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

by David Turell @, Friday, December 06, 2019, 14:16 (43 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Now please tell me which of these conclusions Shapiro would disagree with.

DAVID: I've disagreed with one of it. We simply do not know how species appear, and I think God does it and aa a designer, because of the complexity of changes required.

dhw: That is you disagreeing with Shapiro and me. You had accused me of “misusing his theories”, said I had “bastardized his contribution to research in the process of evolution” and you did not think “he would agree with your conclusions”. May I take it you have now withdrawn these remarks?

I'll stick with this:

DAVID: As for Shapiro I have noted he used a large portion of his book to bring up multicellular research that fit his theory.

dhw: Thank you. That at last puts paid to your claim that his theory is based only on his research into bacteria.

DAVID: Wrong. The book tries to fit his theory in to current research by referencing supporting findings in current research.

dhw: In other words, he refers to findings in current research that support his theory, and his theory is NOT based only on his research into bacteria. You are arguing for the sake of arguing!

OF course his theory is based on his bacterial work. The other references try to show how his theory might fit into evotionaary studis in how speciation works. All theories do that.

DAVID (under “pathogenic bacteria”): S protein is a great tool for Strep on the attack. That bacteria can be this inventive supports Shapiro's findings.

dhw: Thank you for this article and your comment. The inventiveness of single-celled organisms ties in very neatly with the proposal that multicellular organisms may also be inventive.

DAVID: Multicellular organisms can adapt.

dhw: I know. But my friend David has generously agreed that bacteria (single cells) can be
inventive, and so it is perfectly logical to argue that when single cells combine with other single cells into multicellularity, they may continue to be inventive. Hallelujah!

DAVID: But no proof they can actually design a new species. Designer required.

dhw: Back you go to “no proof”. Once more: if a theory was proven, it would become a fact. Your observation that single cells can be inventive supports the THEORY that multiple cells may also be inventive.

I'm as clear as you and Shapiro are that multicellular organisms can adapt to current changes. All I'm pointing out is that doesn't seem to lead to speciation, which was Darwin's idea. I repeat it obviously requires design for the new complexity. Since you cannot accept a designer, you look hopefully to magic cells to do it without Him. Or you give a sop to theism by offering that God made intelligent cells doing it on their own. All a game on your part. Either way God is in charge.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum