AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

Dhw (under “big brain”): If your God can create cells that seem to be intelligent, I suspect that he can create cells that actually are intelligent. You keep telling us that nobody can possibly judge from the outside...and so we are back to your dogmatic assertions that you just happen to know the truth.
DAVID: If you would study some cellular biology you would see all the automaticity.

Of course there is automaticity. But according to Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Bühler and others there is also intelligence. And they (have) spent a lifetime studying cellular biology.

David’s comment: (under “extracellular matrix”:) This scientist notes the automaticity of controls (note my bold) in cells from multicellular organisms. I am convinced bacteria are no different, except Shapiro's discovery that bacteria have extra controls over their DNA, since everything is in one cell
David’s comment (under “stem cells”): this research applies to stem cells which can turn into many different functioning cells. In view of that, I don't think the result is surprising, but it shows how much control the genome has over itself. Certainly looks designed and not by chance. The ability may go as far back as bacteria as shown in Shapiro's work demonstrating bacteria can modify their own DNA.

The fact that some cells can change their function and bacteria can modify their own DNA offers increasing support for the idea that cell communities themselves may provide the driving force behind evolutionary change. Their versatility and self-control may be the result of design, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they are automatic. Let me repeat that my hypothesis relates to the origin of innovations. Once these are established, they will function automatically until confronted with new challenges or opportunities.

4092 views

Dhw (under “big brain”): If your God can create cells that seem to be intelligent, I suspect that he can create cells that actually are intelligent. You keep telling us that nobody can possibly judge from the outside...and so we are back to your dogmatic assertions that you just happen to know the truth.
DAVID: If you would study some cellular biology you would see all the automaticity.

dhw: Of course there is automaticity. But according to Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Bühler and others there is also intelligence. And they (have) spent a lifetime studying cellular biology.

Your usual response. The genome runs the cells intelligently because of the intelligent information implanted.

David’s comment: (under “extracellular matrix”:) This scientist notes the automaticity of controls (note my bold) in cells from multicellular organisms. I am convinced bacteria are no different, except Shapiro's discovery that bacteria have extra controls over their DNA, since everything is in one cell
David’s comment (under “stem cells”): this research applies to stem cells which can turn into many different functioning cells. In view of that, I don't think the result is surprising, but it shows how much control the genome has over itself. Certainly looks designed and not by chance. The ability may go as far back as bacteria as shown in Shapiro's work demonstrating bacteria can modify their own DNA.

dhw: The fact that some cells can change their function and bacteria can modify their own DNA offers increasing support for the idea that cell communities themselves may provide the driving force behind evolutionary change. Their versatility and self-control may be the result of design, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they are automatic. Let me repeat that my hypothesis relates to the origin of innovations. Once these are established, they will function automatically until confronted with new challenges or opportunities.

And it is my view that the origin of life is a gift. All of this discussion has to be seamless, although you delight in excluding origin of life. The only reason bacteria can do some adaptions is that they were created to have that ability. They did not develop it on their own.

4001 views

Dhw (under “big brain”): If your God can create cells that seem to be intelligent, I suspect that he can create cells that actually are intelligent. You keep telling us that nobody can possibly judge from the outside...and so we are back to your dogmatic assertions that you just happen to know the truth.

DAVID: If you would study some cellular biology you would see all the automaticity.

dhw: Of course there is automaticity. But according to Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Bühler and others there is also intelligence. And they (have) spent a lifetime studying cellular biology.
DAVID: Your usual response. The genome runs the cells intelligently because of the intelligent information implanted.

Your usual response: I must ignore those experts who disagree with you.

dhw: The fact that some cells can change their function and bacteria can modify their own DNA offers increasing support for the idea that cell communities themselves may provide the driving force behind evolutionary change. Their versatility and self-control may be the result of design, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they are automatic. Let me repeat that my hypothesis relates to the origin of innovations. Once these are established, they will function automatically until confronted with new challenges or opportunities.

DAVID: And it is my view that the origin of life is a gift. All of this discussion has to be seamless, although you delight in excluding origin of life. The only reason bacteria can do some adaptions is that they were created to have that ability. They did not develop it on their own.

I have never ignored the origin of life, but neither you nor I nor anyone else knows it, which is why I constantly repeat that cellular intelligence may have been invented by your God. You simply refuse to consider the possibility that a (perhaps God-given) cellular intelligence might exist, because of your “large organisms chauvinism” (Shapiro).

3970 views

DAVID: And it is my view that the origin of life is a gift. All of this discussion has to be seamless, although you delight in excluding origin of life. The only reason bacteria can do some adaptions is that they were created to have that ability. They did not develop it on their own.

dhw: I have never ignored the origin of life, but neither you nor I nor anyone else knows it, which is why I constantly repeat that cellular intelligence may have been invented by your God. You simply refuse to consider the possibility that a (perhaps God-given) cellular intelligence might exist, because of your “large organisms chauvinism” (Shapiro).

What you have ignored is the necessary continuity from origin of life to the existing organisms we study. If cells are intelligent, where did the original intelligence in the first cells come from? You quietly drop in a suggestion about 'God-given', but after that the only other possibility is a rocky earth somehow invented living matter and gave it intelligence at the same time. You think God is a fairy tale, I think your hypothesis is all fairy tale..

3991 views

DAVID: And it is my view that the origin of life is a gift. All of this discussion has to be seamless, although you delight in excluding origin of life. The only reason bacteria can do some adaptions is that they were created to have that ability. They did not develop it on their own.

dhw: I have never ignored the origin of life, but neither you nor I nor anyone else knows it, which is why I constantly repeat that cellular intelligence may have been invented by your God. You simply refuse to consider the possibility that a (perhaps God-given) cellular intelligence might exist, because of your “large organisms chauvinism” (Shapiro).

DAVID: What you have ignored is the necessary continuity from origin of life to the existing organisms we study. If cells are intelligent, where did the original intelligence in the first cells come from? You quietly drop in a suggestion about 'God-given', but after that the only other possibility is a rocky earth somehow invented living matter and gave it intelligence at the same time. You think God is a fairy tale, I think your hypothesis is all fairy tale.

How can you say I ignore it when I offer the possibility that God is the originator? (No, I do not think God is a fairy tale. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.) The other two possibilities are sheer chance or the panpsychist hypothesis I have spent so much time describing, but none of these hypotheses are sufficiently convincing for me to believe in them, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic. The problem of origin does not in any way justify your refusal to accept the possibility of cellular intelligence, but it does provide a convenient diversion from your “large organisms chauvinism”!

3979 views

i]

DAVID: What you have ignored is the necessary continuity from origin of life to the existing organisms we study. If cells are intelligent, where did the original intelligence in the first cells come from? You quietly drop in a suggestion about 'God-given', but after that the only other possibility is a rocky earth somehow invented living matter and gave it intelligence at the same time. You think God is a fairy tale, I think your hypothesis is all fairy tale.

dhw: How can you say I ignore it when I offer the possibility that God is the originator? (No, I do not think God is a fairy tale. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.) The other two possibilities are sheer chance or the panpsychist hypothesis I have spent so much time describing, but none of these hypotheses are sufficiently convincing for me to believe in them, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic. The problem of origin does not in any way justify your refusal to accept the possibility of cellular intelligence, but it does provide a convenient diversion from your “large organisms chauvinism”!

You have again skipped over the continuum of intelligence point I make. The very first cells had to have intelligent information in order to function. That information cannot originate from a rocky inorganic Earth. The appearance of intelligent activity by bacteria or the cells of a multicellular organism must recognize that origin.

3991 views

DAVID: What you have ignored is the necessary continuity from origin of life to the existing organisms we study. If cells are intelligent, where did the original intelligence in the first cells come from? You quietly drop in a suggestion about 'God-given', but after that the only other possibility is a rocky earth somehow invented living matter and gave it intelligence at the same time. You think God is a fairy tale, I think your hypothesis is all fairy tale.

dhw: How can you say I ignore it when I offer the possibility that God is the originator? (No, I do not think God is a fairy tale. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.) The other two possibilities are sheer chance or the panpsychist hypothesis I have spent so much time describing, but none of these hypotheses are sufficiently convincing for me to believe in them, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic. The problem of origin does not in any way justify your refusal to accept the possibility of cellular intelligence, but it does provide a convenient diversion from your “large organisms chauvinism”!

DAVID: You have again skipped over the continuum of intelligence point I make. The very first cells had to have intelligent information in order to function. That information cannot originate from a rocky inorganic Earth. The appearance of intelligent activity by bacteria or the cells of a multicellular organism must recognize that origin.

I hereby do solemnly declare that I recognize the fact that if cellular intelligence exists (it is a hypothesis), just like life itself it must have had an origin. I also hereby declare that nobody knows the origin of life or of cellular intelligence. And I also hereby declare that a god of some kind is one possible origin, that sheer chance is another possible origin, that some kind of panpsychic evolution is another possible origin, and that I can’t believe in any of these possible origins. And I finally hereby declare that my total ignorance of the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

4065 views

DAVID: You have again skipped over the continuum of intelligence point I make. The very first cells had to have intelligent information in order to function. That information cannot originate from a rocky inorganic Earth. The appearance of intelligent activity by bacteria or the cells of a multicellular organism must recognize that origin.

dhw: I hereby do solemnly declare that I recognize the fact that if cellular intelligence exists (it is a hypothesis), just like life itself it must have had an origin. I also hereby declare that nobody knows the origin of life or of cellular intelligence. And I also hereby declare that a god of some kind is one possible origin, that sheer chance is another possible origin, that some kind of panpsychic evolution is another possible origin, and that I can’t believe in any of these possible origins. And I finally hereby declare that my total ignorance of the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

You have again dismissed or skipped over the presence of intelligent information needed to have life appear.

3983 views

DAVID: You have again skipped over the continuum of intelligence point I make. The very first cells had to have intelligent information in order to function. That information cannot originate from a rocky inorganic Earth. The appearance of intelligent activity by bacteria or the cells of a multicellular organism must recognize that origin.

dhw: I hereby do solemnly declare that I recognize the fact that if cellular intelligence exists (it is a hypothesis), just like life itself it must have had an origin. I also hereby declare that nobody knows the origin of life or of cellular intelligence. And I also hereby declare that a god of some kind is one possible origin, that sheer chance is another possible origin, that some kind of panpsychic evolution is another possible origin, and that I can’t believe in any of these possible origins. And I finally hereby declare that my total ignorance of the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

DAVID: You have again dismissed or skipped over the presence of intelligent information needed to have life appear.

I define information as facts relating to a specific subject. I do not believe that information is intelligent, or is capable of achieving anything at all until it is USED.*** The information needed (and the manner in which it has been used) to have life and cellular intelligence appear may be the product of intelligence, may be the product of chance, or may be the product of some kind of panpsychic evolution, as stated above. Meanwhile, you have again dismissed or skipped over the fact that not knowing the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

*** QUOTE under “Information; applied to matter creates life”:
“Information itself has no material properties, it has no weight, it has no power to do anything. But when combined with enabling material technology, there are no limits to its power."

Precisely.

3988 views

DAVID: You have again dismissed or skipped over the presence of intelligent information needed to have life appear.

dhw: I define information as facts relating to a specific subject. I do not believe that information is intelligent, or is capable of achieving anything at all until it is USED.*** The information needed (and the manner in which it has been used) to have life and cellular intelligence appear may be the product of intelligence, may be the product of chance, or may be the product of some kind of panpsychic evolution, as stated above. Meanwhile, you have again dismissed or skipped over the fact that not knowing the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

I disagree. Information can be intelligent prior to it being used, but the intelligence behind it is demonstrated when it is used. Cellular intelligence is implanted as intelligent information.

*** QUOTE under “Information; applied to matter creates life”:
“Information itself has no material properties, it has no weight, it has no power to do anything. But when combined with enabling material technology, there are no limits to its power."

dhw: Precisely.

Agreed.

4009 views

DAVID: You have again dismissed or skipped over the presence of intelligent information needed to have life appear.

dhw: I define information as facts relating to a specific subject. I do not believe that information is intelligent, or is capable of achieving anything at all until it is USED.*** The information needed (and the manner in which it has been used) to have life and cellular intelligence appear may be the product of intelligence, may be the product of chance, or may be the product of some kind of panpsychic evolution, as stated above. Meanwhile, you have again dismissed or skipped over the fact that not knowing the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

DAVID: I disagree. Information can be intelligent prior to it being used, but the intelligence behind it is demonstrated when it is used. Cellular intelligence is implanted as intelligent information.

One meaning of “intelligence” is information, e.g. about the activities of foreign governments. So intelligent information would presumably mean informative information, which is a tautology. The other meaning of “intelligence” is the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. It is the creator of information or the user of information that has that ability. However, I am delighted to hear that you now believe there is such a thing as cellular intelligence (i.e. cells have the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc.) and it is indeed possible that it has been implanted, or that it arose by chance, or that it is the product of some form of panpsychism.

*** QUOTE under “Information; applied to matter creates life”:

“Information itself has no material properties, it has no weight, it has no power to do anything. But when combined with enabling material technology, there are no limits to its power."
dhw: Precisely.
DAVID: Agreed.

So the intelligence comes from whoever/whatever uses the information, or applies the “material technology”, e.g. ants using information about their own bodies, buoyancy, balance, the environment etc. to build their ant-rafts and ant-towers, or cells using information about the environment and about their own capacity for material cooperation and self-organization in order to adapt or innovate.

4012 views

dhw: I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. It is the creator of information or the user of information that has that ability. However, I am delighted to hear that you now believe there is such a thing as cellular intelligence (i.e. cells have the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc.) and it is indeed possible that it has been implanted, or that it arose by chance, or that it is the product of some form of panpsychism.

I believe there is implanted cellular intelligent information that cells have the ability to act upon, nothing more.

*** QUOTE under “Information; applied to matter creates life”:

“Information itself has no material properties, it has no weight, it has no power to do anything. But when combined with enabling material technology, there are no limits to its power."
dhw: Precisely.
DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: So the intelligence comes from whoever/whatever uses the information, or applies the “material technology”, e.g. ants using information about their own bodies, buoyancy, balance, the environment etc. to build their ant-rafts and ant-towers, or cells using information about the environment and about their own capacity for material cooperation and self-organization in order to adapt or innovate.

The intelligence in the information appears when the information is used by the cell.

3999 views

dhw: I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. It is the creator of information or the user of information that has that ability. However, I am delighted to hear that you now believe there is such a thing as cellular intelligence (i.e. cells have the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc.) and it is indeed possible that it has been implanted, or that it arose by chance, or that it is the product of some form of panpsychism.

DAVID: I believe there is implanted cellular intelligent information that cells have the ability to act upon, nothing more.

Once more, I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. (= my definition of intelligence). I define information as the facts related to a particular subject, and I propose that cells have the intelligence to act upon information within themselves (their own capabilities) and from outside themselves (their environment). If you disagree, please give us your own definitions of intelligence and of information.

*** QUOTE under “Information; applied to matter creates life”:
“Information itself has no material properties, it has no weight, it has no power to do anything. But when combined with enabling material technology, there are no limits to its power."
dhw: Precisely.
DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: So the intelligence comes from whoever/whatever uses the information, or applies the “material technology”, e.g. ants using information about their own bodies, buoyancy, balance, the environment etc. to build their ant-rafts and ant-towers, or cells using information about the environment and about their own capacity for material cooperation and self-organization in order to adapt or innovate.

DAVID: The intelligence in the information appears when the information is used by the cell.

Again, we need your definitions of both terms. I propose that the usefulness of the information appears when it used by the intelligence of the cell.

3982 views

dhw: Once more, I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. (= my definition of intelligence). I define information as the facts related to a particular subject, and I propose that cells have the intelligence to act upon information within themselves (their own capabilities) and from outside themselves (their environment). If you disagree, please give us your own definitions of intelligence and of information.

DAVID: The intelligence in the information appears when the information is used by the cell.

dhw: Again, we need your definitions of both terms. I propose that the usefulness of the information appears when it used by the intelligence of the cell.

Information can include instructions for plans of action. The builder acts upon the architectural plans and his workmen automatically construct. In this way a cell reads instructions I(information) and its parts automatically produce the required protein products.

4005 views

dhw: Once more, I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. (= my definition of intelligence). I define information as the facts related to a particular subject, and I propose that cells have the intelligence to act upon information within themselves (their own capabilities) and from outside themselves (their environment). If you disagree, please give us your own definitions of intelligence and of information.

DAVID: The intelligence in the information appears when the information is used by the cell.

dhw: Again, we need your definitions of both terms. I propose that the usefulness of the information appears when it used by the intelligence of the cell.

DAVID: Information can include instructions for plans of action. The builder acts upon the architectural plans and his workmen automatically construct. In this way a cell reads instructions I(information) and its parts automatically produce the required protein products.

Your analogy simply repeats your own belief that intelligent cellular behaviour means God issuing instructions or providing the plans, and cells automatically obeying them (I think most builders and workers would object to being called automatons!). But that is the whole point at issue. I am proposing that cells work out their own “plans”/ “instructions”, using information (i.e. known facts) about themselves and their environment, and I see the sentient, cognitive, communicative, cooperative, decision-making processes required for design and the implementation of design as attributes of intelligence. Perhaps for the sake of clarification you would now give us your own definitions of information and intelligence.

3995 views

DAVID: Information can include instructions for plans of action. The builder acts upon the architectural plans and his workmen automatically construct. In this way a cell reads instructions I(information) and its parts automatically produce the required protein products.

dhw: Your analogy simply repeats your own belief that intelligent cellular behaviour means God issuing instructions or providing the plans, and cells automatically obeying them (I think most builders and workers would object to being called automatons!). But that is the whole point at issue. I am proposing that cells work out their own “plans”/ “instructions”, using information (i.e. known facts) about themselves and their environment, and I see the sentient, cognitive, communicative, cooperative, decision-making processes required for design and the implementation of design as attributes of intelligence. Perhaps for the sake of clarification you would now give us your own definitions of information and intelligence.

I don't think I can be any clearer than my previous statements. Information implanted in cells are plans for conducting active living processes and the instructions for action. Information in the cell allows it to follow the genome's layers of codes and conduct its living actions. The appearance of 'cellular intelligence' is our interpretation of the resulting cellular actions we observe.

3988 views

DAVID: Information can include instructions for plans of action. The builder acts upon the architectural plans and his workmen automatically construct. In this way a cell reads instructions I(information) and its parts automatically produce the required protein products.

dhw: Your analogy simply repeats your own belief that intelligent cellular behaviour means God issuing instructions or providing the plans, and cells automatically obeying them (I think most builders and workers would object to being called automatons!). But that is the whole point at issue. I am proposing that cells work out their own “plans”/ “instructions”, using information (i.e. known facts) about themselves and their environment, and I see the sentient, cognitive, communicative, cooperative, decision-making processes required for design and the implementation of design as attributes of intelligence. Perhaps for the sake of clarification you would now give us your own definitions of information and intelligence.

DAVID: I don't think I can be any clearer than my previous statements. Information implanted in cells are plans for conducting active living processes and the instructions for action. Information in the cell allows it to follow the genome's layers of codes and conduct its living actions. The appearance of 'cellular intelligence' is our interpretation of the resulting cellular actions we observe.

Since you don't want to define the two terms, let’s forget all this stuff about “intelligent information” and stick to the basics, which are perfectly clear. Cells/cell communities act intelligently. You believe they are robots following God’s instructions. I propose that they have an autonomous intelligence of their own (possibly designed by your God). Both versions are “our interpretation”, and neither of us can prove the other wrong.

3969 views

dhw: Since you don't want to define the two terms, let’s forget all this stuff about “intelligent information” and stick to the basics, which are perfectly clear. Cells/cell communities act intelligently. You believe they are robots following God’s instructions. I propose that they have an autonomous intelligence of their own (possibly designed by your God). Both versions are “our interpretation”, and neither of us can prove the other wrong.

I think we both use the terms 'information' and 'intelligence' in the same way. I don't know what other definitions you need. Since we both stick to our own interpretations of what cells do, with no middle ground, and I think there is none, lets stop this thread here.

4001 views

This study shows the shape of the organic molecule carries information in its shape by a chemist who creates decoy shapes. Organic carbon chemistry carries the ability to create an endless number of 3-D shapes and this is most like so much information can be transmitted to allow the complexities of single cells and of course the cells in multicellular animals:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180402110736.htm

"Not only can synthetic molecules mimic the structures of their biological models, they can also take on their functions and may even successfully compete with them, as an artificial DNA sequence designed by Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet (LMU) in Munich chemist Ivan Huc now shows.

"Chemist Ivan Huc finds the inspiration for his work in the molecular principles that underlie biological systems. As the leader of a research group devoted to biomimetic supramolecular chemistry, he creates 'unnatural' molecules with defined, predetermined shapes that closely resemble the major biological polymers, proteins and DNA, found in cells. The backbones of these molecules are referred to as 'foldamers' because, like origami patterns, they adopt predictable shapes and can be easily modified in various ways. ... Huc has now succeeded in synthesizing a helical molecule that mimics surface features of the DNA double helix so closely that bona fide DNA-binding proteins interact with it.

***

"The new study shows that the synthetic compound is capable of inhibiting the activities of several DNA-processing enzymes, including the 'integrase' used by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) to insert its genome into that of its host cell.

***

"'As always in biology, shape determines function," he explains. In the new study, he introduces a synthetic molecule which folds into a helical structure that mimics surface features of the DNA double helix, and whose precise shape can be altered in a modular fashion by the attachment of various substituents. This enables the experimenter to imitate in detail the shape of natural DNA double helix, in particular the position of negative charges. The imitation is so convincing that it acts as a decoy for two DNA-binding enzymes, including the HIV integrase, which readily bind to it and are essentially inactivated. (my bold)

"However, the crucial question is whether or not the foldamer can effectively compete for the enzymes in the presence of their normal DNA substrate. "If the enzymes still bind to the foldamer under competitive conditions, then the mimic must be a better binder than the natural DNA itself," Huc says. And indeed, the study demonstrates that the HIV integrase binds more strongly to the foldamer than to natural DNA. "Furthermore, although initially designed to resemble DNA, the foldamer owes its most useful and valuable properties to the features that differentiate it from DNA," Huc points out."

Comment. Note my bold. It is very obvious that shape carries information. Each molecule in a series of molecular reactions tells the next molecule how to act. And as a result millions of molecules of different shape transmit the information that causes life to exist. This also explains why organic chemistry is so complex when compared to inorganic chemistry. The presence of organic chemistry on Earth is a result of the fact that life exists here. In my view the appearance of life from an inorganic Earth cannot be explained by the presence of a few organic chemicals lying around. It requires the exact shapes of each type of molecule to transmit meaningful actions. How can one doubt God's creation when this is understood? We are learning God's tricks, Look at the website to see the illustration of the decoy and what it copies.

3641 views

Cells are found to be like computer chips:

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-circuit-boards-body-cells.html

"Cells in the body are wired like computer chips to direct signals that instruct how they function, research suggests.

"Unlike a fixed circuit board, however, cells can rapidly rewire their communication networks to change their behaviour.

"The discovery of this cell-wide web turns our understanding of how instructions spread around a cell on its head.

"It was thought that the various organs and structures inside a cell float around in an open sea called the cytoplasm.

***

"Researchers at the University of Edinburgh found information is carried across a web of guide wires that transmit signals across tiny, nanoscale distances.

"It is the movement of charged molecules across these tiny distances that transmit information, just as in a computer microprocessor, the researchers say.

"These localised signals are responsible for orchestrating the cell's activities, such as instructing muscle cells to relax or contract.

"When these signals reach the genetic material at the heart of the cell, called the nucleus, they instruct minute changes in structure that release specific genes so that they can be expressed.

"These changes in gene expression further alter the behaviour of the cell. When, for instance, the cell moves from a steady state into a growth phase, the web is completely reconfigured to transmit signals that switch on the genes needed for growth.

***

"The team made their discovery by studying the movement of charged calcium molecules inside cells, which are the key messages that carry instructions inside cells.

"Using high-powered microscopes, they were able to observe the wiring network with the help of computing techniques similar to those that enabled the first ever image of a black hole to be obtained.

"Scientists say their findings are an example of quantum biology—an emerging field that uses quantum mechanics and theoretical chemistry to solve biological problems.

***

"Professor Mark Evans, of the University of Edinburgh's Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, said: "We found that cell function is coordinated by a network of nanotubes, similar to the carbon nanotubes you find in a computer microprocessor.

"'The most striking thing is that this circuit is highly flexible, as this cell-wide web can rapidly reconfigure to deliver different outputs in a manner determined by the information received by and relayed from the nucleus. This is something no man-made microprocessors or circuit boards are yet capable of achieving.'" (my bold)

Comment: This is the kind of process I have assumed we would find with quantum study of cellular activity. This why cells appear to act intelligently. They have been given the information and the networks to do so. They have a marked degree of flexible controls. Your experts who have assumed cells are innately intelligent have not had this new information about how cells operate. This is well beyond anything a Darwin-style evolution could develop. It requires exquisite design by a master designer. God is required.

2686 views

Dhw (earlier post under “bacterial intelligence”): So far, bacteria have found means of resisting just about everything that humans and Nature can throw at them. They simply use whatever materials are available to ensure their survival. Isn’t it strange that our highly developed intelligence is still unable to get the better of what some people believe to be unthinking automatons? Maybe they have a different form of intelligence from ours?

DAVID: Just perhaps it is the grand intelligence who first created them and gave them these automatic abilities?

If they are “automatic”, they are not abilities, they are programmes your God assembled from the very beginning to solve every single problem that bacteria would face throughout the rest of life’s history. The unlikelihood of this is compounded by the article dealt with here, especially by your bolded paragraph:

QUOTE: "'The most striking thing is that this circuit is highly flexible, as this cell-wide web can rapidly reconfigure to deliver different outputs in a manner determined by the information received by and relayed from the nucleus. This is something no man-made microprocessors or circuit boards are yet capable of achieving.'"(David's bold)

The comparison between organic intelligence and computers is a commonplace, but as your bold says quite explicitly, the cell’s materials can reconfigure themselves in response to new information in a manner that computers cannot. A perfect image for evolution by autonomous as opposed to preprogrammed activity.

DAVID: This is the kind of process I have assumed we would find with quantum study of cellular activity. This why cells appear to act intelligently. They have been given the information and the networks to do so. They have a marked degree of flexible controls. Your experts who have assumed cells are innately intelligent have not had this new information about how cells operate.

As always, you the self-professed dualist take the physical processes to be the source of the decisions that lead to the “reconfigurations”. Yes, the information is provided physically, and yes the process of reconfiguration is physical, but how the information is processed and how the new decisions are reached remains a mystery. That is where the computer image breaks down, as is all too evident from the above passage.

DAVID: This is well beyond anything a Darwin-style evolution could develop. It requires exquisite design by a master designer. God is required.

Darwin did not deal with the origin of the mechanisms that drive evolution (although in later editions he frequently refers to the Creator). I have always accepted the argument that the complexities of my (still unproven) cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. That is not the issue here.

2695 views

Dhw (earlier post under “bacterial intelligence”): So far, bacteria have found means of resisting just about everything that humans and Nature can throw at them. They simply use whatever materials are available to ensure their survival. Isn’t it strange that our highly developed intelligence is still unable to get the better of what some people believe to be unthinking automatons? Maybe they have a different form of intelligence from ours?

DAVID: Just perhaps it is the grand intelligence who first created them and gave them these automatic abilities?

dhw: If they are “automatic”, they are not abilities, they are programmes your God assembled from the very beginning to solve every single problem that bacteria would face throughout the rest of life’s history. The unlikelihood of this is compounded by the article dealt with here, especially by your bolded paragraph:

QUOTE: "'The most striking thing is that this circuit is highly flexible, as this cell-wide web can rapidly reconfigure to deliver different outputs in a manner determined by the information received by and relayed from the nucleus. This is something no man-made microprocessors or circuit boards are yet capable of achieving.'"(David's bold)

The comparison between organic intelligence and computers is a commonplace, but as your bold says quite explicitly, the cell’s materials can reconfigure themselves in response to new information in a manner that computers cannot. A perfect image for evolution by autonomous as opposed to preprogrammed activity.

Are you missing the point that the ability of the cells to reconfigure themselves is part of the programming I believe exists? Again it is 50/50 in probability, and I'll stick with programming will not accept chance evolution at this level of complexity

DAVID: This is the kind of process I have assumed we would find with quantum study of cellular activity. This why cells appear to act intelligently. They have been given the information and the networks to do so. They have a marked degree of flexible controls. Your experts who have assumed cells are innately intelligent have not had this new information about how cells operate.

dhw: As always, you the self-professed dualist take the physical processes to be the source of the decisions that lead to the “reconfigurations”. Yes, the information is provided physically, and yes the process of reconfiguration is physical, but how the information is processed and how the new decisions are reached remains a mystery. That is where the computer image breaks down, as is all too evident from the above passage.

That is exactly correct, cells are way more advanced than our static computers, and the nucleus is programmed to make the appropriate changes, another layer of teh complexity of the genome

DAVID: This is well beyond anything a Darwin-style evolution could develop. It requires exquisite design by a master designer. God is required.

dhw: Darwin did not deal with the origin of the mechanisms that drive evolution (although in later editions he frequently refers to the Creator). I have always accepted the argument that the complexities of my (still unproven) cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. That is not the issue here.

Darwin's first book shows his real feelings. My thought is that social pressures made him pop in God later.

2682 views

QUOTE: "'The most striking thing is that this circuit is highly flexible, as this cell-wide web can rapidly reconfigure to deliver different outputs in a manner determined by the information received by and relayed from the nucleus. This is something no man-made microprocessors or circuit boards are yet capable of achieving.'"(David's bold)

Dhw: The comparison between organic intelligence and computers is a commonplace, but as your bold says quite explicitly, the cell’s materials can reconfigure themselves in response to new information in a manner that computers cannot. A perfect image for evolution by autonomous as opposed to preprogrammed activity.

DAVID: Are you missing the point that the ability of the cells to reconfigure themselves is part of the programming I believe exists? Again it is 50/50 in probability, and I'll stick with programming will not accept chance evolution at this level of complexity.

I could hardly miss your point, since you continue to insist that every single cellular response to every single environmental change in the history of evolution was either divinely dabbled or preprogrammed in the very first cells, and passed down through millions and millions of generations of life forms. As for your final comment here, how often do I have to repeat that I do not accept chance evolution either? The alternative for me is not chance but a possibly God-given autonomous intelligence. Since you concede 50/50, I really don’t know why you then go to insist that for you it’s 100/0.

dhw: As always, you the self-professed dualist take the physical processes to be the source of the decisions that lead to the “reconfigurations”. Yes, the information is provided physically, and yes the process of reconfiguration is physical, but how the information is processed and how the new decisions are reached remains a mystery. That is where the computer image breaks down, as is all too evident from the above passage.

DAVID: That is exactly correct, cells are way more advanced than our static computers, and the nucleus is programmed to make the appropriate changes, another layer of teh complexity of the genome.

dhw: Thank you. So let us forget the inadequate computer image. Your programming comment (in which 50/50 = 100/0) is answered above.

DAVID: This is well beyond anything a Darwin-style evolution could develop. It requires exquisite design by a master designer. God is required.

dhw: Darwin did not deal with the origin of the mechanisms that drive evolution (although in later editions he frequently refers to the Creator). I have always accepted the argument that the complexities of my (still unproven) cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. That is not the issue here.

DAVID: Darwin's first book shows his real feelings. My thought is that social pressures made him pop in God later.

As you well know, Darwin said explicitly that he regarded himself as an agnostic. But my point is that he did not deal with the origin of the mechanism, so why bring him into it? The issue here is the nature of the mechanism, not the existence of God.

2687 views

DAVID: Are you missing the point that the ability of the cells to reconfigure themselves is part of the programming I believe exists? Again it is 50/50 in probability, and I'll stick with programming will not accept chance evolution at this level of complexity.

dhw: I could hardly miss your point, since you continue to insist that every single cellular response to every single environmental change in the history of evolution was either divinely dabbled or preprogrammed in the very first cells, and passed down through millions and millions of generations of life forms. As for your final comment here, how often do I have to repeat that I do not accept chance evolution either? The alternative for me is not chance but a possibly God-given autonomous intelligence. Since you concede 50/50, I really don’t know why you then go to insist that for you it’s 100/0.

Because of this aspect of my thinking from the whale thread today: "My comment about cell intelligence relates only to the momentary activities of individual cells as they respond to stimuli or manufacture necessary proteins. It does not apply to your fantasy that cells can invent new complex forms of whole animals."

DAVID: This is well beyond anything a Darwin-style evolution could develop. It requires exquisite design by a master designer. God is required.

dhw: Darwin did not deal with the origin of the mechanisms that drive evolution (although in later editions he frequently refers to the Creator). I have always accepted the argument that the complexities of my (still unproven) cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. That is not the issue here.

DAVID: Darwin's first book shows his real feelings. My thought is that social pressures made him pop in God later.

dhw: As you well know, Darwin said explicitly that he regarded himself as an agnostic. But my point is that he did not deal with the origin of the mechanism, so why bring him into it? The issue here is the nature of the mechanism, not the existence of God.

But in considering mechanisms God is always involved. that is the underlying point of this website

2697 views

DAVID: Are you missing the point that the ability of the cells to reconfigure themselves is part of the programming I believe exists? Again it is 50/50 in probability, and I'll stick with programming will not accept chance evolution at this level of complexity.

dhw: I could hardly miss your point, since you continue to insist that every single cellular response to every single environmental change in the history of evolution was either divinely dabbled or preprogrammed in the very first cells, and passed down through millions and millions of generations of life forms. As for your final comment here, how often do I have to repeat that I do not accept chance evolution either? The alternative for me is not chance but a possibly God-given autonomous intelligence. Since you concede 50/50, I really don’t know why you then go to insist that for you it’s 100/0.

DAVID: Because of this aspect of my thinking from the whale thread today: "My comment about cell intelligence relates only to the momentary activities of individual cells as they respond to stimuli or manufacture necessary proteins. It does not apply to your fantasy that cells can invent new complex forms of whole animals."

Answered on the whale thread, except that if you think the autonomous ability of cells to “reconfigure” themselves momentarily is 50/50, you can hardly discount the possibility that this ability may extend beyond the momentary.

DAVID: This is well beyond anything a Darwin-style evolution could develop. It requires exquisite design by a master designer. God is required.

dhw: Darwin did not deal with the origin of the mechanisms that drive evolution (although in later editions he frequently refers to the Creator). I have always accepted the argument that the complexities of my (still unproven) cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. That is not the issue here.

DAVID: Darwin's first book shows his real feelings. My thought is that social pressures made him pop in God later.

dhw: As you well know, Darwin said explicitly that he regarded himself as an agnostic. But my point is that he did not deal with the origin of the mechanism, so why bring him into it? The issue here is the nature of the mechanism, not the existence of God.

DAVID: But in considering mechanisms God is always involved. that is the underlying point of this website

The underlying point of this website is to discuss every theoretical solution to the unsolved mysteries of the universe. For those of us who believe in evolution, the unsolved mystery is how speciation occurs. Godly preprogramming and dabbling are one possible solution; a godly or godless autonomous mechanism is another; godly or godless random mutations are another. Speciation is the subject here, and not the existence of God.

2700 views

DAVID: Because of this aspect of my thinking from the whale thread today: "My comment about cell intelligence relates only to the momentary activities of individual cells as they respond to stimuli or manufacture necessary proteins. It does not apply to your fantasy that cells can invent new complex forms of whole animals."

dhw: Answered on the whale thread, except that if you think the autonomous ability of cells to “reconfigure” themselves momentarily is 50/50, you can hardly discount the possibility that this ability may extend beyond the momentary.

Again, you miss the point. Cells have the ability to reconfigure chemical reactions to immediate stimuli, but the cells themselves are not changed. What is 50/50 is only applied to the debate about innate intelligence vs intelligent information controlling their immediate actions. It is a pipe dream to assume they can design and manufacture new forms by committee actions.

DAVID: This is well beyond anything a Darwin-style evolution could develop. It requires exquisite design by a master designer. God is required.

dhw: Darwin did not deal with the origin of the mechanisms that drive evolution (although in later editions he frequently refers to the Creator). I have always accepted the argument that the complexities of my (still unproven) cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. That is not the issue here.

DAVID: Darwin's first book shows his real feelings. My thought is that social pressures made him pop in God later.

dhw: As you well know, Darwin said explicitly that he regarded himself as an agnostic. But my point is that he did not deal with the origin of the mechanism, so why bring him into it? The issue here is the nature of the mechanism, not the existence of God.

DAVID: But in considering mechanisms God is always involved. that is the underlying point of this website

dhw: The underlying point of this website is to discuss every theoretical solution to the unsolved mysteries of the universe. For those of us who believe in evolution, the unsolved mystery is how speciation occurs. Godly preprogramming and dabbling are one possible solution; a godly or godless autonomous mechanism is another; godly or godless random mutations are another. Speciation is the subject here, and not the existence of God.

As an agnostic you may want to skip over God's role, but I consider Him as an answer to the unanswered questions.

2695 views

dhw: [...] if you think the autonomous ability of cells to “reconfigure” themselves momentarily is 50/50, you can hardly discount the possibility that this ability may extend beyond the momentary.

DAVID: Again, you miss the point. Cells have the ability to reconfigure chemical reactions to immediate stimuli, but the cells themselves are not changed. What is 50/50 is only applied to the debate about innate intelligence vs intelligent information controlling their immediate actions. It is a pipe dream to assume they can design and manufacture new forms by committee actions.

Again you miss the point that any innovation has to involve a restructuring of the cell communities that make up every multicellular organism, whether your God did it or not. According to you, the majority of scientists now accept the idea that cells are intelligent, but of course nobody knows the cause of speciation, and the idea that cellular intelligence (perhaps God-given) might lie at the heart of the process remains a hypothesis. However, I doubt if many scientists would regard it as more of a pipe dream than the hypothesis that an unknown power provided the first cells with a computer programme for every innovation, or alternatively popped in to perform operations on various organisms to prepare them for events over which – in your latest hypothesis concerning local environmental changes – he had no control.

DAVID: But in considering mechanisms God is always involved. that is the underlying point of this website

dhw: The underlying point of this website is to discuss every theoretical solution to the unsolved mysteries of the universe. For those of us who believe in evolution, the unsolved mystery is how speciation occurs. Godly preprogramming and dabbling are one possible solution; a godly or godless autonomous mechanism is another; godly or godless random mutations are another. Speciation is the subject here, and not the existence of God.

DAVID: As an agnostic you may want to skip over God's role, but I consider Him as an answer to the unanswered questions.

The question we are dealing with here is speciation. “God” is not an answer if you propose that your God preprogrammed or dabbled it all, and I propose that your God designed an autonomous mechanism. You repeatedly try to make out that my agnosticism invalidates any criticism of your highly subjective view of your God’s purposes and methods. Sorry, but that is a total cop-out.

2715 views

dhw: [...] if you think the autonomous ability of cells to “reconfigure” themselves momentarily is 50/50, you can hardly discount the possibility that this ability may extend beyond the momentary.

DAVID: Again, you miss the point. Cells have the ability to reconfigure chemical reactions to immediate stimuli, but the cells themselves are not changed. What is 50/50 is only applied to the debate about innate intelligence vs intelligent information controlling their immediate actions. It is a pipe dream to assume they can design and manufacture new forms by committee actions.

dhw: Again you miss the point that any innovation has to involve a restructuring of the cell communities that make up every multicellular organism, whether your God did it or not. According to you, the majority of scientists now accept the idea that cells are intelligent,

All I have agreed to is all current scientists know is cellular responses to stimuli can be interpreted as intelligent results. No one knows how that is achieved.

dhw: but of course nobody knows the cause of speciation, and the idea that cellular intelligence (perhaps God-given) might lie at the heart of the process remains a hypothesis. However, I doubt if many scientists would regard it as more of a pipe dream than the hypothesis that an unknown power provided the first cells with a computer programme for every innovation, or alternatively popped in to perform operations on various organisms to prepare them for events over which – in your latest hypothesis concerning local environmental changes – he had no control.

No one knows how life got a start. We all have our own hypotheses.

DAVID: But in considering mechanisms God is always involved. that is the underlying point of this website

dhw: The underlying point of this website is to discuss every theoretical solution to the unsolved mysteries of the universe. For those of us who believe in evolution, the unsolved mystery is how speciation occurs. Godly preprogramming and dabbling are one possible solution; a godly or godless autonomous mechanism is another; godly or godless random mutations are another. Speciation is the subject here, and not the existence of God.

DAVID: As an agnostic you may want to skip over God's role, but I consider Him as an answer to the unanswered questions.

dhw: The question we are dealing with here is speciation. “God” is not an answer if you propose that your God preprogrammed or dabbled it all, and I propose that your God designed an autonomous mechanism. You repeatedly try to make out that my agnosticism invalidates any criticism of your highly subjective view of your God’s purposes and methods. Sorry, but that is a total cop-out.

Of course God is an answer just as you describe my thoughts. I agree that God might have designed a semi-autonomous design mechanism, but you view God as wishy-washy in control of evolution, and i view Him in firm control.

2698 views

DAVID: Again, you miss the point. Cells have the ability to reconfigure chemical reactions to immediate stimuli, but the cells themselves are not changed. What is 50/50 is only applied to the debate about innate intelligence vs intelligent information controlling their immediate actions. It is a pipe dream to assume they can design and manufacture new forms by committee actions.

dhw: Again you miss the point that any innovation has to involve a restructuring of the cell communities that make up every multicellular organism, whether your God did it or not. According to you, the majority of scientists now accept the idea that cells are intelligent.

DAVID: All I have agreed to is all current scientists know is cellular responses to stimuli can be interpreted as intelligent results. No one knows how that is achieved.

Indeed, just as no one knows how speciation is achieved. You have not responded to the point that innovations require restructuring of cell communities, whether God did it or not. And so we are left with the fact that you disagree with those scientists who believe cells are intelligent, and you categorically reject as a pipe dream the hypothesis that this (perhaps God-given) intelligence might possibly extend to innovation.

dhw: I doubt if many scientists would regard it as more of a pipe dream than the hypothesis that an unknown power provided the first cells with a computer programme for every innovation, or alternatively popped in to perform operations on various organisms to prepare them for events over which – in your latest hypothesis concerning local environmental changes – he had no control.

DAVID: No one knows how life got a start. We all have our own hypotheses.
Indeed, and no one knows how speciation happens, but any hypothesis other than your own is apparently a pipe dream.

DAVID: As an agnostic you may want to skip over God's role, but I consider Him as an answer to the unanswered questions.

dhw: The question we are dealing with here is speciation. “God” is not an answer if you propose that your God preprogrammed or dabbled it all, and I propose that your God designed an autonomous mechanism. You repeatedly try to make out that my agnosticism invalidates any criticism of your highly subjective view of your God’s purposes and methods. Sorry, but that is a total cop-out.

DAVID: Of course God is an answer just as you describe my thoughts. I agree that God might have designed a semi-autonomous design mechanism, but you view God as wishy-washy in control of evolution, and i view Him in firm control.

Semi-autonomous is meaningless. Either he did or he didn’t preprogramme or dabble every design. There is nothing “wishy-washy” about a God who decides to create an autonomous mechanism that takes its own decisions – or are you now telling us that your God is wishy-washy because he gave humans free will? Your “firm control” contradicts your belief that the only thing he wanted to design was H. sapiens, but for some unknown reason he proceeded to design 3.5+ billion years’ worth of non-human life forms. Furthermore, you have recently decided that he did NOT control local environmental changes, which means he did not control the very thing which his innovations were designed in advance to cope with! A weird kind of "firm control".

2693 views

DAVID: All I have agreed to is all current scientists know is cellular responses to stimuli can be interpreted as intelligent results. No one knows how that is achieved.

dhw: Indeed, just as no one knows how speciation is achieved. You have not responded to the point that innovations require restructuring of cell communities, whether God did it or not. And so we are left with the fact that you disagree with those scientists who believe cells are intelligent, and you categorically reject as a pipe dream the hypothesis that this (perhaps God-given) intelligence might possibly extend to innovation.

No need to respond: It is obvious that groups of cells are modified in speciation. and yes, pipe dream.

dhw: I doubt if many scientists would regard it as more of a pipe dream than the hypothesis that an unknown power provided the first cells with a computer programme for every innovation, or alternatively popped in to perform operations on various organisms to prepare them for events over which – in your latest hypothesis concerning local environmental changes – he had no control.

DAVID: No one knows how life got a start. We all have our own hypotheses.
Indeed, and no one knows how speciation happens, but any hypothesis other than your own is apparently a pipe dream.

DAVID: As an agnostic you may want to skip over God's role, but I consider Him as an answer to the unanswered questions.

dhw: The question we are dealing with here is speciation. “God” is not an answer if you propose that your God preprogrammed or dabbled it all, and I propose that your God designed an autonomous mechanism. You repeatedly try to make out that my agnosticism invalidates any criticism of your highly subjective view of your God’s purposes and methods. Sorry, but that is a total cop-out.

DAVID: Of course God is an answer just as you describe my thoughts. I agree that God might have designed a semi-autonomous design mechanism, but you view God as wishy-washy in control of evolution, and i view Him in firm control.

dhw: Semi-autonomous is meaningless.

Semi-autonomous applies only to the mechanism you imagine God might have given to organisms so they can speciate.

dhw: Either he did or he didn’t preprogramme or dabble every design. There is nothing “wishy-washy” about a God who decides to create an autonomous mechanism that takes its own decisions – or are you now telling us that your God is wishy-washy because he gave humans free will?

Comment is totally off the point I made and further explained above. I view God as maintaining tight control of evolution. You, obviously, do not.

dhw: Your “firm control” contradicts your belief that the only thing he wanted to design was H. sapiens, but for some unknown reason he proceeded to design 3.5+ billion years’ worth of non-human life forms. Furthermore, you have recently decided that he did NOT control local environmental changes, which means he did not control the very thing which his innovations were designed in advance to cope with! A weird kind of "firm control".

You make a constant note that species come and go. Succumbing to environmental changes is part of the pattern of evolution. Your comment is way off point. God does not offer any plan to maintain all species forever, which is the implication!

2699 views

DAVID: All I have agreed to is all current scientists know is cellular responses to stimuli can be interpreted as intelligent results. No one knows how that is achieved.

dhw: Indeed, just as no one knows how speciation is achieved. You have not responded to the point that innovations require restructuring of cell communities, whether God did it or not. And so we are left with the fact that you disagree with those scientists who believe cells are intelligent, and you categorically reject as a pipe dream the hypothesis that this (perhaps God-given) intelligence might possibly extend to innovation.

DAVID: No need to respond: It is obvious that groups of cells are modified in speciation. and yes, pipe dream.

You wrote that “cells have the ability to reconfigure chemical reactions to immediate stimuli, but the cells themselves are not changed.” The cell communities ARE changed. See the whale thread for your dismissal of Shapiro’s theory as a pipe dream.

Under “biological complexity”: "'Shortly after cells invented how to make proteins, they were also faced with determining how to deal with incompletely made proteins," Joazeiro says. "The analyses suggest that an Rqc2 homolog in the last universal common ancestor already carried out this task.'" (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: The story implies the automaticity of cells while manufacturing, which is constant. Also the final bolded comment is what I always point out: when the first cell is originated (designed), these defense mechanism against mistakes have to also be created at the same time or life would not survive. Step-by-step evolution is impossible.

“Cells invented” apparently = automaticity, and “shortly after” = at the same time.

2685 views

DAVID: All I have agreed to is all current scientists know is cellular responses to stimuli can be interpreted as intelligent results. No one knows how that is achieved.

dhw: Indeed, just as no one knows how speciation is achieved. You have not responded to the point that innovations require restructuring of cell communities, whether God did it or not. And so we are left with the fact that you disagree with those scientists who believe cells are intelligent, and you categorically reject as a pipe dream the hypothesis that this (perhaps God-given) intelligence might possibly extend to innovation.

DAVID: No need to respond: It is obvious that groups of cells are modified in speciation. and yes, pipe dream.

dhw: You wrote that “cells have the ability to reconfigure chemical reactions to immediate stimuli, but the cells themselves are not changed.” The cell communities ARE changed. See the whale thread for your dismissal of Shapiro’s theory as a pipe dream.

Cells are changed in speciation, which neither of us knows how it happens

Under “biological complexity”: "'Shortly after cells invented how to make proteins, they were also faced with determining how to deal with incompletely made proteins," Joazeiro says. "The analyses suggest that an Rqc2 homolog in the last universal common ancestor already carried out this task.'" (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: The story implies the automaticity of cells while manufacturing, which is constant. Also the final bolded comment is what I always point out: when the first cell is originated (designed), these defense mechanism against mistakes have to also be created at the same time or life would not survive. Step-by-step evolution is impossible.

dhw: “Cells invented” apparently = automaticity, and “shortly after” = at the same time.

Where did Rqc2 come from. Supplied by God , not invented by chance

2679 views

dhw: You wrote that “cells have the ability to reconfigure chemical reactions to immediate stimuli, but the cells themselves are not changed.” The cell communities ARE changed. See the whale thread for your dismissal of Shapiro’s theory as a pipe dream.

DAVID: Cells are changed in speciation, which neither of us knows how it happens.

Thank you. Cells ARE changed. Neither of us knows, but you insist that Shapiro’s theory is a pipe dream, whereas your own theory of divine preprogramming and/or dabbling is not a pipe dream.

Under “biological complexity”: "'Shortly after cells invented how to make proteins, they were also faced with determining how to deal with incompletely made proteins," Joazeiro says. "The analyses suggest that an Rqc2 homolog in the last universal common ancestor already carried out this task.[/b]'" (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: The story implies the automaticity of cells while manufacturing, which is constant. Also the final bolded comment is what I always point out: when the first cell is originated (designed), these defense mechanism against mistakes have to also be created at the same time or life would not survive. Step-by-step evolution is impossible.

dhw: “Cells invented” apparently = automaticity, and “shortly after” = at the same time.

DAVID: Where did Rqc2 come from. Supplied by God , not invented by chance

It is automaticity and simultaneity that I am questioning here – not the existence of God and not the odds against chance.

2682 views

dhw: You wrote that “cells have the ability to reconfigure chemical reactions to immediate stimuli, but the cells themselves are not changed.” The cell communities ARE changed. See the whale thread for your dismissal of Shapiro’s theory as a pipe dream.

DAVID: Cells are changed in speciation, which neither of us knows how it happens.

dhw: Thank you. Cells ARE changed. Neither of us knows, but you insist that Shapiro’s theory is a pipe dream, whereas your own theory of divine preprogramming and/or dabbling is not a pipe dream.

Under “biological complexity”: "'Shortly after cells invented how to make proteins, they were also faced with determining how to deal with incompletely made proteins," Joazeiro says. "The analyses suggest that an Rqc2 homolog in the last universal common ancestor already carried out this task.[/b]'" (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: The story implies the automaticity of cells while manufacturing, which is constant. Also the final bolded comment is what I always point out: when the first cell is originated (designed), these defense mechanism against mistakes have to also be created at the same time or life would not survive. Step-by-step evolution is impossible.

dhw: “Cells invented” apparently = automaticity, and “shortly after” = at the same time.

DAVID: Where did Rqc2 come from. Supplied by God , not invented by chance

dhw: It is automaticity and simultaneity that I am questioning here – not the existence of God and not the odds against chance.

It cannot be explained by 'thinking' cells

2678 views

There is a newly found network from the retina which controls pupillary size:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-eyes-unexpected-brain.html

"New research, led by Northwestern University, has found that a subset of retinal neurons sends inhibitory signals to the brain. Before, researchers believed the eye only sends excitatory signals.

***

"The Northwestern researchers also found that this subset of retinal neurons is involved in subconscious behaviors, such as synchronization of circadian rhythms to light/dark cycles and pupil constriction to intense bright lights. By better understanding how these neurons function, researchers can explore new pathways by which light influences our behavior.

"'These inhibitory signals prevent our circadian clock from resetting to dim light and prevent pupil constriction in low light, both of which are adaptive for proper vision and daily function," said Northwestern's Tiffany Schmidt, who led the research. "We think that our results provide a mechanism for understanding why our eye is so exquisitely sensitive to light, but our subconscious behaviors are comparatively insensitive to light."

***

"To conduct the study, Schmidt and her team blocked the retinal neurons responsible for inhibitory signaling in a mouse model. When this signal was blocked, dim light was more effective at shifting the mice's circadian rhythms.

"'This suggests that there is a signal from the eye that actively inhibits circadian rhythms realignment when environmental light changes, which was unexpected," Schmidt said. "This makes some sense, however, because you do not want to adjust your body's entire clock for minor perturbations in the environmental light/dark cycle, you only want this massive adjustment to take place if the change in lighting is robust."

"Schmidt's team also found that, when the inhibitory signals from the eye were blocked, mice's pupils were much more sensitive to light.

"'Our working hypothesis is that this mechanism keeps pupils from constricting in very low light," Sonoda said. "This increases the amount of light hitting your retina, and makes it easier to see in low light conditions. This mechanism explains, in least part, why your pupils avoid constricting until bright light intensifies.'"

Comment: our eyes are exquisitely sensitive, and our night vision is a very real asset. This has to be a designed system.

2143 views

Thank you for three more possible examples of cellular intelligence at work:

How plants got leaves

QUOTES: "Dr. Jill Harrison, the study's lead author and Senior Lecturer from Bristol's School of Biological Sciences, explains: "By comparing our new findings from a moss with previous findings, we can see that a pre-existing genetic network was remodelled to allow shoot systems to arise in plant evolution."
"This discovery furthers our basic understanding of how genes regulate plant shape, which could inform efforts to engineer shape and improve the yield of future crops."

DAVID: Looks like pre-planning to me. Not by chance. The changes are too complex for that.

Agreed that it’s not by chance, but why “pre-planning”? Is it not possible that intelligent cells (whose intelligence may have been given to them by your God, who may have created a natural order which runs itself, as in “Reading God’s divine nature”) worked out a way of improving their chances of survival by making fuller use of their environment?

X

Horizontal gene transfer

Quotes: Cell-cell signaling allows a cell to spread the word to its neighbors that it already has a copy of ICEBs1, so there's no need to bother assembling the transfer machinery. If this fails, exclusion kicks in to physically block the transfer machinery from penetrating the recipient cell. If that proves unsuccessful and the second copy enters the recipient, immunity will initiate and prevent the second copy from being integrated into the recipient's chromosome.
"'Each mechanism acts at a different step, because none of them alone are 100 percent effective," Grossman says. "That's why it's helpful to have multiple mechanisms."
They don't know all the details of this transfer machinery just yet, he adds…

Doesn’t cell-cell signalling suggest that cells know what they are doing? And of course nobody knows all the details: nobody knows how intelligence works.

x

Introducing the brain

QUOTE: Brain cells, or neurons, constantly tinker with their circuit connections, a crucial feature that allows the brain to store and process information. While neurons frequently test out new potential partners through transient contacts, only a fraction of fledging junctions, called synapses, are selected to become permanent.

It sounds as though the cells make their own decisions about tinkering and selecting.

2462 views

Thank you for three more possible examples of cellular intelligence at work:

How plants got leaves

QUOTES: "Dr. Jill Harrison, the study's lead author and Senior Lecturer from Bristol's School of Biological Sciences, explains: "By comparing our new findings from a moss with previous findings, we can see that a pre-existing genetic network was remodelled to allow shoot systems to arise in plant evolution."
"This discovery furthers our basic understanding of how genes regulate plant shape, which could inform efforts to engineer shape and improve the yield of future crops."

DAVID: Looks like pre-planning to me. Not by chance. The changes are too complex for that.

dhw: Agreed that it’s not by chance, but why “pre-planning”? Is it not possible that intelligent cells (whose intelligence may have been given to them by your God, who may have created a natural order which runs itself, as in “Reading God’s divine nature”) worked out a way of improving their chances of survival by making fuller use of their environment?

X

Horizontal gene transfer

Quotes: Cell-cell signaling allows a cell to spread the word to its neighbors that it already has a copy of ICEBs1, so there's no need to bother assembling the transfer machinery. If this fails, exclusion kicks in to physically block the transfer machinery from penetrating the recipient cell. If that proves unsuccessful and the second copy enters the recipient, immunity will initiate and prevent the second copy from being integrated into the recipient's chromosome.
"'Each mechanism acts at a different step, because none of them alone are 100 percent effective," Grossman says. "That's why it's helpful to have multiple mechanisms."
They don't know all the details of this transfer machinery just yet, he adds…

dhw: Doesn’t cell-cell signalling suggest that cells know what they are doing? And of course nobody knows all the details: nobody knows how intelligence works.

x

Introducing the brain

QUOTE: Brain cells, or neurons, constantly tinker with their circuit connections, a crucial feature that allows the brain to store and process information. While neurons frequently test out new potential partners through transient contacts, only a fraction of fledging junctions, called synapses, are selected to become permanent.

dhw: It sounds as though the cells make their own decisions about tinkering and selecting.

And it is very likely they are designed to contain intelligent instructions covering every possible need to respond.

2464 views

Cellular filaments and tubules have several functions:

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-shape-shifting-skeletons-cells.html

"Cellular skeletons, or cytoskeletons, are shapeshifting networks of tiny protein filaments, enabling cells to propel themselves, carry cargo, and divide. Now, an interdisciplinary team of Caltech researchers has designed a way to study and manipulate the cytoskeleton in test tubes in the lab.

***

"The building blocks of the cellular cytoskeleton are thin, tube-like filaments called microtubules that can form together into three-dimensional scaffolds. Each microtubule is 1,000 times thinner than a human hair and only about 10 micrometers long (about 1,000 times smaller than a common black ant). Along with motor proteins that power movement, these incredibly small structures combine to propel the relatively large cell—like ants steering and powering a car.

"In previous studies, researchers have taken these molecules out of the cell and put them into test tubes, where the tubules and motor proteins spontaneously group together to organize themselves into star-shaped structures called asters. How asters in a test tube are related to a cytoskeleton powering cell movement, however, is still unclear. Moreover, the collective microtubule organization demonstrated by aster formation involves interacting forces that are not entirely understood.

***

"Controlling the asters not only allowed for the study of their formation but also enabled the team to build things out of the structures. Ross developed simple procedures of light patterns to place, move, and merge asters of various sizes. The technique offers a way to manipulate structures and study fluid dynamics at a miniscule length scale that is usually difficult to work at; fluids exhibit tricky behaviors at such small volumes.

"'Generally, it's really difficult to manipulate fluids and structures on this length scale. But this is the scale that we're most interested in for studying cells and chemistry; all of molecular biology works on this scale," says Ross. "Our light-based system allows us to dynamically manipulate our system. We could look through a microscope and say, 'Okay we have enough over here, let's start routing things over there,' and change the light pattern accordingly. We could use aster structures in such a way that they could stir and mix solutions at very small length scales.'"

Comment: The complex physical and chemical activities in cells are so complex, new methods have to be developed to find some explanations. This is a new research tool that will give us more insight into a difficult area to study. Not by chance do cells have such complexity.

2460 views

A new description of how the motors transport:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200122150010.htm

"Researchers develop a device that parks individual molecular motors on nano scale platforms and found that two types of 'kinesin' possess different properties of coordination. In kinesin-1, neither the number nor spacing of the molecules change the transport velocity of microtubules, while kinesin-14 decreased transport velocity as the number of motors on a filament increased, but increased as the spacing of the motors increased.

"Any kind of body movement both big and small, from the muscles in your arms to the neurons transporting those signals to your brain, rely on a massive collection of proteins we call molecular motors.

"Fundamentally, molecular motors are proteins that convert chemical energy into mechanical movement, and have different functions depending on their task. However, because they are so small, the exact mechanisms on how these molecules coordinate with each other is poorly understood.

***

"The team evaluated two kinesins: kinesin-1 and kinesin-14 which are involved in intercellular transport and cell division respectively. Their results showed that in the case of kinesin-1, neither the number nor spacing of the molecules change the transport velocity of microtubules.

"In contrast, kinesin-14 decreased transport velocity as the number of motors on a filament increased, but increased as the spacing of the motors increased. The results indicate that while kinesin-1 molecules work independently, kinesin-14 interacts with each other to tune the speed of transport.

"Ryuji Yokokawa who led the team was surprised by the results, "Before we started this study, we thought that more motors led to faster transport and more force. But like most things in Biology, it's rarely that simple.'"

Comment: These motors produce directed results. The reactions do not depend on chance diffusion in cellular fluids. But delivery by design means the cells produce their products in a very organized fashion. Not by chance.

2263 views

The proteins are Shepherded exactly as required:

https://phys.org/news/2020-03-mechanism-cell-protein-traffic.html

"New research, published Feb. 26 in Nature Communications, identifies an enzyme—N-terminal glycine myristoyltransferases (NMT) 1 and 2—which adds lysine myristoylation to a key protein.

***

"Just like a set of flight instructions directs a pilot to fly a correct route, biochemical mechanisms ordered by these enzymes give proteins directions for moving through different subcellular locations in the most efficient way, Lin said. Without the proper chemical code, a protein might travel through the cell inefficiently or incorrectly.

"'In our cells, there are certain proteins, such as ARF6, which need to go from A to B to C, then back to A, because that's what's required for transporting other proteins in a cycle," Lin said. "That's what we found—the mechanism that makes sure the protein ARF6 follows that path."

"The researchers found that this mechanism takes place in human cells of many kinds. They believe that all mammalian cells operate in a similar way.

"In addition to telling ARF6 where to go, NMT1 and NMT2 also help to activate the protein."

Comment: These molecular processes follow exact information and deliver the proteins automatically exactly where they are required to go. Of course the cells look intelligent to older researcher s from past time, until the automaticity is demonstrated now.

2207 views

David's comment: These molecular processes follow exact information and deliver the proteins automatically exactly where they are required to go. Of course the cells look intelligent to older researcher s from past time, until the automaticity is demonstrated now.

All of a sudden, current science belongs to past times, does it? Of course the vast majority of our physical processes are automatic. But as your articles have demonstrated over and over again, the cells also take decisions and make adjustments – especially when things go wrong. As you quite rightly tell us, it is 50/50 whether what looks intelligent actually is intelligent. So please stop pretending that 50/50% possible = 100% impossible, and also please stop pretending that there are no modern scientists who advocate cellular intelligence. We agreed not to indulge in name-dropping after I had given you a list of names.

2216 views

David's comment: These molecular processes follow exact information and deliver the proteins automatically exactly where they are required to go. Of course the cells look intelligent to older researcher s from past time, until the automaticity is demonstrated now.

dhw: All of a sudden, current science belongs to past times, does it? Of course the vast majority of our physical processes are automatic. But as your articles have demonstrated over and over again, the cells also take decisions and make adjustments – especially when things go wrong. As you quite rightly tell us, it is 50/50 whether what looks intelligent actually is intelligent. So please stop pretending that 50/50% possible = 100% impossible, and also please stop pretending that there are no modern scientists who advocate cellular intelligence. We agreed not to indulge in name-dropping after I had given you a list of names.

When new research shows such automaticity, it is hard not to present it for what it is worth. Science matches forward from past impressions, and my ID scientists are all currently active. As usual I need to comment on the bold. It is intelligent information that runs the cells reactions as the current paper shows.

2207 views

David's comment: These molecular processes follow exact information and deliver the proteins automatically exactly where they are required to go. Of course the cells look intelligent to older researcher s from past time, until the automaticity is demonstrated now.

dhw: All of a sudden, current science belongs to past times, does it? Of course the vast majority of our physical processes are automatic. But as your articles have demonstrated over and over again, the cells also take decisions and make adjustments – especially when things go wrong. As you quite rightly tell us, it is 50/50 whether what looks intelligent actually is intelligent. So please stop pretending that 50/50% possible = 100% impossible, and also please stop pretending that there are no modern scientists who advocate cellular intelligence. We agreed not to indulge in name-dropping after I had given you a list of names.

DAVID: When new research shows such automaticity, it is hard not to present it for what it is worth. Science matches forward from past impressions, and my ID scientists are all currently active. As usual I need to comment on the bold. It is intelligent information that runs the cells reactions as the current paper shows.

You have simply ignored what I have written (now bolded). I am not disputing the automaticity of the vast majority of our physical processes. Intelligence is not demonstrated by these automatic actions but by the responses of cells to situations that demand decisions. The fact that your ID scientists are active is totally irrelevant to the question of whether cells are intelligent or not. Time and again you have said that cellular intelligence is a 50/50 possibility, so I repeat: please stop pretending that 50/50% = 100% impossible.

QUOTE: (under “bacterial resistance”): “We don't know exactly how it happens yet, but we think the two bacterial species both 'know' when the other type of cell is there and respond appropriately," said Benjamin Obadia of UC Berkeley.

DAVID: My view is God started life with bacteria and they have been kept around to help us live better in many ways. Protection designed by God.

Why don’t you comment on the obvious sentience of bacteria and their appropriate responses? Bacteria sometimes help and sometimes hinder. If your God designed the protection, it would not be unreasonable to assume that he also designed the danger. Fair enough – perhaps it’s all part of the wonderful spectacle your hidden God may be watching. Just a thought.

2202 views

dhw: You have simply ignored what I have written (now bolded). I am not disputing the automaticity of the vast majority of our physical processes. Intelligence is not demonstrated by these automatic actions but by the responses of cells to situations that demand decisions.

I do not accept your view. That 'demonstration' by cells in my view is that the cells are following on-board information as to how to respond.

QUOTE: (under “bacterial resistance”): “We don't know exactly how it happens yet, but we think the two bacterial species both 'know' when the other type of cell is there and respond appropriately," said Benjamin Obadia of UC Berkeley.

DAVID: My view is God started life with bacteria and they have been kept around to help us live better in many ways. Protection designed by God.

dhw: Why don’t you comment on the obvious sentience of bacteria and their appropriate responses? Bacteria sometimes help and sometimes hinder. If your God designed the protection, it would not be unreasonable to assume that he also designed the danger. Fair enough – perhaps it’s all part of the wonderful spectacle your hidden God may be watching. Just a thought.

I'm sure God is watching, at His own level of personal thought.

2201 views

A supporting article by Dan Dennett and Michael Levin :

https://aeon.co/essays/how-to-understand-cells-tissues-and-organisms-as-agents-with-age...

"...we’re saying that biologists should chill out and see the virtues of anthropomorphising all sorts of living things.

***

"We reject a simplistic essentialism where humans have ‘real’ goals, and everything else has only metaphorical ‘as if’ goals. Recent advances in basal cognition and related sciences are showing us how to move past this kind of all-or-nothing thinking about the human animal – naturalising human capacities and swapping a naive binary distinction for a continuum of how much agency any system has.

"Thanks to Charles Darwin, biology doesn’t ever have to invoke an ‘intelligent designer’ who created all those mechanisms. Evolution by natural selection has done – and is still doing – all that refining and focusing and differentiating work. We’re all just physical mechanisms made of physical mechanisms obeying the laws of physics and chemistry. But there is a profound difference between the ingenious mechanisms designed by human intelligent designers – clocks and motors and computers, for instance – and the mechanisms designed and assembled by natural selection.

***

"The great progress has been mainly on drilling down to the molecular level, but the higher levels are actually not that well-off. We are still pretty poor at controlling anatomical structure or knowing how to get it back on track in cancer – this is why we don’t have a real regenerative medicine yet. We know how to specify individual cell fates from stem cells, but we’re still far from being able to make complex organs on demand. The few situations where we can make them are those in which we’ve learned to communicate with the cell swarm – providing a simple trigger, such as the bioelectric pattern that says ‘build an eye here’, and then letting the intelligence of the cell group do the hard work and stop when the organ is done.

***

"Once the individual early cells – stem cells, for instance – are born, they apparently take care of their own further development, shaping both themselves and their local environments without any further instruction from their parents. They become rather autonomous, unlike the mindless gears and pistons in an intelligently designed engine. They find their way. What could possibly explain this? Something like a trail of breadcrumbs? Yes, in some cases, but the cells have to be smart enough to detect and follow them. We might hope for some relatively simple physical explanation.

***

"Notice how ‘you’ can be a single cell or a multicellular organism – or an organ or tissue in a multicellular organism – and still be gifted with informational competences composed out of the basic ‘nuts and bolts’ of information-processing structures. Agents, in this carefully limited perspective, need not be conscious, need not understand, need not have minds, but they do need to be structured to exploit physical regularities that enable them to use information (following the laws of computation) to perform tasks, beginning with the fundamental task of self-preservation, which involves not just providing themselves with the energy needed to wield their tools, but the ability to adjust to their local environments in ways that advance their prospects."

Comment: The article is a philosophic phantasy in my view. Natural selection is suddenly an active designer. Information is assumed, just appeared somehow, not explained, nor are the mechanisms that interpret it. And the complaint is the research is not done properly to get down to the nuts and bolts when most of what they want cannot be done without using the cells themselves to perform biological mechanisms. In other words they are pleading for complete reductionism in biology when it is unlikely that is ever possible. The article is huge. I suggest reading all of it as it is an exact fit for dhw's wishes about intelligent cells.

1911 views

QUOTE: Thanks to Charles Darwin, biology doesn’t ever have to invoke an ‘intelligent designer’ who created all those mechanisms. Evolution by natural selection has done – and is still doing – all that refining and focusing and differentiating work.

Thank you, as always, for presenting material that runs counter to your own beliefs. Delighted though I am to find yet more support for the concept of cellular intelligence, I do not welcome this silly approach to the subject. Natural selection does not create any mechanism at all. It does what it says: it naturally selects useful mechanisms that already exist, and rejects those that are not useful. And the authors should perhaps bear in mind that Darwin was an agnostic, and he went out of his way to emphasize that this theory was neither theistic nor atheistic.

QUOTE: We’re all just physical mechanisms made of physical mechanisms obeying the laws of physics and chemistry. But there is a profound difference between the ingenious mechanisms designed by human intelligent designers – clocks and motors and computers, for instance – and the mechanisms designed and assembled by natural selection.

The authoritative statement that we are “just physical mechanisms” is on a par with similar blinkered statements from theists that we are not “just physical mechanisms” or – to stick to this particular subject – “cells are not intelligent”. The absurdity of the argument here is apparent from the claim that natural selection designs mechanisms. It designs nothing. But the commonsense truth of the argument is that there is indeed a profound difference between our human inventions and biological inventions: the source of the latter is unknown. The fact that the latter are of inimitable complexity suggests intelligence at work, and since all biological inventions require the cooperation of cells, it suggests that the cells themselves cooperate intelligently. The source of their intelligence remains unknown – hence David’s faith in God, presumably Dennett’s faith in chance, and my own lack of faith in either.

DAVID: The article is a philosophic phantasy in my view. Natural selection is suddenly an active designer. Information is assumed, just appeared somehow, not explained, nor are the mechanisms that interpret it.

For once we are in total agreement.

DAVID: The article is huge. I suggest reading all of it as it is an exact fit for dhw's wishes about intelligent cells.

It is not a “wish”. I am looking for ideas that will explain the mysteries of our existence. When scientists who have spent a lifetime studying cellular behaviour conclude that cells are intelligent, I take them seriously. I find the theory of evolution very convincing, and as regards the mechanism that drives it, I find the intelligent cell theory more convincing than chance or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled development. As regards the origin of the mechanism itself, I do “wish” I could find one of the explanations (chance, a top-down God, some sort of bottom-up panpsychism) convincing, but I can’t.

Transferred from “Theodicy”, and referring to “Bacteria fungus symbiosis”:

DAVID: Happily working it out by mutual adaptation using modifying mechanisms that I believe are God designed.

dhw: I’m again delighted to see you acknowledging that they “work it out” using a mechanism designed by your God. The mechanism would have to be what I call “cellular intelligence” – how else can any organism happily work anything out, if not by using its intelligence?

DAVID: […] Answered above. See the Dennett discussion.

You didn’t answer it “above”, and the Dennett discussion doesn’t answer it either. You used the term “working it out”. Please tell me how an organism can work something out if it does not have any intelligence?

Under: “First multicellularity”

"Surprisingly, we found that the development of bacterial biofilms is comparable to animal embryogenesis. This means that bacteria are true multicellular organisms just like we are. Considering that the oldest known fossils are bacterial biofilms, it is quite likely that the first life was also multicellular, and not a single-celled creature as considered so far," says Prof Tomislav

QUOTE: "microbiologists have recognized that bacterial cells live a rich social life in biofilms.

DAVID: There is no question here is an imitation of multicellular organisms. Perhaps a step to multicellularity. We know amoeba can form colonies that create stalks and spores. but I think they are straining too much to see this as true multicellularity.

In my view not an “imitation” but probably the first step to multicellularity. If Shapiro & Co are right, bacteria are intelligent organisms, and just like later multicellular organisms, they found that forming a community in which they pool their intelligence cooperatively had certain advantages. This would be the blueprint for the whole of evolution, as intelligent cells find more and more ways of pooling their intelligence to cope with or exploit ever changing conditions and what you call “challenges”.

1907 views

QUOTE: Thanks to Charles Darwin, biology doesn’t ever have to invoke an ‘intelligent designer’ who created all those mechanisms. Evolution by natural selection has done – and is still doing – all that refining and focusing and differentiating work.

dhw: Thank you, as always, for presenting material that runs counter to your own beliefs. Delighted though I am to find yet more support for the concept of cellular intelligence, I do not welcome this silly approach to the subject. Natural selection does not create any mechanism at all. It does what it says: it naturally selects useful mechanisms that already exist, and rejects those that are not useful. And the authors should perhaps bear in mind that Darwin was an agnostic, and he went out of his way to emphasize that this theory was neither theistic nor atheistic.

QUOTE: We’re all just physical mechanisms made of physical mechanisms obeying the laws of physics and chemistry. But there is a profound difference between the ingenious mechanisms designed by human intelligent designers – clocks and motors and computers, for instance – and the mechanisms designed and assembled by natural selection.

dhw: The authoritative statement that we are “just physical mechanisms” is on a par with similar blinkered statements from theists that we are not “just physical mechanisms” or – to stick to this particular subject – “cells are not intelligent”. The absurdity of the argument here is apparent from the claim that natural selection designs mechanisms. It designs nothing. But the commonsense truth of the argument is that there is indeed a profound difference between our human inventions and biological inventions: the source of the latter is unknown. The fact that the latter are of inimitable complexity suggests intelligence at work, and since all biological inventions require the cooperation of cells, it suggests that the cells themselves cooperate intelligently. The source of their intelligence remains unknown – hence David’s faith in God, presumably Dennett’s faith in chance, and my own lack of faith in either.

Well stated

DAVID: The article is a philosophic phantasy in my view. Natural selection is suddenly an active designer. Information is assumed, just appeared somehow, not explained, nor are the mechanisms that interpret it.

dhw: For once we are in total agreement.

Yes

DAVID: The article is huge. I suggest reading all of it as it is an exact fit for dhw's wishes about intelligent cells.

dhw: It is not a “wish”. I am looking for ideas that will explain the mysteries of our existence. When scientists who have spent a lifetime studying cellular behaviour conclude that cells are intelligent, I take them seriously. I find the theory of evolution very convincing, and as regards the mechanism that drives it, I find the intelligent cell theory more convincing than chance or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled development. As regards the origin of the mechanism itself, I do “wish” I could find one of the explanations (chance, a top-down God, some sort of bottom-up panpsychism) convincing, but I can’t.

You won't. Which is why I think increasing discovery of design complexity will finally reach a belief in a dsigner.

dhw: I’m again delighted to see you acknowledging that they “work it out” using a mechanism designed by your God. The mechanism would have to be what I call “cellular intelligence” – how else can any organism happily work anything out, if not by using its intelligence?

DAVID: […] Answered above. See the Dennett discussion.

dhw: You didn’t answer it “above”, and the Dennett discussion doesn’t answer it either. You used the term “working it out”. Please tell me how an organism can work something out if it does not have any intelligence?

Or intelligently designed instructions to follow.>

Under: “First multicellularity”

"Surprisingly, we found that the development of bacterial biofilms is comparable to animal embryogenesis. This means that bacteria are true multicellular organisms just like we are. Considering that the oldest known fossils are bacterial biofilms, it is quite likely that the first life was also multicellular, and not a single-celled creature as considered so far," says Prof Tomislav

QUOTE: "microbiologists have recognized that bacterial cells live a rich social life in biofilms.

DAVID: There is no question here is an imitation of multicellular organisms. Perhaps a step to multicellularity. We know amoeba can form colonies that create stalks and spores. but I think they are straining too much to see this as true multicellularity.

dhw: In my view not an “imitation” but probably the first step to multicellularity. If Shapiro & Co are right, bacteria are intelligent organisms, and just like later multicellular organisms, they found that forming a community in which they pool their intelligence cooperatively had certain advantages. This would be the blueprint for the whole of evolution, as intelligent cells find more and more ways of pooling their intelligence to cope with or exploit ever changing conditions and what you call “challenges”.

Yes, it appears to be a step toward multicellularity, but still leaves a huge gap.

1908 views

QUOTE: "Surprisingly, we found that the development of bacterial biofilms is comparable to animal embryogenesis. This means that bacteria are true multicellular organisms just like we are. Considering that the oldest known fossils are bacterial biofilms, it is quite likely that the first life was also multicellular, and not a single-celled creature as considered so far," says Prof Tomislav

QUOTE: "microbiologists have recognized that bacterial cells live a rich social life in biofilms."

DAVID: There is no question here is an imitation of multicellular organisms. Perhaps a step to multicellularity. We know amoeba can form colonies that create stalks and spores. but I think they are straining too much to see this as true multicellularity.

dhw: In my view not an “imitation” but probably the first step to multicellularity. If Shapiro & Co are right, bacteria are intelligent organisms, and just like later multicellular organisms, they found that forming a community in which they pool their intelligence cooperatively had certain advantages. This would be the blueprint for the whole of evolution, as intelligent cells find more and more ways of pooling their intelligence to cope with or exploit ever changing conditions and what you call “challenges”.

DAVID: Yes, it appears to be a step toward multicellularity, but still leaves a huge gap.

Why is it a huge gap? The article states explicitly that bacteria form multicellular organisms. And the process is mirrored in your latest post on bees:

QUOTES: 'The importance of this paper is that it's one of the first papers that actually shows that the microbiome is involved in the basic social biology of honey bees—and not just affecting their health," Vernier said. "The microbiome is involved in how the colony as a whole functions, and how they are able to maintain nest defenses, rather than just immune defense within an individual."

"The gut microbial community—or microbiome—supplies humans and other animals with vitamins, helps digest food, regulates inflammation and keeps disease-causing microbes in check. Increasingly a topic of research interest, scientists have discovered many ways that the microbiome blurs the borders between a host and its bacteria.

Post after post emphasizes the cooperation of cell communities, and here we have a community of bacteria also pooling their intelligence with the cell communities of which we ourselves are composed. There is no gap! You yourself have said that evolution progresses from simplicity to increasing complexity. And this comes about through cells and bacteria (which of course are single cells) joining together to create all the different communities. If this really is the way evolution works, a theist will quite rightly shake his head in amazement at the sheer ingenuity of his God’s invention of the intelligent cell.

1902 views

QUOTE: "Surprisingly, we found that the development of bacterial biofilms is comparable to animal embryogenesis. This means that bacteria are true multicellular organisms just like we are. Considering that the oldest known fossils are bacterial biofilms, it is quite likely that the first life was also multicellular, and not a single-celled creature as considered so far," says Prof Tomislav

QUOTE: "microbiologists have recognized that bacterial cells live a rich social life in biofilms."

DAVID: There is no question here is an imitation of multicellular organisms. Perhaps a step to multicellularity. We know amoeba can form colonies that create stalks and spores. but I think they are straining too much to see this as true multicellularity.

dhw: In my view not an “imitation” but probably the first step to multicellularity. If Shapiro & Co are right, bacteria are intelligent organisms, and just like later multicellular organisms, they found that forming a community in which they pool their intelligence cooperatively had certain advantages. This would be the blueprint for the whole of evolution, as intelligent cells find more and more ways of pooling their intelligence to cope with or exploit ever changing conditions and what you call “challenges”.

DAVID: Yes, it appears to be a step toward multicellularity, but still leaves a huge gap.

dhw: Why is it a huge gap? The article states explicitly that bacteria form multicellular organisms.

You have swallowed their take. What they described is a step toward multicellularity, nothing more. It is all another forced extrapolation which your bias prefers to accept.

And the process is mirrored in your latest post on bees:

QUOTES: 'The importance of this paper is that it's one of the first papers that actually shows that the microbiome is involved in the basic social biology of honey bees—and not just affecting their health," Vernier said. "The microbiome is involved in how the colony as a whole functions, and how they are able to maintain nest defenses, rather than just immune defense within an individual."

"The gut microbial community—or microbiome—supplies humans and other animals with vitamins, helps digest food, regulates inflammation and keeps disease-causing microbes in check. Increasingly a topic of research interest, scientists have discovered many ways that the microbiome blurs the borders between a host and its bacteria.

dhw: Post after post emphasizes the cooperation of cell communities, and here we have a community of bacteria also pooling their intelligence with the cell communities of which we ourselves are composed. There is no gap! You yourself have said that evolution progresses from simplicity to increasing complexity. And this comes about through cells and bacteria (which of course are single cells) joining together to create all the different communities. If this really is the way evolution works, a theist will quite rightly shake his head in amazement at the sheer ingenuity of his God’s invention of the intelligent cell.

What I see is God's instructions, and how intelligently they are designed to guide organisms. Further it again enforces toe concept of why God stated life with bacteria and used them to add to support of advanced life by playing an intricate role.

1938 views

DAVID: Yes, it appears to be a step toward multicellularity, but still leaves a huge gap.

dhw: Why is it a huge gap? The article states explicitly that bacteria form multicellular organisms.

DAVID: You have swallowed their take. What they described is a step toward multicellularity, nothing more. It is all another forced extrapolation which your bias prefers to accept.

Why is every confirmation of my proposals regarded as “swallowing a take”? Do you or do you not agree that bacteria are single-celled organisms, and they join together in a single cooperative community which performs coordinated activities? If you do agree, how does that NOT count as multicellularity?

DAVID: And the process is mirrored in your latest post on bees:

dhw: Post after post emphasizes the cooperation of cell communities, and here we have a community of bacteria also pooling their intelligence with the cell communities of which we ourselves are composed. There is no gap! You yourself have said that evolution progresses from simplicity to increasing complexity. And this comes about through cells and bacteria (which of course are single cells) joining together to create all the different communities. If this really is the way evolution works, a theist will quite rightly shake his head in amazement at the sheer ingenuity of his God’s invention of the intelligent cell.

DAVID: What I see is God's instructions, and how intelligently they are designed to guide organisms. Further it again enforces toe concept of why God stated life with bacteria and used them to add to support of advanced life by playing an intricate role.

I have no quarrel with the concept that life started with bacteria and they continue to play an intricate role in all forms of life, and I have no quarrel with anyone who believes in a God who designed the whole mechanism. I am, however, sceptical about the idea that 3.8 billion years ago, this God provided the very first cells with instructions not only for the creation of bees but also for their symbiotic relationship with a certain type of bacterium. I am equally sceptical about the thought of him stepping in to give the bees and bacteria personal tuition in how to cooperate. Bearing in mind the higgledy-piggledy history of the vast bush of life forms, 99% of which are extinct, it seems to me more likely that he gave organisms the means with which to fight their own battle for survival.
X
Under Theodicy: humans can treat a bad bug

QUOTE: The fact that Helicobacter pylori can colonize such a hostile environment as the stomach so successfully is also due to a special genetic strategy: Like other pathogens, H. pylori uses a strategy known as phase variation to adapt as flexibly as possible to changes in its environment. Phase variation means that the bacteria constantly switch expression of a gene at random through genetic mutations, meaning that some bacteria in a population will always be ready to express the important gene when it becomes important—a sort of 'bet-hedging' strategy.

So here we have bacteria adapting to changes in their environment. I’m surprised that the authors consider these “variations” to be random, which suggests that millions of bacteria press the wrong button, but the lucky few get it right. I wonder if the authors have counted the number of dead ones found in the hostile tummy. I would suggest that the bacteria know what they’re doing.

DAVID: The bug is nasty and this article explains how it works, but I can tell, while I was in practice the bug was found as well as how to treat it, which I did. It is interesting that half of us carry it and only a few of us get into trouble from it. Does this mean God designed it and also gave most of us a form of immunity? Very possibly. Is this a challenge? Possibly. We can only guess.

Congratulations on your success. But “immunity” suggests to me that the cells themselves have created their own defence against the bug, but sometimes the bug wins the battle. Hence the disease. The “theodicy” angle is covered on that thread.

1920 views

DAVID: You have swallowed their take. What they described is a step toward multicellularity, nothing more. It is all another forced extrapolation which your bias prefers to accept.

dhw: Why is every confirmation of my proposals regarded as “swallowing a take”? Do you or do you not agree that bacteria are single-celled organisms, and they join together in a single cooperative community which performs coordinated activities? If you do agree, how does that NOT count as multicellularity?

I view multicellularity as a much more complex arrangement than single cells cooperating. That is a step on the way, just as Edicarans were multicellular but so much simpler than Cambrians.

DAVID: What I see is God's instructions, and how intelligently they are designed to guide organisms. Further it again enforces the concept of why God stated life with bacteria and used them to add to support of advanced life by playing an intricate role.

dhw: I have no quarrel with the concept that life started with bacteria and they continue to play an intricate role in all forms of life, and I have no quarrel with anyone who believes in a God who designed the whole mechanism. I am, however, sceptical about the idea that 3.8 billion years ago, this God provided the very first cells with instructions not only for the creation of bees but also for their symbiotic relationship with a certain type of bacterium. I am equally sceptical about the thought of him stepping in to give the bees and bacteria personal tuition in how to cooperate. Bearing in mind the higgledy-piggledy history of the vast bush of life forms, 99% of which are extinct, it seems to me more likely that he gave organisms the means with which to fight their own battle for survival.

There is no question God gave organisms the ability to adapt to changing conditions, but that does not mean they could self-speciate. I don't know how God ran the process of evolution, as you note, but my thoughts are not unreasonable. You think cells are intelligent. How did they develop intelligence? It seems I always propose theories and you poke holes. Do you have a solid theory for cell intelligence source?

X
Under Theodicy: humans can treat a bad bug

QUOTE: The fact that Helicobacter pylori can colonize such a hostile environment as the stomach so successfully is also due to a special genetic strategy: Like other pathogens, H. pylori uses a strategy known as phase variation to adapt as flexibly as possible to changes in its environment. Phase variation means that the bacteria constantly switch expression of a gene at random through genetic mutations, meaning that some bacteria in a population will always be ready to express the important gene when it becomes important—a sort of 'bet-hedging' strategy.

dhw: So here we have bacteria adapting to changes in their environment. I’m surprised that the authors consider these “variations” to be random, which suggests that millions of bacteria press the wrong button, but the lucky few get it right. I wonder if the authors have counted the number of dead ones found in the hostile tummy. I would suggest that the bacteria know what they’re doing.

Shapiro tells us bacteria can edit their genome. Great example. Which I think is a God=given attribute God gave them.

DAVID: The bug is nasty and this article explains how it works, but I can tell, while I was in practice the bug was found as well as how to treat it, which I did. It is interesting that half of us carry it and only a few of us get into trouble from it. Does this mean God designed it and also gave most of us a form of immunity? Very possibly. Is this a challenge? Possibly. We can only guess.

dhw: Congratulations on your success. But “immunity” suggests to me that the cells themselves have created their own defence against the bug, but sometimes the bug wins the battle. Hence the disease. The “theodicy” angle is covered on that thread.

Just an example that God can give us a bug to challenge us and we can solve the problem.

1917 views

DAVID: [...] What they described is a step toward multicellularity, nothing more. It is all another forced extrapolation which your bias prefers to accept.

dhw: […] Do you or do you not agree that bacteria are single-celled organisms, and they join together in a single cooperative community which performs coordinated activities? If you do agree, how does that NOT count as multicellularity?

DAVID: I view multicellularity as a much more complex arrangement than single cells cooperating. That is a step on the way, just as Edicarans were multicellular but so much simpler than Cambrians.

What else is multicellularity if it is not single cells cooperating? The increasing complexity would be the result of millions and millions of years during which cells increased their range of activity and knowledge as they met with new conditions.
[…]
DAVID: There is no question God gave organisms the ability to adapt to changing conditions, but that does not mean they could self-speciate.

Do you agree, then, that adaptation is an autonomous mechanism, or do you think your God pre-planned every adaptation 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to dabble each one? You are quite right that adaptation is not the same as speciation, but it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between the two (e.g. pre-whales adapting to marine life, with legs giving way to fins). The theory therefore remains feasible: if there is a mechanism for cells autonomously restructuring themselves to make minor changes, maybe they were able to make major changes as well.

DAVID: I don't know how God ran the process of evolution, as you note, but my thoughts are not unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is (a) your total rejection of what you agree is a 50/50 chance (cellular intelligence), and (b) your whole anthropocentric theory of evolution (= direct design) as dissected on various threads.

DAVID: You think cells are intelligent. How did they develop intelligence? It seems I always propose theories and you poke holes. Do you have a solid theory for cell intelligence source?

You know perfectly well that nobody has a "solid" theory about any of our subjects, but in this particular one, God is a possible source. However, we are not arguing here about the source! We are arguing about the concept of cellular intelligence, whether designed by God or not. Yes, I poke holes in your theories as you do in mine, but there is one great difference between us: your theories are fixed beliefs, whereas mine are alternatives but not fixed beliefs. However, in the case of the intelligent cell, I must confess I do find it vastly more credible than your fixed belief that every single development and natural wonder in the history of life on Earth was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or was personally dabbled by your God as “part of the goal of evolving humans”.
X
DAVID: Shapiro tells us bacteria can edit their genome. Great example. Which I think is a God=given attribute God gave them.

Wonderful. If a single cell can edit its genome, it makes perfect sense to assume that lots of cells can edit their genome. Hence the birth of the intelligent cell community and a simple explanation for how evolution works: every cell community edits its genome in order to adapt to or exploit changing conditions, as exemplified by single-celled bacteria.

1902 views

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6514/306.2

Each human cell has an information network like a subway system underpinning the function of one of the world's major cities. Instead of human couriers, within our cells, messenger RNAs (mRNAs) carry information. Thousands of mRNAs emerge from the cell's nucleus with instructions for cellular functions and disappear into the cytoplasm when their duties are fulfilled. Because of the development of single-cell sequencing techniques, we are now very good at counting these messengers, which are specific to each cell type in our body. Qiu et al. developed a new method to watch the movement of mRNAs. The technique can distinguish newly synthesized mRNAs from older ones and track each mRNA with a specific tag. This method provides a picture of the information flow inside cells and shows how they become disrupted by genetic perturbations that can cause cancer.

Comment: Amazing. Messenger RNA can be watched and followed. Each cell nucleus is in automatic control of the factory output using its information content.

1963 views

DAVID: I view multicellularity as a much more complex arrangement than single cells cooperating. That is a step on the way, just as Edicarans were multicellular but so much simpler than Cambrians.

dhw: What else is multicellularity if it is not single cells cooperating? The increasing complexity would be the result of millions and millions of years during which cells increased their range of activity and knowledge as they met with new conditions.

The cooperation in multicellularity is each cell in each organ working for a common purpose, each organ working with the other organs for common purpose. The cells are trapped in a network of controls. Cell committees don't speciate.

[…]
DAVID: There is no question God gave organisms the ability to adapt to changing conditions, but that does not mean they could self-speciate.

dhw: Do you agree, then, that adaptation is an autonomous mechanism, or do you think your God pre-planned every adaptation 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to dabble each one? You are quite right that adaptation is not the same as speciation, but it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between the two (e.g. pre-whales adapting to marine life, with legs giving way to fins). The theory therefore remains feasible: if there is a mechanism for cells autonomously restructuring themselves to make minor changes, maybe they were able to make major changes as well.

You can have that 'maybe' approach. I think only a designer can speciate

DAVID: I don't know how God ran the process of evolution, as you note, but my thoughts are not unreasonable.

dhw: What is unreasonable is (a) your total rejection of what you agree is a 50/50 chance (cellular intelligence), and (b) your whole anthropocentric theory of evolution (= direct design) as dissected on various threads.

I don't reject that cells act intelligently. The evidence for the need for design is overwhelming and keeps you agnostic.

DAVID: You think cells are intelligent. How did they develop intelligence? It seems I always propose theories and you poke holes. Do you have a solid theory for cell intelligence source?

dhw: You know perfectly well that nobody has a "solid" theory about any of our subjects, but in this particular one, God is a possible source. However, we are not arguing here about the source! We are arguing about the concept of cellular intelligence, whether designed by God or not. Yes, I poke holes in your theories as you do in mine, but there is one great difference between us: your theories are fixed beliefs, whereas mine are alternatives but not fixed beliefs. However, in the case of the intelligent cell, I must confess I do find it vastly more credible than your fixed belief that every single development and natural wonder in the history of life on Earth was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or was personally dabbled by your God as “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

You only fixed belief is design keeps you agnostic.

X
DAVID: Shapiro tells us bacteria can edit their genome. Great example. Which I think is a God=given attribute God gave them.

dhw: Wonderful. If a single cell can edit its genome, it makes perfect sense to assume that lots of cells can edit their genome. Hence the birth of the intelligent cell community and a simple explanation for how evolution works: every cell community edits its genome in order to adapt to or exploit changing conditions, as exemplified by single-celled bacteria.

The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells simply cogs in parts of constructive activities. The only way change occurs is change in the genome of germ cells. Bacteria reproduce by simply splitting, which makes them in full control of any change, and so far Lenski's E. coli are still E. coli after enormous numbers of generations.

1950 views

DAVID: I view multicellularity as a much more complex arrangement than single cells cooperating. That is a step on the way, just as Edicarans were multicellular but so much simpler than Cambrians.

dhw: What else is multicellularity if it is not single cells cooperating? The increasing complexity would be the result of millions and millions of years during which cells increased their range of activity and knowledge as they met with new conditions.

DAVID: The cooperation in multicellularity is each cell in each organ working for a common purpose, each organ working with the other organs for common purpose.

Correct. You’ve summed it up beautifully.

DAVID: The cells are trapped in a network of controls. Cell committees don't speciate.

Why “trapped”? The cells have formed a network of controls. Your last sentence is a complete non sequitur!
[…]
DAVID: There is no question God gave organisms the ability to adapt to changing conditions, but that does not mean they could self-speciate.

dhw: Do you agree, then, that adaptation is an autonomous mechanism, or do you think your God pre-planned every adaptation 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to dabble each one? You are quite right that adaptation is not the same as speciation, but it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between the two (e.g. pre-whales adapting to marine life, with legs giving way to fins). The theory therefore remains feasible: if there is a mechanism for cells autonomously restructuring themselves to make minor changes, maybe they were able to make major changes as well.

DAVID: You can have that 'maybe' approach. I think only a designer can speciate

“Maybe” applies to all theories, including your divine preprogramming or dabbling of every life form and natural wonder in the history of life on Earth. Feasibility is the best we can do. Thank you for the maybe.

DAVID: I don't know how God ran the process of evolution, as you note, but my thoughts are not unreasonable.

dhw: What is unreasonable is (a) your total rejection of what you agree is a 50/50 chance (cellular intelligence), and (b) your whole anthropocentric theory of evolution (= direct design) as dissected on various threads.

DAVID: I don't reject that cells act intelligently.

You usually add that they do so with guidelines from your God. I apologize for the misunderstanding and welcome you to the happy group of us who accept the feasibility of autonomous cellular intelligence. :-)

DAVID: Shapiro tells us bacteria can edit their genome. Great example. Which I think is a God=given attribute God gave them.

dhw: Wonderful. If a single cell can edit its genome, it makes perfect sense to assume that lots of cells can edit their genome. Hence the birth of the intelligent cell community and a simple explanation for how evolution works: every cell community edits its genome in order to adapt to or exploit changing conditions, as exemplified by single-celled bacteria.

DAVID: The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells are simply cogs in parts of constructive activities.

Thank you for conceding that single-celled bacteria are “free-living”. This is real progress. If free-living organisms join together to cooperate, they will need to reach consensus on what action they take. They too are responsible for their survival, which is no doubt why they joined together. Yes of course “most of the cells” become cogs! But the constructive activities must be directed. So if a single-celled organism can provide its own directions, why do you think it's impossible for a colony of cooperating single-celled organisms to produce its own directions?

DAVID: The only way change occurs is change in the genome of germ cells. Bacteria reproduce by simply splitting, which makes them in full control of any change, and so far Lenski's E. coli are still E. coli after enormous numbers of generations.

Yes, the genome has to change if there is to be a new species. That is why we talk of new genes and of restructuring old genes. And yes, single-celled bacteria do very nicely, but at some time some free-living bacteria decided to form communities, and those are the ones that branched out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

Under “information flow”:
QUOTE: Each human cell has an information network like a subway system underpinning the function of one of the world's major cities. Instead of human couriers, within our cells, messenger RNAs (mRNAs) carry information. Thousands of mRNAs emerge from the cell's nucleus with instructions for cellular functions and disappear into the cytoplasm when their duties are fulfilled.

DAVID: Amazing. Messenger RNA can be watched and followed. Each cell nucleus is in automatic control of the factory output using its information content.

It sounds just like an ant colony, with each ant running round performing its particular duty. I agree that the messengers act automatically – their job is to obey. The question is where the instructions come from, and the article suggests that the intelligence lies within the nucleus of the cell. That would also be the source of the autonomous, free-living intelligence of the single bacterium.

1952 views

DAVID: The cells are trapped in a network of controls. Cell committees don't speciate.

dhw: Why “trapped”? The cells have formed a network of controls. Your last sentence is a complete non sequitur!

Trapped as under tight controls, recognizing errors can occur.

DAVID: I don't reject that cells act intelligently.

dhw: You usually add that they do so with guidelines from your God. I apologize for the misunderstanding and welcome you to the happy group of us who accept the feasibility of autonomous cellular intelligence.

;-) You know full well they act intelligently following intelligent instructions.

DAVID: The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells are simply cogs in parts of constructive activities.

dhw: Thank you for conceding that single-celled bacteria are “free-living”. This is real progress.

No concession: I've always said as free-living they had to be able to take full responsibility for their adaptations, as from Shapiro.

dhw: If free-living organisms join together to cooperate, they will need to reach consensus on what action they take. They too are responsible for their survival, which is no doubt why they joined together. Yes of course “most of the cells” become cogs! But the constructive activities must be directed. So if a single-celled organism can provide its own directions, why do you think it's impossible for a colony of cooperating single-celled organisms to produce its own directions?

Bacterial mats do that to a degree, which is probably a step to multicellularity

DAVID: The only way change occurs is change in the genome of germ cells. Bacteria reproduce by simply splitting, which makes them in full control of any change, and so far Lenski's E. coli are still E. coli after enormous numbers of generations.

dhw: Yes, the genome has to change if there is to be a new species. That is why we talk of new genes and of restructuring old genes. And yes, single-celled bacteria do very nicely, but at some time some free-living bacteria decided to form communities, and those are the ones that branched out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

And I counter God did it.

Under “information flow”:
QUOTE: Each human cell has an information network like a subway system underpinning the function of one of the world's major cities. Instead of human couriers, within our cells, messenger RNAs (mRNAs) carry information. Thousands of mRNAs emerge from the cell's nucleus with instructions for cellular functions and disappear into the cytoplasm when their duties are fulfilled.

DAVID: Amazing. Messenger RNA can be watched and followed. Each cell nucleus is in automatic control of the factory output using its information content.

dhw: It sounds just like an ant colony, with each ant running round performing its particular duty. I agree that the messengers act automatically – their job is to obey. The question is where the instructions come from, and the article suggests that the intelligence lies within the nucleus of the cell. That would also be the source of the autonomous, free-living intelligence of the single bacterium.

All of which is supplied by God who created life.

1962 views

DAVID: The cells are trapped in a network of controls. Cell committees don't speciate.

dhw: Why “trapped”? The cells have formed a network of controls. Your last sentence is a complete non sequitur!

DAVID: Trapped as under tight controls, recognizing errors can occur.

Hardly trapped then if some cells can go off and do their own thing!

DAVID: I don't reject that cells act intelligently.

dhw: You usually add that they do so with guidelines from your God. I apologize for the misunderstanding and welcome you to the happy group of us who accept the feasibility of autonomous cellular intelligence. :-)

DAVID: ;-) You know full well they act intelligently following intelligent instructions.

In that case they don’t act intelligently – they follow intelligent instructions. What a shame! But it was fun while it lasted. :-P

DAVID: The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells are simply cogs in parts of constructive activities.

dhw: Thank you for conceding that single-celled bacteria are “free-living”. This is real progress.

DAVID: No concession: I've always said as free-living they had to be able to take full responsibility for their adaptations, as from Shapiro.

Yes of course, if they are free-living they “take responsibility” for their adaptations. That is what autonomy means. And if (theistic version) your God gave bacteria the freedom to do their own adapting, why on earth do you think that a community of cells could not have been given the same freedom and responsibility – culminating in human free will?

DAVID: Bacterial mats do that to a degree, which is probably a step to multicellularity

Yes indeed, that is the whole point! Free-living, autonomously intelligent bacteria form communities, and that starts the whole process of multicellularity: free-living, autonomously intelligent cells pool their intelligence, thus brancheing out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

DAVID: And I counter God did it.

God did what? If he gave single cells their autonomy, then it is not unreasonable to assume that a community/communities of single cells will also function autonomously.

Under “information flow”:

DAVID: Each cell nucleus is in automatic control of the factory output using its information content.

dhw: It sounds just like an ant colony, with each ant running round performing its particular duty. I agree that the messengers act automatically – their job is to obey. The question is where the instructions come from, and the article suggests that the intelligence lies within the nucleus of the cell. That would also be the source of the autonomous, free-living intelligence of the single bacterium.

DAVID: All of which is supplied by God who created life.

I have always accepted the possibility that your God created life and supplied cellular intelligence.

1948 views

DAVID: You cannot disconnect the stepwise development evolving humans from bacteria as one process.
Read Talbott: file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Desktop/Stephen%20L.%20Talbott.html

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells, it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?
"It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior. But the error would be equally egregious if we simply ignored the evident relation and historical continuity between the earliest forms of life and ourselves." (dhw's bolds)

DAVID: Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria. And you get all confused by the old and current bushes and what they mean.

If we are direct descendant relatives of bacteria, so is every other life form that ever lived. That is the theory of common descent, and I really don’t think we need Talbott to tell us that. The quotes could hardly be clearer: he is pointing out the fact that although cellular intelligence is not to be compared to our human intelligence, nevertheless single cells are intelligent! In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence. The confusion over old and current bushes is entirely yours, because you insist your God designed all the extinct twigs as part of the goal of evolving (directly designing) us and our bush, although there is no direct connection. Thank you for providing an article in support of "cellular intelligence", to which I have transferred it.

1959 views

DAVID: You cannot disconnect the stepwise development evolving humans from bacteria as one process.
Read Talbott: file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Desktop/Stephen%20L.%20Talbott.html

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells, it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?
"It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior. But the error would be equally egregious if we simply ignored the evident relation and historical continuity between the earliest forms of life and ourselves." (dhw's bolds)

DAVID: Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria. And you get all confused by the old and current bushes and what they mean.

dhw: If we are direct descendant relatives of bacteria, so is every other life form that ever lived. That is the theory of common descent, and I really don’t think we need Talbott to tell us that. The quotes could hardly be clearer: he is pointing out the fact that although cellular intelligence is not to be compared to our human intelligence, nevertheless single cells are intelligent! In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence. The confusion over old and current bushes is entirely yours, because you insist your God designed all the extinct twigs as part of the goal of evolving (directly designing) us and our bush, although there is no direct connection. Thank you for providing an article in support of "cellular intelligence", to which I have transferred it.

Once again my position is God designed all species and what appears to be cell intelligence is a function of cells following God's intelligent instructions as they act and react.

1958 views

DAVID: The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells are simply cogs in parts of constructive activities.

dhw: Thank you for conceding that single-celled bacteria are “free-living”. This is real progress.

DAVID: No concession: I've always said as free-living they had to be able to take full responsibility for their adaptations, as from Shapiro.

dhw: Yes of course, if they are free-living they “take responsibility” for their adaptations. That is what autonomy means. And if (theistic version) your God gave bacteria the freedom to do their own adapting, why on earth do you think that a community of cells could not have been given the same freedom and responsibility – culminating in human free will?

Our brain with free will plays no role in this particular discussion. The free-living aspect of bacteria REQUIRES the adaptability the have. Multicellularity involves a completely different set of considerations which involves the basic cooperation of all cells in their various organs run by the information in each modified DNA to handle all the myriad of functionality.

DAVID: Bacterial mats do that to a degree, which is probably a step to multicellularity

dhw: Yes indeed, that is the whole point! Free-living, autonomously intelligent bacteria form communities, and that starts the whole process of multicellularity: free-living, autonomously intelligent cells pool their intelligence, thus brancheing out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

Again I view it as designed by God, well beyond the capacity of cell committees

Under “information flow”:

DAVID: Each cell nucleus is in automatic control of the factory output using its information content.

dhw: It sounds just like an ant colony, with each ant running round performing its particular duty. I agree that the messengers act automatically – their job is to obey. The question is where the instructions come from, and the article suggests that the intelligence lies within the nucleus of the cell. That would also be the source of the autonomous, free-living intelligence of the single bacterium.

DAVID: All of which is supplied by God who created life.

dhw: I have always accepted the possibility that your God created life and supplied cellular intelligence.

I know.

1945 views

DAVID: The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells are simply cogs in parts of constructive activities.

dhw: Thank you for conceding that single-celled bacteria are “free-living”. This is real progress.

DAVID: No concession: I've always said as free-living they had to be able to take full responsibility for their adaptations, as from Shapiro.

dhw: Yes of course, if they are free-living they “take responsibility” for their adaptations. That is what autonomy means. And if (theistic version) your God gave bacteria the freedom to do their own adapting, why on earth do you think that a community of cells could not have been given the same freedom and responsibility – culminating in human free will?

DAVID: Our brain with free will plays no role in this particular discussion.

Of course it does. We are descended from bacteria, remember? And if bacteria are free-living and responsible for their own decisions, and we are free-living and responsible for our own decisions, it is not unreasonable to assume that every organism in between was also free-living and responsible for its own decisions. See Talbott.

DAVID: The free-living aspect of bacteria REQUIRES the adaptability they have.

All organisms REQUIRE adaptability, and if they haven’t got it they die! If the very first organisms had the responsibility for their own adaptations, why do you think their descendants don’t have it?

DAVID: Multicellularity involves a completely different set of considerations which involves the basic cooperation of all cells in their various organs run by the information in each modified DNA to handle all the myriad of functionality.

Of course a community of cells requires cooperation, and of course they will be run by information that can handle all the different functions, but if singled celled bacteria can process information and send it to their molecules, so can multi-celled organisms. Same process, but on an ever increasing scale.

DAVID: Bacterial mats do that to a degree, which is probably a step to multicellularity

dhw: Yes indeed, that is the whole point! Free-living, autonomously intelligent bacteria form communities, and that starts the whole process of multicellularity: free-living, autonomously intelligent cells pool their intelligence, thus branching out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

DAVID: Again I view it as designed by God, well beyond the capacity of cell committees.

We know your beliefs. The autonomous intelligence and responsibility of bacteria may indeed have been designed by your God, and it makes no sense to assume that it would not have been passed on to the single cells that formed communities. It is not a proven theory, but your opposition to it is based on an assumption, not on any facts.

Read Talbott: file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Desktop/Stephen%20L.%20Talbott.html

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells, it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?

"It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior. But the error would be equally egregious if we simply ignored the evident relation and historical continuity between the earliest forms of life and ourselves." (dhw's bolds)

DAVID: Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria.

dhw: If we are direct descendant relatives of bacteria, so is every other life form that ever lived. That is the theory of common descent, and I really don’t think we need Talbott to tell us that. The quotes could hardly be clearer: he is pointing out the fact that although cellular intelligence is not to be compared to our human intelligence, nevertheless single cells are intelligent! In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence.

DAVID: Once again my position is God designed all species and what appears to be cell intelligence is a function of cells following God's intelligent instructions as they act and react.

I know your position. Thank you for quoting Talbott’s support of the concept of cellular intelligence.

1949 views

DAVID: No concession: I've always said as free-living they had to be able to take full responsibility for their adaptations, as from Shapiro.

dhw: Yes of course, if they are free-living they “take responsibility” for their adaptations. That is what autonomy means.

DAVID: Our brain with free will plays no role in this particular discussion.

dhw: Of course it does. We are descended from bacteria, remember? And if bacteria are free-living and responsible for their own decisions, and we are free-living and responsible for our own decisions, it is not unreasonable to assume that every organism in between was also free-living and responsible for its own decisions. See Talbott.

You cannot equate our intellectual free will, which is immaterial, with bacterial reactions.
***

dhw: Yes indeed, that is the whole point! Free-living, autonomously intelligent bacteria form communities, and that starts the whole process of multicellularity: free-living, autonomously intelligent cells pool their intelligence, thus branching out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

DAVID: Again I view it as designed by God, well beyond the capacity of cell committees.

dhw: We know your beliefs. The autonomous intelligence and responsibility of bacteria may indeed have been designed by your God, and it makes no sense to assume that it would not have been passed on to the single cells that formed communities. It is not a proven theory, but your opposition to it is based on an assumption, not on any facts.

Not an assumption, but a firm belief in God, the designer.

Read Talbott: file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Desktop/Stephen%20L.%20Talbott.html

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells, it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?

"It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior. But the error would be equally egregious if we simply ignored the evident relation and historical continuity between the earliest forms of life and ourselves." (dhw's bolds)

DAVID: Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria.

dhw: If we are direct descendant relatives of bacteria, so is every other life form that ever lived. That is the theory of common descent, and I really don’t think we need Talbott to tell us that. The quotes could hardly be clearer: he is pointing out the fact that although cellular intelligence is not to be compared to our human intelligence, nevertheless single cells are intelligent! In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence.

DAVID: Once again my position is God designed all species and what appears to be cell intelligence is a function of cells following God's intelligent instructions as they act and react.

dhw: I know your position. Thank you for quoting Talbott’s support of the concept of cellular intelligence.

We each interpret Talbott differently. He is questioning the source of that cellular intelligence without answering.

1925 views

DAVID: No concession: I've always said as free-living they had to be able to take full responsibility for their adaptations, as from Shapiro.

dhw: Yes of course, if they are free-living they “take responsibility” for their adaptations. That is what autonomy means.

DAVID: Our brain with free will plays no role in this particular discussion.

dhw: Of course it does. We are descended from bacteria, remember? And if bacteria are free-living and responsible for their own decisions, and we are free-living and responsible for our own decisions, it is not unreasonable to assume that every organism in between was also free-living and responsible for its own decisions. See Talbott.

DAVID: You cannot equate our intellectual free will, which is immaterial, with bacterial reactions.

Neither I nor Talbott equates bacterial intelligence with human intelligence, and you know it. Talbott: "It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior". You agree that bacteria are autonomous organisms responsible for their own decisions. So are we, and it makes sense to assume that the same applies to all organisms in between.

dhw: The autonomous intelligence and responsibility of bacteria may indeed have been designed by your God, and it makes no sense to assume that it would not have been passed on to the single cells that formed communities. It is not a proven theory, but your opposition to it is based on an assumption, not on any facts.

DAVID: Not an assumption, but a firm belief in God, the designer.

No problem. You can agree that all organisms have their own form of intelligence, and firmly believe that God designed the original form with its infinite potential for variation and complexification

Talbott: file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Desktop/Stephen%20L.%20Talbott.html

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells,it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?

dhw: […] In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence.

DAVID: Once again my position is God designed all species and what appears to be cell intelligence is a function of cells following God's intelligent instructions as they act and react.

dhw: I know your position. Thank you for quoting Talbott’s support of the concept of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: We each interpret Talbott differently. He is questioning the source of that cellular intelligence without answering.

Originally you tried to make out that “Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria” and you ignored the fact that he was promoting the idea of cellular intelligence. The fact that nobody knows the source does not alter the fact that he supports the concept of cellular intelligence, so thank you again for bringing this supportive article to our attention.
X
QUOTE (from “error corrections III"): "Sifers and others dug deeper into how cells dispose of misfolded proteins. They discovered that cells shuttle defective proteins from their place of synthesis, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), to the cytosol, where they are degraded in a cellular structure called a proteasome. Key to this process is to tag the proteins for destruction."

DAVID: All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

1925 views

DAVID: You cannot equate our intellectual free will, which is immaterial, with bacterial reactions.

dhw: Neither I nor Talbott equates bacterial intelligence with human intelligence, and you know it. Talbott: "It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior". You agree that bacteria are autonomous organisms responsible for their own decisions. So are we, and it makes sense to assume that the same applies to all organisms in between.

Bacteria are free to adapt and simply react but humans can invent immaterial plans. Still a non-comparable comparison.

dhw: The autonomous intelligence and responsibility of bacteria may indeed have been designed by your God, and it makes no sense to assume that it would not have been passed on to the single cells that formed communities. It is not a proven theory, but your opposition to it is based on an assumption, not on any facts.

DAVID: Not an assumption, but a firm belief in God, the designer.

dhw: No problem. You can agree that all organisms have their own form of intelligence, and firmly believe that God designed the original form with its infinite potential for variation and complexification

And all following forms.

Talbott: file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Desktop/Stephen%20L.%20Talbott.html

QUOTE: "When, then, we reflect upon the incredibly complex, end-directed tasks expertly carried out by vast collections of molecules even in the simplest and most primitive cells,it is natural to call to mind the eons of evolutionary transformation that have led from single cells to our own experience as conscious and willful agents pursuing our own meaningful tasks. Does the human outcome illuminate primordial origins?

dhw: […] In other words, ALL levels of intelligence are descended from bacterial intelligence.

DAVID: Once again my position is God designed all species and what appears to be cell intelligence is a function of cells following God's intelligent instructions as they act and react.

dhw: I know your position. Thank you for quoting Talbott’s support of the concept of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: We each interpret Talbott differently. He is questioning the source of that cellular intelligence without answering.

dhw: Originally you tried to make out that “Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria” and you ignored the fact that he was promoting the idea of cellular intelligence. The fact that nobody knows the source does not alter the fact that he supports the concept of cellular intelligence, so thank you again for bringing this supportive article to our attention.

Talbott raised the question and does not give an answer

X
QUOTE (from “error corrections III"): "Sifers and others dug deeper into how cells dispose of misfolded proteins. They discovered that cells shuttle defective proteins from their place of synthesis, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), to the cytosol, where they are degraded in a cellular structure called a proteasome. Key to this process is to tag the proteins for destruction."

DAVID: All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

dhw: Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

With no explanation from you where the intelligence came from. Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

1932 views

dhw: Neither I nor Talbott equates bacterial intelligence with human intelligence, and you know it. Talbott: "It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior". You agree that bacteria are autonomous organisms responsible for their own decisions. So are we, and it makes sense to assume that the same applies to all organisms in between.

DAVID: Bacteria are free to adapt and simply react but humans can invent immaterial plans. Still a non-comparable comparison.

You are merely repeating what Talbott and I keep telling you. We are NOT comparing the levels of intelligence. We are pointing out that bacteria are intelligent, and it is a perfectly logical sequence that just as multicellularity led to increasing physical complexity, it also led to increasing levels of intelligence.

DAVID: We each interpret Talbott differently. He is questioning the source of that cellular intelligence without answering.

dhw: Originally you tried to make out that “Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria” and you ignored the fact that he was promoting the idea of cellular intelligence. The fact that nobody knows the source does not alter the fact that he supports the concept of cellular intelligence, so thank you again for bringing this supportive article to our attention.

DAVID: Talbott raised the question and does not give an answer.

True. That has nothing to do with the question of whether cells are or are not intelligent. Thank you again for quoting an article which so clearly supports the concept of cellular intelligence.

QUOTE: "Sifers and others dug deeper into how cells dispose of misfolded proteins. They discovered that cells shuttle defective proteins from their place of synthesis, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), to the cytosol, where they are degraded in a cellular structure called a proteasome. Key to this process is to tag the proteins for destruction."

DAVID: (from “error corrections III") All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

dhw: Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

DAVID: With no explanation from you where the intelligence came from. Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

Thank you for again acknowledging the possibility that cells are intelligent. And no, in common with every other human being on this planet, I do not know where life itself came from, let alone what might be the cause of cellular intelligence, if the theory is true. But we know life exists, and so maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in.That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before. ;-)

1955 views

dhw: Neither I nor Talbott equates bacterial intelligence with human intelligence, and you know it. Talbott: "It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior". You agree that bacteria are autonomous organisms responsible for their own decisions. So are we, and it makes sense to assume that the same applies to all organisms in between.

DAVID: Bacteria are free to adapt and simply react but humans can invent immaterial plans. Still a non-comparable comparison.

dhw: You are merely repeating what Talbott and I keep telling you. We are NOT comparing the levels of intelligence. We are pointing out that bacteria are intelligent, and it is a perfectly logical sequence that just as multicellularity led to increasing physical complexity, it also led to increasing levels of intelligence.

Talbott an I certainly agree bacteria act intelligently and he wonders where that intelligence came from, without answering. He does not support you by leaving the issue as an open question.

DAVID: We each interpret Talbott differently. He is questioning the source of that cellular intelligence without answering.

dhw: Originally you tried to make out that “Talbott is telling us evolution has produced us as direct decedent relatives of bacteria” and you ignored the fact that he was promoting the idea of cellular intelligence. The fact that nobody knows the source does not alter the fact that he supports the concept of cellular intelligence, so thank you again for bringing this supportive article to our attention.

DAVID: Talbott raised the question and does not give an answer.

dhw: True. That has nothing to do with the question of whether cells are or are not intelligent. Thank you again for quoting an article which so clearly supports the concept of cellular intelligence.

You are welcome.

QUOTE: "Sifers and others dug deeper into how cells dispose of misfolded proteins. They discovered that cells shuttle defective proteins from their place of synthesis, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), to the cytosol, where they are degraded in a cellular structure called a proteasome. Key to this process is to tag the proteins for destruction."

DAVID: (from “error corrections III") All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

dhw: Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

DAVID: With no explanation from you where the intelligence came from. Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: Thank you for again acknowledging the possibility that cells are intelligent. And no, in common with every other human being on this planet, I do not know where life itself came from, let alone what might be the cause of cellular intelligence, if the theory is true. But we know life exists, and so maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

:-) I know of your struggles. Forget (1) God. Just realize a designer is required. That is how I left agnosticism.

1911 views

dhw: Neither I nor Talbott equates bacterial intelligence with human intelligence, and you know it. Talbott: "It would, of course, be a fatal error to collapse all distinctions and talk about those early cells in the same way we talk about conscious human cognition and behavior". You agree that bacteria are autonomous organisms responsible for their own decisions. So are we, and it makes sense to assume that the same applies to all organisms in between.

DAVID: Bacteria are free to adapt and simply react but humans can invent immaterial plans. Still a non-comparable comparison.

dhw: You are merely repeating what Talbott and I keep telling you. We are NOT comparing the levels of intelligence. We are pointing out that bacteria are intelligent, and it is a perfectly logical sequence that just as multicellularity led to increasing physical complexity, it also led to increasing levels of intelligence.

DAVID: Talbott and I certainly agree bacteria act intelligently and he wonders where that intelligence came from, without answering. He does not support you by leaving the issue as an open question.

Great to hear that you now agree that bacteria act intelligently, instead of your previous belief that they merely obeyed your God’s instructions, but I’m surprised you’ve forgotten that I also agree with Talbott that bacteria are intelligent, and you’ve also forgotten that I too leave open the issue of where the intelligence came from, though I do add that it may have come from God. Please tell me where Talbott and I differ.

DAVID: (from “error corrections III") All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

dhw: Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

DAVID: With no explanation from you where the intelligence came from. Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: Thank you for again acknowledging the possibility that cells are intelligent. And no, in common with every other human being on this planet, I do not know where life itself came from, let alone what might be the cause of cellular intelligence, if the theory is true. But we know life exists, and so maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before. ;-)

:-) DAVID: I know of your struggles. Forget (1) God. Just realize a designer is required. That is how I left agnosticism.

You moaned that I had no other answer. You had forgotten the other two answers.

1929 views

DAVID: Talbott and I certainly agree bacteria act intelligently and he wonders where that intelligence came from, without answering. He does not support you by leaving the issue as an open question.

dhw: Great to hear that you now agree that bacteria act intelligently, instead of your previous belief that they merely obeyed your God’s instructions, but I’m surprised you’ve forgotten that I also agree with Talbott that bacteria are intelligent, and you’ve also forgotten that I too leave open the issue of where the intelligence came from, though I do add that it may have come from God. Please tell me where Talbott and I differ.

We all do not differ except I believe God provided the intelligent instructions

DAVID: (from “error corrections III") All of this comes from studying rare genetic deficiency diseases and finds obscure God's editing mechanisms, showing He recognized/anticipated genetic errors as well as metabolic errors.

dhw: Or just possibly all of this shows how intelligent cells work out how to handle errors in the system.

DAVID: With no explanation from you where the intelligence came from. Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: Thank you for again acknowledging the possibility that cells are intelligent. And no, in common with every other human being on this planet, I do not know where life itself came from, let alone what might be the cause of cellular intelligence, if the theory is true. But we know life exists, and so maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

DAVID: I know of your struggles. Forget (1) God. Just realize a designer is required. That is how I left agnosticism.

dhw: You moaned that I had no other answer. You had forgotten the other two answers.

I ignored chance and panpsychism as inventions not worth answering.

1925 views

DAVID: Talbott and I certainly agree bacteria act intelligently and he wonders where that intelligence came from, without answering. He does not support you by leaving the issue as an open question.

dhw: Great to hear that you now agree that bacteria act intelligently, instead of your previous belief that they merely obeyed your God’s instructions, but I’m surprised you’ve forgotten that I also agree with Talbott that bacteria are intelligent, and you’ve also forgotten that I too leave open the issue of where the intelligence came from, though I do add that it may have come from God. Please tell me where Talbott and I differ.

DAVID: We all do not differ except I believe God provided the intelligent instructions.

Then we are poles apart. Talbott and I are arguing for the autonomous intelligence of cells, not for robots obeying God’s instructions.

David: [..] Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: …maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before. ;-)

:-) DAVID: I know of your struggles. Forget (1) God. Just realize a designer is required. That is how I left agnosticism.

dhw: You moaned that I had no other answer. You had forgotten the other two answers.

DAVID: I ignored chance and panpsychism as inventions not worth answering.

Not much point in telling me I have no other answer and then ignoring the other answers! :-(

1913 views

DAVID: Talbott and I certainly agree bacteria act intelligently and he wonders where that intelligence came from, without answering. He does not support you by leaving the issue as an open question.

dhw: Great to hear that you now agree that bacteria act intelligently, instead of your previous belief that they merely obeyed your God’s instructions, but I’m surprised you’ve forgotten that I also agree with Talbott that bacteria are intelligent, and you’ve also forgotten that I too leave open the issue of where the intelligence came from, though I do add that it may have come from God. Please tell me where Talbott and I differ.

DAVID: We all do not differ except I believe God provided the intelligent instructions.

dhw: Then we are poles apart. Talbott and I are arguing for the autonomous intelligence of cells, not for robots obeying God’s instructions.

Talbott is not you. He has only raised the issue of how come cells act so intelligently, without answering the question!! He wants answers. I like to follow him because he so clearly defines what is missing. I fill it with God as designer.

David: [..] Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: …maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

DAVID: I know of your struggles. Forget (1) God. Just realize a designer is required. That is how I left agnosticism.

dhw: You moaned that I had no other answer. You had forgotten the other two answers.

DAVID: I ignored chance and panpsychism as inventions not worth answering.

dhw: Not much point in telling me I have no other answer and then ignoring the other answers!

I think chance is an unreasonable theory, considering the complexity of biochemical life. As for panpsychism, it is a blown up concept only because we do have the mental capacity to invent all sorts of idiotic suggestions. Minds at invention play. Why not try on multiverses for size? ;-)

1925 views

DAVID: We all do not differ except I believe God provided the intelligent instructions.

dhw: Then we are poles apart. Talbott and I are arguing for the autonomous intelligence of cells, not for robots obeying God’s instructions.

DAVID: Talbott is not you. He has only raised the issue of how come cells act so intelligently, without answering the question!! He wants answers. I like to follow him because he so clearly defines what is missing. I fill it with God as designer.

Talbott argues the case for cellular intelligence. So do I. He doesn’t know the source of that intelligence. Nor do I. And so where do Talbott and I differ?

DAVID: [..] Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: …maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before. ;-)

DAVID: I think chance is an unreasonable theory, considering the complexity of biochemical life. As for panpsychism, it is a blown up concept only because we do have the mental capacity to invent all sorts of idiotic suggestions. Minds at invention play. Why not try on multiverses for size? ;-)

You said I had no other answer. I gave you two other answers. I also told you that I find both of them difficult to believe in, so why do you have to tell me that they are difficult to believe in? I find your own theory equally difficult to believe in, which is why I am an agnostic. This discussion is a cul de sac.

1926 views

DAVID: We all do not differ except I believe God provided the intelligent instructions.

dhw: Then we are poles apart. Talbott and I are arguing for the autonomous intelligence of cells, not for robots obeying God’s instructions.

DAVID: Talbott is not you. He has only raised the issue of how come cells act so intelligently, without answering the question!! He wants answers. I like to follow him because he so clearly defines what is missing. I fill it with God as designer.

dhw: Talbott argues the case for cellular intelligence. So do I. He doesn’t know the source of that intelligence. Nor do I. And so where do Talbott and I differ?

You don't and neither do I. Only I give an answer. The cells act intelligently and I point to God as designer

DAVID: [..] Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: …maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before.

DAVID: I think chance is an unreasonable theory, considering the complexity of biochemical life. As for panpsychism, it is a blown up concept only because we do have the mental capacity to invent all sorts of idiotic suggestions. Minds at invention play. Why not try on multiverses for size?

dhw: You said I had no other answer. I gave you two other answers. I also told you that I find both of them difficult to believe in, so why do you have to tell me that they are difficult to believe in? I find your own theory equally difficult to believe in, which is why I am an agnostic. This discussion is a cul de sac.

Agreed.

1922 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum