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

by David Turell , Friday, March 08, 2019, 19:28 (1877 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You do not understand what I wrote. Bacteria have a set of instructions they use, but they carry instructions for the future in a closed file (to use computer terms).

dhw: I understand. Once again: until now your theory has been that your God provided the first living cells with a library of programmes for the whole of undabbled evolution. How could this library have been passed on if the only living creatures had a library restricted to instructions for themselves?

Many possibilities. In computer terms: zipped files which could be opened by automatic triggers at certain point in time, opened by God, or opened when certain changes occurred in Earth's climate. This would cover Behe's theory about devolution of the genome, which uncovers one new layer at a time.

dhw: But over and over again you have claimed that whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, monarch migration, and weaverbirds’ nests were specially designed (dabbled) or preprogrammed by your God. You deny the possibility that they could have been designed by the cell communities of the organisms themselves. How do you know?

You know my approach. Cells don't have enough mindful ability to design advances.

dhw: Then please stop harping on about simple lives, Lenski’s E-coli and cell division, as if somehow they prove that bacteria cannot be intelligent.

DAVID: Lenski's E. coli, after 22,000 generations are still E. coli with minor metabolic changes.

dhw: A complete non sequitur. How does this prove they can’t be intelligent?

We are stuck at this point. What I am reading in Behe shows automaticity. As research proceeds, more and more automaticity is described.

DAVID: I'm referencing conclusion bias. Is automatic quorum sensing automatic (/) is my point.

dhw: I’m also referencing conclusion bias, namely yours. All forms of sensing are automatic. We and our fellow animals use our automatic senses to gather information and then we make decisions. What does this have to do with Darwin, and how does it support your conclusion that bacteria are not intelligent?

Because research into the actions of bacteria currently constantly finds automaticity as the research advances. I expect more advances will reach the point that all bacteria are shown to be automatic. We will have to wait to see which of us is correct.

Under “confirmation bias”:
DAVID: The worst cases are in the sociology and psychology sciences where much research cannot be confirmed. But this clearly points out skepticism is needed when reading any article with Darwin-inculcated authors.

dhw: Nobody knows the objective truth about any of the major issues we keep discussing. Therefore scepticism is needed when reading any article written by authors with fixed beliefs of whatever kind.

DAVID: Exactly my point.

dhw: Your point points at Darwin-inculcated authors but glaringly omits ID and religion-inculcated authors.

Yes, that is the side I am representing