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

by David Turell , Thursday, November 17, 2016, 19:51 (2926 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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? We are theorizing.

My point is that I don't believe intelligent cell communities can figure out how to jump the speciation gaps we see. You have extended Shapiro's conclusion far beyond what he claims. There is no evidence that a series of innovations leads to new species. That is a pure extension of Darwin's view of human animal breeding practices.

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.

dhw: 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.

We are arguing about speciation, not innovations within the same species. I look at gap size in phenotype to guide my thinking. Do you?

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.

dhw: 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?

Because so far we have no evidence of that kind of intelligence, only minor necessary adaptations.