Cell response to electric field (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, April 19, 2013, 18:05 (4237 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Let's start again. You think God preplanned the human bush (which would include bonobos), and left the rest to inventive DNA, although DNA has no intelligence of its own. Please explain how to differentiate between the invention of unplanned, unpreprogrammed whales and the invention of planned, preprogrammed bonobos. If there's no difference, how do you know that the human bush was planned and preprogrammed and the rest was not?-I don't know for sure, obviously. The evidence of leaving the trees, when not necessary suggests a built-in program. 
> 
> dhw: I agree that random mutations are not credible, but you haven't given any reason for believing the equally incredible hypothesis that an unpreprogrammed, unconscious, unintelligent mechanism could invent all the complex innovations necessary to create flycatchers, whales and brontosauruses.-If you an accept, as I do, that a brilliant mind created a multilayered code filled with intelligent information, then a preprogrammed evolution is entirely possible. This is a directed evolution that responds to environmental changes with a multitude of attempts to advance the complexity of life. Thus the bush with 'natures wonders'. This is theistic evolution, process theology at its core. 
> 
> dhw: Yes, I refuse to acknowledge your scenario, ....... I maintain that it requires intelligence to use the information available. (Isn't that the whole basis of ID?) Automatons cannot innovate! They can only obey instructions. But you say the whale was not preplanned ... in which case the genome was not instructed to produce whales. McClintock (Nobel-Prize-winning geneticist): "A goal for the future would be to determine the extent of knowledge the cell has of itself." -If the genome is completely automatic it does not have intelligence in its own right. If we live long enough for the scienctific elucidation of the complete story of the genome, my viewpoint will be verified. Barbara M is right to ask for that study of cellular self-knowledge. My prediction is that thre will be no self-knowledge. Negative results are just as important as positive ones in the study of the genome.- 
> 
> dhw: If, as you believe, the soul is conscious and survives the death of nervous tissues, consciousness can only be in the form of energy ... see David Turell, 18 April: "All at an energy level. No material parts."-Agreed.
> 
> dhw: Yes indeed. If our consciousness is all energy and can direct our material parts, maybe "in a way that science has not yet discovered" this energy exists on a micro level and can direct the material parts of the cell. I'm not asking you to believe it ... only to be as open-minded as McClintock.-I am open-minded. Quantum energy is interconnected throughout the universe and our minds certainly affect our bodies in many ways. Some obvious as nerve controls, hormone cotrols, but we are not sure how placebos work. What you keep ignoring is the theory that our brain reacts as a receiver for consciousness, which is individual and also universal. I ascribe to that theory because of the inferrences from NDE's. - 
> dhw; Ah, more confusion! But, dear David, you are older than me, and I must make allowances!-I am trying to undo your confusion. As older I must guide you out of your muddled morass of thought. I've had more time and more openness to science to realize there must be a greater power. As a child your exposure to religion caused confusion and an unreasonable picture of God. So reasonably you left the fold, never to return. Don't return to religion. They are as confused as you are. My third way is a reasonable alternative. God as demonstrated by His works. Only chance and design are available. John Leslie told us there is a choice: God or a multiverse. Same idea. Your nebulous third way is just a cloud of obsfuscation. I want you to be clear-headed.