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

by dhw, Saturday, January 04, 2020, 11:45 (270 days ago) @ David Turell

Taken from the “grizzly bear” thread:
dhw: Either the cells work out a solution, or the organism dies – hence the long, long history of changing life forms. So much simpler and so much more logical than your theory. Ockham would rejoice. :-)

DAVID: Ockham as a priest would totally disagree with you, but your suggestion that doing without God is simpler than accepting him is an unreasonable denial of the need for very complex design as the bears demonstrate. This is why you cannot dismiss design arguments and sit on your fence.

You always accuse me of distorting your beliefs, though you can never pinpoint the distortion. The above is a complete distortion of my own theory. I have never suggested “doing without God”. I am an agnostic. And I have accepted the argument for evolutionary design. But I propose that the cells do the designing themselves, with your God as the possible designer of the cells and their intelligence. One mechanism for the whole of evolution. Though the mechanism itself, if the theory is true, is so complex that we have scarcely begun to understand it, nevertheless doesn't this give us a simple and logical explanation for the great bush? Compare it to your own theory, as below.

DAVID: Darwinists will say those [bears] that tried died but the smart ones stayed and slept. And skip over the very complex physiological design issue of no movement and no urine output as one set of examples of the problems to be overcome. Ockham would rejoice in the simple solution of God does it.

This is not a “simple solution”. It is a cop-out. How does God do it? According to your theory, 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first living cells with a programme for the evolution of bears plus their eventual winter hibernation (with no movement and no urine output), and for every other major adaptation, innovation, lifestyle, econiche, bacterial response to new problems, and natural wonder for the rest of time, apart from those he dabbled. All just to keep life going until the programme for his one and only goal, H. sapiens, switched itself on, or he began the roundabout process with lots of dabbles. Simple?

DAVID: As for smart cells, they can only make tiny adjustments , which is all we have demonstrated in the current science studies.

Once again, Shapiro’s theory of “natural genetic engineering” is a theory, and your own theory has not been “demonstrated” in current science studies either. So what does that prove?

DAVID: The gaps in the fossil record don't fit the theory, as Gould noted. What is also known is the North Pole was tropical with palm trees at in ancient time. Bears or their forebears could have moved as the climate changed, but some stayed and achieved the changes. I'll stick with God speciates, simple!

Gaps in the fossil record do not prove that your God exists, or that your God programmed or dabbled the whole of evolution, and your solution is anything but simple.

DAVID (under “Gunter Bechly”) : Upon close examination only gaps are present. Gradualism in the fossil record does not exist. The Cambrian explosion is the most famous gap, which Darwin, himself, despaired of. Gould desperately tried to solve the problem with an invention that is not correct, and as Bechly carefully notes in this very long article, which is worth fully reading, the inventive attempts are desperate and numerous. Note my bold. ID is not unreasonable about minor speciation events as Darwinists view them. Which means ID is worth reading and following, although it should be carefully noted they never name God as designer.

You and Bechly are simply repeating a problem which disappears if we accept the basic premise that cells/cell communities are intelligent. Major changes in the environment, local or global, may require or allow for major adaptations and/or innovations. The vast majority of species disappear because the mechanism can’t cope. (So much for your God’s designs.) But if the first cells contained a mechanism (cellular intelligence) which would result in the great bush of comings and goings that constitutes the history of life on Earth, you have a simple explanation of that history, and you can still have your God as the inventor of the mechanism. Does Bechly ever mention it?

Under: "Biological complexity: cell cytoplasm can self-organize"

The heading of this thread says it all. The autonomous ability of cells and cell communities to self-organize lies at the heart of my proposal and of Shapiro’s theory of "natural genetic engineering".

DAVID (under “coiling DNA in chromosomes”): Yet again we see protein molecules that act like they know what they are doing. They are controlled by the way they automatically fold and the way they are attracted by electrical charges, among other attributes. Protein molecules cannot think. And this is the key to understanding how cells work through automatically reacting molecules.

Yet again, the theory is not that every molecule has a brain equivalent, but that molecules are directed by thought. And once again, an analogy might be that when you decide to run, your legs automatically obey the instructions from your brain. I am not proposing that your legs have a brain. Yes, the molecules act as if something in the cell knows what it is doing. And maybe it does.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum