More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Friday, January 14, 2022, 14:33 (6 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution - Loss of traits

DAVID: Your old innate Darwinism dies hard. In the examples currently given. genes simply disappear, and new adaptations appear. Your form of change also happens.

dhw: Aw, come on! This has nothing to do with Darwinism! You claimed that evolutionary advances were brought about by loss of genes. It turns out that these “advances” do not even include new species but only refer to adaptations. You totally ignored the fact that the innovations that produce new species (which I suggest are a greater advance than adaptations) entail the restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes, and you refuse to comment on the obvious fact that if new structures work, it is perfectly logical for some of the old genes to become redundant – in which case loss of genes has NOT caused the advances at all, but is the result of the advances.

You are continuing to worry about full speciation being more than loss of genes. I've bolded my agreement above.


Retrotransposons
dhw: These produce new combinations of genes. [...] More evidence for you that existing genes take on new functions. So why do you argue that advances are caused “simply” by loss of genes?

DAVID: Read answer above.

dhw: A complete cop-out. :-(

The bolded sentence above agrees!!!;-)

First big game hunting

dhw: I was not referring to sapiens brains but to those of the earlier homos who invented tools and weapons, my proposal being that such inventions required the expansion of their brains. When we came up with our wonderful new ideas and inventions, the new brain complexified instead of expanding.

DAVID: How do you know all prior earlier brains couldn't simply complexify. I'll bet they did based on how evolution works, latter functions based on older ones.

I have no doubt that they did complexify, but at some stage they expanded! I suggest that they did so when new requirements exceeded their capacity for complexification. Please explain why you consider this explanation to be illogical, bearing in mind the fact that we KNOW brains change in response to new requirements.

God expanded the brains


Clustered icefish nests
QUOTES: "The icefish probably have a substantial and previously unknown influence on Antarctic food webs, researchers report January 13 in Current Biology. (DAVID's bold)

Icefish, of the family Channichthyidae, are only found in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters and have strange adaptations to the extreme cold such as clear blood full of antifreeze compounds. (DAVID's bold)
'I would say [the massive colony] is almost a new seafloor ecosystem type,” Purser says. “It’s really surprising that it has never been seen before.'”

DAVID: not surprising. Life can live anywhere and set up ecosystems for food supply.

dhw: The fact that life can live anywhere and set up ecosystems for food supply, and has done so for billions of years, with countless life forms and ecosystems appearing and disappearing, does not suggest to me that if God exists, his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food. In fact it suggests to me one almighty free-for-all, as life forms and ecosystems come and go in their endless quest for survival.

I might add mindless quest for survival, the tools for which are supplied by God, when He speciates. The fact that your free-for-all, as a purposeless process, produced humans with amazing brains and full consciousness should signify something. Adler made it proof of God.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum