David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 19, 2019, 14:24 (1829 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: [ID-ers] view of design is that the animals are designed for future problems in advance.

dhw: […] just to clarify: do they believe that as you now claim, evolutionary innovations actually happen before the existence of the future conditions which they are meant to deal with (e.g. pre-whale legs turned into flippers before pre-whales entered the water), or do they agree with the view you offered in your admirable book that organisms have “the ability to respond to the present” – though this “must have been built in the distant past”?

DAVID: The bold refers to adaptive ability, not speciation. You continually morph my ideas into your thinking.

dhw: You were commenting on Shapiro’s theory, and even quoted his belief that: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” You lavished praise on the book, and pointed out that “His emphasis is on systems using information as it appears, not rigid ancient instructions laid down in the past.” The quotes make it abundantly clear that he is not talking only about adaptations but about the novelties that lead to speciation, and your only caveat is that this ability must have been built in the distant past.
Would you now please answer my question whether ID-ers believe that all evolutionary innovations actually took place before the arrival of the conditions they were meant to deal with (e.g. God turning legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water)?

His findings in bacteria are extremely important, but still apply only to bacteria, as no further connection to multicellular cells has been shown. IDr's certainly agree God designed flippers for water use.

DAVID: What you are skipping is the point I have made that Shapiro's work is on free-living bacteria, which cannot translate to cells in a multicellular organism.

dhw: But you yourself have quoted multiple passages in which he refers to cellular intelligence as being able to “self-modify” to the point of creating “evolutionary novelty”. Why don’t you deal with the theory itself instead of trying to withdraw your fulsome praise and now denigrate the theory because you think his research was limited to bacteria.

DAVID: It was limited to bacteria and you have avoided answering my comment that it is not related to DNA adaptive function in multicellular organisms enough to cause speciation.

dhw: It is your opinion that the ability to adapt cannot cause the innovations that lead to speciation, and the above quote proposes the exact opposite. Please reread the other quotes you reproduce on pages 142-143, especially those that mention innovations and inventions. And please focus on Shapiro’s theory and not on what you think he may or may not have studied.

All of Shapiro's work was on bacteria.

DAVID: Seems like there are other parts also at work automatically.

dhw: …of course there are parts that work automatically. The “brain” - whether human, dog, crow, ant or cellular equivalent – absorbs information from the outside world automatically; the processing, communication and decision-making are then done intelligently, and the implementation of decisions again involves automatic obedience.

DAVID: You appear to be saying as usual cells can think and make decisions that look automatic. Of course I disagree.

dhw: No, they look intelligent. You insist that they are automatic, although you agree that you have a 50% chance of being wrong.

That is my view.