AristotlesAdvance

Organisms do not evolve. Species do. That your child is not identicasl to you is not a violation of the law of identity. Nor is there any mystery in the causal chain from gene to protein to phenotype (i.e., the biological form) of the organism. No mystery whatsoever. Anyone who makes such an arbitrary assertion is ignorant of the biochemistry and is relying on the ignorance of others in order to spout such mystical nonsense. Rupert Sheldrake is a pseudo-scientific crackpot who makes no well-defined predictions not already better explained by verifiable science. Nothing in evolution contradicts the law of identity, which is not the law of immutability. Absolute nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Thanks for venting your subjective opinion regarding Sheldrake. I'll shelve it next to the other subjective opinions about him and his work (many of which are positive). Regarding the silliness about what it is, precisely, that is supposed to be evolving: "species" bears the same logical relation to "individuals organisms" as "society" does to "individual humans"; i.e., only the latter truly exist -- the former is but an abstraction. So it is obviously individuals that ultimately must show evidence of having, at one time, been ( A ), then slowly morphing, individual by individual, into something significantly different, such as ( B ). This, of course, has never been shown; precisely zero empirical evidence for this. So far, you've ducked the original question and replied with slogans -- "T'isn't the individual but the species!" -- as if that actually means anything. It doesn't. The cutting edge of evolutionary theory today has little to do with any of the ideas of classical Darwinism or its melding with Mendelian genetics in the 1940s known as "Neo-Darwinism." The current work, most of it in the field of biochemistry, takes its cue from the work of Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock and her genetics work with maize. Some of the most interesting work is being done by James Shapiro at Univ. of Chicago. Briefly: the cell itself is seen as a fantastically complex integration of codes and biochemical instructions that finely regulate cell activity. The model is similar to a computer + software instructions. Rather than assuming the cell and its genome to be passive recipients of blind outside events that cause a random change called a "mutation", which is then "selected" by another undefined force or entity called "Natural Selection", the cell is now observed to be actively involved in creating its own fate; i.e., it has been observed that, by means of various transposable elements, the genome actively experiments with itself by shifting various elements around in a highly regulated way, in order to maximize its adaptation to a particular environment. The genomic "menu" it has at its disposal is limited, of course, but there's no pre-set way of choosing among the given options, and the organism is capable of making novel combinations that never existed before. This is not exactly what Darwin or his disciples had in mind by the term "evolution."

Observe also that there is something constant in these and in all cases of change. Specifically, entities change in a law-like rather than a random manner. Such change is an aspect of an entity's identity. According to the Prometheus essay, "evolution holds that change is the only true constant." Really? What about the laws of evolution? Would the essay's authors maintain that in the period of a few seconds a flower might transform into a dinosaur and then a starfish, and then a volcano? Why not, if all is change? I admit this is a pretty good question: i.e., why is a fly not a horse? Why does a flower NOT transform itself into a dinosaur and then a starfish? The answer is this: we actually don't know. The genomic difference between a mouse and a man is not so great that it can explain all of the other differences between the two. I rather incline to Rupert Sheldrake's answer on this question: biological habit. The reason a fly is not a horse is that its parents were other flies (and the same, mutatis mutandis, for the horse). Anyway, it's pretty apparent that if Darwinian evolution imagines organism ( A ) "evolving" into a very different organism ( B ), then the law of identity requires that some "a" (part of ( A )) be unchanged and identical to some "a" (part of ( B )). If "a" was identical to itself when inhering in (A), it must also be identical to itself when inhering in a changed ( A ), now known as ( B ).

Kimmler, At the heart of all scientist 'prime movers', whatever their beliefs,or their mixed premises, is a dedication to reality and reason. In my book, this defines them as small 'o' objectivists. Very simply, what Rand did was to congregate the very best of their rationality under one roof, so to speak. The influence of O'ism on all disciplines, science included, will take root in the near future for the simple reason that reality can't be escaped for long. Reading your snide little digs, it seems that you are laboring under a misapprehension - that Objectivists claim to be a superior race. It takes an egalitarian to be an elitist, imo,; and to be an elitist reveals the soul of a second hander, which is a small, mean, thing. Rational selfishness necessitates a life of self-made soul, of objective standards not dependent upon, or in competition with, the arbitrary standards of others. Tony At the heart of all scientist 'prime movers', whatever their beliefs,or their mixed premises, is a dedication to reality and reason. In my book, this defines them as small 'o' objectivists. So anyone "dedicated to reality and reason" is an objectivist with a small "o"? Talk about self-serving! That's right up there with Dorothy Sayers' quip that "All good work is Christian work." Very simply, what Rand did was to congregate the very best of their rationality under one roof, so to speak. And how did she do that? The influence of O'ism on all disciplines, science included, will take root in the near future for the simple reason that reality can't be escaped for long. I hear that often . . . but only from Objectivists. I also remember hearing the same thing over 30 years ago, and to date, the influence of Objectivism on any discipline -- science included -- has been nil. I suppose True Believers will then use Objectivism to explain the lack of Objectivism's influence by reference to a presumed irrationality of all parties concerned, including scientists. The pious belief that one's beloved philosophical system will change everyone's mind for the better "at some point in the indefinite future" is typical of cult worship, and is highly reminiscent of the way leftists in the 1930s believed that Marxism will bring the blessings of a socialist workers' paradise "sometime in the future." Most Objectivists I've encountered are mentally living in a utopian bubble called "Galt's Gulch" and are unwilling -- afraid, perhaps? -- to venture forth and live in the real world. it seems that you are laboring under a misapprehension - that Objectivists claim to be a superior race. They claim to be superior people irrespective of race. I haven't found a single exception to this on any of the Objectivist-related sites I've encountered. It's especially ludicrous because most Objectivists don't know much of anything: they know very little history; apart from Rand's works, they are quite illiterate in both literature and philosophy. Objectivism is a sort of easy substitute for real education (which makes it quite similar to other cult thought-systems). Rational selfishness necessitates a life of self-made soul, of objective standards not dependent upon, or in competition with, the arbitrary standards of others. Thanks for proving my point so quickly. Why would the standards of "others" necessarily be arbitrary? Why even assume that from the start? Answer: to make oneself appear superior.

I believe, if you want some idea of objectivity in biography, the source of that was … story, so far as I can pin it down, was a cleaning woman who found empty liquor bottles in his studio after he died. He used those bottles to mix paints in. I get the impression from this statement that the cleaning woman found quite a few liquor bottles in Frank's studio -- else why would a rumor about his drinking have begun at all? Mixing paints or not mixing paints (and I don't believe Peikoff's story for a second), why would there have been so many liquor bottles to begin with? How much paint could he have been mixing?

The reason Miss Rand thought the terrifically juicy Raquel Welch might fit the role of Dagny Taggart was for the same sort of reason she thought the awkwardly stiff Gary Cooper fit the role of Howard Roark, or that long, didactic courtroom speeches make for good screenwriting: She had no real aesthetic sensibility for film or plays -- two genres that demand lots of dramatic compression in their construction -- and she hadn't a clue when it came to casting. Her admirers sometimes forget that she was a novelist, first and foremost.