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: [i]There is no question the process of evolution (driven by God) produces complexity.[/i]
> 
> Obviously multicellular is more complex than single cell, and the more organs there are, the more complex the organism becomes. My point is that complexity for the sake of complexity seems pointless unless each complexity serves some kind of purpose, e.g. improving the chances of evading prey, access to food, degree of comfort.
> 
> DAVID: [i]Your approval of the concept improvement runs into a problem. How do you define improvement and prove the point? The bacteria didn't need improvement yet here we are. [/i]
> 
> I’d tackle the question in two stages. The move from single cell to multicell is the first. We have agreed ad nauseam that bacteria didn’t need to improve, but once cells began to combine (whether God was involved or not), the second stage allowed for an almost unlimited number of ongoing combinations. I would say that, for instance, the subsequent ability to see, hear, walk, swim, fly, talk, build, think complex thoughts, invent machines etc. represented improved means of coping with the environment, communicating, enriching experience of life, but you may not agree.
> 
> DAVID: [i]From the survivability standpoint are we an improvement? Probably not.[/i]
> 
> Not over bacteria. But since we are killing off species after species and have filled the planet, I would say our survivability is greater than that of most other forms of life. 
> 
> DAVID: [i]As for the brain, it is the most complex object in the universe. [/i]
> 
> And in terms of communicating, inventing, creating, destroying, killing, healing, recording, exploring etc. etc., I’d say our methods are an improvement over those of any other species, But again you may disagree.
> 
> DAVID: [i]As for the whales, the biologic complexities and challenges clearly deny your 'lala land' approach that they simply wandered into the water and changed.[/i]
> 
> I never said it was simple. But I find it more logical than the belief that a god changed them and then sent them into the water for no particular purpose, except to make them more complex, and then changed them again, and again, and again x 8, although his primary purpose was to create the human brain. 
> 
> dhw: [i]Neither you nor I know where the borderline exists between adaptation and innovation.[/i]
> DAVID: [i]Innovation brings new species. Adaptation is finches beaks. Genetic studies show they are all one species.[/i]
> 
> Agreed. But when fins change to legs to allow a marine organism to walk on land, or legs change to fins to allow a land animal to live more easily in the water, the end product may be a different species, and then it’s difficult to draw the line between adaptation and innovation.