Reply re Marta Russell and Doyle Saylor
Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestor at SPAMsisurb.filo.uba.ar
Mon Sep 6 14:55:14 MDT 1999
El 5 Sep 99 a las 23:04, Macdonald Stainsby nos dice(n):
> Moreover, 'natural selection' and
> >'genetic mutation' doesn't apply in the human world; we
> >left it behind in the process of becoming human. We are
> >entirely distinct from the animal world.
> Where on earth do you get this nonsense, Phil? It reads
> like scripture. We ARE animals.
Now is the moment for you to brake, Macdonald. We are
animals, true, but of a particular kind. Genetic mutations
happen among humans as well as among any other living
species. What Phil is arguing, however, and if I understood
him well is that the evolutionary strength of genetic
mutation among humans is much weaker than among the
remaining species. And on this, he is right. He is
repeating Engels on "The origin of family", by the way.
> If you
> want to say that we have evolved to a point far and away
> beyond the rest of nature, I agree.
While I don't. Evolution is not something that can be
measured in those terms. All living species have evolved to
the same point: that in which they are capable of remaining
alive. It there is some theleology, the theleology should
be sought at the general level, at the level of Totality
(not to be confused with a mystic conception of the Whole,
Evolution in biology is, in this sense, the expression of
the general idea that "panta rei" (Greek for "everything is
in motion / change"). There has been a chemical evolution
also (see Oparin).
> But please, Phil, none
> of this "Chosen one" kind of blanket statement, you'll die
> like the rest of us animals.
Phil's is no "Chosen one" statement. We have a peculiarity,
that we should not forget: we are the only living species
that realizes its specificity by transforming the whole
world. This _does_ make a difference, and we should keep it
in mind, don't you think so, Macdonald?
More information about the Marxism