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]Just note sapiens suddenly had 200 cc more frontal lobe with no existing requirement to use it, based on any new needs for required activities of daily living, in modern terminology.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: There was no requirement to use it AFTER it had expanded – and that is why there was a period of stasis! And nobody knows why it expanded, but there could have been any number of causes – not just artefacts. 
> 
> You are trying to disarm the impression that  big brain, unused,  brings to anyone who thinks. "All dressed up and no place to go" is an obvious thought. Or, the earliest sapiens built a rocket for a moon launch, 315,000 years ago and just finally used it 50 years ago. This analogy fits as you wildly talk all around the obvious impression
> 
> > dhw: [i]Summary of my proposal: every brain change throughout hominin/homo history resulted from the effort to respond to something new: e.g. an idea, a change in conditions, a new discovery. Every expansion has been followed by a period of stasis until the next new requirement appears...Please explain why you find all this impossible to believe.[/i]
> 
> Since each 200 cc expansion was followed later by very new artifacts, each expansion was  in preparation of later use.
> > 
> > dhw: How many more times? Nobody knows what caused the initial expansion! But whatever was the cause, there were no NEW requirements (or skills) for the next 285,000 years. Now please tell us why you think your God popped in to operate on a few brains if there was no need for him to do so for the next 285,000 years.
> 
> You have the same problem for an answer. Why the delay? For me God planned it for us to learn to use over time. The real question: Why so big so early? You constantly stumble around not finding a natural driving cause and history tells us there was no need for such a big brain,  but not any sort of driving force  is known as you try to worm around in your explanations 
> > 
> > [b]Behe[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID:...[i]Adaptation can result from loss of genes, as you note.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]I did not note that at all. I said that adaptation can be ACCOMPANIED by (not result from) loss of genes, and I explained why.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The oddity is in that adaptation seems to require loss of information or a rearrangement of information so necessary previously hidden information can appear. Proof: it appears necessary future information is planted beforehand, in anticipation of need, just what you reject.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]My suggestion is that it does not REQUIRE loss of information (I don’t know why you’ve switched from genes to information) but is accompanied by the loss of information/genes that are no longer relevant to the organism’s situation. And you have forgotten the fact that the process is accompanied by NEW genes. (Initially, you even denied that there were any new genes!) NEW genes were not “planted beforehand”![/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Genes are removed according to the article, which I have reread.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: The article talks of loss or deletion of genes and loss of function. Please explain why you think the loss of genes would have CAUSED adaptation rather than being the RESULT of adaptation (i.e. they were no longer needed), and please acknowledge that adaptation/speciation is accompanied by NEW genes.
> 
> Yes, new genes happen, but loss of genes is also observed, and your question to me is is it chicken or egg first. New adaptation with  loss of genes means loss of genes caused the adaptation as the authors imply in the article.