dhw: The idea that natural selection is the key to the origin of species is frankly absurd. Natural selection does not create anything. It only works on what already exists.

GEORGE: I see nothing absurd about it at all. It's just basic Darwinian evolution.

There is nothing absurd about natural selection itself. The absurdity lies in the argument that it is the means of speciation. Natural selection does not CREATE change. It only selects changes that have already been made. I think it was you, George, who drew our attention to the full title of Darwin’s book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. That says it all: natural selection is a process of preservation, not of invention, and speciation requires invention.

GEORGE: As to the work of Shapiro. As I've said I've not looked into his theories before.
However it does seem there may be something in his ideas, but they remain controversial, particularly as they seem to attract the interest of ID creationists.
The following link seems to be a balanced assessment, though short on detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering

Shapiro explicitly dissociates himself from ID. The article provides a good summary of his theory, with great emphasis on the cognitive powers of cells.
--
DAVID: Since dhw raised my thoughts into your discussion, I'll simply note the obvious. Shapiro's work was totally on bacteria, which are fully free living and must have responses to their environment which enhance survival. The possible sources for that ability are either learned/developed over time or by design. The issue for me is there is no answer as to how they survived while learning.

dhw: I do not believe for one second that Shapiro did not take into account the findings of other experts in the field, such as Margulis and McClintock, whose research was not confined to bacteria. In any case, his conclusions regarding cellular intelligence clearly apply to cells in general, so I don’t know why you think the argument can be discredited by your own insistence on confining it to bacteria. ALL organisms must have responses to their environment if they are to survive changes, and it is perfectly feasible that the same mechanism which makes such adaptations possible might also – as Shapiro explicitly proposes – be responsible for INNOVATIONS. You propose that your God changes organisms in advance of environmental changes, whereas I propose that the mechanism enabling them to RESPOND autonomously is there in advance. That is the main issue between you and me.

That is our difference which has no solution

GEORGE: I see nothing absurd about it at all. It's just basic Darwinian evolution.

There is nothing absurd about natural selection itself. The absurdity lies in the argument that it is the means of speciation. Natural selection does not CREATE change. It only selects changes that have already been made. I think it was you, George, who drew our attention to the full title of Darwin’s book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. That says it all: natural selection is a process of preservation, not of invention, and speciation requires invention.

GEORGE: As to the work of Shapiro. As I've said I've not looked into his theories before.
However it does seem there may be something in his ideas, but they remain controversial, particularly as they seem to attract the interest of ID creationists.
The following link seems to be a balanced assessment, though short on detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering

Shapiro explicitly dissociates himself from ID. The article provides a good summary of his theory, with great emphasis on the cognitive powers of cells.
--
DAVID: Since dhw raised my thoughts into your discussion, I'll simply note the obvious. Shapiro's work was totally on bacteria, which are fully free living and must have responses to their environment which enhance survival. The possible sources for that ability are either learned/developed over time or by design. The issue for me is there is no answer as to how they survived while learning.

I do not believe for one second that Shapiro did not take into account the findings of other experts in the field, such as Margulis and McClintock, whose research was not confined to bacteria. In any case, his conclusions regarding cellular intelligence clearly apply to cells in general, so I don’t know why you think the argument can be discredited by your own insistence on confining it to bacteria. ALL organisms must have responses to their environment if they are to survive changes, and it is perfectly feasible that the same mechanism which makes such adaptations possible might also – as Shapiro explicitly proposes – be responsible for INNOVATIONS. You propose that your God changes organisms in advance of environmental changes, whereas I propose that the mechanism enabling them to RESPOND autonomously is there in advance. That is the main issue between you and me.

dhw The idea that natural selection is the key to the origin of species is frankly absurd. Natural selection does not create anything. It only works on what already exists.

George: I see nothing absurd about it at all. It's just basic Darwinian evolution.

As to the work of Shapiro. As I've said I've not looked into his theories before.
However it does seem there may be something in his ideas, but they remain controversial,
particularly as they seem to attract the interest of ID creationists.
The following link seems to be a balanced assessment, though short on detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering

Since dhw raised my thoughts into your discussion, I'll simply note the obvious. Shapiro's work was totally on bacteria, which are fully free living and must have responses to their environment which enhance survival. The possible sources for that ability are either learned/developed over time or by design. The issue for me is there is no answer as to how they survived while learning.

I see nothing absurd about it at all. It's just basic Darwinian evolution.

As to the work of Shapiro. As I've said I've not looked into his theories before.
However it does seem there may be something in his ideas, but they remain controversial,
particularly as they seem to attract the interest of ID creationists.
The following link seems to be a balanced assessment, though short on detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering

GEORGE: I'm not prepared to reject random mutations as a cause of innovations. Darwin's basic theory of natural selection still stands. But it is enhanced by more recent discoveries.
This is the best account of the current situation that I've found on the web:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Thank you for this, George. David will be as disappointed at the absence of Behe as I am at the absence of Shapiro, and we will both be disappointed at the emphasis laid on natural selection (though I only skimmed, and maybe I missed something). The idea that natural selection is the key to the origin of species is frankly absurd. Natural selection does not create anything. It only works on what already exists. The key to evolution has to be whatever mechanism actually changes existing structures (i.e. causes the innovations that are the basis of new species). Natural selection then decides what changes will or won’t survive. Darwin was specific that the mechanism was random mutations, which entails chance events creating all the complexities that led from bacteria to the human brain.

My own take on this is that Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence as the mechanism is far more convincing. This theory, it should be stressed, is not religious. He leaves open the question of how the intelligent cell originated – just as the agnostic Darwin left open the question of the source of life.

I'm not prepared to reject random mutations as a cause of innovations. Darwin's basic theory of natural selection still stands. But it is enhanced by more recent discoveries.

This is the best account of the current situation that I've found on the web:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

GEORGE: No you should not make that assumption. The theory of evolution has moved on a good way since Darwin. The contributions of Margulis and McClintock are now generally accepted. I don't know about Shapiro.
It's maybe getting near the time for a new book on Evolution to be written taking account of modern developments. Maybe it has already been written, but I'm not aware of it yet.

If you are prepared to reject random mutations as the cause of innovations, it would be interesting to know what you do regard as the mechanism that causes them. David has provided a perfect summary of Shapiro’s theory in his book The Atheist Delusion. The salient points are, in Shapiro’s own words: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities…Evolutionary innovation arises from the production of new cells and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions."

David’s alternatives are divine dabbling and a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled innovation. The fourth theory on our list is Darwin’s random mutations. If my memory serves me correctly, David’s alternatives are non-starters for you, so I wonder where that leaves you!

dhw Bearing in mind that natural selection does not create anything but only selects changes which are beneficial, should I assume that you believe random mutations are a satisfactory explanation for all the innovations that have led from the first living cells to, let’s say, the human brain?

George: No you should not make that assumption. The theory of evolution has moved on a good way since Darwin. The contributions of Margulis and McClintock are now generally accepted. I don't know about Shapiro.

It's maybe getting near the time for a new book on Evolution to be written taking account of modern developments. Maybe it has already been written, but I'm not aware of it yet.

Maybe it is time to read Behe's books and Shapiro's.

No you should not make that assumption. The theory of evolution has moved on a good way since Darwin. The contributions of Margulis and McClintock are now generally accepted. I don't know about Shapiro.

It's maybe getting near the time for a new book on Evolution to be written taking account of modern developments. Maybe it has already been written, but I'm not aware of it yet.

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/FRAME.HTM

He says in the last paragraph that his views are based on experimental evidence
and not on philosophical assumptions.

Buehler is one of several notable specialists who have studied the behaviour of cells, including Lynn Margulis, the Nobel-prizewinner Barbara McClintock, and currently James A. Shapiro, whose theory I mentioned before.

GEORGE: It does seem from this that cells, at least in the form of bacteria,
which are self-contained life forms, do have sensors and a control centre,
which I suppose can be thought of as a sort of "brain",
but I would be reluctant to call it "intelligence", since it just reacts to stimuli. But this is not a subject I've looked into before.

Bacteria, like the cells in our bodies, solve problems and adapt to new conditions. They form communities, communicate with one another, pass on information and take decisions based on the information they have processed. These abilities are essential for survival. That doesn’t mean bacteria and other cells think as we do, and it doesn’t mean that the cell communities of which all bodies are comprised are capable of major innovations, but they are proven to be capable of minor adaptations, in which case perhaps they are also capable of major adaptations and innovations. I find this explanation of speciation far more convincing than random mutations, or divine dabbling, or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every development. Bearing in mind that natural selection does not create anything but only selects changes which are beneficial, should I assume that you believe random mutations are a satisfactory explanation for all the innovations that have led from the first living cells to, let’s say, the human brain?

George: dhw asked me for my opinion on "cellular intelligence".
I did a search and came across this article on the subject:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/FRAME.HTM

He says in the last paragraph that his views are based on experimental evidence
and not on philosophical assumptions.

It does seem from this that cells, at least in the form of bacteria,
which are self-contained life forms, do have sensors and a control centre,
which I suppose can be thought of as a sort of "brain",
but I would be reluctant to call it "intelligence", since it just reacts to stimuli.

But this is not a subject I've looked into before.

By happenstance you have stumbled on a quite old website by a scientist dhw loves to quote. It has been here before.

He says in the last paragraph that his views are based on experimental evidence
and not on philosophical assumptions.

It does seem from this that cells, at least in the form of bacteria,
which are self-contained life forms, do have sensors and a control centre,
which I suppose can be thought of as a sort of "brain",
but I would be reluctant to call it "intelligence", since it just reacts to stimuli.

But this is not a subject I've looked into before.

DAVID: I never objected to Shapiro's theory, but to your gross extrapolation from it of cell intelligence.
[…]
dhw: What gross extrapolation?

DAVID: Those cells he discusses are bacteria.

dhw: Please stop pretending that his theory is confined to bacteria. He has extrapolated from his research and from the research of others that LIVING CELLS AND ORGANISMS ARE COGNITIVE (SENTIENT) BEINGS, and that EVOLUTIONARY NOVELTY ARISES FROM THE PRODUCTION OF NEW CELLS AND MULTICELLULAR STRUCTURES AS A RESULT OF CELLULAR SELF-MODIFICATION.
Your scepticism is no excuse for ignoring his own conclusions and for accusing ME of "gross extrapolation".

DAVID: I know Shapiro's research and I admire it. But I have the right to my opinion as expressed in the thread on gene loss as a speciation cause […]

dhw: Of course you have a right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to accuse me of “gross extrapolation” when you know that I have repeated Shapiro’s theory word for word, and you also know that Shapiro’s conclusions take into account research that is not confined to bacteria. A week ago you wrote: “It simply remains his supposition which, you are correct, follows the thoughts of other researchers”.

Shapiro's theory is the extrapolation and you've bought it.

DAVID: Those cells he discusses are bacteria.

dhw: Please stop pretending that his theory is confined to bacteria. He has extrapolated from his research and from the research of others that LIVING CELLS AND ORGANISMS ARE COGNITIVE (SENTIENT) BEINGS, and that EVOLUTIONARY NOVELTY ARISES FROM THE PRODUCTION OF NEW CELLS AND MULTICELLULAR STRUCTURES AS A RESULT OF CELLULAR SELF-MODIFICATION.
Your scepticism is no excuse for ignoring his own conclusions and for accusing ME of "gross extrapolation".

DAVID: I know Shapiro's research and I admire it. But I have the right to my opinion as expressed in the thread on gene loss as a speciation cause […]

Of course you have a right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to accuse me of “gross extrapolation” when you know that I have repeated Shapiro’s theory word for word, and you also know that Shapiro’s conclusions take into account research that is not confined to bacteria. A week ago you wrote: “It simply remains his supposition which, you are correct, follows the thoughts of other researchers”.

DAVID: I never objected to Shapiro's theory, but to your gross extrapolation from it of cell intelligence.

David. J. Turell, The Atheist Delusion, p. 142, quoting from James A. Shapiro:

Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.

[..] they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly…

Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.

dhw: What gross extrapolation?

DAVID: Those cells he discusses are bacteria.

dhw: Please stop pretending that his theory is confined to bacteria. He has extrapolated from his research and from the research of others that LIVING CELLS AND ORGANISMS ARE COGNITIVE (SENTIENT) BEINGS, and that EVOLUTIONARY NOVELTY ARISES FROM THE PRODUCTION OF NEW CELLS AND MULTICELLULAR STRUCTURES AS A RESULT OF CELLULAR SELF-MODIFICATION.

Your scepticism is no excuse for ignoring his own conclusions and for accusing ME of "gross extrapolation".

I know Shapiro's research and I admire it. But I have the right to my opinion as expressed in the thread on gene loss as a speciation cause:

"Shapiro's theory is another approach, bootstrapping by editing DNA. This is all we have and in comparison I like Behe's approach better since it encompasses a review of genetic evidence. Shapiro is an extrapolation from free-living bacteria. And all Lenski has shown in his E. coli studies is some mutational adaptations in the same species."

David. J. Turell, The Atheist Delusion, p. 142, quoting from James A. Shapiro:

Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.

[..] they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly…

Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.

dhw: What gross extrapolation?

DAVID: Those cells he discusses are bacteria.

Please stop pretending that his theory is confined to bacteria. He has extrapolated from his research and from the research of others that LIVING CELLS AND ORGANISMS ARE COGNITIVE (SENTIENT) BEINGS, and that EVOLUTIONARY NOVELTY ARISES FROM THE PRODUCTION OF NEW CELLS AND MULTICELLULAR STRUCTURES AS A RESULT OF CELLULAR SELF-MODIFICATION.

Your scepticism is no excuse for ignoring his own conclusions and for accusing ME of "gross extrapolation".

DAVID: I never objected to Shapiro's theory, but to your gross extrapolation from it of cell intelligence.

David. J. Turell, The Atheist Delusion, p. 142, quoting from James A. Shapiro:
Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.

[..] they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly…

Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.

dhw: What gross extrapolation?

Those cells he discusses are bacteria. They are live-alone single entities which must have adaptive abilities. The extrapolation is your intelligent cell theory based on bacteria applied to multicellular organisms and the way their organs work. Still 50/50 probability for bacteria as a result of design. All covered before.

David. J. Turell, The Atheist Delusion, p. 142, quoting from James A. Shapiro:
Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act andinteract purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.

[..] they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly…

Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.

What gross extrapolation?

DAVID: Misinterpretation of how I view Shapiro: excellent research, no proof of his theory of how speciation occurs. I'm waiting for confirmation.

dhw: You wrote: “My theory is not any more scientific than Shapiro’s. My point is that no one has advanced it in any way.” Hence my comment above. No one has advanced your own theory that God preprogrammed or dabbled every life form in the history of life, and there is no proof of it. May I assume, then, that you have NOT rejected Shapiro’s theory but are simply waiting for confirmation both of his and of yours? If so, I fear you will have to wait for a very long time!

I never objected to Shapiro's theory, but to your gross extrapolation from it of cell intelligence.

DAVID: Evolution is very straight forward from somewhat simple to extremely complex.

dhw: It is not “very straightforward” at all. It branches out in all kinds of directions, which is what makes a nonsense of your theory that every branch and twig served the one purpose of producing one species and its food supply.

DAVID: Back to denying God's design of evolution, and necessary food supply. Each branch of life is light-years more complex than original life.

dhw: See “error corrections” re design and your avoidance of the issue bolded there.

I've seen and answered.

DAVID: Cells do not have enough ability to foresee future requirements in design at the currently demonstrated ability. All they do is run their factories and produce. All it all looks very intelligent, because they were designed that way.

dhw: Cells do not have to “foresee” anything. Cells react to requirements as they arise. Once they have met those requirements, they will continue to deal with them automatically until new requirements arise. I don’t know why you assume that cells which “look” intelligent are NOT intelligent.

DAVID: You do know why. Programmed which makes them look intelligent. God the designer.

dhw: I don’t know why you assume that organisms which look intelligent are not intelligent but preprogrammed. God can be the designer of either version.

God gave cells intelligent instructions, not direct intelligence. We will always disagree.

DAVID: Misinterpretation of how I view Shapiro: excellent research, no proof of his theory of how speciation occurs. I'm waiting for confirmation.

You wrote: “My theory is not any more scientific than Shapiro’s. My point is that no one has advanced it in any way.” Hence my comment above. No one has advanced your own theory that God preprogrammed or dabbled every life form in the history of life, and there is no proof of it. May I assume, then, that you have NOT rejected Shapiro’s theory but are simply waiting for confirmation both of his and of yours? If so, I fear you will have to wait for a very long time!

dhw: My interpretations are all “fully purposeful” and in all of them God gets what he wants. “God-lite” is a silly expression to describe a God who gets what he wants. Please forget about our subjective differences and tell us whether my “simplest explanation” fits the FACTS of history or not.

DAVID: It all depends of the viewpoint one gives God. Your humanized God does things that fit history, but doesn't describe the God I believe in.

Thank you for acknowledging that my proposal fits the facts of history. Please note that it is fully purposeful and God gets what he wants.

DAVID: Evolution is very straight forward from somewhat simple to extremely complex.

dhw: It is not “very straightforward” at all. It branches out in all kinds of directions, which is what makes a nonsense of your theory that every branch and twig served the one purpose of producing one species and its food supply.

DAVID: Back to denying God's design of evolution, and necessary food supply. Each branch of life is light-years more complex than original life.

See “error corrections” re design and your avoidance of the issue bolded there.

DAVID: Cells do not have enough ability to foresee future requirements in design at the currently demonstrated ability. All they do is run their factories and produce. All it all looks very intelligent, because they were designed that way.

dhw: Cells do not have to “foresee” anything. Cells react to requirements as they arise. Once they have met those requirements, they will continue to deal with them automatically until new requirements arise. I don’t know why you assume that cells which “look” intelligent are NOT intelligent.

DAVID: You do know why. Programmed which makes them look intelligent. God the designer.

I don’t know why you assume that organisms which look intelligent are not intelligent but preprogrammed. God can be the designer of either version.