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

by David Turell @, Monday, February 24, 2020, 18:10 (42 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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


dhw: I had not forgotten. I merely wished to set the record straight. You obviously cannot name a single scientist who supports your theory of evolution.

My theory is my version of ID, as theistic evolution. That herd of folks won't discuss how God does it.


DAVID: And 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.

dhw: Nobody knows what controls the alterations to RNA as above, and nobody knows what controls those alterations to whole cell communities which lead to speciation. However, even you admit that cell communities have the ability to alter themselves slightly, so it is not unreasonable to propose that this ability may have extended to major alterations.

That hope of yours is a major jump from all we know about current adaptations.

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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I don’t know why the concept of cellular intelligence should be considered any more “hyperbolic” than the concept of an unknown intelligence providing the very first cells with a computer programme for every single undabbled “alteration” in the history of life.
A-B’s advocacy of cellular intelligence may have been a minority view at the time, but that does not mean it is wrong. Re the centrosome, even if A-B is wrong, that still doesn’t invalidate his general theory. If you are looking for the cause of speciation, you have latched onto the wrong process: it is not the carbon copies that reveal intelligence but the functioning changes to the automatic process – just as it is the invention of new strategies, the solving of new problems, and the adaptation to or exploitation of new conditions that reveal the intelligence that diverges from established patterns of behaviour.

Even you admit my objection to this view of yours is real: From the outside, and we are outside, the cell acts intelligently so both of us can say the cell looks as if it is intelligent. But it may really be a response to intelligent instructions it has been given by a designer. I chose by my studies of biochemistry to stay with a designer. I cannot happen by chance. All you can do is conjure up a weak humanized God who gives the organisms the right to evolve themselves, which proves you have to recognize God by a back door to get around the problem of where did the intelligence come from.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum