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] So which part of Darwin’s thesis is not supported by genetic modification? 
> [/i]
> DAVID: [i]Darwin did not know about genetics! Neo-Darwinism incorporated genetics much later on, and we are still studying how genetic change results in new species.
> [/i]
> dhw: [i]So...once more...which part of Darwin’s thesis is not supported by genetic modification?[/i]
> DAVID: [i]Darwin proposed itty bitty changes like breeders used. That was his thesis! No more.[/i] 
> 
> In my original post I asked what part of his thesis you were talking about: “[i]Common descent? Natural selection? Or the same old random mutations plus gradualism that you and I have long since agreed to discount[/i]?” So you are indeed back to flogging the dead horse of gradualism. 
> 
> DAVID: [i]What is it you think is missing from my discussion? The only thing that Darwin proposed that is without question for me is common descent with modification. How modification occurred is still up for grabs. Remember, for all we know God could be doing the genetic modification.[/i]
> 
> So Darwin’s thesis of common descent in fact IS supported by genetic modification. But how it happened is still up for grabs, though you and I agree that however it happened, it would not have been random or gradual. Shake hands on this one?