This discovery of bacteria that combine together to form electric cables may suggest that there are mechanistic explanations of the development of multicellularity.
> 
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/24/bacteria-living-electric-... mentioned this phenomenon on Oct. 25th 16:20. My thought was this might have been an early attempt at very elemental nerve tissue, another evidence of convegence, a la' Simon Conway Morris. -What I don't understand is your comment that this is mechanistic or even an attempt at multicellularity. I didn't include it in this subject. But is nice to have you back, even if it is now and then.

GEORGE: Of course I find dhw's ideas that cells have minds or consciousness in some form rather too fanciful.-I don't know at what point you linked up with this discussion. I presume you would not disagree that our bodies comprise huge communities of cells with different functions, and that these communities work together, and do so quite independently of any conscious control by ourselves: breathing, digesting, fighting disease etc. If you believe as I do that all forms of life descended from earlier forms, you need to find an explanation for how single-celled life became multicellular, and how all the organs we now take for granted actually originated. Since they all comprise communities of cells, it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that initially individual cells combined with other cells to form such communities. I don't see how anyone can deny that these working communities demonstrate some form of intelligence. David traces this back to his first cause UI, whereas I presume you trace it back to a lucky mix of ingredients in the primordial soup. I am not focusing on a first cause, because I still think it's unknowable and I find both theories incredible. I'm focusing solely on how evolution works, and I'm suggesting that its necessary innovations take place not through Darwin's series of random mutations (= sheer chance), but through deliberate interaction and cooperation between cells and cell communities ... in precisely the same way as cells and cell communities now interact and cooperate within our own bodies. Perhaps you could explain why this is more fanciful than the theory that innovations are caused initially by sheer chance?

GEORGE (under Velikovsky...): It seems you are still unmoved by the joining-up-the-dots argument about the origin of life. In the early universe there are all the building blocks for life and in the later universe life is made up of those blocks and evolves by natural selection. So there must have been a transition from one to the other. Why invoke supernatural or mystical forces to to explain the occurrence when natural physical forces are sufficient.-Delighted though I am to have you splashing in the rock pool, I'm slightly baffled by your post. Where on earth have I invoked supernatural or mystical forces? In the Velikovsky post, I have reiterated my scepticism concerning both the UI theory and the chance theory (which you euphemistically call "natural physical forces"). In my response on this thread to your dismissal of "the intelligent cell" as "rather too fanciful", I could scarcely have made it clearer that I am NOT dealing with the origin of life, or with supernatural or mystical forces:-"I don't see how anyone can deny that these working communities [= organs and organisms] demonstrate some form of intelligence. David traces this back to his first cause UI, whereas I presume you trace it back to a lucky mix of ingredients in the primordial soup. I am not focusing on a first cause, because I still think it's unknowable and I find both theories incredible. I'm focusing solely on how evolution works, and I'm suggesting that its necessary innovations take place not through Darwin's series of random mutations (= sheer chance), but through deliberate interaction and cooperation between cells and cell communities..."-In the context of Velikovsky, you have ignored my reply and only answered your own point about the origin of the moon, and on this thread you have not responded at all to my arguments concerning the "intelligent cell". You commented earlier that "the arguments still seem to be much the same", but here you are avoiding two topics that are quite different, after having passed disparaging remarks about both! This is not the combative but rational and well-informed George of yesteryear! -To return, though, to the tried and trusted topic, David has given his response concerning the origin of life, but even from my neutral perspective, your statement that "there must have been a transition from one to the other" is blindingly obvious. The whole point of that particular discussion is HOW the inanimate could have turned into the animate!