David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 13, 2019, 19:33 (28 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Of course new species show purposefulness in their new adaptations, and I’m so pleased that you continue to use the word adaptations (see also my post on Part Two), thereby confirming my argument that we cannot always distinguish between adaptation and innovation, and so the mechanism which produces small adaptations may well be the same mechanism that produces the large adaptations which lead to speciation. And yes again, the obvious purpose is to enable the organism to improve its chances of survival. And yes again, nobody knows how it happens. Hallelujah, we are all in agreement. :-)

DAVID: Not so fast. Purposefulness suggests purposeful design, and you still blur the line between between adaptations within species and designed changed that form new species.

dhw: I have agreed that purposefulness suggests purposeful design, with cell communities redesigning themselves in order to enhance their chances of survival. And yes, I am the one who pointed out that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between adaptations and species-forming innovations, e.g. from pre-whale leg to whale flipper. You also used the word “adaptations”, as welcomed by me (bolded above).

DAVID: You never comment on Gould's gaps do you? Ignoring their importance is not a good debate form.

dhw: I have always accepted Gould’s punctuated equilibrium, in which long periods of stasis may be broken by “jumps”, presumably triggered by environmental changes. We cannot expect a continuous line of fossils recording every single transition, but my explanation – which for some reason you seem to have forgotten – is that intelligent designers (the cell communities) would be able to design major adaptations/innovations without there being a line of transitional stages.

And I have said the fossils that appear after the gaps have solved the problems of their new existence, which obviously implies the ability to foretell future needs and pre-design for them. You cell committees cannot do that. They simply produce what they are programmed to produce. Your favorite Shapiro simply studied bacteria living on their own, not multicellular cells, which you have used to make a giant illogical extrapolation.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum