Cambrian Explosion: afterthought (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, October 05, 2013, 15:53 (4046 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: A strange piece of editing! The bit you have left out is: "According to your definition all organisms are automatons except humans." -That is your misinterpretation of my definition, and why I deleted it.
 
> dhw: We are not talking about single cells being able to do what multicellular organisms are able to do. That may well be why multicellularity evolved in the first place ... because cells found they could accomplish more by cooperating with one another and forming communities. There are degrees of intelligence, as you have acknowledged by introducing us to your dog, and my hypothesis suggests that intelligence evolved from the simple to the ever more complex as cells cooperated to form new communities.- I agree your theory implies that single cells invented multicellularity. You will need to read the recent entry on biological information to realize how unlikely that is.
 
> dhw: All communication involves some kind of biochemical process....... I am suggesting (as does Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Professor of Cell Biology) that even individual cells have an intelligent control centre: he calls it the centrosome. You keep focusing on the method of communication, and "you shut your mind to" what composes the particular message in the first place.-I know about the centrosome. It is composed of very large protein molecules doing a job by the same series of inter-molecular signals I've been talking about. One molecule activating another to do its job. All automatic. The intelligence is in the instructions (information) in the genome. Even choices in the centrosome are automatic. Please don't throw professors who use metaphores at me.-> 
> dhw; The majority of scientists would say you are still indulging in your childhood tooth fairy fantasy. Your theory is that there is an unknown power (the tooth fairy) that preprogrammed the earliest forms of life to automatically produce every new organ that would lead from eukaryotes to humans, and humans were his ultimate goal. I have offered an alternative: that there is no ultimate goal, but only constant adaptation and invention to fit in with the demands and opportunities presented by changing environmental conditions. This is indeed "philosophizing", but no more so than your God hypothesis.-More unadulterated twists on Darwinism. Yes, we both philosophize. We have agreed that evolution occurred. Your proposal doesn't fit our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry. The evolution we see is a staccato series of species, all arriving full blown. You are reviving the itty bitty advance theory of Charles that is not seen in the fossil record. Cellular discussion and advances would perforce have to be itty bitty.
> 
> dhw: I still don't see it as any more unbelievable than your divine preprogramming of all innovations, or Darwin's random mutations.
> 
> DAVID: I'm glad you picket fence is so comfortable. Things will become much more complex asd resaerch advances. The formula applies: more complexity =s less possibilty for chance. The unbelievable becomes possible.
> 
> dhw: The "unbelievable", of course, must be the hypothesis that cells have an intelligent control centre. I doubt very much whether research into the cell will actually reveal your God.-Cell complexity will overwhelm Darwin theory. The "possible unbelievable" is God running the show.
> 
> *****
> 
> I will have to leave the article on Biological Information till later.-I know you will read carefully.