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:

> >  > dhw: This is a misunderstanding of the whole concept. .....Your objections on grounds of complexity apply to all the hypotheses, once you try to work out how &#147;God did it&#148;.-No, I don&apos;t misunderstand your theory. I think it is impossible based on what we now know about genomic function. And yes, I am trying to work out a process, employed by God, by which speciation occurs, based on discussion with you and Tony. >  > dhw: The inventive mechanism (if it exists - I am offering a hypothesis) is what you are calling the computer, which is in the genome, and the genome is the genetic complement of the cell or the cell community. But I don&apos;t like the computer image, because computers have to be programmed. -And that is part of our diffference. Both Tony and I view the genome as a computer program. What else can you call the code in DNA? We see that the organism (as whole) can respond to challenges by methylation in the genome to adapt genes to slightly different responses. These slight differences do not make a new species. You want your cell communities to gain intelligence from experience and then use that intelligence to make changes. Just where is any of that &apos;intelligence&apos; stored? Cells don&apos;t have brains (as humans do) and all they can do is slight genomic epigentic modifications. Your theory invents an abilty for cells they cannot have. It is very apparent to me (and Tony) that speciation requires the input of new information in the genome. Either the information is already there, ready to be tapped when required by environmental changes, or there is directed input. I favor the former. Polymorphism classes is an explanation for bushiness. >  > dhw:  Maybe man has inherited that inventive freedom from the intelligence your God built into our first ancestors - he gave them the ability to invent. We invent machines outside ourselves, and cells/cell communities invent things inside themselves.-Once again, cells and cell communities do not have the &apos;brain&apos; power to invent. Your analogy just doesn&apos;t work. My view of the inventive mechansim is that it contains in the genome elements for a new species, basically preplanned. Cells cannot construct a new form of complex living organism from past experience. That must be collated into a workable plan in advance of any changes. Darwin used itty-bitty advances to support his theory, because he recognized the huge jump between species. He predicted the fossil record would support his idea. It hasn&apos;t. Your cell communities don&apos;t answer the problem either.