dagblog - Comments for "ME AND MY CAT NAMED DOG"

Ambitious & licentious scum

NCD — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:46:54 +0000

In reply to I know no one has ever

Ambitious & licentious scum at that!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but

Richard Day — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:15:21 +0000

In reply to While straightening up my

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds a lot like Lamark.

I am not saying that girraffes grew longer necks to reach the leaves of the high trees.

But Lamarkism is not entirely dead as I previously thought. I read a few articles on this new perspective. And this book sounds cool!!!

I shall google the author at the least.

While straightening up my

Watt Childress — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:56:47 +0000

In reply to ME AND MY CAT NAMED DOG

While straightening up my office today, pawing through piles of books, I found a copy Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's "A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation."

I saved this to read and then forgot about it, like so many strange tomes that come through my used bookstore. On the back cover it says "Upon the English publication of this controversial book in 1981, Nature, one of Britain's leading scientific magazines, called it 'the best candidate for burning there has been for many years.'"

Which is probably why I saved it. Talk of book-burning usually makes me want to look more closely into whatever ideas some group wants to condemn to the flames.

The back cover says the hypothesis of formative causation "proposes that the form, development, and behavior of living organisms are shaped and maintained by 'morphogenetic fields.'" It says these fields are "molded by the form and behavior of past organisms of the same species through direct connections across both space and time."

If not for your post here, the book might have gone back into a pile. Now I think I'll put in on the shelf (to read later, of course, when I find the time).

What would really be cool, though, would be to find enough space and time to acquire a pet fox. Provided, of course, that the beautiful furry critter wouldn't eat our chickens and ducks.

Yeah. That is what I think

Richard Day — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:46:19 +0000

In reply to Wow! What a beautiful

Yeah. That is what I think about it.

The wonders, the beauty of it all.

Why do we not all live in awe?

Wow! What a beautiful

Orion — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:45:05 +0000

In reply to ME AND MY CAT NAMED DOG

Wow! What a beautiful creature. The creatures of earth's wilderness are enough to affirm the existence of God to me - but in one that works in complex methods we barely understand.

hahahahaahaFOX has a lot to

Richard Day — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:25:26 +0000

In reply to I blame Fox.The End.

hahahahaaha

FOX has a lot to answer for. hahaha

I blame Fox.The End.

quinn esq — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:55:03 +0000

In reply to ME AND MY CAT NAMED DOG

I blame Fox.

The End.

Well put Atheist. Much better

Richard Day — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:42:36 +0000

In reply to A fascinating story, DD.I

Well put Atheist. Much better than I put it.

As our mathematics and computers get better and better, so too will our understanding of the different processes involved in our theory of evolution.

There is much more in evolution than just randomness as far as I can tell.

Yes, Darwin was one hell of a

Richard Day — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:39:38 +0000

In reply to I'm amazed at the controversy

Yes, Darwin was one hell of a writer to be sure.

And he was so afraid of his conclusions/findings that he sat on them for decades before publication.

And the ancient Chinese as well as the Greeks knew damn well what artificial selection was. Dogs and cats and grains were carefully selected by the ancients. They knew there was a process involved in domestication.

Well, there is a stock

Atheist — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:37:35 +0000

In reply to I once asked a "literalist"

Well, there is a stock answer: only the first one is meant to be chronological. The other one was just stream-of-consciousness, or something like that.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/genesis2.html