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

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 26, 2019, 16:03 (280 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We can both agree the study of evolution is fascinating. Shapiro's theories extrapolated from bacterial study are simply suggestive theories. He has no more idea how speciation occurs than we do.

dhw: I keep agreeing that it is a theory (what is the difference between a theory and a suggestive theory?), just like your theory that there is a God and that your God designed the universe and every life form for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens. So…firstly back to my original complaint: please acknowledge that Shapiro’s theory and mine are the same.

I've reread Shapiro pg 142-148. Your theories are basically the same as his, but I still don't accept it, with God in control. His quote: "this supposition requires rigorous testing." We will both agree. My comments about extrapolation from bacteria still fits. Shapiro recognizes the huge gaps in evolution.

DAVID: You wish for organisms doing self-design for the next step instead of a designer doing it. Perfect definition of an agnostic who refuses to accept the logic of the need for a designer, who therefore must exist.

dhw: And secondly, I do not “wish” for anything. I find Shapiro’s theory very plausible, and you know as well as I do that it leaves open the possibility that there is a designer who designed the intelligent cell. The dispute here is over the logic of your personal interpretation of your God’s intentions and methods, not over the logic of his existence.

DAVID: The 50/50 is why we continue to debate. I have my side and you have yours. We will not agree.

dhw: True, but at least there are lots of useful, logical starting-points for Shapiro’s theory of evolution, whereas your own “suggestive theory” of evolution (NOT your theory of design) requires the abandonment of all human logic.

Adler and I have used human logic to recognize God after finding evidence beyond a reason abler doubt. It is your form of logic that cannot reach that point.

dhw: Thank you for the articles on “magic embryology” and “immunity complexity”. I agree that these mechanisms could not have arisen by chance and may be taken as evidence of design. We needn’t repeat the options concerning how the designing might have been done!

DAVID: Thank you and truce. And my theory accepts God who designed a cell to act automatically intelligently.

dhw: Let’s not equivocate: Your theory suggests a God who preprogrammed automatons with all the answers to all the problems they would meet for the rest of time, plus all the innovations that would lead to every single undabbled species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder. Mine suggests that autonomously intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) worked out the answers and designed all the innovations themselves.

Under “Biological complexity”:
QUOTE: In humans, the 20 members of the Rho family are scattered on the inner surface of cell membranes and act like small switches. When a signal from outside or inside the cell activates them, they stimulate other proteins to force the cytoskeleton to add or remove parts to its framework.

DAVID: The cells' genome contain information/instructions to initiate these automatic protein molecules to react with each other producing cellular skeletons. No thought involved.

dhw: The basic process underlying all intelligent activity is a decision followed by automatic reactions as the rest of the “body” or, in this case, the rest of the cells implement the decision. The human equivalent here would be you telling us that because the legs automatically obey the instruction from the brain to run, there is no thought involved. I know you do not accept the theory that cells have the equivalent of a brain, but my point is that you always pick on the automatic actions as if they proved there was no thought directing them.

Yes, I do.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum