 |
RE: [RC] Cloning/Larmarck/Bey Shah Temperament - heidi"Pure Darwinism" is still pretty much adhered to in scientific circles, especially as the counterpoint to creationism. Well, not really. Science has zoomed far past Darwin, and I can't remember how long it's been since I've heard of "pure Darwinism" from anyone in the scientific community. I don't know that creationism needs a "counterpoint"--as one with a foot in both the religious world and the scientific world, I would submit that the phrase "pure Darwinism" is bandied about far more by so-called "creationists" who don't want to consider science at all and who spout it as a dirty word, and who in fact don't even read their Bibles very well, since they don't understand that the two (very different) creation stories in Genesis were never intended to be science, but instead were intended to underscore the nature of a higher power as it relates to humanity. Interesting stat: something like 85% of scientists believe in a higher power, and acknowledge that "creation" was not a random act but had to have some kind of a starter force. I would also submit that "creation" is an ongoing process, and that there is nothing about us or about our earth th at is "finished" yet. Which leads one right back to science... Interesting!--your experience with foals from the same stallions. Is it true that most foals never meet their fathers? It is the exception rather than the norm for foals to meet their fathers in any sort of normal context, if at all. Nonetheless, when they do, it is often pretty clear that stallions recognize which foals are theirs and which are not, even when they are long separated from their dams, and I've also found that horses raised far apart from each other will often form family relationships within a herd when introduced to one another, even at quite advanced ages. It is downright eerie when we euthanize a horse here, how all of the close relatives in the upper mare pasture will rush to the fence to have a "funeral" while the less related ones seem to be relatively unaffected. "Environment" as an influence in forming neural connections is not just about "objective" visual, auditory, and tactile stimuli. At the Soul level of the organism, the subjective responses to these stimuli are unique, get hard wired into the brain, and may or may not be inheritable going forward. We are talking Soul or Consciousness or, at the very least, for all you Social Darwinists, random herd behaviors. :-) Sure. But how much of the difference is "hard-wired" into the brain to begin with, and then enhanced by "soul" level reactions? So much personality is evident right from birth--and I don't think it is necessarily random, either. (And I would also submit that while not all of it is necessarily genetic, a great deal of it still is.) Sometimes "random" is just a code word for "we don't understand why." Chaos theory being what it is, as soon as you introduce one unique, random, individual influence--whether hard wired into the brain or genes or not--the organism starts down an infinitely divergent path. Yep. All I know is that, having about finished my book, I am starting to seriously look for my Soul Horse, and I don't care much about breeding. I care about heart and eye and how we are together in the now (and being less than 15hh). And I will submit that its likelihood of coming from within specific family groupings is quite high. Heidi =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|