Review of Spetner's book (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Monday, November 17, 2014, 21:11 (3658 days ago)
Dr. Lee Spetner's new book, The Evolution Revolution, is a follow-up to his previous, Not a Chance, 1997 both of which do not accept Common Descent. He has a PhD from MIT in applied physics and has taught information theory. He appears to be a Talmudic scholar and quotes his interpretations of printed Hebrew in the book. He notes that the Big Bang appears to be a creation and mentions this article from New Scientist: http://tracker.hcsc.net/ScsAppWeb/tracker/TrackerServlet?=gjgZrtbdTAp7XiQsqlszcT1f9A which discusses the BB as having the appearance of a creation. The Talmud quotes refer to 365 original types of organisms which adapted into the current bush of life we see now. The references are over 300 years old. I am sure he is an Orthodox Jew with a strong belief in God. But he also is a highly trained scientist who has studied theories of evolution for many years. He widely quotes the literature to show that random mutations and natural selection cannot explain the development from early life to the plethora of organisms we see today. He thinks all the information needed to adapt is contained in DNA from the beginning, and no information can be developed from random mutation, or in fact, from any mutation. What he does point out is that mutations subtract information when they are effective in making a change. From my own readings, this is exactly what the literature shows and Darwin folks ignore. He calls his theory Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis (NREH). Before publication his book was reviewed by James Shapiro, (Jewish) among others such as Cornelius Hunter (Christian). Hunter is a strong doubter of Darwin and considers Darwin followers as practicing a religion of their own. I've referred to him here in the past. Spetner obviously believes there is an inventive mechanism built into DNA probably from the very beginning. And describes his NREH as such. He carefully eviscerates Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins opinions by direct quotes of their writings, and careful scientific discussion of how and why they are wrong, and often inconsistent in their reasoning. Of interest to me was his opinion about a balance in nature being absolutely necessary. He describes the fact that “wolves do not exploit the deer population and drive it to extinction, but instead they limit their own population to ensure that the deer continue to serve as food for future wolf generations. The study is referenced.” (pg. 115) There appear to be “intrinsic controls built into the animals”, reference given. This discussion was under the subject of predation and natural selection, which he believes is passive but does work when presented with new forms. Interestingly, the subject came up as an answer to a Dawkins quote that indicates that Dawkins, the zoologist, was unaware of this research on predation.-Both of Spetner's books are well worth reading. His conclusion appears to be that God created the universe and life and put in the required adaptive mechanisms from the beginning.
Review of Spetner's book
DAVID: Dr. Lee Spetner's new book, The Evolution Revolution, is a follow-up to his previous, Not a Chance, 1997 both of which do not accept Common Descent. -Thank you for reviewing and summarising this book. There are a few things that are not clear to me: DAVID: The Talmud quotes refer to 365 original types of organism which adapted into the current bush of life...-By “original”, does he mean these types were all created at the beginning, or does he think they came into existence over billions of years? Does he count humans as “original types” or “adaptations”? Does he share your conviction that God's aim in creating life was to create humans?-DAVID: He thinks all the information needed to adapt is contained in DNA from the beginning... -You believe that the IM is capable only of minor adaptations, which have been observed even in our own times. The mystery is innovations. Does he/do you think every innovation was contained in DNA from the beginning, or does he/do you believe God created each one individually? DAVID: Spetner obviously believes there is an inventive mechanism built into DNA probably from the very beginning. And describes his NREH as such.-An inventive (and not merely adaptive) mechanism present from the very beginning sounds precisely like my idea of a Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis! DAVID: Of interest to me was his opinion about a balance in nature being absolutely necessary. -I think the balance argument is as tautological as natural selection (whatever is able to survive will survive): i.e. the survival of every organism depends on Nature being balanced in such a way that the organism can survive. This leads to a vast chain of interdependent factors, which you can call balance if you like, but as the factors change, the balance changes. If all the deer in the forest were struck down by a disease, either the wolves would have to find different food or they would also die out. The balance of Nature has constantly shifted throughout the history of life, and if you think Chicxulub was a natural, unplanned catastrophe, I really don't see how you can imagine that God has planned Nature's balance specially for the sake of humans.
Review of Spetner's book
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 19, 2014, 20:13 (3656 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Thank you for reviewing and summarising this book. There are a few things that are not clear to me: > DAVID: The Talmud quotes refer to 365 original types of organism which adapted into the current bush of life... > > dhw: By “original”, does he mean these types were all created at the beginning, or does he think they came into existence over billions of years?-365 types of mammals were created at the beginning and then adapted into what we see today, through his NREH. -> dhw: Does he count humans as “original types” or “adaptations”?-He doesn't say directly but implies original humans were part of the 365 original forms. He refers to 4 eras of creation as described in the Talmud.-> dhw: Does he share your conviction that God's aim in creating life was to create humans?-Since he feels God created everything, I'm sure he fells that way, but doesn't discuss it directly. He does not believe in common descent, but in direct creation > > DAVID: He thinks all the information needed to adapt is contained in DNA from the beginning... > > dhw: You believe that the IM is capable only of minor adaptations, which have been observed even in our own times. The mystery is innovations. Does he/do you think every innovation was contained in DNA from the beginning, or does he/do you believe God created each one individually?-He describes somewhat vaguely his NREH. It does all the adapting after the original forms are created. He specifically says that environmental changes and inputs pushes the NREH to create the variations. Remember he strongly supports Shapiro's work. > > DAVID: Spetner obviously believes there is an inventive mechanism built into DNA probably from the very beginning. And describes his NREH as such. > > dhw: An inventive (and not merely adaptive) mechanism present from the very beginning sounds precisely like my idea of a Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis!-But our argument is at the level of how stringent are the guidelines in an IM/NREH. He doesn't comment. He simply says it HAS to be there and it works, quoting epigenetic evidence now in development, but not present at the time of his first book in which the NREH was presented. > dhw: The balance of Nature has constantly shifted throughout the history of life, and if you think Chicxulub was a natural, unplanned catastrophe, I really don't see how you can imagine that God has planned Nature's balance specially for the sake of humans.-Life stays in balance. No, I cannot link the expectation of humans to the balance, but to maintain life in which energy requirements must be met, life must come back to equilibrium when disrupted, and if we believe the aging techniques are correct, humans began to appear slightly over one million-plus years ago, from a start of life at 3.6-3.8 billion years ago. In neither book does he discuss radioactive dating. How orthodox is his Jewishness is shown by his spelling God: "G-D", a sign of being very, very strict. But his obvious religious views do not detract from is criticisms. -Once again, I must pound on you. His entire first chapter discusses the amount of information that must be present at the beginning of life implanted in the DNA code. Those critical of Darwin present the information argument. I'm briefly in Wagner's book now. He sides with Darwin, and information has no special mention so far, and is not mentioned in the index. This is a huge dichotomy in thought. Information cannot develop from rocks and water, and Darwinists chose to ignore the point, because they appear to have no answer.
Review of Spetner's book
DAVID: The Talmud quotes refer to 365 original types of organism which adapted into the current bush of life... dhw: By “original”, does he mean these types were all created at the beginning, or does he think they came into existence over billions of years? DAVID: 365 types of mammals were created at the beginning and then adapted into what we see today, through his NREH.-Do you believe that life began with 365 types of mammals? dhw: Does he count humans as “original types” or “adaptations”? DAVID: He doesn't say directly but implies original humans were part of the 365 original forms. He refers to 4 eras of creation as described in the Talmud.-If 365 types of mammals were created at THE BEGINNING, what was created during the subsequent three eras, and when? Do you believe humans could have been created at the beginning? Do you take this claim seriously?-dhw: Does he share your conviction that God's aim in creating life was to create humans? DAVID: Since he feels God created everything, I'm sure he fells that way, but doesn't discuss it directly. He does not believe in common descent, but in direct creation.-Not much support for you so far!-dhw: Does he/do you think every innovation was contained in DNA from the beginning, or does he/do you believe God created each one individually? DAVID: He describes somewhat vaguely his NREH. It does all the adapting after the original forms are created. He specifically says that environmental changes and inputs pushes the NREH to create the variations. -You have repeated the claims about adaptation, but I'm asking about innovation - relating both to organs and to lifestyles. It's seems that this whole aspect of the problem is dealt with so vaguely that it gets us nowhere (this is perhaps unfair on Spetner, as I'm relying on your interpretation of the book).-DAVID: Spetner obviously believes there is an inventive mechanism built into DNA probably from the very beginning. And describes his NREH as such. dhw: An inventive (and not merely adaptive) mechanism present from the very beginning sounds precisely like my idea of a Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis!DAVID: But our argument is at the level of how stringent are the guidelines in an IM/NREH. He doesn't comment. He simply says it HAS to be there and it works, quoting epigenetic evidence now in development, but not present at the time of his first book in which the NREH was presented.-Same as above. Our whole discussion centres on just how much autonomy the inventive mechanism might have.-dhw: The balance of Nature has constantly shifted throughout the history of life, and if you think Chicxulub was a natural, unplanned catastrophe, I really don't see how you can imagine that God has planned Nature's balance specially for the sake of humans. DAVID: Life stays in balance. -No it doesn't. It constantly shifts its balance - hence extinctions, innovations, dominance, decline...-DAVID: No, I cannot link the expectation of humans to the balance, but to maintain life in which energy requirements must be met, life must come back to equilibrium when disrupted, and if we believe the aging techniques are correct, humans began to appear slightly over one million-plus years ago, from a start of life at 3.6-3.8 billion years ago. In neither book does he discuss radioactive dating. How orthodox is his Jewishness is shown by his spelling God: "G-D", a sign of being very, very strict. But his obvious religious views do not detract from is criticisms.-I can't see the relevance of the date of our arrival, or Spetner's Jewish orthodoxy to your anthropocentrism. Of course life must come back to some sort of environmental equilibrium after it's been disrupted, or it will not continue - but the equilibrium will have CHANGED. Eventually, past changes somehow led to humans, but if changing environmental conditions were not planned, God's supposed plan to produce humans depended on luck. DAVID: Once again, I must pound on you. His entire first chapter discusses the amount of information that must be present at the beginning of life implanted in the DNA code. -You do not need to “pound” on me. I keep repeating that the beginning of life must have included not only the mechanisms (or the information to make the mechanisms work, since you don't like “mechanisms”) not only for life itself, but also for reproduction and for evolution. I do not recall ever minimizing the complexity of the earliest forms of life. DAVID: Those critical of Darwin present the information argument. I'm briefly in Wagner's book now. He sides with Darwin, and information has no special mention so far, and is not mentioned in the index. This is a huge dichotomy in thought. Information cannot develop from rocks and water, and Darwinists chose to ignore the point, because they appear to have no answer.-Darwin's Origin does not deal with the beginning of life. Our own discussion is not about the beginning of life either, but about evolution. Nobody has an answer, but for the sake of argument, I keep offering you an inventive mechanism designed by your God. However, this does seem to be just about the only support Spetner can offer you, so I can understand your need to bring it in!
Review of Spetner's book
by David Turell , Friday, November 21, 2014, 01:18 (3655 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Do you believe that life began with 365 types of mammals?-I'm simply quoting Spetner's comment from the Talmud. With four eras mammals obviously came later, and 365 is the number of days in the year. Is this some type of numerology? I'll take what we know from the fossil record myself. > dhw: Do you believe humans could have been created at the beginning? Do you take this claim seriously?-No. > > dhw: Not much support for you so far!-Not looking for his support.-> > dhw: You have repeated the claims about adaptation, but I'm asking about innovation - relating both to organs and to lifestyles. It's seems that this whole aspect of the problem is dealt with so vaguely that it gets us nowhere (this is perhaps unfair on Spetner, as I'm relying on your interpretation of the book).-Spetner does not know any more than I do. He seems to accept Tony's view of starting pattern with his NREH doing later adaptations. He refers to epigenetics. > > dhw; Our whole discussion centres on just how much autonomy the inventive mechanism might have.-Exactly, and no one at this juncture knows. > DAVID: Life stays in balance. > > dhw: No it doesn't. It constantly shifts its balance - hence extinctions, innovations, dominance, decline...-Have it your way. It always returns to balance. Why is everyone trying to protect species at risk? 99% of all the past are gone now. Life's balance constantly changes but must return to balance each time.- > dhw: I can't see the relevance of the date of our arrival, or Spetner's Jewish orthodoxy to your anthropocentrism. Of course life must come back to some sort of environmental equilibrium after it's been disrupted, or it will not continue - but the equilibrium will have CHANGED. Eventually, past changes somehow led to humans, but if changing environmental conditions were not planned, God's supposed plan to produce humans depended on luck.-Good point. You are channeling Gould. But you forget if, humans are programmed in from the beginning, the environmental changes don't matter. > > dhw: I keep repeating that the beginning of life must have included not only the mechanisms (or the information to make the mechanisms work, since you don't like “mechanisms”) not only for life itself, but also for reproduction and for evolution. I do not recall ever minimizing the complexity of the earliest forms of life.-You are not minimizing. The issue of where the 'information' in the codes came from, leads to considering a conscious source. By using the word 'mechanism' you seem to avoid that consideration. > > DAVID: Those critical of Darwin present the information argument. I'm briefly in Wagner's book now. He sides with Darwin, and information has no special mention so far, and is not mentioned in the index. This is a huge dichotomy in thought. Information cannot develop from rocks and water, and Darwinists chose to ignore the point, because they appear to have no answer. > > dhw:Darwin's Origin does not deal with the beginning of life. Our own discussion is not about the beginning of life either, but about evolution. Nobody has an answer, but for the sake of argument, I keep offering you an inventive mechanism designed by your God. However, this does seem to be just about the only support Spetner can offer you, so I can understand your need to bring it in!-Yes. I know all that, but the origin of life entailed a beginning of a code. Origin and evolution are two items that are unfortunately intimately tied together. OOL brought the code that created evolution. "You can't have one without the other". Remember the song "Love and Marriage".
Review of Spetner's book
dhw; Our whole discussion centres on just how much autonomy the inventive mechanism might have. DAVID: Exactly, and no one at this juncture knows.-That's what I like to hear - instead of authoritative statements that it's only capable of minor adaptations. It sounds as if Spetner has added nothing to our own ruminations, but once again thank you for keeping us informed. DAVID: Life stays in balance. dhw: No it doesn't. It constantly shifts its balance - hence extinctions, innovations, dominance, decline... DAVID: Have it your way. It always returns to balance. Why is everyone trying to protect species at risk? 99% of all the past are gone now. Life's balance constantly changes but must return to balance each time.-Yes, it must return to some kind of balance if it is to go on. What is the point of the argument? That different forms of life require different conditions, and if the conditions are right for some forms we can say life is balanced for them, and if conditions are not right for some forms, we can say life is not balanced for them. Pure tautology. The disappearance of 99% of species proves the point.-dhw: Eventually, past changes somehow led to humans, but if changing environmental conditions were not planned, God's supposed plan to produce humans depended on luck. DAVID: Good point. You are channeling Gould. But you forget if, humans are programmed in from the beginning, the environmental changes don't matter.-Sorry, but there would be no point in planning humans if the environment never produced the right atmosphere, or if the Earth got smashed to pieces by a comet. Imagine planning fish and then leaving it to Lady Luck to conjure up the water. I find it interesting that you believe your God can manipulate matter in such a way that the universe is fine tuned to support life on Earth, and yet you think he left that life at the mercy of chance. Well, if he could leave the environment to luck, to see what might happen, maybe he left the inventive mechanism to its own devices as well. dhw: I keep repeating that the beginning of life must have included not only the mechanisms (or the information to make the mechanisms work, since you don't like “mechanisms”) not only for life itself, but also for reproduction and for evolution. I do not recall ever minimizing the complexity of the earliest forms of life. DAVID: You are not minimizing. The issue of where the 'information' in the codes came from, leads to considering a conscious source. By using the word 'mechanism' you seem to avoid that consideration.-How can I possibly be avoiding that consideration when time and again I have conceded for argument's sake that the mechanism may have been created by your God?-DAVID: Origin and evolution are two items that are unfortunately intimately tied together. OOL brought the code that created evolution. "You can't have one without the other". Remember the song "Love and Marriage".-I do remember the song. “Both go together like a horse and carriage.” But of course you can have love without marriage, and all too often there is marriage without love (you and I have been very lucky). And you can discuss evolution without discussing OOL. Darwin did it, and so can we.
Review of Spetner's book
by David Turell , Saturday, November 22, 2014, 01:27 (3654 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Yes, it must return to some kind of balance if it is to go on. Pure tautology. The disappearance of 99% of species proves the point.-Exactly. David Raup's book about lost species blames bad luck, loss of balance, not poor design of a life form. We must have the bush. > > dhw: Eventually, past changes somehow led to humans, but if changing environmental conditions were not planned, God's supposed plan to produce humans depended on luck. > DAVID: Good point. You are channeling Gould. But you forget if, humans are programmed in from the beginning, the environmental changes don't matter. > > dhw: Sorry, but there would be no point in planning humans if the environment never produced the right atmosphere, or if the Earth got smashed to pieces by a comet. Imagine planning fish and then leaving it to Lady Luck to conjure up the water. I find it interesting that you believe your God can manipulate matter in such a way that the universe is fine tuned to support life on Earth, and yet you think he left that life at the mercy of chance. Well, if he could leave the environment to luck, to see what might happen, maybe he left the inventive mechanism to its own devices as well.-Or enough information is implanted from the beginning in the IM so it can handle the adaptations. > dhw: How can I possibly be avoiding that consideration when time and again I have conceded for argument's sake that the mechanism may have been created by your God?-And the mechanism contains the information to run it properly? > > DAVID: Origin and evolution are two items that are unfortunately intimately tied together. OOL brought the code that created evolution. "You can't have one without the other". Remember the song "Love and Marriage". > > dhw: I do remember the song. “Both go together like a horse and carriage.” But of course you can have love without marriage, and all too often there is marriage without love (you and I have been very lucky). And you can discuss evolution without discussing OOL. Darwin did it, and so can we.-Darwin did it because he had to. He had no knowledge of inheritance. We currently have the background of research that allows us to consider a continuum of development from OOL to now. OOL had to contain a major portion of the information used today by the cells' genomes. OOL had a genome!
Review of Spetner's book
dhw: Yes, it [life] must return to some kind of balance if it is to go on. Pure tautology. The disappearance of 99% of species proves the point. DAVID: Exactly. David Raup's book about lost species blames bad luck, loss of balance, not poor design of a life form. We must have the bush.-Who on earth mentioned poor design of a life form? For those forms that survive, the balance is right. For those forms that don't, the balance is wrong. Pure tautology.-dhw: Eventually, past changes somehow led to humans, but if changing environmental conditions were not planned, God's supposed plan to produce humans depended on luck. DAVID: Good point. You are channeling Gould. But you forget if, humans are programmed in from the beginning, the environmental changes don't matter. dhw: Sorry, but there would be no point in planning humans if the environment never produced the right atmosphere, or if the Earth got smashed to pieces by a comet. Imagine planning fish and then leaving it to Lady Luck to conjure up the water [...] Well, if he could leave the environment to luck, to see what might happen, maybe he left the inventive mechanism to its own devices as well. DAVID: Or enough information is implanted from the beginning in the IM so it can handle the adaptations.-If the Earth had got smashed to pieces by a comet before we arrived, no amount of information in the original IM would have produced humans. DAVID: The issue of where the ‘information' in the codes came from, leads to a conscious source. By using the word ‘mechanism' you seem to avoid that consideration. dhw: How can I possibly be avoiding that consideration when time and again I have conceded for argument's sake that the mechanism may have been created by your God? DAVID: And the mechanism contains the information to run it properly?-There is no point in a mechanism that doesn't have the information to run properly. That is what I would call the intelligence of the inventive mechanism, which processes information from outside and works out how to use it.-dhw: ...you can discuss evolution without discussing OOL. Darwin did it, and so can we. DAVID: Darwin did it because he had to. He had no knowledge of inheritance. We currently have the background of research that allows us to consider a continuum of development from OOL to now. OOL had to contain a major portion of the information used today by the cells' genomes. OOL had a genome!-We are no nearer to discovering the origin of life than he was, so he was just as much at liberty to speculate as we are. In Origin of Species he chose not to do so. One can say God started it all and preprogrammed the very first cells to produce every single species and innovation and complex lifestyle, or he endowed the very first cells with an inventive mechanism that enabled their descendants autonomously to produce every single species etc. Same OOL, different theory of how evolution works. It's the latter that we are discussing.
Review of Spetner's book
by David Turell , Saturday, November 22, 2014, 22:33 (3653 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Who on earth mentioned poor design of a life form? For those forms that survive, the balance is right. For those forms that don't, the balance is wrong. Pure tautology.-I've explained in the other thread my differing view of the value of balance. ] > > dhw: If the Earth had got smashed to pieces by a comet before we arrived, no amount of information in the original IM would have produced humans.-Of course. What is your point?-> dhw: There is no point in a mechanism that doesn't have the information to run properly. That is what I would call the intelligence of the inventive mechanism, which processes information from outside and works out how to use it.-Now we are agreeing. Intelligent information is present in the master DNA code and I'm sure in the IM. It produces phenotype and function, although all we know so far is how proteins are produced, not how the body appears or the organs begin to function. That is still a very black hole in our knowledge. we have very little to theorize with.-> > dhw: We are no nearer to discovering the origin of life than he was, so he was just as much at liberty to speculate as we are. In Origin of Species he chose not to do so.-Because he had nothing to say about it except conjure up a warm little pond. We know little more at this juncture, but we are learning much about genetic mechanisms that started with the first cell.-> dhw: One can say God started it all and preprogrammed the very first cells to produce every single species and innovation and complex lifestyle, or he endowed the very first cells with an inventive mechanism that enabled their descendants autonomously to produce every single species etc. Same OOL, different theory of how evolution works. It's the latter that we are discussing.-Exactly. I'm coming to prefer a capable IM as the alternative to dabbling.
Review of Spetner's book
dhw: If the Earth had got smashed to pieces by a comet before we arrived, no amount of information in the original IM would have produced humans. DAVID: Of course. What is your point?-You claimed that “if humans are programmed in from the beginning, the environmental changes don't matter.” I am pointing out to you that if your God did not control environmental changes, he left a surprising amount to chance. Enter the comet, exit the great plan. In other words, your belief that God's evolutionary purpose was to produce humans would require complete control of the environment. dhw: There is no point in a mechanism that doesn't have the information to run properly. That is what I would call the intelligence of the inventive mechanism, which processes information from outside and works out how to use it. DAVID: Now we are agreeing. Intelligent information is present in the master DNA code and I'm sure in the IM. It produces phenotype and function, although all we know so far is how proteins are produced, not how the body appears or the organs begin to function. That is still a very black hole in our knowledge. we have very little to theorize with.-We have only disagreed when you insisted initially that the cell does not have the equivalent of a brain (the inventive mechanism), and subsequently that all the necessary information for evolution from bacteria to humans was preplanted in the first cells, apart from what was needed for minor adaptations. If there is a black hole in our knowledge, let us not imagine that we know what we do not know.-dhw: We are no nearer to discovering the origin of life than he [Darwin] was, so he was just as much at liberty to speculate as we are. In Origin of Species he chose not to do so. DAVID: Because he had nothing to say about it except conjure up a warm little pond. We know little more at this juncture, but we are learning much about genetic mechanisms that started with the first cell.-That does not alter the fact that it is perfectly reasonable to discuss how evolution works without having to discuss the origin of life. See below.-dhw: One can say God started it all and preprogrammed the very first cells to produce every single species and innovation and complex lifestyle, or he endowed the very first cells with an inventive mechanism that enabled their descendants autonomously to produce every single species etc. Same OOL, different theory of how evolution works. It's the latter that we are discussing. DAVID: Exactly. I'm coming to prefer a capable IM as the alternative to dabbling.-So leave Darwin and OOL out of it, and keep a nicely balanced, agnostically open mind about the range of an IM's capabilities. You know how important it is to stay balanced!
Review of Spetner's book
by David Turell , Sunday, November 23, 2014, 15:15 (3653 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You claimed that “if humans are programmed in from the beginning, the environmental changes don't matter.” I am pointing out to you that if your God did not control environmental changes, he left a surprising amount to chance. Enter the comet, exit the great plan. In other words, your belief that God's evolutionary purpose was to produce humans would require complete control of the environment.- Gerald Schroeder, with tongue slightly in cheek, wondered if God decided dinosaurs had lasted long enough and hurled Chicxulub. What happened was not the end of the world. Mouse-like things survived the catastrophe and we finally appeared. > > dhw: We have only disagreed when you insisted initially that the cell does not have the equivalent of a brain (the inventive mechanism), and subsequently that all the necessary information for evolution from bacteria to humans was preplanted in the first cells, apart from what was needed for minor adaptations. If there is a black hole in our knowledge, let us not imagine that we know what we do not know.-How does one hypothesize without a degree of imagination, once chance is removed from consideration? > > dhw: That does not alter the fact that it is perfectly reasonable to discuss how evolution works without having to discuss the origin of life. -When your personal zygote got started it created you, a very enjoyable you, from my perspective. That is a continuum. Life started and we are here. The requirements of original life set the mechanisms in place for evolution. One can conceive of a non-evolvable life, just single cells never combining. But they did, so the ability must have been built in. > > dhw: So leave Darwin and OOL out of it, and keep a nicely balanced, agnostically open mind about the range of an IM's capabilities. You know how important it is to stay balanced!-Balanced? You have closed out possibilities. Where did life's information come from? Spontaneous generation? With only chance, law or design available to you, your choice is 'I won't choose'. Your IM is purposely very inventive and independent to avoid considering God in any meaningful way. Back to the pickets! I started where you are in your thinking. I explored science and found a belief in God is highly reasonable. Follow my guidance. I advocate God not religion.
Review of Spetner's book
dhw: You claimed that “if humans are programmed in from the beginning, the environmental changes don't matter.” I am pointing out to you that if your God did not control environmental changes, he left a surprising amount to chance. Enter the comet, exit the great plan. DAVID: Gerald Schroeder, with tongue slightly in cheek, wondered if God decided dinosaurs had lasted long enough and hurled Chicxulub. What happened was not the end of the world. Mouse-like things survived the catastrophe and we finally appeared.-True. What a stroke of luck for God and us that Chicxulub wasn't a bit bigger. That would really have ruined his carefully laid plans.-dhw: We have only disagreed when you insisted initially that the cell does not have the equivalent of a brain (the inventive mechanism), and subsequently that all the necessary information for evolution from bacteria to humans was preplanted in the first cells, apart from what was needed for minor adaptations. If there is a black hole in our knowledge, let us not imagine that we know what we do not know.-DAVID: How does one hypothesize without a degree of imagination, once chance is removed from consideration?-One doesn't. But one does not imagine that one's knowledge is such that one can dismiss a hypothesis just because it might conflict with one's preconceptions (e.g. that God planned every innovation in advance). -dhw: That does not alter the fact that it is perfectly reasonable to discuss how evolution works without having to discuss the origin of life. DAVID: When your personal zygote got started it created you, a very enjoyable you, from my perspective. That is a continuum. Life started and we are here. The requirements of original life set the mechanisms in place for evolution. One can conceive of a non-evolvable life, just single cells never combining. But they did, so the ability must have been built in.-That is why I have constantly stressed that the first cells must have contained the mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution. How they got there is one question. How they work is another.-dhw: So leave Darwin and OOL out of it, and keep a nicely balanced, agnostically open mind about the range of an IM's capabilities. You know how important it is to stay balanced! DAVID: Balanced? You have closed out possibilities. Where did life's information come from? Spontaneous generation? With only chance, law or design available to you, your choice is 'I won't choose'. Your IM is purposely very inventive and independent to avoid considering God in any meaningful way [...] I explored science and found a belief in God is highly reasonable. -The theistic version of my hypothesis is that God designed the inventive mechanism and gave it autonomy to do its own inventing, though leaving him free to dabble if and when he wished. How does that avoid considering God in any meaningful way? I do not close out any possibilities. Whereas you are desperate to exclude an autonomous inventive mechanism because you think it would conflict with your belief that God preprogrammed all evolutionary innovations 3.7 billion years ago in order to produce humans. Do you really find one hypothesis more "scientific", more "reasonable" than the other?
Review of Spetner's book
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 25, 2014, 00:19 (3651 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: How does one hypothesize without a degree of imagination, once chance is removed from consideration? > > dhw: One doesn't. But one does not imagine that one's knowledge is such that one can dismiss a hypothesis just because it might conflict with one's preconceptions (e.g. that God planned every innovation in advance).-You have side-slipped my point: philosophically there are three ways to explain evolution: chance, requirement under laws of nature, and design. Chance is rejected by both of us; natural law requirements is unreasonable; only design is left to turn to, as far as I am concerned. What can you turn to: the picket fence, the non-answer. your choice. > > dhw: That is why I have constantly stressed that the first cells must have contained the mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution. How they got there is one question. How they work is another.-Agreed. Wagner describes controlling networks of genes, but has no idea how they accomplish their tasks of creating an animal. No one does. We are at a very early stage of knowledge.-> > dhw: The theistic version of my hypothesis is that God designed the inventive mechanism and gave it autonomy to do its own inventing, though leaving him free to dabble if and when he wished. How does that avoid considering God in any meaningful way? I do not close out any possibilities.-I agree that your all-inclusive theistic theory is almost reasonable. What I also know is that cells and organisms work at a molecular signaling level. They do not have actual consciousness to invent complex life patterns. Those basic patterns came from the original genomes.-> dhw: you are desperate to exclude an autonomous inventive mechanism because you think it would conflict with your belief that God preprogrammed all evolutionary innovations 3.7 billion years ago in order to produce humans. Do you really find one hypothesis more "scientific", more "reasonable" than the other?-I exclude it for the reasons given. I don't see how an IM is conscious enough to do that type of planning. At least you seem to have stopped implying that 'sentient cells' are consciously brilliant enough to create all of their own evolution, or is that still your thought?
Review of Spetner's book
DAVID: How does one hypothesize without a degree of imagination, once chance is removed from consideration?-dhw: One doesn't. But one does not imagine that one's knowledge is such that one can dismiss a hypothesis just because it might conflict with one's preconceptions (e.g. that God planned every innovation in advance).-DAVID: You have side-slipped my point: philosophically there are three ways to explain evolution: chance, requirement under laws of nature, and design. Chance is rejected by both of us; natural law requirements is unreasonable; only design is left to turn to, as far as I am concerned. What can you turn to: the picket fence, the non-answer. your choice. [...] Wagner describes controlling networks of genes, but has no idea how they accomplish their tasks of creating an animal. No one does. We are at a very early stage of knowledge.-I'm not sure what you mean by “natural law requirements”, but otherwise I accept your philosophical point. That hardly justifies your rejecting the hypothesis of an autonomous inventive mechanism while at the same time agreeing that no one knows how genes create animals and we are at a very early stage of knowledge!-DAVID: I agree that your all-inclusive theistic theory is almost reasonable. What I also know is that cells and organisms work at a molecular signaling level. They do not have actual consciousness to invent complex life patterns. Those basic patterns came from the original genomes.-We all know that cells and organisms work at a molecular signalling level, but you assume that is all they can do, even though you also know that human and animal organisms can work at a much higher level. “Consciousness” is a misleading word, as it can imply self-awareness of the human type. Scientists like Margulis, Shapiro, McClintock and Albrecht-Buehler have shown repeatedly that cells have their own kind of “intelligence”. In my hypothesis the original genomes contained the inventive mechanism (“intelligence”) which was passed on and created the basic patterns as and when environmental conditions demanded or allowed.-dhw: ...you are desperate to exclude an autonomous inventive mechanism because you think it would conflict with your belief that God preprogrammed all evolutionary innovations 3.7 billion years ago in order to produce humans. Do you really find one hypothesis more "scientific", more "reasonable" than the other?-DAVID: I exclude it for the reasons given. I don't see how an IM is conscious enough to do that type of planning. At least you seem to have stopped implying that 'sentient cells' are consciously brilliant enough to create all of their own evolution, or is that still your thought?-Again I would avoid “conscious”. I do regard an autonomous inventive mechanism (with the theistic version allowing for dabbling) as a more likely hypothesis than chance or your divine preprogramming of the first cells with all innovations and complex lifestyles, including route maps for every migrating organism, for the next 3.7 billion years (see under DILEMMAS). “All of their own evolution” would include the source of the IM, and there I remain firmly on the fence - the alternatives to your inexplicably conscious first-cause energy being unbelievable chance and an inexplicably evolving panpsychist consciousness.
Review of Spetner's book
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 26, 2014, 00:07 (3650 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I'm not sure what you mean by “natural law requirements”, but otherwise I accept your philosophical point. That hardly justifies your rejecting the hypothesis of an autonomous inventive mechanism while at the same time agreeing that no one knows how genes create animals and we are at a very early stage of knowledge!-It means there might be laws in nature requiring a specific outcome. We are arguing autonomous vs. semiautonomous. I prefer the latter. That is our only difference. > > We all know that cells and organisms work at a molecular signalling level, but you assume that is all they can do, even though you also know that human and animal organisms can work at a much higher level. “Consciousness” is a misleading word, as it can imply self-awareness of the human type. Scientists like Margulis, Shapiro, McClintock and Albrecht-Buehler have shown repeatedly that cells have their own kind of “intelligence”.-You are conflating cellular sentience and whole organ (brain) consciousness. That argument won't work for me, because its apples and oranges all over again. Cells work at a molecular level. Their molecular reactions to stimuli and stress are shown over and over again in the literature and carefully explained. Once again you have overinflated M, S, McC, and A-B. I suggest you read their work directly not the interpretations thereof.-> dhw: In my hypothesis the original genomes contained the inventive mechanism (“intelligence”) which was passed on and created the basic patterns as and when environmental conditions demanded or allowed.-And my hypothesis is that basic patterns of body forms, chemical reactions, and certain life styles are set in the origin of life and modified by a semi-autonomous IM as evolution progressed. > > Again I would avoid “conscious”. I do regard an autonomous inventive mechanism (with the theistic version allowing for dabbling) as a more likely hypothesis than chance or your divine preprogramming of the first cells with all innovations and complex lifestyles, including route maps for every migrating organism, for the next 3.7 billion years (see under DILEMMAS). “All of their own evolution” would include the source of the IM, and there I remain firmly on the fence.-I certainly respect your pointed sitting spot. And you want the word 'autonomous' to be carefully chosen as describing the IM, because that approach reduces the perceived power of God, and suggests He might not be there at all, despite your bow to a 'theistic hat' wearing thesis. I stand by my view that there must be a conscious first cause energy capable to planning the reality we have, and currently using the quantum level of reality to accomplish the job.
Review of Spetner's book
dhw: “Consciousness” is a misleading word, as it can imply self-awareness of the human type. Scientists like Margulis, Shapiro, McClintock and Albrecht-Buehler have shown repeatedly that cells have their own kind of “intelligence”. DAVID: You are conflating cellular sentience and whole organ (brain) consciousness. That argument won't work for me, because its apples and oranges all over again. Cells work at a molecular level. Their molecular reactions to stimuli and stress are shown over and over again in the literature and carefully explained. Once again you have overinflated M, S, McC, and A-B. I suggest you read their work directly not the interpretations thereof.-We have agreed that the “brain” of the cell is in the genome. I have stressed that we should not equate cellular intelligence with human consciousness. Of course cells work at molecular level, but we do not know what other levels their IM may be capable of working at. (“Wagner describes controlling networks of genes, but has no idea how they accomplish their tasks of creating an animal. No one does. We are at a very early stage of knowledge.” David Turell, 25 November at 00.19). I have supplied several direct quotes from these scientists to the effect that cells are sentient, cognitive, intelligent beings, and have used these scientific observations to construct the hypothesis that their “brains” cooperate inventively to drive evolution. I'd be surprised if it's an original idea, but if it is, good for me. I still consider it to be a more convincing hypothesis than random mutations and a 3.7-billion-year computer programme that passes on route maps for golden plovers. -DAVID: ...my hypothesis is that basic patterns of body forms, chemical reactions, and certain life styles are set in the origin of life and modified by a semi-autonomous IM as evolution progressed.-My hypothesis is that the inventive mechanism (cellular “brain”) was present in the first life forms - is that what you mean by “set in the origin of life”? We don't know how it or they originated, but God is a possible source. It continued to create and modify body forms, chemical reactions and life styles as environments changed throughout evolution. Either it did so autonomously, or it automatically implemented a few billion programmes your God planted in the very first cells, or God dabbled. “Semi-autonomous” seems to me like another piece of linguistic fudge. -DAVID: ... you want the word 'autonomous' to be carefully chosen as describing the IM, because that approach reduces the perceived power of God, and suggests He might not be there at all, despite your bow to a 'theistic hat' wearing thesis. -‘Autonomous' need not reduce the power of God. It simply changes your view of God's purpose. Instead of setting out to create humans, he created life to see where the inventive mechanism would take it. He may even have dabbled as new ideas came to him. You are locked into anthropocentrism, and you close your mind to alternative scenarios (even theistic ones) because you cannot bear the thought that your God might not have planned everything in advance.
Review of Spetner's book
by David Turell , Thursday, November 27, 2014, 01:14 (3649 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I still consider it to be a more convincing hypothesis than random mutations and a 3.7-billion-year computer programme that passes on route maps for golden plovers. -In my last 'dilemma' post I've given you a scenario for plovers. > > dhw: My hypothesis is that the inventive mechanism (cellular “brain”) was present in the first life forms - is that what you mean by “set in the origin of life”? We don't know how it or they originated, but God is a possible source. It continued to create and modify body forms, chemical reactions and life styles as environments changed throughout evolution. Either it did so autonomously, or it automatically implemented a few billion programmes your God planted in the very first cells, or God dabbled. “Semi-autonomous” seems to me like another piece of linguistic fudge.-Not fudge, but I know you love chocolate. 'Semiautonomous' means semi-independent as you well know. Autonomous means independent. 'Automatically implementing a billion initial programs' is what I mean by semiautonomous. It is initiating recipes, with some necessary small modifications. > > DAVID: ... you want the word 'autonomous' to be carefully chosen as describing the IM, because that approach reduces the perceived power of God, and suggests He might not be there at all, despite your bow to a 'theistic hat' wearing thesis. > >dhw: ‘Autonomous' need not reduce the power of God. It simply changes your view of God's purpose. Instead of setting out to create humans, he created life to see where the inventive mechanism would take it. He may even have dabbled as new ideas came to him. You are locked into anthropocentrism, and you close your mind to alternative scenarios (even theistic ones) because you cannot bear the thought that your God might not have planned everything in advance.-We humans are here. We are not necessary to the scheme of things. Our primate friends don't need us and would do just fine without us. We are different in kind not degree. Tell me why I should not be anthropocentric? You must consider evolution to be a purposeless chance mechanism to believe otherwise.
Review of Spetner's book
dhw: [The inventive mechanism] continued to create and modify body forms, chemical reactions and life styles as environments changed throughout evolution. Either it did so autonomously, or it automatically implemented a few billion programmes your God planted in the very first cells, or God dabbled. “Semi-autonomous” seems to me like another piece of linguistic fudge.-DAVID: 'Semiautonomous' means semi-independent as you well know. Autonomous means independent. 'Automatically implementing a billion initial programs' is what I mean by semiautonomous. It is initiating recipes, with some necessary small modifications.-More fudge. There is no autonomy of any kind if the organism automatically implements programmes. There is autonomy if the organism initiates programmes of its own. (Why have you changed programmes to “recipes”?) -dhw: You are locked into anthropocentrism, and you close your mind to alternative scenarios (even theistic ones) because you cannot bear the thought that your God might not have planned everything in advance. DAVID: We humans are here. We are not necessary to the scheme of things. -What is “the scheme of things”? Life will go on without us, just as life has gone on without the 99% of species that have become extinct. No species is necessary to “the scheme of things”, but all the current species are “here”. DAVID: Our primate friends don't need us and would do just fine without us. We are different in kind not degree. Tell me why I should not be anthropocentric? You must consider evolution to be a purposeless chance mechanism to believe otherwise.-All species would do just fine without us. And we can do just fine without all the extinct species, and most of those that are extant. I wonder why God specially preprogrammed the duck-billed platypus. You should be platycentric. But you have missed the point. You can still cling to your "different in kind" scenario even if evolution proceeded through an autonomous IM which God set in motion with no particular aim in mind. He could have dabbled when he saw its possibilities. The point of the IM hypothesis is not to read God's mind, but to explain how the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution might have grown from the first living cells. “Purposeless chance mechanism”? Theistic version: God designed the mechanism to start it off, so it's not chance. Purpose? Every innovation serves to aid survival, propagation, and/or making life as enjoyable as possible for its own sake. God's purpose? To provide himself with a show, to produce art for art's sake, to conduct a scientific experiment? You can't tell me why he wanted to produce humans, so why should I have to tell you why he started evolution?
Review of Spetner's book
by David Turell , Friday, November 28, 2014, 00:25 (3648 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: More fudge. There is no autonomy of any kind if the organism automatically implements programmes. There is autonomy if the organism initiates programmes of its own. (Why have you changed programmes to “recipes”?)-Your thinking is like pulling taffy. When you initiate driving your beloved old VW, do you originate everything under the hood? Much if it is set up for you. With an IM, as I think about it, it initiates a modification by delving into available programs and guidelines, and the modification is kept consistent with the original patterns. > > dhw: What is “the scheme of things”? Life will go on without us, just as life has gone on without the 99% of species that have become extinct. No species is necessary to “the scheme of things”, but all the current species are “here”.-But we are not like anyone else. We are different in kind, and not an expected result of the evolutionary process we see. Back to Adler again.-> > dhw: The point of the IM hypothesis is not to read God's mind, but to explain how the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution might have grown from the first living cells. “Purposeless chance mechanism”? Theistic version: God designed the mechanism to start it off, so it's not chance.-Agreed-> dhw: Purpose? Every innovation serves to aid survival, propagation, and/or making life as enjoyable as possible for its own sake.-Start life just for the fun of it? Why bother?- -> dhw: God's purpose? To provide himself with a show, to produce art for art's sake, to conduct a scientific experiment? You can't tell me why he wanted to produce humans, so why should I have to tell you why he started evolution?-Of course I can tell you. He now has thinking individuals with whom he can communicate. All that time alone in eternity is boring. I'm giving a reason in your style.
Review of Spetner's book
DAVID: ...With an IM, as I think about it, it initiates a modification by delving into available programs and guidelines, and the modification is kept consistent with the original patterns.-If conditions demand change, organisms either change or die. If they automatically implement preprogrammed changes, they have no autonomy. If they work the changes out for themselves, they are autonomous. What does “delving into available programs and guidelines” mean? Your monarch delved into all the programmes in its genome, and picked out the one marked “MONARCH: FOUR GENERATIONS, THEN FLY TO MEXICO. DON'T FORGET YOUR COMPASS”?-dhw: What is “the scheme of things”? Life will go on without us, just as life has gone on without the 99% of species that have become extinct. No species is necessary to “the scheme of things”, but all the current species are “here”. DAVID: But we are not like anyone else. We are different in kind, and not an expected result of the evolutionary process we see. Back to Adler again.-Who expects what from the evolutionary process? Did you or your God expect the duckbilled platypus? Yes, we have highly advanced brains. Dogs have highly advanced noses, and plovers have highly advanced compasses. But this is not the point. See below. dhw: Purpose? Every innovation serves to aid survival, propagation, and/or making life as enjoyable as possible for its own sake. DAVID: Start life just for the fun of it? Why bother?-You've answered your own question in the next exchange. dhw: God's purpose? To provide himself with a show, to produce art for art's sake, to conduct a scientific experiment? You can't tell me why he wanted to produce humans, so why should I have to tell you why he started evolution? DAVID: Of course I can tell you. He now has thinking individuals with whom he can communicate. All that time alone in eternity is boring. I'm giving a reason in your style-And indeed it's a reason I've often proposed. So to relieve his boredom, it's perfectly feasible that he would start life for the fun of it and see where it would lead (= the show). You constantly ignore my alternative theistic version: that even if we are different in kind, it doesn't mean your God started out with the intention of producing us. Focusing on providing the golden plover with a compass and muscle power makes no sense if we were the purpose. Once again, the point of the IM hypothesis is to explain the higgledy-piggledy bush. It makes perfect sense if your God created the mechanisms of life and evolution to provide himself with a varied and unpredictable show, and maybe dabbled when he got fed up or had a new idea (which could include us oh-so-special humans).
More on Spetner's views
by David Turell , Monday, October 26, 2015, 19:23 (3316 days ago) @ dhw
Spetner is an Orthodox Jew and he believes in a built-in mechanism for rapid adaptation which he calls a 'non-random evolutionary hypothesis':-http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/spetners-non-random-evolutionary-hypothesis/-"In 1997, “Not By Chance” by Lee Spetner was published. In it he argued for a “non-random evolutionary hypothesis” which had a mechanism of “built-in responses to environmental cues” at its heart. Some mutations happened just when they were needed. And some happened at just the right place to be effective. And even others, called transposons aka jumping genes, carried within its DNA coding sequence the coding for two of the enzymes required for it to be able to move around.- "A transposon has in it sections of DNA that encode two of the enzymes it needs to carry out its job. The cell itself contributes the other necessary enzymes. The motion of these genetic elements about to produce the above mutations has been found to be a complex process and we probably haven't yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and as well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism random before we learn what it really does. If the source of variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events. (Dr Lee Spetner “Not By Chance” page 44)-***-"Enter 2006 and the publication of “Evolution in Four Dimensions” by Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb and the elucidation of epigenetics, ie “built-in responses to environmental cues”. I couldn't stop thinking about “Not By Chance” wondering if Lee Spetner had read it and if he felt vindicated by it. Organisms are designed with different levels of possible variation. For example there is a possible variation with how the existing genes get expressed and another is changing the actual genes such that it changes the proteins. Change the regulation of the gene or change the gene itself. Lenski's E. coli changed the regulation of a gene by duplicating it and putting it under control of a promoter that allowed for it to be expressed in an aerobic environment. It was an environmental factor, the presence of O2, which repressed the gene. It was another environmental factor, the presence of citrate, which made getting that gene expressed beneficial.-"“Evolution in Four Dimensions” is a good book to have around. They describe experiments of microsurgery onParamecium. A piece of the cortex was cut out, rotated 180 degrees and reinserted. The offspring inherited the change. (Lamarck 101) (my bold) ***-"Then came 2011 and the publication of “Evolution: A View from the 21st Century” by James A. Shapiro (a colleague of Dr. McClintock) and even more support for the “non-random evolutionary hypothesis” and “built-in responses to environmental cues”. Again I wondered about Dr Spetner and if he was reading this book too. The book starts out talking about “Sensing, Signaling, and Decision Making in Cell Reproduction” and has a table of “Examples of Targeted Genetic Engineering”. Of course he thinks it all evolved because obviously that is what evolution does or maybe due to coercion from fellow U Chicago Professor Jerry Coyne that is what he had to say to prevent being attacked. But I digress, the book is well worth the read and there is evidence that some mutations happen just when they are needed. They are not random with respect to fitness; it is the organism doing some rearranging to stay fit." (my bold)-Comment: Note that Spetner believes in God, and perhaps Coyne explains Shapiro.
More on Spetner's views
DAVID: Spetner is an Orthodox Jew and he believes in a built-in mechanism for rapid adaptation which he calls a 'non-random evolutionary hypothesis':-http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/spetners-non-random-evolutionary-hypothesis/-QUOTE: "“Evolution in Four Dimensions” is a good book to have around. They describe experiments of microsurgery onParamecium. A piece of the cortex was cut out, rotated 180 degrees and reinserted. The offspring inherited the change. (Lamarck 101)(David's bold)-Cellular intelligence as the driving force of evolutionary change is a “non-random evolutionary hypothesis”, but of course it would only work if the restructuring was passed on to the offspring. -QUOTE: "Then came 2011 and the publication of “Evolution: A View from the 21st Century” by James A. Shapiro (a colleague of Dr. McClintock) and even more support for the “non-random evolutionary hypothesis” and “built-in responses to environmental cues”. Again I wondered about Dr Spetner and if he was reading this book too. The book starts out talking about “Sensing, Signaling, and Decision Making in Cell Reproduction” and has a table of “Examples of Targeted Genetic Engineering”. Of course he thinks it all evolved because obviously that is what evolution does or maybe due to coercion from fellow U Chicago Professor Jerry Coyne that is what he had to say to prevent being attacked. [David's bold] But I digress, the book is well worth the read and there is evidence that some mutations happen just when they are needed. They are not random with respect to fitness; it is the organism doing some rearranging to stay fit." (my bold)-David's comment: Note that Spetner believes in God, and perhaps Coyne explains Shapiro.-Bearing in mind Shapiro's explicit belief that cells are sentient, cognitive beings and not automatons, the implication would seem to be that organisms do their own rearranging, (i.e. evolution is driven by their intelligence as opposed to your 3.8 billion year programme or divine dabbling), but "built-in responses" suggests the opposite to "decision-making", so there is certainly some confusion here. However, as I keep emphasizing, the intelligent cell hypothesis, just like the theory of evolution itself, is perfectly compatible with belief in God as the instigator. The sentence you have put in bold is very unclear. What does “it all evolved” refer to? As Shapiro has elsewhere refused to be drawn on the subject of origins, I cannot believe for one moment that he is discussing anything other than how evolution works - not how the intelligent cell came into being. His continued very public championship of cellular intelligence therefore has nothing to do with coercion by Coyne; nor does his belief in evolution (though his 21st century view is clearly very different from Darwin's concept of it), which is compatible with both theism and atheism.
More on Spetner's views
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 27, 2015, 19:27 (3315 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, October 27, 2015, 19:34
> QUOTE: "“Evolution in Four Dimensions” is a good book to have around. They describe experiments of microsurgery onParamecium. A piece of the cortex was cut out, rotated 180 degrees and reinserted. The offspring inherited the change. (Lamarck 101)(David's bold) > > dhw: Cellular intelligence as the driving force of evolutionary change is a “non-random evolutionary hypothesis”, but of course it would only work if the restructuring was passed on to the offspring. -Which it did in the quote.-> > David's comment: Note that Spetner believes in God, and perhaps Coyne explains Shapiro.-> dhw:The sentence you have put in bold is very unclear. What does “it all evolved” refer to? As Shapiro has elsewhere refused to be drawn on the subject of origins, I cannot believe for one moment that he is discussing anything other than how evolution works - not how the intelligent cell came into being. His continued very public championship of cellular intelligence therefore has nothing to do with coercion by Coyne; nor does his belief in evolution (though his 21st century view is clearly very different from Darwin's concept of it), which is compatible with both theism and atheism.-The sentence is unclear to you because perhaps you have not read Coyne. He is, in my view, one of the nasty Neo-atheists, worse then Dawkins, also now a retiring professor at U. Chicago(as is Shapiro). The writer of the quote presumes that Shapiro gives a bow to Darwin ('it all evolved') while remaining in private life a believer and knows Coyne as I do.-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne-Coyne calls himself a secular Jew.
More on Spetner's views
David's comment: Note that Spetner believes in God, and perhaps Coyne explains Shapiro.-dhw:The sentence you have put in bold is very unclear. What does “it all evolved” refer to? As Shapiro has elsewhere refused to be drawn on the subject of origins, I cannot believe for one moment that he is discussing anything other than how evolution works - not how the intelligent cell came into being. -DAVID: The sentence is unclear to you because perhaps you have not read Coyne. He is, in my view, one of the nasty Neo-atheists, worse then Dawkins, also now a retiring professor at U. Chicago(as is Shapiro). The writer of the quote presumes that Shapiro gives a bow to Darwin ('it all evolved') while remaining in private life a believer and knows Coyne as I do.-I had gathered that Coyne is an atheist. My point is that Shapiro's belief in the intelligent cell and in evolution (though not in Darwin's explanation of it) clearly has nothing to do with theism or atheism. The comment “it all evolved” plus the reference to Coyne is misleading in its vagueness, as it sounds as if Shapiro's belief in evolution could be a pretence.
More on Spetner's views
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 13:48 (3314 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I had gathered that Coyne is an atheist. My point is that Shapiro's belief in the intelligent cell and in evolution (though not in Darwin's explanation of it) clearly has nothing to do with theism or atheism. The comment “it all evolved” plus the reference to Coyne is misleading in its vagueness, as it sounds as if Shapiro's belief in evolution could be a pretense.-Who really knows. Shapiro does and he was president of his Temple. Pretense is a possibility.
More on Spetner's views: Coyne demolished
by David Turell , Monday, November 02, 2015, 00:23 (3309 days ago) @ David Turell
Ed Fesser takes him apart:-http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/10/red-herrings-dont-go-to-heaven-either.html#more-"You don't have to sympathize with my views to see the awfulness of Coyne's performance. Commenting on Coyne's “diatribe” and my response to it, Coyne's fellow atheist Jeff Lowder concluded, at the Secular Outpost:-"If I were to sum up Feser's reply in one word, it would be, “Ouch!” I think Feser's reply is simply devastating to Coyne and I found myself in agreement with most of his points.-"My onetime sparring partner Eric MacDonald -- who was once an ally of Coyne's and whose advice Coyne acknowledges in his recent book Faith vs. Fact, but who has now distanced himself from the New Atheism -- wrote in response to Lowder:-"I have said very much the same kinds of things about Coyne, and was asked to go elsewhere if I had any criticisms to make (which is not a sign of intellectual honesty in itself), though he did not outright "ban" me…-"I must say that, having left the narrow confines of Coyne's outlook, I have been greatly helped by Professor Feser's careful reading and argument, something that Coyne could not be accused of.-***-"Naturally, Coyne also repeatedly accuses me -- as he ritualistically does absolutely every theist, no matter how many and detailed his arguments are -- of having “no evidence” and of “just making stuff up.” Then absurdly -- and, in good Jerry Coyne fashion, without seeing that he has just contradicted himself -- he admits that in fact I do give arguments for my views, but that they are in an article of mine that he says he will not bother actually to read. -***-"As goes without saying for Coyne readers, this doesn't stop Coyne from leveling various objections to the arguments he says he won't bother reading -- objections I've answered many times in various places, including the very article Coyne refuses to read. But then, this is (as longtime readers will recall) a man who once wrote over 5000 words attacking a book (by Hart) which he admitted he had not actually read -- and in the course of doing so, and with no trace of irony, accused the book's author of having had his “intelligence… blatantly coopted and corrupted to prove what [he] has decided is true beforehand”!-"Yes, dear reader, behold the mind of Jerry Coyne -- of a man who explicitly refuses to read what his opponents have actually said, but will nevertheless attack at length the arguments he guesses they must be giving, and who in the same breath will insist that it is those opponents who refuse to look at actual “evidence” and who “make things up.” -"Well, that is itself evidence for you, though only further evidence of what has already been massively confirmed, viz. that Coyne is a Walter Mitty atheist if ever there was one!"-Comment: This is the Jerry Coyne I referred to, who is in the same university with Shapiro.