Immunity: Gamma Delta T cells hunt with precision (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, November 18, 2018, 23:24 (1986 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are ignoring my point that we look in at the cell from the outside and either assumption can be accepted, and I have the right to accept mine, and you have the right to accept your guys point of view. I will never accept that view, until there is proof they are correct.

dhw: I’m afraid it is you who are missing all the points. You have fixed beliefs, whereas I simply offer HYPOTHESES. As I can find no logic in your interpretation of evolution, I offer an alternative which depends on the concept of cellular intelligence (possibly God-given). You admit that the latter has a 50/50 chance of being correct. If there is a 50/50 chance, clearly there is no proof that your view is correct either, but you rigidly stick to it and therefore completely reject the opposite view. Double standards.

Of course I have fixed beliefs. I'm on one side of the fence, and you are on both. Only you have a chance of being correct 100% of the time if the issue is ever proven.

DAVID: Behavior as I have pointed out has two equally possible reasons. You have decided to chose one interpretation because it fits what you want to believe.

dhw: What I am proposing is a hypothesis, not a belief, because I have always accepted your objections: we do not KNOW that cells are intelligent, and if they are, we do not KNOW that they are capable of designing the major innovations that lead to speciation (broad sense). Nor do we KNOW (a) that your God exists, and (b) that his purpose was humans and yet he specially designed 50,000 spider webs etc. You have rigid beliefs in all your hypotheses, and always blame me for wanting proof before I take the plunge you have taken. I can only consider the pros and cons of all the hypotheses, theistic and atheistic, but because I find flaws in all of them, I remain without belief in any of them.

A definition of a rigid agnostic.

DAVID: I never said superficial or flimsy. That is your interpretation. All of them have done magnificent work. They are as amazed at the work of cells as I am. Their statements are only a human interpretation of what they have found. They do not have proof, nor do I. You are simply offering their opinions as fact. It isn't.

I do NOT offer it as fact. But it is a believable basis for my hypothesis concerning how evolution works. You continue to mix up the argument for design with the argument for cellular intelligence. They are totally separate, and you use the former (which I accept) to try and discredit the latter. Here are your exact words: “I think your concept of complexity of the cell is superficial since you have not studied biochemistry. This is not meant to criticize you but to indicate that your theorizing is based on a flimsy basis of understanding of what is involved. I hope the Tour quote indicates that to you.” My theorizing, as you know perfectly well, has nothing to do with design but is based on the concept of cellular intelligence, which in turn is based entirely on the magnificent work of “my” scientists. If my concept of cellular intelligence is superficial and flimsy, that can only mean that their concept is superficial and flimsy.

And I have told you they have made an interpretation of their work, which is not accepted by many current scientists. Their interpretation is not proof and only a possibility.

DAVID: Note they [ID-ers] have heretical ideas like evolution is really devolution. You made no comment.

dhw: I really don’t know why you think the heretical ideas of your ID herd should convince me that Shapiro and Co are wrong. As for devolution:

QUOTE: "This famous evolutionary experiment proves that in deep time, even given a model population that is optimal for validating evolution , populations do not evolve – but instead devolve."

dhw: Nothing to do with cellular intelligence. I actually wrote a reply to this, and then decided it wasn’t worth bothering. My reply was and is: So humans devolved from bacteria, did they?

DAVID: Do you miss the point? The claim seems to be all the information was there from the beginning and evolution advances from subtraction.

dhw: I would suggest that multicellularity = addition, not subtraction. Why do you think their view is considered heretical?

You misunderstand. Behe has a new book on it which I intend to read. Multicellularity is simply a larger organism than single cells. The subtraction, if it occurs, is in DNA, not phenotypes which appear from its work..