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

by dhw, Wednesday, February 06, 2019, 12:16 (1907 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So cells already know all the information necessary for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution, and along with that, your God has provided them with all the instructions necessary for picking out the one instruction (out of the billions) required for their particular situation. And this is your fixed belief?

DAVID: Unless I see research to convince me otherwise.

dhw: So whereabouts in the cell have you found the evidence for a 3.8-billion-year-old library of information and instructions for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life?

DAVID: It is theoretical just like your cell committees.

Of course it is. But despite the lack of evidence you are convinced that this astonishingly convoluted hypothesis is true, and you see no reason even to consider the possibility that one single mechanism might explain all the developments that have led to the vast higgledy-piggledy bush of life, allowing – theistic version – for dabbles.

DAVID: Remember these guys live by grant money, which they have to justify by touting their results. Please keep that in mind when you swallow the propaganda hook line and sinker. An interesting point: do you fully understand how the grant game is conducted?? I've had grants.

dhw: So now we should ignore the findings of Margulis, McClintock, Shapiro, Buehler, and the authors of the different articles you have quoted, because they are/were all only touting these views in order to gain grant money. I hope Shapiro never sees your comments.

DAVID: I did not bring up MMSB. They existed before the current mess of ecstatic fake reviews of science overstating what the results mean, fraudulent peer reviews ,and actually proven fake results. I see what you don't. Chasing grant money for the sake of income. You sidestepped my question to you.

Of course I sidestepped the question. Our subject is cellular intelligence, not the shenanigans of grant-hunting! Suddenly, an article which you quoted and said was an exact expression of your thoughts has become the product of fake results because you realize that its conclusions contradict your own beliefs. You could end up in court over such allegations!

DAVID: Note I said the genes control cell reactions. We don't know how that is done. Cells access the gene and respond. All we know is from outside the actual process. The gene may precisely tell the cell what to do, which is to make a precise set of protein molecules, and in this case placed at a precise position. An automatic response to direct instructions.

dhw: We do not know how the process works, but according to the articles, it is the cells that actively use passive genetic information and create or “figure out” their own instructions. I am not questioning that when the cell issues an instruction, the rest of the system automatically obeys.

DAVID: Of course cells use the information they have. Each cell follows what it is told to do by the genome.

Even if you were right, it could simply mean that the cell’s intelligence is located in the genome. But according to you, there is no intelligence. As above, your fixed belief is that the genome is a library containing not only all the passive information but also all the instructions necessary for the whole of evolution, and furthermore instructions on how to pick out the one and only instruction applicable to each individual situation.

DAVID: […] we have no information about how it all works, or how the cell and the cells genes manipulate each other. The inner workings are all a black box. We do not know whether all of this is automatic, or alternatively there must be some independent initiation activity.

dhw: After all the above, we now have a glimmer of recognition. Yes indeed, the alternative to your fixed belief is an INDEPENDENT - I call it “autonomous” - activity, whereby the cells independently create their own instructions by using their perhaps God-given intelligence.

DAVID: And I am sure it is all following instructions from each cell genome.

Despite your fixed belief, at least for once you have allowed for an autonomous alternative.

DAVID (under “Magic embryology”): The stem cells (blastocyst cells) must follow exact directions in their genomes to make perfectly functioning kidneys. This is the expectation of the authors of this study. True automaticity of cells following instructions to make perfectly functional kidneys. […]
All the processes of life must follow instructions or result in an aberration that is not viable. This is the theory behind my position on automaticity.

Of course all the processes must follow instructions. The great question is where those instructions come from in the first place. You have no evidence for your “library” hypothesis, as described above, but you don’t need any for it to be your fixed belief. Only alternative hypotheses require evidence.

I would love to know more about stem cells, as it seems to me that their versatility could provide a vital clue as to how evolutionary innovation works.