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

by dhw, Tuesday, December 03, 2019, 10:51 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I don’t know why you insist on constantly changing the subject to Darwin. Look at the heading of this thread. You brought him in on the pretence that Shapiro’s research “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory” – and I pointed out that it didn’t. If you wish to start another thread on the subject of Darwin (and the accusation that he was “racist”, which was demolished to your satisfaction some years ago under “Darwinism and atheism”), feel free.

DAVID: My fight is with unthinking Darwinists. During Darwin's time many of his contemporaries fully disagreed with him with arguments I use.

I have pointed that out many times. This website arose out of my own critique of what I consider to be Dawkins’ “unthinking Darwinism”. However, there is no need to bring that into every thread, and it is no excuse for repeating personal attacks on Darwin himself, as you have done with your racist slur.

Transferred from “Evolutionary Innovations”:
DAVID: Shapiro did fabulous work. He is a wonderful scientist. You have made him 'poor' by what I think is misusing his theories, and you haven't read the book, only reviews.

dhw: You have quoted him abundantly in your own book, and his theory is that “living cells are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…”, they “have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics”, and “evolutionary novelty arises from the prosecution of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification”. That IS his theory. How am I misusing it?

DAVID: As I have over the years my concepts have altered. I should have emphasized that his work on bacteria was something he tried to extrapolate to further understanding of the genetic role in further evolution/speciation. He was not discussing the everyday function of multicellular cells.

He was formulating the above theory which I have repeated, and I have asked you how I have misused his theory.

DAVID: you have grabbed and run with his theories when I don't think from my readings of his articles that he would agree with your conclusions.

I have quoted his conclusions, which you reproduced in your book, and they exactly express my own theory. Since I agree with him, please tell me which of my conclusions he would disagree with.

DAVID: We do know that in multicellular organisms, stem cells adjust DNA to make many different functioning styles of cells with different jobs. This is an exact replica of what bacteria do and therefore they are a forerunner of that stem cell ability! And that may be all that Shapiro has shown. That is not in any way the solution to the problem of speciation.

dhw: It is a theory concerning how speciation may have occurred. If it’s true, it solves the problem. […]

DAVID: I'll continue: the chemical signals represent information/instructions, not thought in design or planning design. Cell A might ask cell B to produce something which B knows how to do from the instructions it carries.

Yes, that is your prejudiced conclusion, though you agree that cellular intelligence has a 50/50 chance of being correct.

DAVID: You made no comment about my idea that stem cells might represent Shapiro's bacterial work as part of how evolution produced complexity in organisms.

This is a brand new topic, and I am all ears (see “Mammalian pregnancy”).


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum