Evolution by Epigenesis: Farewell to Darwinism, Neo and Otherwise

No, I did not admit that.

I only had one purpose:

Right. My only purpose. (you forgot the "because I was thirsty" part.

Yeah but the thing is that is NOT why I went to get a drink of water. Those are consequences of my drinking water when I get thirsty. But they're not my purpose.

The confusion of consequence with purpose is what differentiates teleologists from scientists.

No, I did not admit that.

I only had one purpose:

Right. My only purpose. (you forgot the "because I was thirsty" part.

Yeah but the thing is that is NOT why I went to get a drink of water. Those are consequences of my drinking water when I get thirsty. But they're not my purpose. MY purpose is self-defined. I've told my purpose to you. All your 4s, 5s, and so on are not my purposes. They're your projections.

A biologist would say (at least in terms of natural selection) that thirst-induced behaviors persist because it's an enormous survival disadvantage to lack behaviors in response to thirst. A teleologist would say that we drink in order to survive. It's the opposite.

were'nt you saying that she had a list of heretics which you then said proves there is no heresy ? So, to me it seerms that either she says it, or you are saying it or are saying she says it ? Let me know.

And in some instances Dawkins, Dennet, etc, they deliberately blur the science with their personal worldviews imputing that the science supports their metaphysics.

No, I said her list of supporters proves that the charges of heresy she makes on behalf of those who don't agree with her are by and large unjustified.

Because said supporters are not seen as heretics by the scientific community as a gestalt

Now that is confusing to me. How does a list of her supporters prove that any supposed charges of heresy are unjustified ?

Let's go back to tin tacks and say "well of course everything has a purpose".

I dunno. I'm not talking about any old charge of heresy - but specifically Ms Morgan's claims.

She claimed scientists decalim Aquatic Ape hypothesis as heresy.

I don't think that's the case.

For evidence of such I point to the supporters of the hypothesis (not of her, by the way, I think one can be accepting that Aquatic ape hypothesis is interesting - yet still find Ms Morgan's advocacy of it over the top) who are well respected - by and large - by the scientific gestalt.

Like David Attenborough, for example.

It's really just to demonstrate the inconsistency of her rhetorical thrust - one minute "ooh, you get called a heretic for suggesting this" - next minute "here's a list of people who like the idea".

Like there could be no list of luminaries that were considered heretic by the Church. If there were a list of well known heretics, then they were not really considered heretic at all.

An that makes no sense to me; that if a list is produced, showing there are heretics, then the list istelf proves they were not considered heretic.

Maybe so - but what has the historical fact of heresy got to do with this particular case?

I'm trying to present an example so that you could relate your idea to it.

I could draw up a list of people who I suppose were heretics in regard to Church teachings, but neither the list nor my drawing up of the list could prove that there were not charges of heresy being leveled.

Sure - but how exactly does this relate to the topic?

Yes, it's remarkable what we have adapted for our survival and success.

But plants and some microbes can gather sunlight and turn it into sugar and never have to say a word or move a step. It's elegant, it's metabolically efficient, it's parsimonious.

It's a different kind of sophistication, a different kind of advancement.

Maybe that's why Daphne turned into a tree. I think what you said is all some religious types really want. To know that nanobots haven't taken over our scientists (instead of midichlorians). Where they go, most of us can't follow. If a scientist can grow a human urinary bladder in a lab, what else can they do?? Images of Frankenstein worry us. We need to know that those amazing scientists are human.

There seems to be a marked shift in our self-conception from Egyptian gods, who have animal forms to Greek gods. And the progression seems to continue to gods who have no form at all... suggesting that our self-concept is changing into something that has no particular phenotype. Can biology explain this? At the point when biology succeeds in explaining human consciousness, no doubt some value in this will be found. But our self-conception is a moving target.

We don't really know to what extent our rationality has corollaries in other earthly life forms. It's pretty clear that we don't have a monopoly on emotion. What's obvious is that no other creature has the power to transform the surface of the earth that we do.

but without bacteria we could not even have our own form - forget about transforming anything else.

If by our "own form" you mean our physical bodies, I think I see what you mean. What's the difference between a bacteria colony and a vertebrate organism?

If by our "own form" you mean our physical bodies, I think I see what you mean. What's the difference between a bacteria colony and a vertebrate organism?

Perhaps humans are distinct in the same way a liver cell is. Neither can live outside it's biosphere.

And bacteria colonies contain only bacteria, right?