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

by dhw, Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 11:21 (1828 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] do they [Id-ers] 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.

DAVID: His findings in bacteria are extremely important, but still apply only to bacteria, as no further connection to multicellular cells has been shown.

You claimed that your comment about ability to respond to the present only concerned adaptation, but the context is clearly Shapiro’s belief that speciation arises from intelligent cellular responses to current conditions. Your only response to the whole theory, which you praised so highly and unreservedly in your book is that Shapiro specializes in the study of bacteria. Do you really believe he wrote his book without any knowledge of cellular behaviour? Your own book quotes author after author on all kinds of subjects. Are your arguments invalid because you are not an astrophysicist, a microbiologist, a philosopher? Our theories always incorporate the findings of others. It’s called research.

dhw: 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)?

DAVID: IDr's certainly agree God designed flippers for water use.

I think even atheists and agnostics would agree that flippers are for water use. Stop being evasive. You claim that your God changes organs and organisms (legs into flippers) before the new environmental conditions which require such changes actually exist. Do you know of anyone who supports this belief?