Miscellany: gaps in evolution (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 16, 2021, 11:41 (1046 days ago) @ David Turell

Cambrian
dhw: Bechly tells us that the “gaps” occur everywhere and cover all times. Fossils are being found all the time, and each one is a sensation. Please explain why you think there should be a complete fossil record of the history of all organs and all species.

DAVID: There obviously won't be complete fill-ins during specific geologic ages. The Cambrian-Edicaran gap is different, known since before Darwin, with lots more forms recently found in the Edicaran, and that has not changed the gap. The gap is sudden complexity in the Cambrian with no precursors. It is not a time gap.

The fact that there have been recent finds in the Edicaran should alert you to the possibility that there might one day be finds in the Cambrian. But there will never be a complete record, and so there will always be jumps. However, I am not putting my theory forward as any sort of established truth! I simply find the concept of cellular intelligence, combined with the vast period of ten million years, much more convincing than that of random mutations creating all the complexities and, frankly, also more convincing than your own theory that your God individually designed "de novo" all kinds of new life forms, every one of which was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

DAVID: The intermediate fossils simply do not exist. Proved over the past 40 years in China.

dhw: There is no possible way of proving that fossils don’t exist, but even if they don’t, that doesn’t prove the organisms themselves didn’t exist. Again, please explain why you think they should exist.

DAVID: The new sites in China are well explored. What is found doesn't explain the complexity gap. Keep on your blinders. They will not help.

Every inch is a possible site, but in any case that is not an answer. Why do you think there should be fossils of organisms that lived 540 million years ago?

dhw: Please explain why you think 10 million years is not long enough for innovations to be designed by intelligent cells combining their intelligences to restructure themselves under new conditions.

DAVID: It is clear from China, no intermediate forms exist. Keep wishing.

Again, not an answer. Please re-read my question and answer it.

DAVID: I follow the new research carefully. No one discusses your theory in any way. That cells look intelligent is old news. Your speciation theory is your invention.

dhw: You resolutely “forget” the Shapiro quotes from your own book: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully….They posses sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities…they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics…Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions” etc. This is not my invention, and Bechly hasn’t even considered it. It is the theory itself you should focus on, not how many people discuss it.

DAVID: You asked me about other discussions! Shapiro is pure theory, his, not taken up by anyone else.

I am complaining about the fact that none of the scientists you quote seem to have heard of Shapiro’s theory. And I am pointing out to you that the speciation theory is not “my” invention, and I wish you would consider the arguments themselves rather than assuming that because Bechly and Co don’t consider them or even know about them, you needn’t bother either.