Innovation and Speciation: aquatic mammals avoid bends (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 08, 2020, 14:30 (1235 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: [Shapiro's] theory is an extrapolation from bacteria, nothing more. Other cells only have epigenetics. An unproven extension of theory.

dhw: His theory is consistent with the findings of notable scientists such as McLintock and Margulis, who firmly believed in cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Reread his British Royal Society paper [...] He never mentions intelligent cells!!! Only all the DNA changes we know:

QUOTES: "The intersections of cell fusion activities, horizontal DNA transfers and natural genetic engineering of Read–Write genomes provide a rich molecular and biological foundation for understanding how ecological disruptions can stimulate productive, often abrupt, evolutionary transformations."

"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." (dhw's bold)

Thank you for this, and for your honesty in presenting it. In the quotes I have reproduced earlier from your book, he explains precisely what he means by “natural genetic engineering”: “evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cells and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification”…I needn’t repeat his full definition of cells as "cognitive entities" etc.. There is NOTHING in these quotes that repudiates his theory of natural genetic engineering, which is based fairly and squarely on cellular intelligence. This discussion is pointless. We should discuss the theory itself.

Aquatic mammals
DAVID: Limited ability does not necessarily imply experimentation, just an alternate route to use.

dhw: My point is that it fits in very well with experimentation. If he was incapable of doing something one way, is it not logical that he would have tried another way? That’s experimentation. I don’t know why you think God’s limited abilities make him less human than a God who experiments.

DAVID: My God knows exactly what He can do and never experiments.

If his ability is limited and he knows he can’t design humans directly, how does that come to mean that he has to design millions of life forms that have no connection with humans? And how does it EXCLUDE the possibility that he needs to experiment?

“Fine tuning of water” and “new extremophiles”

DAVID: Intelligent designing cells is God going to second-hand control of creation. I can't imagine my purposeful God doing that. Your intelligent cell approach is a way to minimize God and His real powers.

dhw: I honestly cannot see how your theory that God has limited powers, and therefore has to design life forms that have no connection with the life form he wants to design, does not minimize him, whereas a God who knows exactly what he wants – a free-for-all – and gets it is somehow diminished.

DAVID: Same old humanized God. I don't know if He has any limitations. Proposed only for completeness of considerations.

That does not explain why your proposal doesn’t “minimize” God, whereas the God I propose, who knows and gets exactly what he wants, is “minimized”.

Sea turtles
DAVID: Great navigators but they make mistakes. Amazing migration that I think God designed as part of an oceanic ecosystem.

dhw: So your God can design a perfect eye system, but he can’t design a perfect navigation system, and I can't help wondering how his design of a turtle navigation system was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans".

DAVID: Part of ecosystems. The turtles do quite well considering hey are not human.

All life forms are parts of ecosystems. And yes, they do well. How does that make them “part of the goal of evolving humans”?