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

by David Turell , Thursday, March 21, 2019, 17:59 (1857 days ago) @ dhw

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. (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).

DAVID: Your last comment reflects your view that the cell with innate intelligence can make meaningful adjustments in its genome.

dhw: All adjustments are meaningful. The theory that they might be meaningful enough to create innovations is the “perhaps” that I have emphasized and now bolded, and I’m only pointing out that your own bold has nothing to do with that theory but simply opposes chance.

My point was the present or not of 'innate intelligence'. Of course we both know that epigenetics can cause meaningful adaptations. You have totally misinterpreted my comment.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I wonder why your God would want to dabble beforehand with finches’ beaks so they could eat the changed Galapagos seeds, when his one and only purpose was apparently to design the brain of H. sapiens. May I humbly suggest that when the environment changes, organisms must adapt or die.

Of course they can adapt. My point was the probable pre-planning to help the finches with climate changes. The hum an brain is the result of God's evolutionary method.