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

by dhw, Friday, November 18, 2016, 12:36 (2928 days ago) @ David Turell

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.
DAVID: 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.

According to Wikipedia, referring to an article Shapiro wrote for the Boston Review (1997): “ Within the context of the article in particular and Shapiro's work on Natural Genetic Engineering in general, the "guiding intelligence" is to be found within the cell.”

Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering

Since he regards cells as sentient, cognitive, intelligent, decision-making etc. beings, I can’t see much difference between his concept of “natural genetic engineering” and my own hypothesis. But you have made it abundantly clear that you don’t believe in cellular intelligence, so it makes no difference how far Shapiro and/or I extend his belief in it.

DAVID: 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

If you believe in common descent, how else can one species descend from another if not through innovations? And these can only take place in existing organisms. A few species (a) organisms give rise to species (b) through an innovation. Species (b) later diversifies into species (c) through another innovation. Existing organisms spread to different environments, or existing environments change, and existing organisms not only adapt (they remain the same species) but they also innovate and become new species. If you believe in common descent, this is exactly the same process as your God preprogramming or dabbling: each new programme has to take place in existing organisms. Your alternative is separate creation.

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

Yes, it’s a hypothesis, because nobody can explain speciation. What is the evidence that the first cells contained a programme for the building of the weaverbird’s nest plus umpteen million other innovations and natural wonders (apart from those that your God dabbled)?