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

by David Turell @, Friday, December 27, 2019, 15:35 (278 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I know you don’t accept it, you now know his theory and mine are the same, and I keep telling you it’s a theory, which of course means that it needs rigorous testing. Yes, the extrapolation still fits, but you have already confirmed that he has drawn on the research of other scientists to reach his conclusions. I doubt if many people have failed to recognize the gaps, but that does not invalidate his/my theory since intelligence can bridge gaps far more quickly than chance.

The point is absolutely established by your 'that intelligence can bridge gaps'. That is the design argument and my side believes intelligence is supplied and that intelligence cannot appear naturally in cells.


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.

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

dhw: I keep agreeing that the case for God’s existence (the designer) is perfectly logical! It is the COMBINATION of your beliefs that is not.

I'm sorry for your illogical thinking.


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: […] 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.

DAVID: Yes, I do.

dhw: Thank you. I appreciate your honesty, and would ask you please also to reflect on the thought processes that have to precede every decision whenever there are different possible actions, e.g. when new problems are to be solved.

Back to my comment above. Cells don't think. They just look like it. Intelligence cannot appear out of nothing. A baby's brain has no intelligence at birth, but has the variable capacity to learn it. .


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum