Message from discussion
Natural vs Evolved Species (was: Better to be...)
From: g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
Subject: Re: Natural vs Evolved Species (was: Better to be...)
Date: 1999/10/15
Message-ID: <7u79i0$mk7$1@panix2.panix.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 537060723
References: <37d3859e.2103889@news.mindspring.com> <380613EF.A1B5053A@ragingbull.com> <7u5l6n$2uk$1@panix2.panix.com> <380659D8.E19FC1B0@ragingbull.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 939993473 22038 166.84.0.227 (15 Oct 1999 13:17:53 GMT)
Organization: }"{ }"{ }"{ }"{
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Oct 1999 13:17:53 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97)
"Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>:
| > | > | That doesn't make Gould's punctuated equilibrium into what you
| > | > | attempted to make it.
Gordon wrote:
| > | > Right. It's just a hint, as I said. The rest is left as an
| > | > exercise for the reader.
"Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>:
| > | IOW, it isn't what you attempted to make it and your point is
| > | pointless.
Gordon wrote:
| > For you, perhaps.
"Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>:
| > | At least when you retreat, you do it quickly.
Gordon wrote:
| > I haven't "retreated." I simply pointed out that the term
| > "balance" is reasonable when applied to ecological systems,
| > after Michael was criticized for using the term. It's as
| > reasonable now as it was then and as it will be in the
| > future.
"Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>:
| Let's see, you attempted to point out that the term is
| reasonable by taking a concept "punctuated equilibrium" and
| twist its meaning to fit a definition that you have admit it
| does not have.
Martin, go look up _equilibrium_ in a dictionary. It'll
probably give a number of synonyms. Pay special attention
to those which start with the letter _b_.
| ...
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 10/2/99 }
|
