[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Platt Holden]

SA:   Platt you are talking about elements, but there
> mixture and bonding is still inorganic and that is
> unpredictable.  Whatever kind of mixture or bonding
> these elements involve themselves with coming from the
> mantle to the earth's surface as lava will definitely
> have a play in what kind of soil that part of the
> earth will have.  What will that soil, inorganic
> level, be?  Oh, and if it rains a lot or is very dry
> that will also play a hand in what kind of inorganic
> level will be present.  So many factors are involved.

That the composition of dirt may vary from place to place I have no 
doubt. Nor do I doubt that one cannot predict exactly what the 
composition will be until it's tested. That's why I send a sample of 
the dirt in my back yard to the local dirt testing facility so I know 
how best to fertilize it to grow petunias But what that has to do with 
evolution toward betterness I haven't the foggiest.

> First off, we'll see as to how much control we
> will have on what our babies will look like.  'A cure
> for cancer will be here very soon' has been a slogan
> I've heard since the 1980's.  Yet, not to go off
> track, I'm not sure what this manipulation by humans
> has to do with "What will my son look like?"

IMO if scientists will eventually be able through gene manipulation to 
produce babies immune to cancer and other diseases and extend human 
life hundreds of years, they will be able to produce babies to look 
like whoever you specify. The fact that as of now the looks of your 
baby aren't predictable simply means the technology of genetics still 
has a ways to go. But, all the mechanisms are known. The biological 
pattern of a human being is no mystery. Anyway, your baby's looks have 
little to do with an evolutionary leap forward.  

>      Platt, scientists are very, very far off from
> knowing exactly how to produce round noses versus
> pointed noses and to have these combined with long
> legs, well, this is all just talk.  The field of
> evolutionary development where the understandings that
> go on inside of womb is a new, young field.  I know
> Gould in his book, "The Structure of Evolutionary
> Theory" from ca. the year 2000 was calling on people
> to practice in this field he called so open and
> unknown.  How anything inside the womb actually gets
> from here to there even in a weeks time is terra
> incognito, or in other words, a field in science that
> still has much to reveal for we just don't know. 
> There are some scientists that know that certain
> markers go on and off and when this happens certain
> genes are triggered and it is the sequence of genes
> that are triggered that develops a wing of a fruit fly
> either on the back or coming out of the head of this
> creature.  Yet, the why the triggering happens when it
> does, and how that triggering is triggered and to even
> know what genes are.  Sure the human DNA is being
> mapped, but what those genes do on the map - well
> nobody knows.

You have a lot less faith in science and technology than I do. 

>      Platt said:  "By contrast, the formula for 
> > a successful metaphysics escapes the most dedicated
> > practitioner of 
> > intellect."
> 
>      I doubt this statement as well, because the
> metaphysics of cosmology became what is now astronomy.
>  Thus, a metaphysics that changed into a science, even
> as Natural Philosophy became known more as a Natural
> Science in the 1800's due to data streaming in more
> and more according to an orientation that matched
> theories in a way that mirrored the by then well
> established science known as physics.

I was speaking about knowing a formula for a successful metaphysics, 
not about knowing the history of astronomy or natural science. If you 
know of such a formula, please share it with the rest of us. 

>      I never thought of this one, but you pointed out
> another unpredictable chaos, inorganic, and biological
> level force known as the weather.  Even now-a-days,
> society and thus, intellect is being blamed at times
> for influencing the weather.  What is the weather or
> the forces in the weather made up of?  All these
> levels on a very unpredictable scale. 

But not unpredictable so as to affect evolution towards betterness. Or 
do you believe an unpredictable change in the weather will create a new 
life form higher than humans?

>      Platt said:  "But the forces that change a
> society are neither
> > understood nor 
> > predictable (except in Pirsig's thesis a general but
> > undefined move 
> > towards betterness) and individual thoughts are
> > likewise beyond any 
> > certainty whatsoever. I have no idea what thoughts
> > my brain will 
> > generate in the next two minutes, or what
> > revolutionary idea I will 
> > come up with tomorrow that will change the world."
> 
>      You could plan ahead and come up with an idea as
> to what you could do tomorrow or next year for that
> matter.
 
I could but I can't predict I will plan anything ahead two minutes from 
now, nor can I predict with certainty that what I plan will actually 
occur. However, that something will happen I can predict.

I think you are saying that since you cannot predict the outcome of a 
spin of inorganic roulette wheel that it responds to DQ. What I am 
saying is nothing in the inorganic, biological, or social levels 
responds to DQ so as to move evolution any higher than what it has 
already accomplished in the life form of  a human being.   

But, I could be wrong.

Thanks.
Platt
.