AgnosticWeb.com
Log in
Register
Search:
Back to the entry by dhw
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:
Introduction
The atheist delusion
Agnosticism
Evolution
The limitations of science
Origins
The nature of a 'Creator'
Where is it now?
Endings
Identity
Animals
Humans
Religion
Art
Politics
What should be taught in schools?
A mad world
General
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: …[i]Two possibilities, then: a) God does it directly; b) the organisms do it themselves. The second of these still leaves open the question of how life and the ability to self-organize originated, but it offers an explanation for the Cambrian, as does the first alternative, which raises the question of how a god originated (usually glossed over by the non-explanation of “first cause”).[/i] DAVID: [i]Your second alternative is not supported by the fossils, as Darwin hoped. The current findings in the shale layers in China show the abrupt dramatic appearance of whole multicellular sea animals with the equivalent of arms, legs, organ systems, eyes, etc. with no reasonable antecedent experimental forms…[/i]-I wrote that “[i]Darwin acknowledged the problem of the Cambrian explosion (his “dilemma”), which he hoped (in vain) might be solved by new fossil discoveries.[/i]” I don't know why you have repeated what I said, when the whole point of my own hypothesis is that if cell communities have the ability to do their own inventing, innovations will take place as saltations, not as gradual transitions. What would be the use of half an arm/leg/liver/kidney?- DAVID: … Tell [i]me how the complex forms appear with no layer of trial and error forms you propose? Your proposal does not fit the findings.[/i]-I am not proposing “trial and error forms”. (See above, and see comment on 2nd article.)-DAVID: ([b]under “HARS[/b]”) [i]I still believe the preponderance of evidence points to a mind behind all of reality…[/i] dhw: [i]But believing in a mind behind reality is not the same as believing that such a mind directly designed every innovation and natural wonder, and in the context of evolution, that is what BBella and I are disputing.[/i] DAVID: [i]But I don't separate those parts. That is why I have the dilemma of pre-planning or dabbling. The HAR's look like a dabble. Perhaps something equivalent happened in the Cambrian. Unfortunately we cannot check the DNA.[/i]-You don't separate what parts? The theistic version of my hypothesis is that God gave organisms the intelligence to design their own innovations and natural wonders. Where is the separation?-David's comment: (under “[b]Early mammal primate[/b]”) [i]What I find fascinating is how alike those bones are to current anatomy. Looks like pre-planning[/i]. -Looks like common descent to me. Organisms providing new structures within the framework of old structures. But for you every difference and every similarity looks like pre-planning!-xxxx-[b]2nd article:[/b] dhw: …[i]yet again I wish you would consider the possibility that it is not the environment that alters gene function but the cells that alter themselves as an intelligent reaction to the environment. ..... [/i] DAVID: [i]As you infer, we know that epigenetic effects exist, but so far they are not proven to cause speciation. On the other hand the discovery of HAR's offers a new road to study. I suggest they are God's tool.[/i]-Even if they are God's tool, they can still be part of an autonomous mechanism which is capable of innovation as well as adaptation. But of course nothing has been proven yet. That is why we can only hypothesize.
OK - Submit
Preview