Genome complexity: what genes do and don't do (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, January 31, 2019, 12:15 (1913 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Information means passive facts or details about a subject. Instructions are not facts or details, they are commands. And the article you initially agreed with said specifically that the passive data base could NOT serve as instructions.

DAVID: Of course there are instructions in the information. The cell must activate those instructions and follow them as the cells react to a stimulus.

Why “of course”, when you have already agreed that the information cannot possibly serve as instructions (= what genes DON'T do), and have stated explicitly that “the information just lying there is inactive, of course, but the cells are totally aware of it and use it in various required actions”?

DAVID: We disagree about automaticity, since I think almost all of what cells do or respond to is automatic in multicellular organisms.

dhw: That may well be so, but the crucial word in your statement is “almost”. Once the process has been successful, it has to be repeated “automatically”, as described above. Only when there are problems/new conditions do the cells have to – in your own words – become aware of them and actively use the new information to perform the required actions. Your "almost" is the area in which cellular intelligence comes into play.

DAVID: The 'almost' is carefully included as I discuss multicellular life. A kidney cell has no ability to do anything different than its assigned tasks. But we know the brain has plasticity and perhaps some neurons may follow your concept of cell intelligence.

When organisms (= cell communities) are exposed to new conditions, we know for a fact that some of them are able to adapt, i.e. organs like kidneys remain the same, but nevertheless the cells make adjustments. However, the great mystery is INNOVATION. Nobody knows how it happens. But if the cell communities are aware of new information and are capable of using it for adaptation, perhaps they are capable of using it for innovation too, which requires cooperation between all the communities. My “perhaps” echoes your “perhaps”. It is a hypothesis. I’m glad you are now accepting it as a possibility.

DAVID: Remember your concept is based on Shapiro who studied all-in-one bacteria who carry a different set of responsibilities. I do not think Shapiro generally carries over to multicellular organisms.

His concept of “natural genetic engineering” refers to all organisms, and since he believes in cellular intelligence, I really can’t imagine that he believes single cells are intelligent but cell communities aren’t.

DAVID: To change a leg into a flipper you will first find the bones have a very similar pattern with altered joint shapes [etc.] Nothing like Shapiro's bacteria and how they adapt. Your concept is a huge extrapolation to accomplish this design change.

You don’t need to tell me that whales are different from bacteria, and I don’t know often you want me to acknowledge that adaptation is different from innovation, and that is why my concept - just like your own - is an unproven hypothesis. See above re Shapiro.

Under "STICKLEBACKS":
QUOTE: Genetic analysis of the marine ancestor also showed that the genetic variants that are beneficial for adapting to acidic or alkaline water are all present in the ancestor. Similar life forms, therefore, didn't occur randomly, but independently of each other through the predictable sorting of advantageous genetic variants that were already present in the genome. " (David’s bold)

DAVID: It certainly looks as if the existing genome can guide future adaptations, but in case within related species. Note the bold statement.

Of course the potential for variation must already be present, and we know that this extends as far as adaptation. The stickleback cells, in your words, are “totally aware of it and use it” to perform the “various required actions”.