Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, June 29, 2022, 16:01 (876 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: With our new knowledge of DNA, it is time to alter definitions of evolution. Old definitions are not set in stone. We have to account for the gaps in evolution recognizing old steps lead to new steps. We must recognize new steps need new protein molecules with new functions. Then the issue becomes the source of the necessary new molecules. A designer or intelligent cell factories.

dhw: There is no need whatsoever to alter definitions of common descent (or of evolution), and the question remains precisely the same as ever, no matter whether descent depends on comparative anatomy or on DNA: how did it happen? And the alternatives are not “a designer or intelligent cell factories”, because the latter allow for your God as designer of cellular intelligence.

Which brings you back to my question in the other thread: if it is either design or intelligent cells from God, why deny God?

Octopus
dhw: […] you obviously don’t read my replies, so I will summarize them. Speciation takes place as a RESPONSE to new conditions. If conditions remain the same for a long time, then there will be long periods of stasis (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian explosion, but whatever it was (an increase in oxygen?) must have made a huge difference to the range of possibilities for the innovations that produce new species. 410,000 years may well be too short a period for Darwin’s random mutations to produce the new complexities, but the theory of cellular intelligence would allow plenty of time for let’s say 30,000 generations of organisms to invent new ways of exploiting the new environment.

DAVID: I know all your replies!!! They are a vague set of theoretical possibilities to wave way the problem. Cells produce a huge variety of biochemical molecules at very high speeds. No other function has ever been ascribed to them. That they act so intelligently can in no way imply they created the Cambrian gap all by themselves in such a short period.

Many scientists in the field have supported the concept of cellular intelligence, and Shapiro has ascribed evolutionary novelty to it. Not vague at all. But of course it is only a theory, as is your belief that there is an unknown and unknowable, sourceless, eternal, superintelligent being (see "more miscellany" - extremophiles) who drew up a programme 3.8 billion years ago for every single evolutionary novelty (not to mention lifestyle and natural wonder), or who alternatively performed countless operations (presumably by psychokinesis) to produce the countless evolutionary novelties, and did so for the sole purpose of producing one species and its food, although most of them had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: I do not think the intelligent cell theory is at all possible!!! And you know it. The appearance of the cells from the outside has a 50/50 probability of cause! I've picked my 50% side of the equation.

dhw: If you reject a 50% possibility, your rejection of the theory can only be the result of sheer prejudice.

DAVID: Not prejudice but a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. I feel I have the knowledge to make an informed choice, based on real evidence.

dhw: 50/50 probability does not mean 100% no. And folk like Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Buehler and many others may, I suggest, also have/have had a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. Here is a 1-minute video as an example based on our old friend slime mould:

Slime mould studied by Japanese scientists show cellular intelligence ...
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=CGClwVm-D4w

dhw: If you believe your God designed one mechanism that is capable of autonomous invention (the human brain), why are you so opposed to the possibility of his designing another mechanism that is also capable of autonomous invention (the intelligent cell)?

DAVID: It is a possibility. That explains evolution is all God's doing by secondary intention. If you accept that point, you must necessarily accept God. Or why do you bother with that theory? Your answer?

dhw: Thank you for at last accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence may be responsible for the innovations that lead to speciation. That is all I ask for, as it is one theory among others. I in turn accept the possibility that cellular intelligence was designed by your God because I also accept the possibility that your God exists. All our theories depend on possibilities, because nobody knows the truth. As regard the latter theory (God’s existence), I give it the same odds as you give to cellular intelligence: 50/50.

Continued in Part Two

Ah, well. No change.