Evolution and humans: our feet are special (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 16, 2018, 13:10 (2228 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The (theistic) choice here is between your God preprogramming/dabbling the cooperation that enabled them to evolve, or your God giving them the wherewithal to organize their own cooperation, so please don’t tell me the whole is not created by cooperating cells.

DAVID: I would offer a slightly different concept: the whole is created by cells that are designed to cooperate.

dhw: Thank you for withdrawing your assertion that “the whole is not created by cooperating cells”. We are therefore left with the alternatives I offered above.

DAVID: I haven't withdrawn anything. The whole is obviously created with cooperating cells. Without the cells built to cooperate, the whole won't work. Perhaps you didn't understand my comment above.

You wrote on 12 October at 15.50: “The whole is not created by cooperating cells. What a gross mistake in analysis!” Now you agree that the whole is obviously created by cooperating cells. (My hypothesis has always explicitly allowed for their being designed). Thank you. Let’s move on.

dhw: You claimed that we know the extent to which cells can innovate because research only shows minor adaptations. My point is that research is not over. So maybe new research will reveal more than we know now.

DAVID: Of course it will.

dhw: So it’s goodbye to the argument that cells cannot invent because current research has not shown that they can.

DAVID: All I agreed to is research will learn more, but there is no current evidence that the cells are any more than intelligently designed factories to automatically produce proteins on command.

I know there is no current evidence, any more than there is current evidence for your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme. That is why it is only a hypothesis.

DAVID: What I seen in the biochemistry of cell reactions is pure automaticity, not inventivity. Nothing hypothetical about cell capacities. Just because you hypothetise it doesn't mean it is remotely possible.

dhw: What you have seen according to “my” experts is not pure automaticity, because they are convinced that cells are intelligent. Inventiveness is the purely hypothetical factor in my hypothesis. One moment you accept the possibility “thru God”, “one not better than the others”, and then you reject it on the grounds that you know more about cells than “my” experts, and prefer the unproven hypothesis that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every invention. You have every right to do so, but that does not make your hypothesis more “logical” or less “magical” than mine.

DAVID: Sorry but I still consider it as pure magic. Design requires mental analysis for design. Shapiro is the most recent of your experts at work: all he shows is that bacteria can manipulate their DNA for minor adaptations. It is interest that the ID folks love to quite him to support their views!

So if your God designed unproven inventive cellular intelligence it would be “pure magic”, whereas if your God designed an unproven computer programme and/or personally dabbled (unproven) every innovation in the history of life, that would be what? Pure science?

See under “Immunity: gene control” concerning Shapiro (and McClintock).