Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, September 19, 2013, 19:43 (4062 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: why dismiss as poppycock a theory which offers an explanation that covers all the problems thrown up by Darwin's theory?-DAVID: Only by throwing up a nebulous theory with no basis in biochemistry.-I wonder how you would describe the God theory.-dhw;We are discussing whether or not cells have a degree of consciousness that enables them to innovate. In your context, this would mean God endowing his invention with independent intelligence.-DAVID: Not intelligence, useful information, in DNA and used by DNA-How can information be used for innovation without the user being possessed of intelligence?-dhw: Your own comments are also philosophical surmises, but that, you will agree, is not a reason to dismiss them as poppycock. Her surmises, like your own, were based on her scientific studies, and as far as I can tell they do not preclude your own philosophical surmises (she was an agnostic).-DAVID: No. What is poppycock is your 'intelligent cell' which can think and plan. Cells are automatic reactors and innovation comes from those epigenetic reactions, pre-provided by information from an intelligent conscious source.-So the concept of conscious cells is not poppycock, but that of intelligent cells is poppycock. Consciousness/intelligence can hardly be disassociated from thought of some kind, but Margulis is careful to avoid anthropomorphizing her bacteria / cells. I do not see how automatic reactors can possibly combine to invent totally new organs. You have accepted that cells are "capable of independent invention as well as self-perpetuation", with the proviso that your God created them, and you have rejected the alternative, which is that your God preprogrammed every innovation. What does "pre-provided by information from an intelligent conscious source" mean, if not "preprogramming"? You may vary the vocabulary as much as you like, but you are still stuck with these two choices (qualified by your God's occasional dabbling). -dhw: I agree that conscious intelligence is at the basis of life, and I am suggesting that it is present in all forms of life, in varying forms and degrees. ........ Once we agree that "conscious" intelligence is at the basis of life and is therefore present in the cell and in cell communities and in all forms of life, we are left with the problem of its source. That's where the different parties diverge.-DAVID: I agree with your statement. [...] But you haven't picked a source for the conscious intelligence. Your problem, not mine.-You agree that there is "conscious intelligence" in the cell and in cell communities, and yet you keep disagreeing! -DAVID (quoting under "Origin of Life: whole cell"): "A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity," said Huck. "We are now closer to building a synthetic cell than anyone ever before us." [David's bold]-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130702100115.htm-Why would organic molecules decide to play together without some kind of guidance?-Perhaps because they are possessed of an independent, intelligent decision-making mechanism, which may or may not have been invented by your God.