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

by dhw, Sunday, November 24, 2019, 13:24 (20 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You started out by trying to discredit Shapiro’s theory because his speciality is bacteria. Now you are repeating the theory, but instead of my terminology – the whole organism is a community of cell communities– you say it’s organized like a corporation, which means “a group of companies acting together as a single organization”. What’s the difference? And how does your “board” differ from your own would-be mocking term “committee”? Is there such a thing as the “central genome”? The genome is the total genetic complement of a cell or an organism. We don’t know where the central command post of individual cells or of the total genome is, but Shapiro’s theory (and mine) is that cells are intelligent beings and cooperate to create the evolutionary novelties which lead to speciation.

DAVID: The problem for you and Shapiro is that all the cells in a multicellular organism have jobs to do, and their individual DNA's are altered/adjusted for that and produce automatic productive jobs. No one has ever discovered a 'central command post' which is why research is now looking at different obvious patterns in DNA organization and storage mechanisms (isochores, for example). It is that command post which must do the speciation, or as my 'perhaps' really means God must do the alterations.

You have completely ignored my response to your comment concerning board/committees/ communities and have then repeated my own statement that we don’t know where the central command post is, though I include individual cells as well as all the communities. Of course all the cells are now in place, since the speciation has already happened!

dhw: Your “perhaps the genome (i.e. the cell communities) can’t do it” is a very welcome concession, since it means that perhaps it/they can. Thank you for now agreeing that perhaps Shapiro is right (and me too). […]

DAVID: Again going to huge lengths to find me backing off my point. The 'perhaps was just a lead in comment to get back to my theory which is that God speciates. Until we prove that the genome can do it on its own, God stays my choice since complex design anticipating the future is required.

Complex design anticipating the future is NOT required if, as you yourself wrote in your book, the cognitive cellular networks have the ability to “respond to the present”, “using information as it appears”. God speciates is presumably your shorthand for your God providing the first cells with detailed programmes for all undabbled innovations (not to mention lifestyles, strategies, econiches and natural wonders) for the rest of time.

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: They all do. Design always comes first.

dhw: Yes of course, design has to come before the implementation of design. But do your ID-ers believe as you do that the designs become physical reality before the environmental changes which the innovations are designed to cope with (e.g. pre-whale legs turn into fins before the pre-whale enters the water)?

DAVID: ID folks believe God designs all advances in evolution. Behe actually thinks the original DNA contained all the information needed from the beginning and God operates by deletion of genes.

And you still refuse to say whether any ID-ers share your belief that the physical implementation of their God’s designs takes place before or after the arrival of the conditions which the innovations are designed to cope with. May I presume that none of them do?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum