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

by dhw, Tuesday, March 19, 2019, 11:16 (1866 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If there was pre-programming in DNA, bacteria carried all the DNA for the future, but only used chapter one. With each future speciation, the next chapter appeared either spontaneously activated or thru God stepping in.

dhw: So although bacteria remained bacteria, and only used their own programme for future adaptation and problem solving, they contained and passed on programmes for every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. And subsequent cell communities carried all these programmes, spontaneously switched on their own special programme, and then passed the other millions of programmes on to another cell community which spontaneously switched on its own special programme and so on. Or God stepped in and switched on the programme for whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, monarch migration, weaverbird’s nest etc., because they had to provide food until he could switch on the programme for the brain of H. sapiens. Don’t you find this just a little far-fetched?

DAVID: Not at all. Preprogramming has to work in just that way. Or there are also dabbling switches for God to activate.

I’m glad that my description of your hypothesis is accurate. I look forward to the day when your scientists discover the programmes for whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, monarch migration and weaverbirds’ nests hidden away in the bacterial genome. I rather suspect, though, that it’s more likely they will discover that single cells are intelligent, and are capable of combining their intelligences (much as ants do) in order to innovate as well as to adapt. Just an unproven hypothesis, of course, though apparently the majority of scientists now seem to support the concept of cellular intelligence.

dhw: Your focus on gaps is a neat try to sidestep the issue of why a God in total control would specially design a succession of jumping brains in itty-bitty steps instead of specially designing the only brain he wanted to design. ... you suggest divine preprogramming or dabbling; I suggest intelligent cells responding to the demands and opportunities arising from new conditions.

DAVID: I don't understand your definition of itty-bitty except it doesn't fit the 200 cc jumps in size of the hominin stages of brain development. My comment discussed whole phenotype changes, not just brains. You neatly ignored that.

I did not ignore it. The bit you left out was “We have dealt with gaps and the Cambrian over and over again. Nobody knows the answer...” This and what followed was a reference to speciation (phenotype changes). Our discussion here, however, is specifically on the evolution of H. sapiens. By “itty bitty” I mean one bit at a time. All dealt with under “Big brain evolution”: if your God’s one and only purpose was to produce H. sapiens, and he was in full control, why did he take millions of years fiddling with the big toe, the pelvis, different sizes of brain, different types of hominin, different types of human? No need to repeat the arguments under “Big brain evolution” – I am simply explaining that by “itty bitty” I mean the gradual bit by bit evolution (in my hypothesis) or bit by bit creation (in your hypothesis) of H. sapiens.

dhw: As we keep agreeing, all theories about speciation are unproven. Both your theory and my proposal require design, and my proposal does not exclude the participation of your God. Meanwhile, I stand by the statements you bolded. Focusing on automatic behaviour is no response to the question of how that behaviour was first generated and of how cells solve problems and exploit new conditions.

DAVID: Exactly. We both see that chance mutations cannot design anything worthwhile. "First generation" given by design is the only reasonable answer.

And that first generation design may have been carried out by intelligent cell communities, and their intelligence may have been given to them by your God. And focusing on automatic cellular behaviour does not tell us how that behaviour was first generated. Nor does it tell us how cells solve problems and exploit new conditions, these being the factors involved in the demonstration of what is now widely recognized in the scientific world as cellular intelligence.