An inventive mechanism: role of horizontal gene transfer (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 03, 2014, 18:00 (3641 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your own hypothesis is that from the very beginning God preprogrammed all the innovations and complex lifestyles that have punctuated evolution from bacteria to humans. THAT is our subject. So please find me a reference in Talbott that supports your preprogramming hypothesis as opposed to my intelligent mechanism hypothesis. Bet you can't. See also my post under “Evidence for pattern development; mulling”, and mull some more.-DAVID: I've said that I am not going to quote Talbott. His writing is verbose, but some of his opinionated quotes fall in line with my thinking and some with yours. He discusses beautifully the problems with the atheistic approach to Darwinism and he ascribes an inventive mechanism to evolved organisms, but it is a nebulous description. They seem to do it be he can't describe how. And that is because none of us know how it is done, or the limits in capability to do the job. Our debate is over the degree of modification. You thinks it is lots, and I think it is much more limited. I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree. There is no doubt epigenetic changes play a role in furthering evolution, but that is as far as Shapiro, the champion of epigenetics, can go. We are forced to wait for further research to clear up the issue if it can. To be precise: an epigenetic IM exists, its limits for invention are unknown.-I am almost happy with this response, in contrast to your response on the “mulling” thread! My plea to you all along has been for open-mindedness. Initially, you totally dismissed the concept of the intelligent cell, but you now recognize that there may well be an inventive mechanism within its genome. The great question is the degree of its autonomy. I do not think it IS lots; I think it MAY BE lots. If you put your cowboy six-shooter to my head, I will certainly opt for lots rather than your all-inclusive preprogramming of all innovations and complex lifestyles 3.7 billion years ago, but that is not the point. The limits for invention are unknown, so how can you as a scientist champion one theistic hypothesis and reject the other (remember, I have allowed for your God designing the IM), believing that your dilemma has been solved when this directly relevant and enormously important area of research remains so incomplete?