Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, September 22, 2013, 19:01 (4059 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My problem with discussing cell activity is you don't understand the biochemistry.-dhw: You may understand the biochemistry of cells, but do you understand the nature and source of conscious intelligence? ....... However, if you believe that biochemistry is the sole source of intelligence, you will have to accept that your knowledge of biochemistry doesn't encompass it, and you will also have to reconsider your beliefs about free will, psychic experiences, and especially an afterlife.-DAVID: I view this as a straw man switch. Biochemistry at a simple level is automatic responses of giant molecules to chemical stimuli. What I believe is the case is there is intelligent information and instruction in DNA which the cells can source to handle any changes/challenges that may arise. Don't try to equate this level of function with consciousness, free will, afterlife, etc.-Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't know where your "simple level of biochemistry" begins, but my focal point is innovation, which is not simple. You dismiss the idea of the intelligent cell (Margulis calls it a "conscious entity") as poppycock because I don't understand the biochemistry. This can only mean you know that the source of intelligence (at no matter what level) is biochemical, and you know that cells don't have it. You don't, and you don't. Furthermore, if the source is biochemical, this casts doubt on the concepts of free will and of an afterlife (since physically sourced intelligence would die when the body dies). If the source of intelligence is not biochemical (you believe in non-corporeal conscious energy called God), you can hardly dismiss the intelligent cell on grounds of biochemistry.
 
DAVID: I have always supported the idea of pre-planning and pre-programming, which means the cells are automatic responders.-You might as well say: "I believe in God", which means God created the universe. One belief doesn't prove another! Your assumptions about cells are based on your religious beliefs ... not on biochemistry.-DAVID: Thank you for forcing me th sharpen my way of explaining. There is no way for cells independently to create a kidney. They have to be provided with an overall plan to follow. They are given this in my concept of pre-programming. -They are also given this in Margulis's concept of cooperation between "conscious entities". See my next response.-DAVID: Again, cells contain intelligence but are not themselves intelligent in that they cannot conujure up new information necessary for advances in complexity. Cells do not think in any sense of the word, and your theory implies thinking cells.-Again you state this as if it were a fact, but it's a belief. An alternative is that as environments change, and cell communities combine, they accumulate and exchange more and more information. This leads to advances in complexity through independent intelligences cooperating in order to adapt and innovate (as in many of "Nature's Wonders"). Thought, yes, but not self-awareness in the human sense. For further comment, please see my post under "Origin of Life: whole cell".-DAVID: And all I am doing is agreeing with you that the intelligent cell automatically uses implanted intelligent information and may follow automatic choices a,b, or c. this allows for variation and some degree of natural selection. I still champion theistic evolution.-How do you "follow" a choice? You "make" a choice, and that requires decision-making. But according to you, the invention of the kidney was preprogrammed, and that precludes choice. I don't see innovation as a matter of choice. It requires original thought. If we go back to ants, I don't think the ur-ants found themselves confronted with a choice between hives, twiggy nests, caves and anthills. They invented their colonies from scratch. You go on to say, "My 'choices' for cells is what creates variation and some degree of trial and error, with God watching the result." Trial and error would certainly be part of the process, which involves natural selection. I see variation as being created by the flexibility of cell combinations (though once a pattern is established, it sets its own parameters ... innovation being the exception, not the rule).
 
On Friday at 22.35 you accepted option 2): God designed the intelligent mechanism that designed every new organ. It's like saying God designed the human brain which designed the motor car. That is a form of theistic evolution. And God watching the results produced by his intelligent, independently thinking inventors is also compatible with theistic evolution. On Friday at 22.26, however, you had insisted that the invention of the kidney was preprogrammed ("preprogramming is the only conceivable way"), and that the cells were automata (which makes them incapable of designing anything). This suggested that you were in favour of option 1): God himself designing every new organ. On Saturday you neatly sidestepped the fact that since you believe evolution happened, this means the very first forms of life contained programmes for all innovations, not to mention the environmental changes without which they could not have been produced, and you wrote: "your final thought is what I believe." I am confused again. Is this option 1) or option 2)?