Evolution of multicellularity (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 30, 2012, 13:53 (4408 days ago) @ George Jelliss

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!