Re: * makes hubey

H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
26 Nov 1995 02:02:44 -0500

Ralph L Holloway <rlh2@columbia.edu> writes:

> In what way is "liberal democracy" an "evolutionary idea" that has
>"triumphed over..."? I look around the world and I don't see one hellofa
>lot of "liberal democracy". I get the impression that the majority of
>humanity live under political systems other than "liberal democracy".
>Why throw in political idealogy into this supposedly biological
>evolutionary thread? I think I know the answer.

Why don't you also look back a few hundred years and tell us
how many liberal democracies existed then.

Why don't you look back ten years and tell us what it was
like in eastern Europe.

How about looking back about 60 years...

>> That's why they are dead-ends of evolution. They stayed where they
>> were, the animal kingdom moved on. It's like a train dropping
>> off things at various intervals alongside its travel. Whatever
>> is dropped off remains within some neighborhood of that location
>> just like the drunkard by the light pole.

>This shows about the most incredible lack of knowledge of understanding
>of organic evolution that I've encountered. Actually, one could argue

Holloway, you'll never go beyond collecting and categorizing
in the simplest way possible.

Maybe if you try real hard you might manage to measure things
with rulers but don't try for more sophisticated concepts
like radius of curvature or hierarchical putting together
of parts.

I was thinking of looking for your articles but I think
it would be a waste of time.

For you a house is a collection of stones.

>evolution, particularly for the mammals with the Angiosperms developing
>at the end of the Mesozoic. To call them dead-ends of evolution provides
>us all with a clear and penetrating insight to Hubey's brain. Stick with

Holloway, the reason you find it impossible to understand
anything is your ignorance of possibilities of various
kinds of organizations and structures. YOu haven't gone
beyond Aristotle. Shame, it was 2 thousand years ago.

>Mathematics, Hubey, those equations are a lot more simple than scientific
>reasoning...

Sheesh, "scientific reasoning"??? Like what? taking pride in being
able to spend 20 years memorizing Latin names for things and
mistaking it for doing science? Do you have any idea of what
it means to be still in the "descriptive stage"?

Have you gone on any field trips through the woods lately :-)..
Ahem, I mean scientific expeditions, or should I say "doing
science"?

>And if that adaptation called intelligence leads to the premature demise
>of not just the human species, but most of the ecological chains worked
>out through natural selection over the last billion and a half years, so
>that most of the aquatic and terrestrial forms of life become extinct, is
>it really intelligence?

I'd think that the news of the demise of the human species is
rather premature. If it does happen it will be due to ignorance
of those who mistake their collections of data for science.

> I think Hubey has a sophomoric idea of what evolution is. We
>provided numerous references for him in the past, and he has spurned them
>for a lot of crap you could get out of a bible class. I'm out of here.
>Ralph Holloway

It's too bad you flew in out of nowhere. I thought you had
disappeared already. It looks like I stepped on your tail with
some post. I think people like you don't even understand what
evolution is; it's obvious you have no idea what science is
or how it's done. In about 20 years we'll have computers doing
what you do, and hopefully paleontology departments will close
completely. Maybe some trade schools will open up and teach
people how to brush the dust off bones so as not to damage
it, sort of like dental assistants. By that time the real
scientists will no longer be gazing at bones or collecting
them on field trips.

I'm growing more and more tired of this every day.

-- 





				Regards, Mark

				http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey