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

by dhw, Tuesday, March 12, 2019, 11:07 (1873 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Bacteria carry their program and ones for the future they cannot use for themselves but is passed on to allow multicellular forms to arrive.

dhw: So now we have the first bacteria carrying programmes for every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life past, present and future, and somehow knowing which programme is for them alone. I wonder what happened next. Did they squiggle through history unknowingly passing the dinosaur programme and nothing but the dinosaur programme to pre-dinosaur cells, cuttlefish and camouflage programme to pre-cuttlefish cells [etc.]

DAVID: Great response, very funny at that! It is either that or dabbling.

dhw: I’m glad you agree that your vision of bacteria unknowingly dishing out programmes to pre-dinosaurs, pre-cuttlefish, pre-weaverbirds and pre-hominins is so ridiculous as to be funny. So out goes your preprogramming hypothesis. […]

DAVID: I did not throw out pre-programming as a reasonable theory. Twisted over-interpreting as usual. Dabbling is the other alternative if God creates species as I believe.

I described how your bacteria apparently distribute programmes for the whole of evolution, and you found it very funny. If my description was inaccurate, please tell us how else they could have done it.

DAVID: It can't itty -bitty Darwin steps. They don't exist. Mind the gaps! They need a designer.

dhw: Itty-bitty steps are not an alternative to preprogramming and dabbling, so please don’t change the subject. And besides, you never responded when I pointed out to you that your accounts of big toe design, pelvis design, and mini-to maxi brain design constitute itty-bitty steps on the way to H. sapiens. In my hypothesis, the cells/cell communities are the alternative] designers […]

DAVID: Redesigning an ape pelvis to a human pelvis is not itty-bitty, considering the birthing issues that also arise. Chimp brain (400 cc) to human (1,200 cc) in 200 cc jumps is anything but itty-bitty. You present a very skewed view of evolutionary biological changes, just to sneak in your cell committees.

If, over millions of years, your God specially designed big toes, pelvises, mini brains and maxi brains and all the other bits and pieces that distinguish H. sapiens from pre-hominins, you have a stage by stage or itty-bitty design of H. sapiens. But that is a digression from the main subject - your very funny concept of preprogramming and your belief that preprogramming and dabbling are the only possibilities. Itty-bitty steps are not an alternative, but cellular intelligence is.

DAVID: 90% of scientists are atheists. What interpretation did you expect? Remember the chances are still either/or.

dhw: You asked me what “more and more” scientists, and I have told you! So now you do a complete volte face and tell us that 90% of scientists reject your automaticity but let’s not listen to them because they are atheists! In any case, just like the theory of evolution, the proposal that cells/cell communities are intelligent does not in any way exclude your God, since nobody knows the origin of life or of the mechanisms that have led to evolution.

DAVID: I agree we don't know how life started or speciation occurs. At least we have gotten rid of Darwin's gradualism. And we understand that natural selection can only act on forms it is given. Since there are the unknowns you listed, interpretations have to be open to reinterpretations, the background of atheist, agnostic, and theistic thinkers considered, when reading anything each group produces. You are sitting atop your picket fence with atheists on one side and us theists on the other. Not that the metaphor implies you are in a higher (better) position, only that your feet aren't planted or grounded in anything but disbelief. I'll reinterpret as I wish.

One digression after another. I wrote that more and more scientists accept the concept of cellular intelligence, and you asked: “What ‘more and more scientists’? You keep quoting your tiny list.” It is not a tiny list, so you decided to dismiss the findings of 90% of scientists because they are atheists. I accept what you have written above, and by all means reinterpret as you wish, but please don’t expect me to accept your reinterpretations as if they emanated from “a higher (better) position”. Do you accept that more and more scientists now favour the concept of cellular intelligence?

DAVID (under “Biological complexity”): There is lots of cross talk and communication between all parts of the cells:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00792-9?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...

DAVID: All of this is automatic activity as the cell produces its products. A complex going factory. Huge article, hard to compress.

Thank you for giving us the gist- much appreciated. I keep pointing out that most cellular activity has to be automatic if a particular system is to survive intact, and intelligence will only be applied (a) when the system first comes into existence, and (b) when there are new conditions, e.g. new problems to be solved or new opportunities to be exploited. In my hypothesis, that is when cross talk and communication – essential elements of intelligent cooperation – precede intelligent decision-making, which in turn produces more automatic activity as new instructions are implemented.