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

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 04, 2020, 18:44 (295 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, January 04, 2020, 19:02

dhw: 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?

We have long agreed that God might have given whole organisms the ability to make new species, our only disagreement in that I see God as very directly purposeful and allows invention within His guidelines.


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.

dhw: This is not a “simple solution”. It is a cop-out. How does God do it?

Your distortions are always obvious. What you call my theories are self-admitted guesses as you well know. All I really stick with is God is on charge and does it but his unknown mechanisms.

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!

dhw: 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.

The gaps require design to be jumped by evolution


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.

dhw: 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.)

God plans for death as part of life's process. Cells are programmed to die (apoptosis) just as old animals move on to make room for the new.

dhw: 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?

He implies God as a promoter of ID. I think he would kindly smile at your theory,


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.

dhw: 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.

Molecules are not attacked to brains, like legs in running. The cell simply follows designed information/instructions. See the new entry on information not by chance. Also note the entry two days ago on cytoplasm self-organizing obviously builtin.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum