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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 15:10 (31 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And you think I play word games!

DAVID: 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: This particular discussion concerned your statement that bacteria did not need God for their variations and adaptations, which could only mean that they acted cognitively (agreeing with Shapiro). You then went on to say that they were obeying your God’s instructions, which means they did need God. Word games. You have answered by switching the discussion to the other subject of how one distinguishes between adaptation and innovation. I’m happy to discuss this too, but your word game concerned your attempt to make “acting cognitively” mean “obeying God’s instructions”. The confusion remains.

No confusion if you interpret my 'acting cognitively' as 'acting as if cognitive', automaticity gives the appearance of cognitive reactions, my usual theory.

dhw: On the subject of the whale’s tail, My proposal is that all changes require some kind of restructuring, and although it is easy to distinguish between major and minor adaptations, it is not easy to distinguish between major adaptations and innovations, precisely as in your example where you have an existing organ being adapted to perform a new function. Hence the proposal that the same mechanism is responsible both for adaptation (observable even now) and innovation (not observable now). Your vacillation over adaptations and cognition now seems to suggest that your God preprogrammes or dabbles every single one, as below:

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: 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.

dhw: Do you or do you not believe that the only thing he wanted to achieve was us? If you believe we were his only goal, I have not twisted anything. The rest of your response is your usual assumption that your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method is the only one possible, and I am denying him his right to do things your way. (See “David’s theory of evolution” for the illogicality of your way.)

We are/were God's ultimate final goal and His purpose for evolving us. You asked me if there were other goals, and I've answered all were intermediate on the way to us. I consider us the final step, based on Adler's exposition.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum