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

by dhw, Friday, January 17, 2020, 12:26 (1770 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Since our concept of God differs widely, of course you don't like my view of God. Shapiro simply provides a possible way for God to Dabble, so we are not far apart.

dhw: The “concept of God” is too vague. Where we differ widely is specifically in your rigid adherence to your fixed beliefs relating to his purpose, ability and method that form your theory of evolution. Yes, Shapiro’s theory allows for God as the inventor of “natural genetic engineering” through autonomously intelligent cells, but it is poles apart from your insistence that the whole of evolution was preprogrammed or dabbled.

DAVID: We 'differ widely' in that I accept God as the designer, and you acknowledge obvious design without a designer.

That is not the difference we have been discussing all these months, but you constantly try to switch that discussion from the illogicality of your theory of evolution to the logic of your design argument.

dhw: I have no problem with the argument against junk DNA or in favour of design. Both perfectly logical. But the other aspect of this that intrigues me is the sheer versatility of the gene, and yes indeed, it fits Shapiro to a tee. That is to say, it fits the concept of autonomous activity by cognitive, sentient beings which facilitate their own evolution. But I agree that once the different forms of symbiosis have established themselves, they continue automatically, as in fetus formation.

DAVID: The 'sheer versatility' of the cell is from fully automatic with processes given by God.

Your usual statement of opinion as if it were fact.

“QUOTE: "They suggested that a single dendritic compartment might be able to perform these complex computations all on its own."

dhw: Oh good heavens, couldn’t this mean that a single cell of any kind, e.g. a stem cell (not to mention a community of cells) might be capable of working out complex computations “all on its own”, i.e. without a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or a divine dabble?

DAVID: See the new entry on gene splicing.

dhw: Yes indeed. It all fits in perfectly with the concept of cells working out their own designs.

DAVID: Or more likely following automatic instructions given by God.

Ah well, at least this comparative (“more likely”) allows for the possibility of autonomy! That’s progress.

Under: "Genome complexity: Epigenetics lasting for ever"

DAVID: I don't how this happened, but Lamarck is alive and well. Epigenetics can definitely play a role in progressive evolution.

And Lamarck should helps us to understand the difference between autonomous origins and automatic repetitions. A characteristic has to be acquired (invention) before it is passed on (automatic repetition). In your theory the acquisition or invention of every new, undabbled characteristic, whether genetic, lifestyle, natural wonder, strategy, was preprogrammed in the very first cells 3.8 billion years ago. And you see that as “more likely” than your God designing a single mechanism capable of inventing and handing on each new characteristic.

DAVID (under “watch as cellular elements move”) : These units act as if they know what they are doing. They don't. Be amazed at how living cells look at work. Never by chance.

Back you go to your usual authoritative statement: They look as if they know what they’re doing, and their actions are not by chance, therefore (extrapolation) the only possible explanation is that your God either preprogrammed every movement 3.8 billion years ago, or he is busy directing them even now. You have never offered or accepted any other explanation. I'll cling hopefully to your "more likely" as an acknowledgement that cellular intelligence guiding "natural genetic engineering" is now a possibility in your eyes.