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

by dhw, Friday, March 22, 2019, 11:12 (2074 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

The original point was that the paragraph you quoted had nothing whatsoever to do with what you derisively call “cell committees”. It merely dismissed random change and was therefore irrelevant to Shapiro’s theory. My reply to you was meant to indicate that whatever mechanism creates adaptations might perhaps also create innovations. I have known for some time that you do not believe in the presence of cellular intelligence.

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.

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

You seem to think that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the beak changes in anticipation of the environmental changes. My proposal is that adaptation takes place in response to environmental changes. I find the latter considerably more “probable” than the former. Your last sentence does not explain why your God found it necessary to fiddle with finches’ beaks if his only purpose was to design the human brain.