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

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 11, 2020, 18:57 (291 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Silly. Of course not.

dhw: So stop this “silly” business of changing the word to “committees” and pretending that I am distorting Shapiro’s theory when he makes it crystal clear that he believes in cell communities (organisms) that design their own evolutionary novelties.

He offers it as a theory. It doesn't rise to a true belief for him or anyone else.

Dhw: Meanwhile, what hyperbole? Do you honestly think that his talk contradicts his theory? Look at the heading of the first section of the article:
1. Living Organisms Regularly Facilitate Their Own Evolution

DAVID: Bacteria!!! applied to multicellular is pure theory, and a great contribution to the problem of speciation, but no solution so far.

dhw: Yes, yes, his "natural genetic engineering" is a theory and not a fact. Now tell me, what “hyperbole”? He does not confine his theory to bacteria. His theory applies to all cells.

Yes, a proposed theory as a possible explanation for speciation of multicellular organisms.

dhw: I asked you what hyperbole? Are you now telling us that Shapiro does not believe that cells are cognitive, sentient, decision-making beings which produce evolutionary novelty through a process of self-modification?

DAVID: Thank you for bringing up the hyperbole, for which there is no proof for multicellular. Bacteria (his research) are the only organisms like this. You and I see Shapiro though totally different prisms.

dhw: Same again. You said that he had dropped his “hyperbole” in his latest article. I asked what “hyperbole”, and back you go to your disbelief in his theory. Shapiro argues that cellular intelligence produces evolutionary novelty, i.e. organisms facilitate their own evolution. That is precisely the same as my own proposal.

I don't disbelieve his theory. It is a reasonable and valuable contribution to the discussion of how speciation might occur. It is you who have swallow it totally as if it were truth. I'm still with God as the agent.

dhw: Your claim that we have no evidence does not mean that Shapiro has changed his theory that natural genetic engineering arises from cells’ ability to modify themselves and hence to produce evolutionary novelty. If you have evidence that he has changed his mind, please produce it.

DAVID: I have different views of his statements which I fully accept. You stretch him to fit your desires.

dhw: You have not yet produced one single proposal of mine which “stretches” his theory. Please provide evidence that he has changed the theory summarized by all the quotes I have reproduced in previous posts, or do you want me to reproduce them again?

Don't reproduce. His theory is a stretch in and of itself. His research is all in the analysis of bacterial DNA controls which he then applies to multicellular organisms. They evolved from bacteria and 'might' contain all or some aspects of bacterial DNA editing abilities. This is my exact interpretation of Shapiro. And i would conclude his research results are fabulous and a great contribution in general to the research. I use God for the process. You don't and seize upon Shapiro as a solution for your agnosticism. Again we see Shapiro thru different prisms.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum