Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life?

[John Kineman <***>]

John M.

Its a good point of course, but I think just an issue of our highly
vague semantic usage of the terms. I'm not sure there's a fix for it
except to explain one's context or make it evident as the subsequent
exchange with Howard did and I agree with. Life as principle vs. life
form. The first has a metaphysical aspect and the later is more tangible
evidence. Yet I also claim that the first, in regard to functional
relationsips, is equally evident.

RR, of course, titled his book "Life itself" so there it is as a thing.
The "itself" suggests something beyond or prior to the living form (now
I use the verb to indicate the thing, ha ha). But I get your point.

JK

John M wrote:

> JJK:
>
>
> > This is an interesting exchange, as I find nothing shocking or
> > unreasonable about the idea that life can exist before evolution.
> > Evolution is what life does....<
>
> As far as I heard: RR did not identify "LIFE" (thing), only 'living' -
> 'live'
> (adjective). (Correct me please, if it is not the case).
> How would YOU identify that thing which 'does' evolution?
> (In my unorthodox) terms evolution 'occurs', composed by science taking
> snapshots from time to time and recognizes 'changes' FOR (!?) fitness and
> survival. What 'science' does not snap are those variations which did not
> make it to proliferation - survival and got lost from the record.
> Variations,
> however, are occurring unlimited upon cthe changing world (environment)
> in interconnection with the changing 'organism' of the changing species.
> (I am sure in another hour I would be able to compose a better wording).
>
> Cheers
>
> John M.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Kineman" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life?
>
>
>
>
> > Howard, Judith;
> S N I P

--
© 2004 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved