Bacterial motors carefully studied (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, April 04, 2016, 18:21 (2943 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I have always distinguished between adaptations and innovations (= large gaps). NOBODY knows how the latter took place. ...I can understand why you prefer to duck away from the weaverbird issue by concentrating on the far greater complexity of molecules.-Because innovations, which is how evolution really advances requires finding new molecules with unknown unlabeled underlying functional capacities from a group of possibilities. You don't like the landscape concept because it challenges your concept of how common descent must advance, and it cannot be through organismal planning. Since the phenotypical advances are huge gaps, the new molecules used for those advances must have functions known in advance. If not, back to hunt and peck, trying to figure it out. Simple logic. Weaver nests are adaptations, no molecules, much simpler. We don't know how speciation occurs, but new molecules are required.-> 
> dhw: Innovations must also take place within existing organisms if you accept common descent, and I am offering a hypothesis to explain the hitherto unexplained gaps/saltations/innovations.-Look at landscapes and defend your hypothesis!-
> dhw: No, you are the one who insists on sticking at the gradual epigenetic level, because you are not prepared to consider the possibility that your God gave organisms the autonomous ability to innovate as well as to adapt. I include the weaverbird's nest, the monarch's lifestyle, the wasp's egg-laying etc. in the category of innovations.-Watch your definitions: innovations=gaps, not the adaptations you list above, all possibly epigenetic.