Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

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:

> DAVID: [i]There is no proof that cell committees have the design skill to invent an advanced species. I firmly believe only God can do it. And the whales prove the point, considering the complex physiology required at each step.[/i]
> 
> I have agreed over and  over again that there is no proof, and that is why it remains a hypothesis, but unlike your own equally unproven hypothesis, it offers a coherent explanation of evolutionary history. I am aware of your firm belief that only God can design the weaverbird’s nest and the different stages of whale, neither of which have the remotest connection to his sole purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. But I’m afraid firm belief is not a very persuasive argument.
> 
> dhw: [i]I think we are close to agreement, but I would rephrase your comment: The need to survive is of prime importance as an evolutionary driving force. Survivability does not necessitate complexity, but enhanced survivability may result from successful attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity.[/i]
> DAVID: [i]Totally backward. [/i][…]
> dhw: [i]I have said that survivability does not necessitate complexity, and you tell me complexity is not necessary for individual survival. Totally backward?[/i]
> DAVID: [i]I'm still discussing species survival, not individual. Do you have a closed mind to that?[/i]
> 
> And I keep pointing out that a species can only survive if individuals survive. Do you have a closed mind to that? The survivability of individuals and of their whole species does not necessitate complexity. Anything backward there?
> 
> dhw: [i]You say primates are top,and apes are more complex than birds but both have survived and have finished improving. Why is that the exact opposite of saying that enhanced survivability may result from attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity,[/i]
> DAVID:[i] Only a more complex brain led to more complex human civilization. Complexity first.[/i]
> 
> Yes, it’s an on-going process. A concept that is not implemented won’t advance civilization, and so you are right to say the larger or more complex brain leads to the advance, though it cannot do so without the concept previously thought up by the smaller/less complex brain. The process goes on repeating itself, as new concepts arise (often building on earlier concepts), and implementation creates greater complexity both in the brain and in civilization. That doesn’t alter the fact that a dualist cannot claim that ideas come from the brain.
> 
> dhw: [i]I can’t see any connection between the two “concepts”, let alone why one is “totally backward” from the other.[/i]
> DAVID: [i]Your approach of 'push' is the reverse of mine, 'pull'.[/i]
> 
> I don’t know what that has to do with birds not being apes “in total complexity” and both surviving as species “so they are improved enough”, or how your “pull” proves that survivability is not a major issue.