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:

> > DAVID:  [i]This symbiosis could only happen if genes were lost, because they had to be absent. Looks like design to me; not by chance[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]I get it: your God preprogrammed the evolution of Amanita inopinata 3.8 billion years ago, or he personally dabbled its mode of symbiosis, because without it life could not have continued until he was able to achieve his prime purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. (Secondary purposes: to prove himself to us, or to provide a sort of spectacle, but not a dhw sort of spectacle.) And while we’re at it, he also preprogrammed salmonella to “break key molecules in immune signaling pathways”, or popped in to give them a tutorial.[/i]
> > [i]Thanks all the same for the ongoing education.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID; [i]Thank you for your attention to the educational articles I present, all of which easily show the designs in life that require a thoughtful designer to produce them. Even Dawkins admitted the design, as he denigrated the designer.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: My own point, of course, was to suggest that all these articles suggest organismal intelligence at work – the alternatives to which I have listed above (3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes or private divine tutorials). I find these a colossal strain on my credulity. I'm sure Dawkins does as well, but I do wish he would ask himself what other way organisms could arrive at such complexity without intelligence of their own, regardless of its source.
> 
> And my response as usual  is to what tutorial did the cells attend to learn to be intelligent? Intelligent action has to be designed into them to guide their automatic molecular reactions.