More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 15:19 (8 days ago) @ dhw

MATHS

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.

Don't conflate the differences. Both sides use the same maths to estimate times of DNA changes


Evolution - Loss of traits

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.

dhw: 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.

It is not new gens pushing out old. It is disappearance of genes creating new adaptations.

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
.

dhw: 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.

And I would explain: more use for existing brain's present capacity which complexified a small region to handle th e new use.


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.

dhw: 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?

The discussion of dissection of clitorises' was not delectable.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum