Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]The hyperbole is in his book, not you…[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]What hyperbole? He advances cellular intelligence and natural genetic engineering as a theory, just as you advance your logical designer God theory and your illogical theory of evolution. Both hyperbole?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Shapiro is now retired and all his work was on how bacteria can edit and modify their DNA. His theory implies that this ability was passed on in evolution and might imply how cells became so intelligent looking, with no proof they are really intelligent. And the ability might lead somehow to a means of speciation.[/i]
> 
> Over and over again you emphasize that his theory is not proven. If it was, it would be a fact. If his theory is hyperbolic because it hasn’t been proven, where does this leave your God theory and your theory of evolution? 
> 
> DAVID: …..[i]but in reality, it tells us nothing more that live-on-their-own bacteria can self-edit their DNA more than epigenetics in multicellular organisms.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Why do you insist on restricting the discussion to bacteria, just because that is his special field? He is building on the work of other specialists who are also convinced that cells are intelligent, sentient, cognitive beings. Should we dismiss your theories about God and evolution just because you are not a theologian cum biochemist cum palaeontologist cum microbiologist cum physicist cum archangel?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Answered above with a fuller discussion of his apparent thoughts, as I interpret his book and his paper to the Royal Society in 2017.[/i]
> 
> I have shown you that the quotes from the lecture do not in any way contradict the theory as outlined in the passages you quote in your book. 
> 
> DAVID: [i]Of course he knows previous work and opinion, and whether cells are intelligent or simply act intelligently by following instruction is a matter of opinion.[/i]
> 
> So please stop pretending that he only knows about bacteria, please stop calling his theory hyperbolic, please stop pretending that I stretch his theory, and please recognize that any unproven theory – just like the God theory – can only be a matter of opinion until it is established as a fact.