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]Because just adding neurons willy-nilly will not anticipate preparation for future use. 200 cc of brain must chav e special organization which is present in the forebrain with five tiers ranked.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw:  “Adding neurons willy-nilly” is NOT what I am proposing! The neurons are added to serve a particular purpose – namely, to implement the new ideas or to cope with the new conditions which exceed the existing capacity. In our simple example, they are added as small-brained homo designs, makes and uses his new artefact. In your theory, however, your God pops in to operate on the brains of a few small-brained pre-sapiens in “anticipation” of something or the other that they will invent 280,000+ years later. THAT is willy-nilly.
> 
> You didn't answer the concept the neurons have to be added in a special structural form, therefore by design. Your own bias overwhelms you.
> > 
> > [b]Behe[/b]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]The article discussed on Tuesday/Wednesday did not even mention adaptation. It was concerned with mutations and loss of function which might in some cases prove advantageous – hence the sickle cell. [b]And you still haven’t explained why you regard it as illogical to propose that a successful adaptation/innovation will result in some genes losing their original function and either changing their function or disappearing – i.e. loss of genes results from adaptation and does not cause it.[/b][/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]My view is opposite: loss of genes causes the adaptation[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: The mutation article had nothing to do with adaptation. The previous article did, and I know you believe that loss of genes causes adaptation. Now please explain why you find my counter-proposal (now bolded) illogical.
> 
> Our view, like cell functions, is from the outside of the process. It is again 50/50 probability, and I chose Behe's interpretation.