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

by dhw, Thursday, June 30, 2022, 08:19 (875 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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

After all these years, you still haven’t understood the meaning of agnosticism. Originally it referred to the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not, but many of us prefer to say we cannot decide whether there is a God or not. That means, to use your favourite odds, 50/50. Atheists deny God. The choice of explanation for the source of life is between God(s) and chance.

Octopus

dhw: […] 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. […]

dhw: 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 bbbban unknown and unknowable, sourceless, eternal, superintelligent being (see Part Two) 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.

The remaining exchanges are devoted to the questions already answered here and in countless earlier posts. Round and round we go.

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

All ignored, and from now on you do nothing but repeat your attempts to dodge the illogicality of your combined theories by changing the subject, or editing those theories, or accusing me of rejecting arguments which I accept. I shall quote your repeated comments, and repeat my answers in Part Two.