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

by David Turell @, Monday, January 06, 2020, 16:15 (12 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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?

I do and so should you.

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.

dhw: 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?)

Google FUBAR for full meaning. It is US troop slang in WWII for when things are wrong. Shapiro's theory relates to speciation mechanisms based on bacteria self-adjusting and editing their DNA. Multicellular cells change by following their DNA instructions. You have those cells adjust themselves on their own.

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?

dhw: 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).

Basic misuse of the information concept. Information that is descriptive is not information that guides actions. Both types of information require interpretation by minds but in life by receptive mechanisms that respond automatically to the instructions

dhw: 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?

Your very limited concept of information explains nothing. Information exists in many forms.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum