More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 09:04 (169 days ago) @ David Turell


DAVID: Both sides use math from the facts they have. It is abductive reasoning.

dhw: I know. Do you or do you not agree with me that mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts?

DAVID: Apparently they can calculate past times of speciation from DNA, but cannot know how speciation works as none of us knows.

dhw: So they cannot know the facts. “Yes” would have been the short answer.

DAVID: They can do it without your desired facts!!!

And ID-ers and neo-Darwinists reach different conclusions because nobody can possibly know the truth, i.e. the facts.

Evolution - Loss of traits

dhw: Genetic change is what creates new forms. As the genes change, the forms change. There is no first or second!

DAVID: New genes are not the point. Change comes simply from loss!!!

dhw: I agreed that loss could result in change – for instance, an animal might live underground, lose its sight and enhance its hearing – but I do not agree that that constitutes an “advance”.

DAVID: Wow! Loss of sight is an advance fitting conditions. Loss of genes cause change.

I would call this adaptation and not innovation. Of course loss of genes causes change, but it does not produce something new, and speciation depends on innovation, i.e. on restructuring existing genes or on the production of new genes to take on new functions. Hence my next comment:

dhw: I cannot see how the loss of genes would generate something new, but I can see how something new would make old genes redundant. Now please tell me why you find this illogical.

DAVID: Because I am quoting both ID and Darwinists who see it as I have reported. Loss of genes results in advanced changes.

dhw: If they all believe that, and you believe it too, you should be able to explain why I am wrong. I am very ignorant, so please educate me.

DAVID: You have been educated, but find the news facts unacceptable to your prejudices.

I am asking you to explain how the loss of genes can generate the innovations that are necessary for speciation, and I am asking you why you think it is illogical to suppose that the restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes would make some of the old genes redundant. I don’t have time to go back over our previous discussion, but I have a vague recollection of you finally agreeing that the “new facts” referred to adaptation and not to speciation. I would regard the example of blindness as adaptation, or variation, but not “advance”. For that, you need innovation, which would result in the loss of some genes, as they would become redundant. Please explain why this is illogical, and please confirm that the theory explicitly attributes innovations (as opposed to adaptations) to the loss of genes.

Plant bloom advanced Earth’s evolution

DAVID: No gloss, totally logical, but not acceptable to you, as it means a form of God exists you do not like for some reasons of your own desires. The picture from your childhood of a vengeful God isn't real.

dhw: I have no idea why you think any of my theistic theories entail a vengeful God. Where did you get that from? What I do not like has nothing to do with a particular form of God, but is your theory that has an all-powerful God, whose only goal is to produce humans plus food, busying himself designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I can't fulfill your illogical request….

You can’t fulfil my request because it is your bolded theory that is illogical!

DAVID:……but I admit I made an unclear reference. I think your early religious training revealed a vengeful warlike God, the same one I knew, but with my adult reading, I discovered a different God I accept.

Totally irrelevant to the bolded theory which you cannot explain.

First big game hunting
QUOTE: Ancient humans were regularly butchering animals for meat 2 million years ago. This has long been suspected, but the idea has been bolstered by a systematic study of cut marks on animal bones.
The find cements the view that ancient humans had become active hunters by this time, contrasting with earlier hominins that ate mostly plants

Clearly they were already using tools. Killing and cutting up animals would have been a huge advance at the time, and would, I suggest, have been one of the causes of brain expansion in our ancestors.

Sex for pleasure
DAVID: It is logical that pleasure is present to encourage sex. Visual pornography arouses only humans which means our consciousness plays a different sex role in us.

I’d be fascinated to know what kind of visual pornography was offered to the dolphins! Did they sit and watch films of their fellow dolphins fornicating? Is there a Dolphinternet down in the depths?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum