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

by dhw, Monday, January 06, 2020, 10:43 (1781 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The gaps require design to be jumped by evolution.

dhw: The jumps are not a problem if we accept the theory of cellular intelligence. Human intelligence has produced astonishing jumps in technology. Think of the world as it was even fifty years ago compared to now. A sudden change in the environment will demand or allow a sudden change in organisms within that environment.

DAVID: You cannot compare human intelligence with what we know about cell activity. Cells do not have human brains. Your theory is a giant stretch of credulity.

I am using human intelligence as an analogy to illustrate how intelligence can make jumps. Of course cells don’t have human brains, but that does not mean they are not intelligent. Remember your 50/50 odds?

DAVID: 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: This takes us back to your problem of the extent to which your God plans every environmental change, local and global, that causes extinction or triggers adaptation and/or invention. In fact your own theory even has him specially preparing some organisms in advance of the environmental changes and therefore presumably passing the death sentence on those species that do not survive.

DAVID: We know 99% of all species are gone, which allows complexity the room to advance.

So did your God plan/dabble every environmental change, local and global, and preprogramme/dabble which of his special designs would perish or survive each change during the 3.X billion years he had decided to spend not pursuing his one and only goal of producing H. sapiens?

dhw: I don’t have a problem with the argument that your God promotes ID. I object to your argument that he preprogrammed or dabbled everything listed above, and did so for the single purpose you attribute to him. If Bechly knows about Shapiro’s theory, then I would expect a reasoned response rather than a fatuous smile.

DAVID: I'm sure he know Shapiro's work as very valuable, but won't stretch it as you do, FUBAR.

Sorry, but what is FUBAR? And please tell me in what way I have “stretched” Shapiro’s theory. (Do you want me to repeat all the quotes?)

dhw: I have dealt separately with the hackneyed theme of information, and I pointed out that self-organization lies at the heart of Shapiro’s theory and mine. This proposes that although cells do not have brains as such, they have the equivalent, and instead of following a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for everything they do, they use their brain equivalent to issue their own instructions.

DAVID: Your 'hackneyed theme' shows how much you do not accept the obvious concept of information. Embryology tells us that organisms can reproduce exact replicas. the only way is following the information that contains the formation instructions. Is the genome a multilayered code carrying information, or not?

Of course I accept the obvious concept of information, and everything you can think of carries information! But it takes intelligence to translate information into instructions (i.e. to use information). You think the intelligence is God’s. It may have been at the beginning of life. But I suggest that the intelligence which runs evolution is that of the cells themselves, possibly designed by your God, and your God’s design would have included the ability not only to replicate but also to vary. Otherwise there would have been no evolution. “Information” explains nothing. The great question is what uses the information?