From: J. Andrew Rogers (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 08 2006 - 12:11:33 MDT
Digressions into the theoretical obviousness of Lamarck versus Darwin
is not an SL4 topic in any way that I can discern. I would add that
it would be nice if the subject lines were updated to reflect
content. There are several threads using this same subject line, but
this particular subthread belongs on other lists.
J. Andrew Rogers, Auxiliary SL4 List Sniper
On Jun 8, 2006, at 10:07 AM, John K Clark wrote:
> "Michael Vassar" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Lamarckian evolution is, as a general principle, trivially
>> refuted by all > manner of day-to-day experiences
> The claim was that Darwinian evolution could have been deduced with no
> experience of nature at all just by using logic. I don't believe
> true, as a matter of fact I believe in the future Lamarckian
> evolution will
> be far more important than Darwin's variety, just look at cultural
> evolutionary artifacts like Moore's Law.
>> as the need for children to learn skills their parents have already
> A powerful and skilled blacksmith with a son that was also a
> powerful and
> skilled blacksmith would not be obvious evidence to me that Lamarck
> wrong, but zebra strips might be.
>> Denser objects do seem to fall faster than less dense ones
> In a atmosphere denser objects don't seem to fall faster they do fall
> faster, and until a few hundred years ago nobody had any means of
> that atmosphere or even certainty that such a thing was possible,
> so it's no
> wonder they were confused.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT