Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, September 22, 2013, 21:28 (4059 days ago) @ dhw

dhw; 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. > DAVID: I have always supported the idea of pre-planning and pre-programming, which means the cells are automatic responders.-
You misunderstand. The source of intelligence is instructions in DNA. The biochemistry is automatic responses. Innovation comes out of the DNA, given to the cells by intelligence.
> 
> dhw: 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.-Yes, my belief does come from study of the chemistry. God had to set up pre-planning in DNA. Only theistic evolution makes sense.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> dhw: They are also given this in Margulis's concept of cooperation between "conscious entities". -That is her interpretation, which I do not accept. Yes, consciousness pervades the universe, but it doesn't help cells innovate. There must be a prior overall plan.-
> 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. -Bluntly cell do not exchange information, only chemical reactions. Transfer of DNA is done between species. Cells have the same DNA with different funtions by differential expression of genees.-
> 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.
> 
> dhw: I don't see innovation as a matter of choice. It requires original thought. -The thought comes from God's planning.
 
> dhw: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. -This is where I am in my theorizing. You've got it. You are confused by cells. When you set up a team, football, cricket, baseball, everyone assumes different skills for different functions. An organ is the same with 30-50 or more different cells assuming differentfunctions and skills. Where does the plan come from that assigns the postions? From a rule book. Biochemistry of cells must follow a rule book to set up an organ. -Your cellular plan is like sending a group of folks out on the field who don't know what game they are supposed to play.