[ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"

[Jef Allbright]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:22 AM, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

[Still preoccupied with wedding guests and activities, but jumping in
for a moment here without having read this entire thread]

It appears that my initial question to Keith, intended to discern his
point of view, is answered here.

> Stellar evolution is not related to biological evolution.  Different classes
> of knowledge.  Knowing a lot about one does not help you understand the
> other.

In my opinion this discussion, like so many others, is moot if one
party is fixed on "Chevrolets" while the other is attempting to
stimulate effective discussion, not of automobiles, or even vehicular
artifacts in general, but systems for intentional movement of
configurations of matter.

There's certainly nothing wrong with reductionist frameworks of
thought -- on the contrary, they are highly effective -- as long as
it's recognized that they are inherently incomplete. But here we have
people talking past each other with one party correct in their defense
of a narrow context involving biogenetic evolution.  Another party is
trying to stimulate discussion about a model increasingly coherent
over increasing context of observed regularities in constraints on the
possibility space of evolution of persistent morphologies.

Oh well.  Back to the party.

- Jef