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]Cells cannot plan for a future they cannot visualize[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: [i]And I keep repeating that I do not regard evolution as the result of planning but of intelligent RESPONSES to changing conditions. Why is this illogical?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I would point out again, there is no evidence cells can plan for the future.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You obviously did not read the comment you quoted. In my hypothesis THEY DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THEY RESPOND TO CHANGING CONDITIONS.
> 
> I've not ignored what you constantly ignore. The changes of form in the fossil gaps of evolution are huge. Even Darwin recognized his theory depended upon finding the little steps. They don't exist. Obviously the 'changing conditions' require huge changes, therefore design.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Your problem in not following my thought is you have difficulty in recognizing the need for design. The gaps imply enormous amounts of design required.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I keep accepting the argument for design. And I keep agreeing that we do not have the evidence for cellular intelligence being able to produce the necessary innovations, just as we do not have the evidence for a sourceless supermind which 3.8 billion years ago inserted a computer programme for every undabbled innovation in order to fulfil his purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. How many more times do you want me to repeat this?
> 
> But I think we do have obvious edvidence in the need for complex design, which can be achieved only by a mind in action.
> >  
> > DAVID: [i]Cellular intelligence is a very weak hypothesis, because its first point re' the possible scope of cell intelligence is a hypothesis to begin with. Hypotheses should have a proven basis at the start of the construction. […][/i]
> > 
> > dhw: So what is the proven basis for your hypothesis that there is an unknown sourceless conscious mind which 3.8 billion years ago inserted a computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life? Stop making up rules as you go along.
> 
> The proof is the need for complex design does not come from thin air or  baby steps by cells.  Only a mind can do it.