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]In my opinion existing earlier brain cells don't know how to make the brain enlarge. It is your theory, not mine. I believe God did it.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I know you believe God either programmed every single evolutionary change 3.8 billion years ago or stepped in to perform operations on millions of different individual life forms, including humans and their brains. But if you believe your God designed a mechanism that enabled brain cells to complexify without his popping in to operate on each individual brain, why can’t you believe that the same mechanism might enable brain cells to add to their number when they need to do so?
> 
> Because just adding neurons willy-nilly will not anticipate preparation for future use. 200 cc of brain must chav e special organization which is present in the forebrain with five tiers ranked.
> > 
> > [b]Behe[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Your wife had sickle trait, which means from one parent. I'll stick with Behe's interpretation that the sickle mutation was obviously degrading proper hemoglobin shape[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: [i]And you totally ignore the subject of our discussion, which is “MORE GENOMIC EVIDENCE OF PRE-PLANNING”. We were not discussing mutations and sickle cells, but the theory that adaptation and speciation RESULT from loss of genes, whereas I suggest that loss of genes is the RESULT of successful adaptation and speciation, because the genes are no longer needed. Please explain why you reject this proposal.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Because the article quoted gave the impression that like Behe loss of genes caused the adaptations. ID folks who led me to the article had the same impression. You don't like the implication so you will keep on struggling about it.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: The article discussed on Tuesday/Wednesday did not even mention adaptation. It was concerned with mutations and loss of function which might in some cases prove advantageous – hence the sickle cell. And you still haven’t explained why you regard it as illogical to propose that a successful adaptation/innovation will result in some genes losing their original function and either changing their function or disappearing – i.e. loss of genes results from adaptation and does not cause it.
> 
> My view is opposite: loss of genes causes the adaptation.