arndt@lymph.DEC (04/09/85)
Lew Mammel, Jr. (whome I admire otherwise, what with his training and all- sorry I misspelled your name last time Lew!) says: Re. the lump on my hip, "Apparently believing this to mean we can "will" anatomical change." Now Lew, you may be the victim of a speed reading course! The POINT of the 'lame' satire you panned was that I DIDN'T 'will' the lump!!!!! It happened to me because of my behavior of traveling in a car - just like the man said! Look, the old idea that you cut off a rat's tail enough times and it produces rats with no tails is bunk, right?? Well, if the rat bit off his own tail, even if it helped him survive - in a cosmic lab where naughty things were done to rats that could be lifted out of their cages by their tails - seems only to be saying the same thing. It's another example of 'evolution science' running wild! If I throw a rat against the wall (splat) enough times, will it one day, before it dies, bounce back??? (Sounds like a good idea for a government grant for some smart grad assistant, eh?) It is not at all clear how BEHAVIOR in individuals or even groups brings about 'changes' in the body. Changes that can be passed on to future generations! The idea that there are 'boundries' even for genetic changes, is an idea whose time has come! LAME!!! Say, guy - do better! Lov ya, Ken Arndt
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/11/85)
> It is not at all clear how BEHAVIOR in individuals or even groups brings about > 'changes' in the body. Changes that can be passed on to future generations! The idea that behavior can be a survival trait that is passed along to one's progeny stems from the assumption that, in "animals", behavior is genetically endowed instinct. Thus, it is the changes in the body that bring about the behavior, not the other way around. This assumption has in no way been proven, and if untrue makes the behavior-as-survival-trait idea a lot harder to swallow. Of course, once an organism has developed sufficient social mechanisms to ensure that learned behavior (culture) can be passed to future generations by means of education, the whole problem becomes much more interesting.
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/11/85)
[] I should have added in my previous message that, if animal behavior were not instinct, then they (animals) would have to be reasoning beings with souls. That means heaven would be full of "good" critters, just like it's full of good folks. It's a nice thought. The notion of a heaven without flowers and dogs and cats just never appealed to me, somehow.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/12/85)
> Of course, once an organism has developed sufficient social mechanisms > to ensure that learned behavior (culture) can be passed to future > generations by means of education, the whole problem becomes > much more interesting. Quite so. And that puts a certain amount of pressure on the central dogma, if it is alleged to be the sole or dominant mechanism of evolutionary change. (That's not to say that everyone does allege this; it is certainly the case that its influence has been asserted to be quite pervasive.) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/12/85)
> Quite so. And that puts a certain amount of pressure on the central > dogma, if it is alleged to be the sole or dominant mechanism of > evolutionary change. It's possible that the death of science for you stems from the fact that you consider science to be a dogma, and therefore in conflict with the dogma of your religious faith. Those for whom science is still alive consider the body of knowlege given us by science to be very incomplete and no doubt wrong in some respects. That is to say, not dogmatic. This is not to say that there are not many tenured professors of science for whom science has died. (did I get all my negatives straight?) Scientific dogmatism is a reflection on the individual, not on science itself. If science ever does get to be dogmatic, then it will certainly be time to relegate it to the status of a religion. Then we can decide issues in the tried and true religious method: we can have wars.
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/12/85)
> Look, the old idea that you cut off a rat's tail enough times and it produces > rats with no tails is bunk, right?? Well, if the rat bit off his own tail, > even if it helped him survive - in a cosmic lab where naughty things were > done to rats that could be lifted out of their cages by their tails - seems > only to be saying the same thing. It's another example of 'evolution > science' running wild! If I throw a rat against the wall (splat) enough > times, will it one day, before it dies, bounce back??? (Sounds like a good > idea for a government grant for some smart grad assistant, eh?) If there were "a cosmic lab where naughty things were done to rats that could be lifted out of their cages by their tails," I would expect: 1. If behavior is genetically predisposed, then the surviving rat population would eventually show a tendency to bite off their tails. 2. If a random mutation produced a fertile, tailless rat that could pass its taillessness on to its offspring, the population would become tailless fairly soon after that. 3. A similar situation would ensue if a random mutation produced a rat with a tail that would break off if grabbed. Do you think these statements are also 'evolution science running wild?'
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/12/85)
In article <1454@hao.UUCP> ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) writes: > > It is not at all clear how BEHAVIOR in individuals or even groups brings about > > 'changes' in the body. Changes that can be passed on to future generations! > > The idea that behavior can be a survival trait that is passed along > to one's progeny stems from the assumption that, in "animals", > behavior is genetically endowed instinct. Thus, it is the changes > in the body that bring about the behavior, not the other way > around. Actually, the changes in behavior can then select for new changes in the body. > This assumption has in no way been proven, and if untrue makes > the behavior-as-survival-trait idea a lot harder to swallow. Not true. Quite a number of genes controlling behavior have been identified, mostly in Drosophila. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/13/85)
> > Quite so. And that puts a certain amount of pressure on the central > > dogma, if it is alleged to be the sole or dominant mechanism of > > evolutionary change. > > It's possible that the death of science for you stems from the > fact that you consider science to be a dogma, and therefore in > conflict with the dogma of your religious faith. > > Those for whom science is still alive consider the body of knowlege > given us by science to be very incomplete and no doubt wrong > in some respects. That is to say, not dogmatic. > > This is not to say that there are not many tenured professors > of science for whom science has died. (did I get all my negatives > straight?) Scientific dogmatism is a reflection on the individual, > not on science itself. If science ever does get to be dogmatic, > then it will certainly be time to relegate it to the status of > a religion. Then we can decide issues in the tried and true > religious method: we can have wars. All I meant was that cultural transmission of information provides (i.e., can logically provide) a mechanism for propagation of change not necessarily linked to genetics. You had better go look up what the central dogma is. It's NOT my term. I didn't make it up. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/13/85)
> You had better go look up what the central dogma is. It's NOT my > term. I didn't make it up. I would love to look this up, if I know what you meant. Please clarify what it is you are asking me to look up. The meaning of the terms, the dogma itself? If so the dogma of what?
berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (04/17/85)
> Look, the old idea that you cut off a rat's tail enough times and it produces > rats with no tails is bunk, right?? Well, if the rat bit off his own tail, > even if it helped him survive - in a cosmic lab where naughty things were > done to rats that could be lifted out of their cages by their tails - seems > only to be saying the same thing. It's another example of 'evolution > science' running wild! How many generations of Jews have been circumcized, and their children are still born with a foreskin.... -- ------------- Micha Berger {philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger A Fugue in One Voice