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:

> > [b]Direct design versus the intelligent cell[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] Which is simpler? Telling someone how to do job or directly doing it yourself?[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: So you would tell the factory owner to sack his 1000 employees, because it’s simpler for him to do it all himself. Your comment completely ignores all the points I have made 
> above. 
> 
> With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution. No factory involved. In your points you want organisms as freed from God as possible.
> > 
> > [b]Origin of stone tools[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]we have a tendency to assume our ancestors were dumb. They may well have invented knapping stone tools after seeing examples in nature or directly invented the process. Now we have both proposals. Animal use of stone tools support the idea that naturaliths were the first step.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw:  This is a comment which I wholeheartedly endorse. Many humans have a tendency to assume that not just our ancestors but also our fellow organisms are dumb. In the great battle for survival, even the smallest organism must have some sort of intelligence to recognize problems and dangers. Over the course of time, most have eventually become extinct, because their intelligence is not equal to the task, but many have survived for hundreds of thousands of years before that happened. Bacteria have survived from the very beginning. Human scepticism has been beautifully summarized by James A. Shapiro as “large organisms chauvinism”. This article deals simply with sapiens chauvinism in relation to our ancestors.
> 
> 
> correct.
> >  
> > [b]The savannah theory[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The savannah theory is now unsupported by the new findings but still a logical theory.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]It is “unsupported” by the new findings because the new findings have nothing to do with the question of sapiens’ origin! You have said yourself that no-one knows the origin, so all we can have is unsupported theories, including your own, which attributes the origin to your God performing operations on individual pelvises, legs and possibly brains, though your post above suggests he left brains to design their own evolution until he decided to pop in and do a sapiens special.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Lucy became Erectus and Erectus became sapiens is all we know.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Even that is a bit controversial, but in the context of our discussion, thank you for now agreeing that none of the articles have in any way demonstrated the fading of the savannah theory.
> 
> With the new findings the savannah theory  has been diluted from primary importance.