Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, March 20, 2019, 17:20 (1857 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: Scientists to do their research by manipulating living genetic material. “Shapiro asks: if we can use those tools to engineer DNA, then why then can’t the cell use them both to meet current challenges and to evolve over time?”

dhw: In other words, why shouldn’t we believe that cells are capable of engineering their own evolution? Not proven, of course, but a very reasonable question.

QUOTE: Behe lists all the mechanisms the cells can use to function. “Genetic programs and information can be reused and repurposed…..All those abilities are used during the lives of cells, and all are controlled by them. [This] leads Shapiro to view it as sentient. It acts purposefully toward its environment, so perhaps the cell can also direct its capacities purposely to direct its own evolution. To many Neo-Darwinists such talk carries a whiff of heresy. [Shapiro’s answer is] that their role is open to experimental testing.”(dhw’s bold – see later)

dhw: Exactly the hypothesis I have also been suggesting. What is the point of mentioning Neo-Darwinists? Probably the irrelevant passage you have bolded later.

QUOTE: Behe‘s objection to Shapiro’s natural genetic engineering “is that it doesn’t even try to explain the origin of purposeful systems—it takes them for granted…..So, where did the original intricate, complex systems come from? Natural genetic engineering seems to have a big chicken and egg problem---it needs complex systems to make complex systems.

dhw: That is not an objection to the theory itself. Shapiro is focusing only on what directs evolution, i.e. the intelligent cell/cell community (my expression) as a purposeful engineer.

It is not his business to discuss the origin of the intelligent cell, as that would be a distraction from the theory (as well as automatically alienating atheist scientists), but I need have no such inhibitions and am quite happy to say that there may be a God who designed the intelligent cell. For all we know, Shapiro believes that himself, since I think you said he was a practising Jew.

QUOTE: There is little evidence that the systems Shapiro cites are in any way creative beyond the boundaries of their current capacities. Laboratory and field evolution studies give no hint that, in the face of selective pressure, natural genetic systems engineer anything new.

dhw: You and I have agreed on this, and that is why it is an unproven hypothesis, just like your own, and indeed just like the hypothesis that chance did it, or there is a God who did it. Nothing is proven, and maybe nothing can be proven.

QUOTE: Shapiro correctly notes that, “As many biologists have argued since the nineteenth century, random changes would overwhelmingly tend to degrade intricately organized system rather than adapt them to new functions.” (Evolution, page 134) Yet the marvelous cellular systems he cites give every indication that they do the same thing when they move beyond their well-regulated limits.[/i](David's bold)

dhw: Excellent. You and I agree with Shapiro. We both dismiss chance or “random changes”.

DAVID: No support for cell committees. Even Shapiro expresses doubt in the bold above.

dhw: The bold above dismisses random changes – nothing to do with cellular intelligence. That theory is to be found in the other quotes, but of course it is a “perhaps” (see my earlier bold). If it wasn’t a “perhaps”, it would be stated as a fact, which obviously it is not. All the above quotes amount to a mirror image of the discussion between you and me. Once again, many thanks for keeping us informed. I’ll look forward to hearing whether Behe believes in bacteria carrying and passing on 3.8-billion-year-old programmes for all the undabbled life forms that ate and didn’t eat one another until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design (i.e. Behe, you and me).

Your last comment reflects your view that the cell with innate intelligence can make meaningful adjustments in its genome. Your guess is as good as mine and still 50/50. In a section on Darwin Finches, Behe notes the finding that two mutations over a million years old allow finches to change beak size and shape when the environmental changes cause edible seed changes. Finches had to fly to the Galapagos. Did they come prepared for the changes? Or develop them after arrival? Not clear.