Cambrian Explosion: afterthought (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, September 27, 2013, 12:41 (4054 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I found a group that tries to support your view:-http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/summary.htm-The only difference I have with them is I think all of these reactions are automatic. note the reference to bbella'ss light activity. I'm sure there is some of this also.-First, let me say how touched I am by the mere fact that you have found and posted this reference. I'm tempted now to write a Tureulogy, because this post epitomizes the spirit of open, honest inquiry that was my purpose in setting up the website in the first place. But I will confine this paragraph to a simple thank you.-It's not a group ... it's a retired professor of cell biology who has spent 30+ years studying cells and who emphasizes that he does not subscribe to ID or to any other philosophical position. He does not "try" to support my view ... he is a scientist who can take you on in the field in which he is an expert (his credentials are impressive). The "only difference" you have with him is the subject of our whole discussion: you believe that cells behave automatically, and he believes they are intelligent. Of course the discussion remains open as regards evolutionary innovation and the Cambrian Explosion, since I doubt very much whether Guenter Albrecht-Buehler's experiments have produced any new organs, but his philosophical neutrality can only mean that HE considers the hypothesis feasible. Incidentally, I'm relieved to hear that it dates back nearly 100 years. I found it difficult to imagine that I was entirely alone! -I had drafted a very long reply to your last post, but I will try to condense it.-1) Three times you have rightly pointed out that our views depend on definition. The attributes that I consider essential to my own concept of "intelligence" include: perception of the environment, the ability to process, exchange, accumulate and use information,to communicate with other organisms, and to take decisions. We see all of these attributes in our fellow animals, and scientists have observed them in other forms of life, right down to bacteria. I do not include self-awareness as essential to intelligence. I don't recall you ever offering a definition, so perhaps you can tell me how your definition differs from mine.-2) 90% of physical scientists and approx. 50% of medical doctors disagree with you. How does this indicate that I am clutching at straws? (Please note yet again that I offer the hypothesis as a feasible alternative, not as a firm belief.)-3) You always give examples of cellular actions that are the equivalent to automatic human perceptions ("a bacterial sensor on its outer membrane senses nutrient nearby. This is chemical sensing just as your nostril smells the chocolate.") The intelligent cell hypothesis does not focus on the "senses" of the cell but on the "brain" of the cell, or the "Construction Planner", which coordinates all the work of the "senses".-4) "The more complex life is shown to be at the molecular level, the less likely that the Darwin theory of evolution is valid."-Which Darwinian theory? Common descent? Natural Selection? It is the validity of random mutations and gradualism that is in question here, i.e. not evolution itself but the way it works. The more complex life is shown to be at the molecular level, the more likely it is that we shall find cellular mechanisms of which scientists never dreamed. Who knows, they might even find the zillions of programmes your God inserted at the start to cover the next few billion years of evolutionary innovations. Or they might find that these mechanisms include an independent intelligence without preprogramming.