Innovation and Speciation: aquatic mammals avoid bends (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 09, 2020, 13:41 (1228 days ago) @ David Turell

Shapiro’s theory of “natural genetic engineering”

DAVID: No question, an organism that can severely edit its DNA and create a new species is a theory to be considered, and evidence searched for. That is why Shapiro is prominent in my book. Unfortunately nothing so far, but as the genome is unraveled, it is seen to be exceedingly complex.

So please stop pretending that Shapiro does not propose cellular intelligence as the driving force of evolutionary innovation, and that his theory applies only to bacteria.

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: I can accept that He needs to evolve in stages. That doesn't prove experimentation.

There is no proof for any of my theories or of yours, including the existence of God. I asked why your proposal that your God’s abilities were limited EXCLUDED experimentation.

“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.

dhw: 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”.

DAVID: You want a God with self-interests, entertainment. I will only accept a God who creates just for the sake of creation. We can never know if He has personal desires for Himself.

I don’t like the superficial word “entertainment”, but yes, self-interest is appropriate, and as you are sure that he is interested and finds satisfaction in his creations, I see nothing illogical or in the least “minimizing” about the proposal. He gets what he wants. Your latest version is he knows what he wants, doesn’t have the ability to get it, and so has to design all kinds of things for no particular reason until at last he can design what he wants. I find that far more “minimizing”, but clearly you don’t.

Sea turtles
dhw: 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.

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

DAVID: Surprise! Usual response, massive ecosystems for food supply.

All organisms are and were part of present and past ecosystems for food supply. How does that make all of them “part of the goal of evolving humans”?