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

by David Turell , Sunday, February 23, 2020, 18:42 (1733 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, February 23, 2020, 18:48

DAVID: I presented that A-B noted that he was not mainstream in his article. My theory is based on the contributions of many ID scientists.

dhw: I think you said the article was written 30 years ago. But in any case, not being mainstream does not necessarily mean you are wrong. Plenty of scientists agree with him now, as shown above. Now please tell me who are the ID scientists that claim your God provided the first cells with programmes for every undabbled life form, natural wonder and response to every single situation that would confront all the cell communities of the future?

It seems you've forgotten. In the past I have stated I base my theory on their scientific work which demands a designer. They do not get into God's methods of design

QUOTE: "In addition to m6A, researchers have found about 150 other alterations to RNA. Klungland agrees that there’s a lot we don’t know, such as what actually controls these alterations. (dhw’s bold)

QUOTE:"Epigenetic changes in DNA are clearly influenced by the environment, but we do not know if this is the case with modifications in RNA," he says. “I wouldn't be surprised if the environment was also controlling RNA modification, but this is difficult to study.”

DAVID: All of the controls in the body are this precise, automatic, no cellular intelligence involved just following instructions from the layers of information in the genome through molecular reactions.

DHW: Please note my bold. We don’t know what controls the alterations. But you say you do. Of course they are precise. And the link with the environment is all-important to my own theory, which is that cells respond intelligently to changing conditions. The automatic side of things is that just as our legs and arms respond automatically to instructions from our brain, the components of cells/cell communities respond to instructions from the cellular equivalent of the brain.

DAVID: I remind you, your kidneys maintain precise sodium levels, all though automatic molecular reactions.

dhw: Answered above. You pick on the automatic processes, and I pick on the response of cells when conditions change.

And those modifications will be automatic unless requiring true modifications of physiology or phenotypic changes. If not new speciation, the minor changes will be within the species ability to alter itself slightly.

Under "Orphan genes": "We found that simple order is rampant everywhere in the genome. The propensity to make simple shapes that are stable is already there, waiting to be exposed. De novo gene birth is thus becoming less and less mysterious as we better understand molecular innovation."

DAVID: the bolds just an assumption based on hope and wishful thinking. Of course the useful orphans when useful were quickly expressed, but the study did not show why they should spontaneously appear from no antecedent DNA. True de novo is true de novo.

dhw: Yes, of course, any idea and/or observation which supports the inventiveness of cells is hope and wishful thinking to you.

DAVID: And it is your wishful thinking.

dhw: It is a theory, as is your own interpretation of cellular behaviour as being the result of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled action of cells throughout the history of life. I try to gauge the reasonableness of each theory, and in all honesty I must say I find your theory less credible than that of Albrecht-Bühler, McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro and “plenty of” others.

You love these scientists who express hyperbolic interpretations of intelligently designed responses. Albrecht-Buehler admitted he was trying to fight against all the scientists who simply studied molecular reactions. Those reactions are guided by intelligent instructions or how would embryological processes turn out carbon copy after carbon copy with all the similar instinctual behavior we all see. Thirty years ago he introduced the idea that the centrosome was a 'brain'. Current research shows its exact structure and what processes it controls; not a brain but a very active organelle under direct controls.