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:

> QUOTES: […]  [i]apes and Old World monkeys each evolved a way of moving that was different from the ancestral species as they adapted to different niches in their environments.
> […] suggesting that each group evolved a distinct way of moving as they specialized for success in different environmental niches.[/i] 
> 
> DAVID: [i]it all sounds very logical, but it is pure conjecture, since it does not explain how the new species were designed. See next entry re' Stephen L. Talbott on natural selection.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]I greatly appreciate your willingness to publish articles that support my proposals and directly contradict your own. Thank you. Of course nobody knows what is the mechanism that engineers the changes, but how refreshing to hear you accept the logic of what you always try to dismiss as “Darwinian” thought – your only reason for rejecting it being that it is “Darwinian”.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Darwinian thought generally presents natural selection as a magical force of creation. Talbott derides That form of thinking.[/i]
> 
> You were trying to dismiss the Darwinian idea that evolution was driven by the need to adapt to different environments. You and I have long since agreed that NS is not creative, and you have ignored the Margulis quote, which was no doubt predated by others (including ourselves) who had noticed this obvious fact: “[i]Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create[/i].” (Lynn Margulis [2011].
> 
> DAVID: [i]Talbott is brilliant and is beloved by ID folks, where I found this reference. Environment does not make new species, though [b]it might demand them as he notes[/b]. And why shouldn't we accept agency outside biology? The entire chapter is worth a read.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]I have never claimed that environment makes species, but am delighted to read that Talbott confirms the proposal that the environment might demand new species – rejected by you, since you believe that your God makes all the changes in advance of environmental change. [b]Of course it is perfectly acceptable to take into account the possibility of agency outside biology – as I myself do when allowing for a God to have designed the intelligent cell. There is absolutely nothing here that I would disagree with or that contradicts my own views of evolution[/i].
> 
> DAVID: [i]I don't think you have read all Talbott proposes. What he says is we know new species fit new requirements and we have no idea how that might happen. Talbott literally demands that we include agency on an equal basis.[/i]
> 
> And I am delighted to hear that the environment might demand new species, as bolded. I keep emphasizing that nobody knows how it happens, and as an agnostic I have always included agency on an equal basis. You try to argue even when I agree with you and Talbott!