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

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 01, 2019, 15:18 (10 days ago) @ dhw

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?

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

dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge the case for design, but you simply do not understand agnosticism. Chance is NOT the basis of my theory. I do not have a theory! I do not believe in chance any more than you do. But for me, chance is on the same level of “impossibility” as an unknown, eternal first-cause immaterial intelligence that can create a material universe out of itself, and as the “rudimentary consciousness” of first-cause materials. Once more: I cannot believe in any of these three explanations, and so I remain agnostic.

I guess I need to find reasonable answers, and you just wonder.

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”. […]

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”. […]

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Natural selection is simple common sense: nature will see to it that whatever is useful is
likely to survive, and if something is not useful, it is likely to die out. You accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and common descent, and you reject his methodology of chance mutations and gradual refinement. So do I. You propose divine preprogramming and/or divine dabbling as the methodology, and Shapiro proposes “natural genetic engineering”, which is the theory we have been discussing. I like it. You don’t. Your hatred of Darwin is a red herring.

Common sense natural selection is a tautology called survival of the fittest. I have never hated Darwin, besides his racism, which I wonder if your recognize it.. I only hate his unreasoning current followers And their stupid persistence.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum