I don't just believe it, I know its correctness. But this post said
nothing about it whatever.
Human history, like biological evolution, has a huge element of
contingency. Hence, as Gould says of evolution, if the tape of history
were to be played over again, the results would almost certainly be
Or were you referring to nature/nurture. The point there is that every
gene is exprssed in an environment, and every organism creates as well
as reacts to its environment. Hence no gene efer has the same effect
twice. For example, a gene dtermines your fingerprints. The same gene
dtermines your left and ritht prints, but left and right prints are
never the same. Why? Well, when a cell divids in the womb, the two
resulting cells then divide, BUT NEVER AT THE SAME TIME. Even during the
fraction of a second between divisions the environment in the womb
changes (temperature, etc), with the result that gene is expressed
somewhat differently on the left and on the right. This is why, for
example, identical twins are never actually, identical.
But what did trigger this question. I'm not objecting to sciencne, and
I'm not necessarily objecting to any one particular philosophical
positon. I'm objecting to oversimplfied history and oversimplfied
expression of particular theories and thus of oversimplified and/or
plain wrong expression of those theories.
Diana Manister wrote:
> Carrol, are you saying you don't believe in human evolution?
> Sent from my iPod
> On Jan 16, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Tom Colket wrote:
> >> Diana wrote:
> >> Most achievements would have emerged in time -- even without
> >> Galileo
> >> we would not still think the sun revolved around the earth.
> >> Individuals as I say are overrated.
> >> I couldn't disagree with this more.
> >> The importance of the individual is probably most obvious in the
> >> arts.
> >> No "Ninth Symphony" without Beethoven. No "Prufrock" and "The Waste
> >> Land" (and this list) without Eliot.
> > This is sort of weird. The 'reason' hheliocentrism would have
> > emerged in
> > time is that a Galileo woudl have emerged in time, so the question
> > that
> > needs to be asked is what causes a Galileo to emerge.
> > And while there would not be a Waste Land without Eliot, Eliot
> > wouldn't
> > have written that poem had there not been a World War and had he not
> > had
> > an unhappy marraige.
> > You are debating a non-question, like the debate over nurture and
> > nature.
> > Carrol