[Taxacom] teleology example

[John Grehan]

Well according to the author he write the word out of choice, but now seems
to regret that choice. He was not asleep when writing as far as known.

The questions about purpose are fine - only so far they are not in
the realm of science as currently practiced. As stated before, I have no
problem with any scientist believing in purpose, but if purpose is going to
be introduced into evolution as a scientific concept one must ask for the
evidence. If one does not believe purpose is part of science then one can
quite easily leave it out. Croizat wrote extensively on the proclivity for
evolutionists to introduce teleological arguments to explain adaptation.
Not much has changed since then it appears. Many evolutionists still use
explicitly teleological explanations while at the same time denying that
their words say what that say. Is this not bizarre?

John Grehan

On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>wrote:

> Clearly most of us think that the author did not write "purpose" on
> purpose.
>
> But then, do even humans really have purpose? Or are we just neurons
> firing in concert following some higher pattern in the universe, and we
> pretend we have free-will and . . . purpose? Perhaps we are all just
> organic machines, and what we think is purpose is just reflex
> machination? Or are we living in a big video game following the higher
> purpose of a multidiminsional Xbox?
>
> This thread is actually quite bizarre. Whether you think about it . . .
> or not.
>
>
>
> ____________________________
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
> UPS and FedExpr -  MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Curtis Clark
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:43 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] teleology example
>
> On 2013-03-06 6:12 PM, John Grehan wrote:
> > Here's a nice explicit example: "it's hard to see how these hair-like
> > processes would evolve if they didn't serve a purpose."
>
> "Purpose" is often used as an unfortunate substitute for "function" by
> biologists. Sloppy writing doesn't always mean sloppy thinking.
>
> --
> Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
> Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4140
> Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>