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

by dhw, Monday, December 23, 2019, 09:52 (26 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Neither Adler nor ID offer any support for your theory of evolution,

DAVID: My theory of evolution is that God ran it based on ID theory. Adler makes no point about that, but that our existence proves God. You accept dibs and dabs of ID and Adler

Yes I do, and I keep repeating that the issue under discussion is NOT the existence of God, but how evolution works. In our last exchange, you wrote: “You are the one stretching cellular logical responses to stimuli and requirements onto the ability to create new species. Shapiro and the others do not say that to support you.” I then reproduced all your own quotes from Shapiro to show that this is precisely what he proposes. I hope you will withdraw your remark.

dhw: To sum up: I do not “want” microorganisms to have minds, and I am not alone in believing that they may have minds: this is a theory proposed by many scientists, some of whom are renowned experts in the field. Shapiro has used their findings and his to propose a theory of “natural genetic engineering” in which intelligent cells produce the innovations that cause speciation in response to environmental changes. I find the theory far more credible than your own, but acknowledge that it remains a theory and is unproven, just like every other theory of speciation. The theory, unlike your own, is confined to the mechanisms of evolution and does not attempt to speculate on the existence of a possible God or of his possible purpose. It does not, however, in any way preclude the existence of a God.

DAVID: What you seem not to see is bacteria are live-on-their-own organisms. Of course their reactions look and seem intelligent. They were originally created by God with all of the Shapiro-discovered attributes in order to survive on their own.

Thank you. The attributes Shapiro describes are those of autonomous intelligence, and I have no objections to the suggestion that there may be a God who designed them. My objection is to the contradiction that follows:

DAVID: This is why the ID folks celebrate Shapiro's findings. They and I see Shapiro as supporting the need for a designer. These are onboard instructions in single cells from the designer.

Yes to the designer theory. However, it is YOUR theory that the attributes of cognition etc. are not signs of autonomous intelligence, but on the contrary bacteria are automatons and all their decisions throughout the course of history have been preprogrammed in the form of “onboard instructions”. (Please note: if single-celled organisms are indeed autonomous and intelligent, it is perfectly logical to assume that when cells combine, they combine their intelligences.)

DAVID: There must be 10-15 ID scientists who use this approach that I have read. If you did a little real ID reading/studying you might finally recognize the positions I come from. I think you have never researched ID on your own. How complete are your own studies?

Yet again: The argument does not revolve around the “need for a designer”, the logic of which I accept, but around the way in which evolution works. Nobody’s studies are complete, and of course I rely on others to provide me with information about theories and evidence. Please do not pretend that your arguments are valid and mine are invalid just because I haven’t read all the books you have read. That is as silly as pretending that my agnosticism disqualifies me from speculating about the nature, motives and methods of a God. Please respond to the arguments themselves. See our next exchange.

DAVID: Multicellular organisms have very specialized cells and only some are programmed to respond to new stimuli and circumstances. We still don't know if those animals know how to speciate on their own, or if they have some special cells with that ability. Shapiro touches none of that, nor does he extrapolate as you do.

Of course he extrapolates, and he concludes that the cells of which all animals are composed are responsible for “evolutionary innovation”. Not knowing which special cells are responsible does not invalidate the theory! But it is a theory, and we don’t know if the theory is correct.

DAVID: All his book does is tout his discoveries which should be touted as great additions to our knowledge. He is a great scientist as my quoting him shows. It is obvious you have no idea of my thought patterns as I relate to the presence of God.

And this great scientist has proposed a theory of “natural genetic engineering” based on his findings and those of others. Please do not pretend that this theory involves anything other than cellular intelligence as the designer of “evolutionary novelty”, i.e. speciation. I am all too aware of your thought patterns, and have reproduced them umpteen times. I will continue this part of the discussion on the thread that deals directly with your theory.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum