Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> >  > dhw: I wrote that &#147;[i]Darwin acknowledged the problem of the Cambrian explosion (his &#147;dilemma&#148;), which he hoped (in vain) might be solved by new fossil discoveries.[/i]&#148; I don&apos;t know why you have repeated what I said, when the whole point of my own hypothesis is that if cell communities have the ability to do their own inventing, innovations will take place as saltations, not as gradual transitions. What would be the use of half an arm/leg/liver/kidney? >  >  DAVID: &#133; Tell [i]me how the complex forms appear with no layer of trial and error forms you propose? Your proposal does not fit the findings.[/i] >  > dhw: I am not proposing &#147;trial and error forms&#148;. (See above, and see comment on 2nd article.)-Whole Cambrian organisms are very complex with several organ systems that have to invented and coordinated in function.  You want existing simple organisms in the pre-Cambrian to invent these giant steps without trial and error. That requires a planning mind. Your proposal is impossible unless God has implanted a perfect inventive mechanism, a possibility I accept. But that makes God primary to the control of evolution.->dhw: The theistic version of my hypothesis is that God gave organisms the intelligence to design their own innovations and natural wonders.-As described above, I accept this.->  > David&apos;s comment: (under &#147;[b]Early mammal primate[/b]&#148;) [i]What I find fascinating is how alike those bones are to current anatomy. Looks like pre-planning[/i].  >  >dhw:Looks like common descent to me. Organisms providing new structures within the framework of old structures. But for you every difference and every similarity looks like pre-planning!-Of course common descent. Dinosaurs had similar femurs, but I was looking just at the tiny mammals that succeeded them. One can look at femurs back before the dinosaurs. Pattern pre-planning. >  > xxxx >  > David: the discovery of HAR&apos;s offers a new road to study. I suggest they are God&apos;s tool.[/i] >  > dhw: Even if they are God&apos;s tool, they can still be part of an autonomous mechanism which is capable of innovation as well as adaptation. But of course nothing has been proven yet. That is why we can only hypothesize.-I&apos;ve been theorizing there is a drive to complexity. HAR&apos;s may be a sign of it.