to test
outside
> of
> > your strict pre-conceived Darwinian straight-jacket testable scheme.
> > And don't deny you've got one. It's inherent in every post.
> > I know them too well.
>
> JE:-
> Yes, your view of science is so
> much broader than mine. Please
> supply an example of something
> that is not science, in your opinion.
>
> Do you agree with Popper that a
> testable idea must have a point
> of refutation?
>
> > TH:-
> > What if Darwin's ideas are incomplete? We both agree that almost all
> science
> > was. Is he the sole exception of history?
>
> JE:-
> No, his idea was indeed, incomplete
> so that one day it will be refuted.
> Perfection is figment of the human
> ( and Jim's) imagination.
>
> > TH:-
> > I think his work can stand up to rigorous testing and  most of the time
be
> > accurate, but sometimes his ideas fail. I've shown that in my model.
>
> JE:-
> I have no idea where...
>
> > TH:-
> > Thus you can't use him as the bed rock that testing is built on in every
> case
> > on all matters every time.
> > And you should  know that by now.
>
> JE:-
> Darwin's implicit concept of a single unit of
> selection, while fully testable, has never been
> refuted.
>
> John Edser
> Independent Researcher

A key question is: How much meaning dare one derive (derive rationally, of
course) from the simple basic propositions that is the basis of evolution
theory?

When a theoretical pin-head is too small and tight for space (such as yours
is) "angels have no room to dance dixey".

Different to you, I have not used the sharpness and potential precision of
"pins" to trip up, pin down, or prevent any didactic "dance
of angels";
instead I have used "pins" to plot a necessarily somewhat flexible and
fuzzsilly logical picture of not only approximately our entire evolution,
but of approximately all our evolved characteristics.

And, what is slightly unique about this plotted unifying picture is that it
reveals 'a thing', or aspect, about us (and our evolution) that is most
seldom seen and taken into account even though it is basically SO SIMPLE.

The aspect is conceptualized such that it is not only threatening to bring
"Grammar to its grave" ;-) but that it defines us and our evolution to an
extent where most of us begin to react as if threatened by being sucked
(through ready-made logical/concEPTual channels) towards recognizing the raw
reality and the personal meaning(s) of "It All", i.e. at least that which
the concEPT/s generally define/s.

The mighty meaning of this system of concEPTual (multi-focal zooming
lenses), is further magnified by what it rationally philosophically implies
and make available by direct or indirect references to obvious observables
both around and inside us, and by that this system (EPT) is being
consistently backed by any relevant, thoroughly established (by the process
of Science), principle and theory.

********************
More specifically, your emphasis on a with unrealistic restriction chosen
selectee needs to be replaced (or at least seriously complemented) by
selection pressures (or, still better, evolutionary pressures) acting in
phylogeny on appropriately approximative ranges of individuals -- say, from
~any fertilized egg~ to any ~fertile post pubescent parent.
*****************

With regards,
Peter
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/30/02 7:01:34 PM