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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 00:55 (286 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once a species of bacteria appears they will then vary on their own with adaptations. God is not needed for in species variation.

dhw: [Bacteria] vary “on their own” with adaptations and God is not needed for in species variation, but when they adapt (= in species variation), they are not on their own and they need God’s instructions. Don’t you find this confusing?

DAVID: Not at all. Adaptations within a species are minor variations. Species are new innovations requiring design.

dhw: This discussion concerns adaptation, not speciation. You said your God was not needed for adaptation/in species variation. I asked how bacteria could accomplish this without cognition. You replied that they had been given programmed instructions – which can only have come from your God! So they don’t vary “on their own” and your God IS needed for adaptation/in species variation. The confusion is not solved by the following exchange:

dhw: “They act cognitively” means they know what they are doing. You now say they do not know what they are doing but act automatically. So they do not act cognitively. More confusion.

DAVID: Simple. Acting cognitively can be an appearance from automaticity. My usual thought.

dhw: And you think I play word games!

No word games. I'm trying to explain how I use the words: adaptation in my usage means a minor change to account for a new situation, but no species change. With innovation, I view this as a major alteration requiring a new species designation,as this: On 12/16 was the article about "Aegicetus [which] fits between the two, representing a moment when whales were just switching to exclusively tail-driven locomotion." A definite major anatomic change requiring a new species designation. You are attempting to smudge the difference.

dhw: Let’s spell it out then: according to you, every single innovation was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, with stem cells somehow knowing which programme to switch on at which time, or your God personally dabbled with the stem cells of each forerunner of every species (all organized and timed to fit in with his decision not to achieve the only thing he wanted to achieve, which was the production of us). Is that a fair summary of your fixed belief?

DAVID: Your usual twisted version of my beliefs.

dhw: Please specify which part of the above is “twisted”.

DAVID: God decided to evolve us. You complain about the delay, worried about by you. why?

dhw: I complain about your whole theory! And you still haven’t told us which part of my summary is twisted.

The bold is your constant twist. He had lots to achieve to evolve us. He recognized it from the beginning as He made that decision. Why can't you grant Him the right to do things His way? History tells us how He did it. But then you do not recognize He is in change, and when you grudgingly suggest He could be in charge, you the go ahead and invent a humanistic God.

DAVID: The other problem is that in embryology there are other physico-chemical-electrical forces that have shown to play roles, so it is not just making cells with new functions.

dhw: Presumably you think these forces were also programmed 3.8 billion years ago to play their appropriate role in speciation – or God popped in to adjust these forces as required. […] Or does your version of God have any other means of speciating?

DAVID: I still stick to the thought that God designs species

dhw: I know you do. I’m simply confirming that this means 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with programmes for every single undabbled life form etc. The very idea offers a somewhat different perspective on the nicely vague concept of design.

I'll stick with the biochemistry of life requires a designer at every stage.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum