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:

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's comment: [i]This modification is just what Shapiro has championed. A dramatic editing of DNA removing the metabolic stress of producing enzymes by finding a simpler way of manufacturing photosynthesis products. Still the same species! Doesn't show how speciation occurs and is no support for Darwin's original thesis.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]There are three points here that we have discussed over and over again. Firstly, NOBODY knows how speciation occurred, and that is why we theorize. Secondly, what part of Darwin’s original thesis are you talking about? Common descent? Natural selection? Or the same old random mutations plus gradualism that you and I have long since agreed to discount?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]I accept common descent, but I remain doubtful about the importance of natural selection. It becomes active only when presented with alternative organisms, so it is basically passive in advancing evolution. Survival of the fittest is a tautology, and worthless[/i].
>  
> So which part of Darwin’s thesis is not supported by genetic modification?
> 
> dhw: [i]Thirdly, it is not only such modifications that Shapiro has championed, but also the all-important factor of cellular intelligence, which means that “Where’s there a will there’s a way” is to be taken literally. Please give us your “theological explanation” for Prochlorococcus’s amazing talent.[/i]
> DAVID: [i]I think God gave unicellular organisms the ability to edit their DNA for adaptations to changes in environment, but not to the degree of actual speciation, in agreement with what Shapiro presents.[/i]
> 
> Yes, if Shapiro subscribed to the theistic version, he might say God gave cells the INTELLIGENCE to edit their DNA. (Remember, he believes in cellular intelligence.) We do not know whether that intelligence extends so far as to create the multicellular innovations that cause speciation. That is why it is a hypothesis.