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

by dhw, Saturday, November 19, 2016, 12:17 (2925 days ago) @ David Turell

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.
DAVID: 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.

And David’s comment re “Shapiro on epigenetics”: this is an exact instance of what Shapiro has shown. Necessary adaptation to environmental challenges, no change in species.

If Shapiro (or I) could prove that cellular intelligence has caused the innovations that drive evolution, our discussions on this subject would be at an end, and he (or I) would be off to Stockholm to collect his (my) Nobel Prize. If you could prove that God had preprogrammed or dabbled the innovations that drive evolution, our discussions on this subject would be at an end, and you would be off to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize. NOBODY knows how speciation occurred. We are all extending what we do know to form hypotheses to explain what we don’t know.

DAVID: There is no evidence that a series of innovations leads to new species.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.

DAVID: And that is my alternative! New species involve saltation directed by God. God used an evolution method.

This is a whole new ball game. You simply cannot believe in separate creation AND common descent! Either each new programme takes place in existing organisms, as described above, or God starts each species from scratch. Saltations in biology as you well know mean a sudden change in an existing organism.

DAVID: 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.

A hypothesis is a suggestion, not an assumption. However a statement like “organisms cannot innovate the gaps” is an assumption. The innovatory improvements are not step by step. They would only survive if they functioned. New species through innovations in existing species HAS to be the process if you believe in common descent, whether through cellular intelligence or through your divine preprogramming and/or dabbling. But now apparently you are opting out of common descent. That’s fine with me, except that under “Speech and Fox P2” you are back with Darwin again:

QUOTE: "As Dr. Jarvis observes, "We believe that FOXP2 already had a pre-existing role in regulating vocal communication before human language evolved.'"
DAVID’s comment: Not surprising if we believe in common descent. Humans just developed much further in anatomic and brain changes.

So away with separate creation. But a very welcome acknowledgement that “humans just developed much further”. Same process, greater degree.

dhw: 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)?
DAVID: 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.

Every innovation is unexplained. That is why we theorize. Yes, we must accept cause and effect, and obviously all these things happened after the first cells appeared. If we believe in common descent, there has to be an ongoing link between the first cells and all subsequent changes. We don’t know what the link is, but cellular intelligence would fit the bill. However, as I keep repeating ad nauseam, this does not preclude the existence of your God (who would have designed it), or of your God dabbling. What it does preclude is your God having to specially design the weaverbird’s nest and every innovation and natural wonder throughout the history of life.