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:

> > DAVID: [i]I propose they [referring to the actions of blind organisms] are automatic as based on observation. How can they make decisions if blind and simply working by feel?[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Blind organisms will base their decisions on what they feel. Bacteria do not have eyes either.
> 
> Automatic responses as shown by studies of individual ants show they automatically  respond to local stimuli.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Phenotype comparisons are not as important as gene studies of relationship. Phenotype is old school.[/i]
> > 
> > TONY: [i]If what you are looking for is evidence of a universal programming language, and evidence that the same code is being reused across non-ancestoral species divides, then you have to look at both the phenotypical AND behavioral data, and compare the results to the genome. [/i]
> > 
> > dhw: This is followed by more discussion of the different factors to be considered, and by the usual snipes at Darwin. Nobody knows what caused speciation (we agree that this refers to organisms that cannot interbreed). Here are four theories:
> > 
> > 1)	David’s belief that it was either preprogrammed by his God 3.8 billion years ago, or his God dabbled (which would still allow for common descent, as he would have dabbled with existing organisms).
> > 2)	Tony’s belief that his God created each species separately.
> > 3)	Darwin’s belief that it came about through chance mutations and gradual refinements, always taking place in existing organisms (common descent).
> > 4)	Dhw’s hypothesis that it came about (always in existing organisms = common descent) through cellular intelligence – possibly invented by your God – responding to the needs and opportunities offered by ever changing environmental conditions both local and global.
> > 
> > dhw: There is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories, each of which throws up unanswerable questions. Dead end?
> 
> There is irrefutable logic. The degree of complexity in the biology of life requires a designer. Chance cannot do it! Darwin's belief (3) is dead.