From: Peter L Borst <[log in to unmask]>

> > I'd rather discuss them than simply present them.

>Still waiting here, to discuss.

Me too.  As I've said before, I'm bowing out of the semantic argument.  I'm happy (anxious even) to discuss the above, but all that seems to be presented.

To be clear, I'm not positing any "intelligent design" or "creationist" POV.  I'd be surprised if anyone interpreted what I wrote to be such, but I want to be absolutely clear.  With that said, I don't think it matters...If we must unravel the BIG questions (like, where did life come from?) as a prerequisite to studying what life is/looks like, then we might as well just give up.

A boulder teetering at the top of a hill "wants" to roll down.  We could also say that it has "potential energy"...but these are the same thing.  I don't think that "Mother Nature" is a person, even if I refer to her often.

>On discussion: one simply cannot expect ideas to go unchallenged in even the most supportive environment. Especially ideas such as intentionality, design, and "natural law". It is not a trivial matter to discuss the meaning of strategy and tools in the context of evolution. 

The disagreement here seems not to be based upon these concepts, but how I use the words "tool" and "strategy".  Intentionality, design and "natural law" are concepts that have been brought into this conversation, but again, have nothing to do with:

"...a thoughtful (and not often discussed) aspect of evolutionary biology and how it relates to concepts in artificial selection such as "inbreeding", "outbreeding" "fixing traits", etc."

deknow

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm