David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Friday, November 22, 2019, 22:45 (19 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We are not discussing what Shapiro did NOT say!

DAVID: But that is what happened. Bacteria who are out on their own and must handle their own affairs. Yet I think his work is fabulous because it offers hints as to how speciation might happen. Remember I also raised the issue that Shapiro was president of his Temple, and I wonder about his beliefs in God and God's role in all of this. And, yes, since bacteria are at the start of life, the mechanism must be from the distant past. I've not changed in my views. Your assumptions are all eschew.

dhw: What assumptions are you talking about? Shapiro’s theory is quite explicit: that cells are cognitive beings and are capable of creating the “novelties” of evolution. This is not a “hint”, it is a clearly expressed theory, which you have consistently opposed (as is your right) when I have put it to you. We all know that bacteria are “out on their own”. So what? His theory concerns cells in general. o what? And of course the mechanism must have been there in the distant past, since evolution began in the distant past. You consider his work on a full-blown theory “as to how speciation might happen” is fabulous. Either your current fierce opposition to that theory is “all eschew”, or your praise of it was “all eschew”.

The problem is your assumption about Shapiro' theory. My point is that all he did was study mainly E. coli molecular genetics. That he described and it is exquisite work. The rest of his book is an attempt to say that somehow this points to a way that the genome might cause speciation. He mentions lots of other studies that give some support. His theory is applied to whole organisms and there lies the problem. A whole multicellular organism is organized like a corporation. Most of it functions day by day automatically and smoothly. But it is run by a president, his board. At some point this group makes a change because it is better for the corporation. The genome is the president and the board. My view of speciation is that it must be decided by some currently unknown layer of the central genome, layers of organization we are still discovering. Since all cells have the same DNA but modified for individual function, we still have no idea where the central command post is. Cells do not control the genome. It is the other way around. Perhaps the genome can't do it either and it requires God. thus my thinking. There is no room for your imagined committees.


dhw: You also claim that ID-ers share your belief that your God implemented the novelties IN ANTICIPATION of environmental change, as opposed to IN RESPONSE to it.

DAVID: From my reading I believe they accept design before hand.

dhw: Of course design must precede implementation! But as you say later: "Yes, the new organisms are obviously suited to environment conditions. Our debate is when changes occur, either before or after." So do you know of any ID-ers who argue that evolutionary innovations take place before the environmental changes they have to cope with?

They all do. Design always comes first.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum