Back to Shapiro (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, March 27, 2020, 20:52 (1700 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: Of course he [Shapiro] 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.

dhw: You have not commented on this, and so I hope it will mark the end of this unproductive thread of discussion.

The hyperbole is in his book, not you,, since he is pointedly convinced his theory will advance the research in evolution. I fully agree with him. He has done amazing work, but in reality, it tells us nothing more that live-on-their-own bacteria can self-edit their DNA more than epigenetics in multicellular organisms. It is obvious to me bacteria had to have this ability, since in recent years, it is obvious bacteria were meant to survive to form helpful biomes for all larger animals. When this discussion site started that was not known, and I can remember we wondered why they survived from the beginning. Advances in science then and now will show us obvious purposes to interpret.

But your stretch to believe our cells act intelligently is not supported by his work. Nothing is more clear to me. Bacteria are not our cells.

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.

dhw: 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: Why should I question what I believe to be the truth?

dhw: Because you are trying to proselytize, and you haven’t a hope of doing so if you cannot find a logical argument to support your fixed beliefs. (I am referring to your overall theory of evolution, not to your belief in God or even in his purpose - though that is what leads to many of your illogicalities).

They are illogical to you because you humanize God when you theorize about Him. My God is nothing like what you imagine about God.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Please remember you are the agnostic. I am not.

dhw: I think you will be on safer ground, then, if you say outright that those fixed beliefs which you cannot explain are based on irrational faith and not on reason. I would say the same to any atheist who places his faith in the theory that all the complexities of life have arisen by sheer chance (e.g. chance origin of life, evolution governed by random mutations).

As you know I was an agnostic and came to believe because of the reading I did, and, as Adler writes, I came to believe 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. You are stuck with my position; are not an atheist because of the complexity of the design of life; you cannot move beyond the recognition of the need for a designer by deciding to stop at that point. Our only difference really is that I have given the designer a name and believe He existed and exists.