How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe (Humans)

by dhw, Thursday, November 17, 2016, 12:33 (2927 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I use the terms “coping with” to indicate adaptation, and “exploiting” to indicate innovation. NOBODY knows how speciation took place, but we know that adaptation happens, and I am suggesting that the same mechanism works for both.DAVID: You've said in the past that Darwin theory does not explain speciation, but your statement says Darwin does explain it! Speciation involves large changes in organisms, not adaptations but large innovations.

Where on earth do you find Darwin’s random mutations and gradualism in my statement??? Over and over again, I have explained my hypothesis: that just as cell communities use their intelligence to adapt to new conditions and remain themselves, they may also use it to create the innovations that lead to speciation. (These would have to be saltations in order to work and survive.) What is Darwinian about that? But it’s a HYPOTHESIS. Just like your preprogramming and dabbling are HYPOTHESES. Because nobody knows how speciation takes place. We are theorizing.

DAVID: (in response to a similar point later in my post): Of course we are theorizing. But logically since the massive complexity requires complex planning. Non-mental somatic cells don't have much planning ability except minor modification, which is proven.

That is the point at issue. Yes, we know they are capable of minor modifications. We don’t know how far minor modifications can extend to major modifications, all the way through to innovation. We don’t know. It’s a hypothesis.

DAVID: Cell division means that what is present is passed onto daughter cells, unless an error is made. Modifications of DNA occur between cell division.
dhw: How does that support the hypothesis that the first cells contained and passed on millions and millions of programmes?
DAVID: Quite clear. Since cell division is straight replication of DNA, not changed by sex reproduction, it all could be present from the beginning and unchanged except by error copies, which are rare.

Single cells don’t have sex, and therefore remain unchanged, and that supports the hypothesis that they contained millions and millions of programmes? (And these were then passed on through millions and millions of multicellular organisms which do have sex and do not remain unchanged.) Why could it not support the hypothesis that the first cells contained a (perhaps God-given) form of intelligence that could devise programmes of its own?