[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

Hey SA, > 

>      SA said:  "The dynamic quality of what will be?
> or what is? is still a valid question."
> 
>      Platt said:  "Unless you are thinking of mutating
> bacteria whose
> > mutations go nowhere 
> > there's no evidence that the biological level is
> > still evolving."  
> 
>      There is this mosquito that evolved underground
> in London.  It was recorded by scientists.  It was one
> species, only breed with its' own population, then
> that species evolved and is not able to breed with
> that previous population that survives outside the
> area.  I found a website that also briefly discusses
> this, along with other creatures as follows:
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Thanks for the reference. Interesting. Still, a new species of mosquito 
hardly qualifies as a evolutionary leap forward. 

>     Platt said:  "Same goes for the inorganic level
> unless you believe the
> > laws of physics 
> > will change."
> 
>     They do change at the site of black holes.  What
> is happening at black holes must fit into the scheme
> of the rest of the universe, yet, what is happening at
> them goes beyond all theories.  All the physics of the
> day that work in most other areas of the universe,
> fall apart at black holes.  How to bridge between what
> happens at the sun and a black hole is to change the
> laws of physics.  What do black holes mean and what
> physics governs them?  It is not our static
> interpretation of the universe, so far, that can
> account for black holes.  As of now, black holes are
> on the dynamic level.  No description as been yet made
> of them.  They are enigmas, mysteries, and beyond all
> static, current understanding.

>From what I read about black holes in Wikipedia, they are far from 
being "beyond all current understanding." Black holes "are predictions 
of Einstein's theory of relativity," and Stephen Hawkings has come up 
with a theory explaining them. Of course, I don't understand anything 
about black holes, or cosmology for that matter. But the Wikipedia 
entry does shed some doubt on your claims. 
 
>      Platt said:  "IMO biological evolution now
> depends on
> > man's experiments 
> > with animal breeding and manipulation of DNA."
> 
>      Yes, this is another biological evolution. 
> Whether it is a more direct link to humankind or other
> environmental causes (ultimately I say of G-d's doing,
> but I do not want to get off-track so I am sticking on
> more philosophical grounds, just wanted to let out my
> personal opinion here), evolution is change in what
> was.

Yes. Biological evolution to me is about "what was."

>      Platt said:  "Incidentally, what's the "wake
> zone?"
> 
>      Oh, this was just a little poetry thrown in to
> help scoot or help along my painting of how I look at
> dynamic quality where all questions have no answers. 
> As the waves of static quality (a boat) where answers
> abound mixes with the unknown (the lake) ripples
> (wakes) happen.  Now if your close to shore watch for
> no wake zone buoy's where you have to slow down the
> boat so as to not make too many big waves that will
> pound the shoreline.  I can't help, but throw in a
> little color sometimes into any discussion, thanks for
> asking!

Thanks for the explanation. I'm all in favor of throwing in a little 
poetry into our posts, and you are very good at it -- not that I always 
understand it. :-). But art, including poetry, gets close to the fire 
of truth. Or so I believe. 

Platt