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:

> dhw: (re the evolution of whales:)...[i] would you agree that since these enormous changes were “adaptations”, it is difficult to draw a borderline between adaptation and innovation as processes that lead to speciation?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]You are confusing two words: as I use them adaptation is the same species slightly adjusted. Innovation creates a new species.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]So which changes between land-based pre-whale and modern whale do you consider to have been innovations and not adaptations?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Still word games. If the changes were large enough, we would call it a new species! I'll stick to my view of the words.[/i]
> 
> It is far from being a word game! You have acknowledged here (though you keep changing your mind on the Shapiro thread) that organisms adapt autonomously, but we can only observe minor changes. The Shapiro theory (and mine) depends on the autonomous ability of intelligent cells to make the major changes (innovations) that lead to speciation. My point is that there is no clear borderline between adaptation and innovation, and so the same mechanism may be responsible for both. Therefore I’m asking you to use our whale example to see if you yourself can draw a borderline. Why are you so reluctant to answer?
> 
> DAVID:  [i]It is quite clear to me God knew how to evolve humans from bacteria, but rather than directly implanting those beneficial attributes, he created mechanisms within the various hominin/homo groups to allow natural living development.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]What does “natural living development” mean? I thought you thought your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single “beneficial attribute” that contributed to the design of his one and only purpose: H. sapiens. If he allowed “natural living development”, with all sorts of hominins and humans coming and going but contributing different bits and pieces while other bits and pieces got left out, I can't help wondering how this could possibly fit in with the concept of a God who is in total charge, has only one purpose, and knows exactly how to achieve it.[/i] […]
> 
> DAVID: [i]No, it is quite obvious God had Denisovans and Neanderthals to develop different attributes to then contribute to human genomes in helpful ways. The literature I read is full of comments about this. I note you are still fully into God's mind with humanizing questions. I just look at what we know from history and note obvious explanations, as I just gave.[/i]
> 
> I am not questioning the contribution Denisovans and Neanderthals made to H. sapiens! I am asking why your always-in-charge, all-knowing God would have chosen such a roundabout method of fulfilling his sole purpose. You have repeatedly confirmed that you have “no idea”, so maybe all these hominins and humans were part of a “natural living development”, as opposed to being preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally dabbled with by your God. Or maybe he was experimenting to find the formula that would give him the being he so wanted to create.