Re: * makes hubey

H. M. Hubey (
29 Nov 1995 01:10:20 -0500 (Phillip Bigelow) writes:

> The unique presence of large brains in Mammalia is evidence for the
>randomness of acquisition of character traits. It certainly does *not*
>specifically argue for the *desirability* of large brains.

There's a finer line between randomness, chaos and determinism
than you think. You can average a random process and its
moments are deterministic. The fact that larger brains
came later argues against your own point.

Why didn't the mammals precede the egglayers? Why didn't
humans precede dogs? Why didn't reptiles precede bacteria?

Are you seriously contending that in some other planet
with the right conditions that order could have occurred?

>I *Gotcha* on that one, Mark! Why do assume that anotherlarge-brained creature
>would be another human species? Unless, of course, you are just a wee-bit
>biasly anthro-centric with your "theories".

Big deal. I'm starting with the highly stylized facts. On this
planet we are the most intelligent. I don't have any problems
with anthro-centrism. I am anthro-centric if that means that
I think we are the crowning glory (so far) of evolution.

> The whole Plant Kingdom isn't in stasis; just some members of it are.

IT doesn't matter. They are still plants. That's why they hit their
dead ends. Their evolution did not move in the direction toward
the animal kingdom.

>Some members of the Animal Kingdom are also in evolutionary stasis.
>I can think of at least one genus of mollusk that hasn't evolved much in 500

That's fine too. That's why it's still a dumb mollusk. Somewhere in its
ancestry there was something which split off in a different direction
and other things came from this branch.

You're still trying to pull this pseudo-Buddhist guilt-trip on me.
you're wasting your time. Plants are plants and animals are
animals. I don't have much sympathy for right-to-life of any
bacteria harmful to humans either :-)..


Regards, Mark