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

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 12, 2020, 19:21 (5 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So do you deny that these organized organs consist of different cell communities?

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.

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

dhw: We would have to ask him whether he actually believes it. But yes, it is a theory, and his theory is that organisms design their own evolutionary novelties, so please stop pretending that I am distorting it.

You do distort: his theory is seen in bacteria and stretched to multicellular by him and you follow him. You both stretch, and I'll accede on theword distort.


dhw: Now tell me, what “hyperbole”? He does not confine his theory to bacteria. His theory applies to all cells.

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

dhw: So please stop pretending that his theory is confined to bacteria just because his own research is on bacteria (all scientists use other scientists’ research in their theories), and stop pretending that I am distorting that theory, and either withdraw the “hyperbole” accusation, or provide evidence that Shapiro has changed his mind.

of a review without the stretched theory .


[Same points repeated….]

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Shapiro is not a “solution” for my agnosticism. My agnosticism has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory or its feasibility. Our starting point is Chapter Two of life’s history, and the theory is that the designers of the evolutionary novelties which constitute Chapter Two are cognitive, sentient, communicative, information-processing, decision-making cells. It makes no difference whether Chapter One (the origin of life and of the mechanisms enabling evolution) was the work of God or not. Your opposition to the theory is based entirely on your prejudice against the 50/50 concept of cellular intelligence, and your refusal to believe that your God might just possibly think differently from the way you interpret his thoughts.'

I don'y try to interpret God's thoughts about His purposes. Adler and I use his works to interpret purpose. You refuse to recognize the difference in approach to God we use against your humanizing approach.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum