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

by David Turell , Friday, November 18, 2016, 14:54 (2925 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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.

You and he do extend beyond all recognition (from WWII G.I. expression FUBAR). What I see in Shapiro's work is the cellular ability to slightly modify DNA for adaptations within species, nothing more.

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

dhw: 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.

And that is my alternative! New species involve saltation directed by God. God used an evolution method. Your entire argument is pure Darwin: step-by-step improvement leading to new species. Organisms cannot 'innovate' the gaps we see between old modified species to new species. There is too much complex planning involved which your hypothesis blithely skips over and assumes.

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

dhw: 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)?

Because all those things happened after the first cells appeared. We must accept cause and effect. The appearance of a neuron from all other cells is completely unexplained except as a saltation from God. A neuron is like no other cell that exists with special attributes involving the use of charged ions.