Introducing Gunter Bechly (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 21, 2019, 21:45 (27 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And Bechly makes no mention of the possibility that even micro-organisms may have minds, and if they do, we can have no idea how long those minds would need to work out new ways of coping with or exploiting their environment.

DAVID: Only you want microorganisms to have minds. He is looking at the rate of mutations, which is generally known. Why should Bechly who has no idea of your theories?

dhw: Bacterial intelligence is not “my” theory. All these years I have been quoting scientists such as McClintock, Margulis, Buehler and now Shapiro, and I have asked you to consult the many websites on the subject of bacterial intelligence, but suddenly you think I am all alone! If you want more names, look under references and further reading:

Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence

You are getting confused. It’s your theory of evolution that leaves you out on your own.

No it doesn't. The ID folks group is filled with many scientists. I've only introduced a few. Their belief, which I think you fully understand, is that a designer is required for all advances in evolution. Bechly is a prime example. You want intelligent cells which can make designs, when all we know they do is make reasonable responses to the requirements of living, which cqan be from designed instructions. Your little list of scientists are expressing hyperbole about cells abilities. Those cell abilities are the amazing complexity of the biology of life, without which thee would be no life. ID and I all believe it requires a designer constantly at work. The only difference is I identify God as the designer and they avoid the issue, but underneath that is what is understood. They constantly produce scientific results that strongly imply a designer is at work. The only difference is they do not theorize how God does his work and I do. They simply say there is a designer. I don't need Wiki to review. You should look at uncommon descent website.


DAVID: No time for adaptation is suggested, or the species was incapable of adapting and remained the same for two million years. dhw thinks environmental changes drives speciation. Hmmmmm.

dhw: Why hmmmmm? My suggestion is that when the environment changes, some organisms die out, some adapt, and some exploit the new conditions through innovations. How does the extinction of homo erectus through climate change create a hmmmmm?

DAVID: Over two million years of many changes, they survived, and didn't adapt. Survival and adaptation are not automatic and may vary with other forces at work, is the hmmm. Note your ideas are fixed as re Bechly..

dhw: Exactly Gould’s point: there are long periods of stasis. New species occur when they are required or allowed by changes in the environment. Your hmmm fits in perfectly with my proposal: nothing is automatic. When the environment changes, some species die out, some adapt, and – the controversial bit – some use the new conditions to invent new methods of enhancing their chances of survival. And yes, the “other forces” at work are the capacity of the cell communities to adapt and/or innovate. This is not a fixed idea but a theory which I find considerably more convincing than your own theory of evolution. IF the theory is correct, then the time required for Darwinian evolution via random mutations etc. is irrelevant.

Gould also recognize the big gaps in the fossil branching record which he noted had tips and nodes and no explanation for the gaps or the stasis. His explanations were a guess as a staunch Darwinist, in which he saw the deficiencies.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum