How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe (Humans)

by David Turell , Sunday, November 06, 2016, 14:57 (2937 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Note, you are again quoting Darwin. We do not see small individual changes. We only see the sudden appearance of new species. Even the transitional forms have large gaps before and after their appearance.

dhw; I have made no reference whatsoever to Darwin’s gradualism! I was explaining that improvement was not NECESSARY, and bacteria remained the same because innovation does not take place in whole species but in individuals, and so successful multicellularity did not REPLACE successful unicellularity but diversified from it.

You are speaking Darwin: Let me explain our difference in interpretation: I don't believe in the idea that a new set of a tiny number of newly mutated individuals starts a new species. The huge gaps in phenotype in the fossils suggests that a new species appear with the new individuals in large number by saltation. I completely
remove Darwin's gradual concept taken from an example of breeding. New species appear suddenly.

dhw: All these discussions centre on interpretation! It’s OK for you to say humans are special by comparison with all other organisms, but it’s not OK for me to say that a brain is an improvement over a non-brain. Without interpretation there can be no discussion of ANY of the issues we tackle on this website!

Of course your interpretation about a brain is correct. But I have a different emphasis about the concept of complexity, which of course will bring improvement. Only an emphasis on complexity can bring about humans, the most complex of all results of evolution. You petulantly sound like I am trying to censor you. We just illustrate disagreement.

dhw: Of course multicellular organisms are more complex than unicellular organisms! I interpret that as a quest for improvement, and you interpret it as a quest for complexity which is part of God’s careful planning to pave the way for humans, who are God’s purpose. You don’t accept my hypothesis because it’s an interpretation. What is your hypothesis if it's not an interpretation?

Again, we are allowed to exhibit how we disagree. I am not obligated to agree with your interpretations.