Back to Shapiro (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 25, 2020, 19:04 (416 days ago) @ dhw

Since we have long since abandoned Davies and returned to Shapiro, I'm transferring this discussion.

DAVID: I don't reject his theory but his interpretation of what he observed.

dhw: Then you reject his theory in favour of your own, as below:

DAVID: All he saw could just as easily be intelligent instructions onboard, provided by God. That is the ID view of him. And I would note my books never rejected God on the basis of quoting Shapiro, whom I admire.

dhw: Just as easily = 50%. Shapiro’s theory does not reject God, and nor do I. It covers cellular intelligence, not the source of cellular intelligence.

I know that. He was president of his Temple.

DAVID: Please reread Shapiro from 2017 at Royal Society:
David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view 2017 (Evolution)
by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 07, 2020, 20:31 (77 days ago) @ David Turell

Not exactly what you think about him. His book has hyperbole which sells books, not his scientific thoughtful presentation.

dhw: Are you saying that the quotes in your book are a lie and he doesn’t believe that cells are cognitive beings whose intelligence creates evolutionary innovations? The lecture was delivered to a specialist audience, but there is nothing in what you quoted to contradict what he said earlier. I will bold the relevant references, since you seem to think he has changed his mind.

QUOTE: These examples show us that core biological capacities for self-modification in response to ecological challenge have been integral to the history of life on earth. That conclusion should not surprise us since extant organisms are descendants of multiple evolutionary episodes. Considering potential interactions between dynamic ecological conditions and the biological engines of cell and genome variation raises important questions about control and specificity in evolutionary innovation. The years to come likely hold surprising lessons about how cell fusions, genome doublings, and natural genetic engineering may operate non-randomly to enhance the probabilities of evolutionary success."

My book quotes are exact and correct. What lies? My bold just above simply notes his exact meaning is a future hope that his volume work will show how speciation works. The quote is simply hopeful and an extension of his findings which form a basis for future research, nothing more..

dhw: Please explain how core biological capacities for self-modification contradict the theory of the intelligent cell, and how non-random “natural genetic engineering” contradicts his theory of "natural genetic engineering" as explained in the earlier quotes. Did his lecture offer a new definition of "natural genetic engineering”? And you still haven’t told me how I have stretched his theory to suit my own bias.

Once again, work in bacteria, which may have carried over to future evolved forms, not proven. It is obvious free-living bacteria had to have the abilities to survive until now, especially since they are shown to be vital to current life's various functions. You are not misusing him to support your theory of cellular intelligence, but trying to apply his DNA modifications to intelligent cell functions that already have modified their DNA to produce certain rigid automatic necessary functions as part of a complex multicellular organism. In other words you apply his hope to solve evolution to what is already evolved. Reminder: my view is ID view of him.

See a new entry on squid and DNA modification

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum