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:

> > [b]The smelly hoatzin[/b] Now [b]Evolution[/b]
> 
> > DAVID: [i]More nonsense. How many Model-T Fords can you find![/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You have missed the point. Your version of God designed and culled 99.9% of species which were NOT the ancestors of his sole purpose: us plus our food. If Henry Ford is your equivalent, he would have invented and “culled” 99.9 non-motor-car machines in order to be able to invent his motor car, which is the ancestor of all modern Fords. 
> > 
> You are off point. Comparing living evolution to automotive evolution is quite comparable  allegorically. We could compare TV, refrigeration and many other mechanical advances that truly evolve.
> 
> > dhw: There you go again. A God who gets new ideas is no more human than a God who starts out with a specific purpose. His goals will certainly be clear to him, but that does not mean he has only one goal, which is to produce us plus food, and therefore messily and inefficiently produces 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his single goal. 
> 
> Off you go again with your very distorted view of God-driven evolution. All evolutionary processes require culling. End of discussion.
> > 
> > [b]Eco systems[/b] and [b]Animal minds: Insect tool use[/b]
> 
> > DAVID: [i]Still poo-pooing ecosystems into which the insect fits.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Answered above in bold, and this totally groundless comment does not explain why last week you accepted insect intelligence, but now believe a particular insect’s behaviour might have been divinely preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or divinely dabbled through lessons in the use of resin. 
> 
> I have accepted probable intelligence but with conformation by  testing. 
> > 
> > [b]New oxygen research[/b] now [b]Atheism[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Your 'act' of defending God is a shallow facade.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Please stop dodging the absurdity of your own theistic theory and the logic of my alternative theistic theories by pretending that my agnosticism somehow invalidates my arguments. 
> 
> Sorry, but I find your God-imitations quite weak. Remember I find you humanizing God.
> > 
> > [b]End of evolution?[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Do you see any speciation? Evolution is over.[/i]
> > And:
> > DAVID: [i]What 'new conditions' do you imagine? I see none.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw:[i] Possible changes to the sun, massive objects smashing into the Earth, human activities (uncontrolled climate change, nuclear warfare etc.) rendering the planet uninhabitable by humans, but habitable by other organisms that can cope. [b]Do you really believe that in a million years’ time the Earth and its inhabitants will be the same as we have now?[/b][/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Possibilities.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You could not see any possible new conditions. Now you can see possible new conditions. Please answer my now bolded question.
> 
> That we adapt so beautifully to climate/environmental extreme conditions now (see Tibet article today) means we will not speciate under new conditions. Adapt, yes.