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

by dhw, Monday, February 10, 2020, 16:36 (1746 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE (under “Biological complexity”: Karim Mekhail and his lab showed that damaged DNA can be intentionally transported by motor protein 'ambulances' to DNA 'hospitals,' areas enriched with certain repair factors in the nuclei.

DAVID: […] DNA cannot be placed in charge unless its protections are also put in place at the same time. Simultaneous appearance requires design and its designer's mental activity. This is why the so-called RNA world start to life is ludicrous. Part of a cell is not life. Life requires wholly active intact cells with all their parts. Initial real life was cells. So is life a stupendous natural miracle, or a creation by a designer? The answer is obvious.

This is a prime example of the case for design and a designer, and I would not hesitate to use it in any discussion with an atheist. In the context of cellular intelligence, I would not hesitate to use it as an illustration of the manner in which cell communities mirror the intelligent behaviour of all communities from ants to humans – though “intelligent” may not always be the right description for some humans!

Under Smart animals: insects are conscious, make decisions
QUOTE: “We often think of insects as tiny automata—robots with everything built-in and programmed. But it is increasingly evident that insects can remember, learn, think, and communicate in quite rich and unexpected ways. Much of this, doubtless, is built-in—but much, too, seems to depend on individual experience.” (David’s bold)

DAVID: Insects can show just as much purposefulness as my dog does. Note the bold. Much of this is instinct, but as the article shows insects can be trained.

Yes, insects are individuals. I love the positive heading you gave this thread. One does not have to be a scientist to realize that the intelligent behaviour of any organism may well be a sign that that organism is intelligent. One up for Shapiro.

dhw: […] the question remains: how could he [God] have programmed them to adapt/innovate if he did not know the future environmental conditions that would require or allow the adaptations and innovations?

DAVID: He did know. The dinosaurs are a major clue. I think He threw Chixculub knowing the dinos were not prepared to handle it. [dhw: to handle what?] […] I'm sure He worked with overall environmental changes and dappled as necessary.

“Worked with” does not answer my question. How could he have known about all the environmental changes for which you claim he PREPROGRAMMED the first cells 3.8 billion years ago? Dabbling suggests an on-going process of direct intervention in the environment (Chicxulub) or response to - you say anticipation of - environmental changes not programmed 3.8 billion years ago. Both suggest that he did not know everything from the start, i.e. he was learning and acting as he went along. And why should that not be the case?

dhw: I keep proposing that your God’s goals were not restricted to the creation of H. sapiens and keeping life going before he did it. For instance, the painter’s love of his paintings, the enjoyment of an unpredictable spectacle or of experimenting…

DAVID: Of course there were stages as shown by the great gaps, which your theory cannot explain. Because as I cannot convince you, it is humanizing as in giving God the bolded desires above.

For the nth time, my theory if true DOES explain the gaps (intelligent minds can innovate), and you have agree that your God may well have human characteristics, so your “humanizing” is irrelevant to my alternatives.

dhw: If you were able to live in all the environments bacteria have learned to live in without any equipment other than your biological self, you would be the superman of all supermen. The requirements are as many as the environments in which bacteria live.

DAVID: No they are not. All needed is temperature adaption and finding metabolism for energy supply.

You might as well say they only need to survive! Are you really telling me that a few simple instructions will cover every single environment, food source and new threat (e.g. medicine) in life's history? While for all our ingenuity, we humans still can't find a way to wipe the baddies out! But one mechanism would enable them to conquer all: intelligence – as proposed by the specialist Shapiro.

DAVID: The problem is the extraordinary theory that germ cells can make designs for future needs or even can make major changes in a new environment (your theory).

I do not specify which cells do the thinking (germ cells pass on the new forms), and I keep repeating that MY THEORY DOES NOT DEMAND FUTURE PLANNING. Yes, the theory is that intelligent cell communities can make major changes in a new environment. At least you’ve got that right.

DAVID: The adaptations you keep referring to are major, not minor. The gaps show no evidence of gradual changes. Why don't you recognize Gould's prime worry? Giant changes require a designing mind.

Yes, the only adaptations we KNOW of are minor, but from that we can extrapolate the possibility that the same mechanism may be capable of major changes, and that would explain the gaps. This THEORY, which seeks to explain speciation and the gaps, extrapolates from a known process. Has anyone ever seen your God dabbling or found the 3.8-billion-year-old programme for speciation etc.?