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

by David Turell , Saturday, November 30, 2019, 16:16 (1818 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Nobody can explain speciation, and that is why we have different theories. Do you disagree that speciation may have been local, and that environmental change may have triggered not only adaptation for survival but also innovation to exploit new opportunities? As for the gaps, either we haven’t found fossils, or the structures of cell communities changed relatively quickly. You believe the changes came through your God’s dabbling/preprogramming, and Shapiro proposes (as do I) that it was through cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Intelligence is immaterial. Tell me where the cells got it.

dhw: You are asking me to solve one of the many mysteries that no human has yet managed to solve: the source of life, of consciousness, of speciation [...] Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial intelligence. Not very helpful, is it?

DAVID: My suggestion as always is that consciousness came first. It is the same breed of cat as immaterial intelligence and it can design whatever is needed.

dhw: I know that is your suggestion. You asked me where cells got their immaterial intelligence from. Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial consciousness/intelligence. So where did immaterial consciousness/intelligence come from? Your cop-out answer will have to be the usual “first cause”. Why is that a more likely solution than a chance combination of eternally shifting first-cause materials and energy, or rudimentary consciousness being present in first cause materials and energy?

I believe 'chance' which is the basis of your theory as absolutely impossible, based on the biological design I find:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13252-9

Just glance at this article describing a universal joint in flagella made up from specialized proteins. There are universal joints in autos, we design. I can't condense it because the diagrams make the point.

DAVID: I've admitted poor old Charles didn't know what he didn't know. I'm really sniping at the dumb folks who still believe parts of his theories that are obviously wrong.

dhw: Then do please say so rather than pretend that one particular argument has “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory”. There are major parts of Darwin’s theory that you think are obviously right, and I really hate to see you making such general statements, as they put you on the same blinkered level as the dumb folks who believe those parts you think are obviously wrong.

DAVID: The only part of Darwin's theory that is left is common descent. None of his supposed methodology is supported.

dhw: I thought you were really sniping at the dumb followers. Now you want to argue about Darwin himself. Common descent is the basis of the theory, with natural selection explaining why organisms do or don't survive, and random mutations plus gradual refinements are the methodology. The methodology is not “most of the theory”. And so your perpetual sniping at Darwin leads us way off the subject, which started out as Shapiro’s theory of natural genetic engineering as the methodology.

From Darwin I only accept that evolution and common descent happened but that natural selection is only a nice theory, but is not proven. I can't shake your staunch Darwinism.