Back to Shapiro (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, March 26, 2020, 15:54 (1701 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: I know that. He was president of his Temple.

So what was your point in telling us you never rejected God? Nor did Shapiro.

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.

DAVID: My book quotes are exact and correct. What lies? My bold just above [dhw: whole quote omitted for brevity] 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.

Of course he acknowledges that it is a theory, and not yet proven, but he hopes it will be. But what on earth was the point in your telling me: “Not exactly what you think about him. His book has hyperbole which sells books, not his scientific thoughtful presentation.” My quotes were not hyperbole, and his lecture in no way contradicts those quotes. You also accused me of stretching his theory to fit my bias. There is no stretching and there is no hyperbole. Please stop pretending that Shapiro does not propose cellular intelligence as the driving force behind evolutionary innovation. The rest of your post merely reiterates that his theory is not proven. Of course not. Otherwise it would be a fact. You go on to refer me to the article on squid and octopus:

"The octopus has a very large genome and can edit their own genomes, altering their RNA. They “ do not always follow their genetic instructions to the letter:'”
https://mindmatters.ai/2018/09/is-the-octopus-a-second-genesis-of-intelligence/

DAVID: So we see Shapiro's bacterial work passed on in evolution, but not speciation so far. The authors are surprised how much is done outside the nucleus itself. Note the title reference to 'genetic information'.

Again, it is a theory, and he does not attempt to pass it off as a fact. I have no objection to the word “information”! See Paul Davies post.

David (under “bilaterians and ediacarans”): I do not think an autonomous intelligence from God exists to allow evolutionary changes or daily adaptive changes beyond the epigenetic changes which we know about. For new species, God speciates.

I know! I’m simply surprised that you should state your beliefs as if they were a fact. You do the same when defending your whole theory of evolution – you say you do not question “God’s choices”, when you mean you do not question your personal interpretation of God’s choices.

DAVID: The 50/50 possibility is my honest observation of the odds of truth. I believe 100% that so-called cellular intelligence is cells following God-provided instructions.

Yes, you are honest in your 50/50 assessment of the odds. That is why it is illogical to dismiss a 50/50 chance that you are wrong.