Bacterial motors carefully studied (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, April 06, 2016, 01:28 (3153 days ago) @ dhw

David: Simple logic. Weaver nests are adaptations, no molecules, much simpler. We don't know how speciation occurs, but new molecules are required.
> [/i]
> 
> dhw" This is not in dispute. But this creates a dilemma for you If you grant other organisms the intelligence to work out their own lifestyles and natural wonders, maybe they can do more. It IS a maybe. Since we don't know how speciation occurs, and we don't know how cell communities transform themselves, we can only speculate.-You are mixing apples and oranges. I'm discussing the new molecules needed for speciation, not adaptations. You are using the ability to create adaptations to try to presume that can lead to picking out new organic molecular arrangements for a new species! My dog can adapt. I can adapt, but I have no idea how to create a new species of me, even with my superior ability to conceive and plan. Genetic changes are not open to us living folks to fiddle with voluntarily, except on animals in a lab, note, again a third person approach.. -> 
> 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.
> DAVID: Look at landscapes and defend your hypothesis!
> 
> dhw: There is no landscape.-Yes, there is. It is a conceptual landscape which I have described. A new species needs new molecular combinations and arrangements. this fact is beyond question. The big mystery is how those molecules and arrangements get picked out when the possible combinations are so big and the types of molecules are so varied. -> 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.-Sorry. To me innovations are new species. Nests and life styles are adaptations when considering how to advance evolution from simple to complex. Same as the discussion about 'degree' and 'kind'. Adaptations are 'degree', new species are changes in 'kind'.-> dhw: One could argue that the first nest, the first migration, the first parasitic egg-laying were innovations, but that really isn't the point. You use “epigenetic” as if somehow that removed these phenomena from the discussion, but according to you it makes not the slightest difference! Because you say the weaver, monarch and wasp are incapable of working these procedures out for themselves, whether you call them innovations or adaptations. That is why I focus on the weaverbird as a prime example of the gaps in your hypotheses.-My thesis remains the same. God guided evolution. The details you want answered are secondary.