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]You still fail to see adaptation is not speciation. Gould's gaps are real.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: bI keep repeating that nobody knows how speciation comes about, but adaptation gives us a clue as to a possible and perfectly logical explanation, as illustrated by the whale. The gaps become less of a problem if you accept the idea that intelligent cells (as opposed to random mutations) are responsible for designing responses to changing conditions. We know that in some (though not all) cases, adaptation has to be swift to ensure survival.
> 
> Whale gaps are huge, and swift adaptations are still not speciation. You are grasping at straws.
> > 
> > dhw: [b][i]Of course if he exists he does what he wants to,[/b] and I cannot possibly forget that you have no idea why he would have chosen to delay “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose, for 3.X billion years, and that [..] he therefore had to design every non-human life form, lifestyle etc. in order to cover the time he had decided to take.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The bold is the only logical part of your statement. The rest wants a humanized God.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: The rest is a summary of your theory, which you tell us is not illogical “[i]if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history[/i]”, and your flaccid “humanizing” complaint is countered by your own agreement that your God “[i]very well could think like us[/i]”. 
> 
> But we do not know if God thinks like you do. All supposition. History presents the facts.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]What neither of us discussed is that it is possible God gave these apes human legs 11.6 myo and they migrated to Africa and hybridized with apes into early hominins about 6-8 myo. Makes more sense than apes jumped to the ground and self-invented the legs through necessity ( from the Darwin viewpoint). God is a clever evolution maker.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]How would bipedal apes mating with ordinary apes make them into hominins? They would simply be apes with human legs, ape legs, or indescribable legs! Your other comment is dealt with above.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Hybridization is an accepted form of evolution.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Of course it is. Only you happened to create a pretty silly form of it: apes with human legs mated with ape-legged apes to produce early hominins! I’d have thought apes with human legs were the hominin ancestors, whereas apes with ape legs would not contribute anything new at all to the human lineage.
> 
> Silly. Remember something has to be the in between model!
> > 
> > QUOTES (from “[b]Complexity of mammalian backbones[/b]”: [i]As part of our study, we found that modern mammals with the most complex backbones also usually have the highest activity levels […]  “'And some changes in backbone complexity evolved at about the same time that other features associated with a more active lifestyle evolved, like fur or specialised muscles for breathing.”[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]this article certainly shows my theory that there is a drive to increased complexity that controls evolution. […] The need for design is obvious. As God controlled evolution, these were necessary steps to create humans.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: […] [i]They are simply giving us the facts, and what they say here supports my theory that anatomical changes are linked to activity. The statement “as God controlled evolution” is an assumption (a) that God exists, and (b) that he preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation etc. not just along the human line of descent but for every single species that ever lived. [/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Of course new activities are allowed by new body parts. That doesn't explain how the new body abilities and forms appeared. You are still pure Darwin in thought. Who or what designed the new forms or parts? A designing mind is required.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I keep explaining that in my hypothesis, new body abilities and forms appear AS A RESULT of new activities. If that is “pure Darwin”, so be it. The word “Darwin” does not make an argument invalid. And you should have understood by now that in my hypothesis the new body abilities and forms are designed by the cell communities, and I accept the possibility that the ability to do this designing may have been given to them by your God – but for reasons I cannot fathom, you refuse to accept the possibility that your God might have designed the mechanism to give them this ability.
> 
> I've accepted it in the past as an inventive mechanism from God with guidelines. You don't like guidelines as it gives your version of God too much control. Your agnosticism is showing up as usual.