Intelligence & Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, November 07, 2013, 14:19 (4033 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: But more to the point, they are professionals working in a field which you claim provides the basis for your own faith. A 90% no is not much of an endorsement, is it?
DAVID: They have made a choice to be atheists. They have a position which will not agree with me. You won't choose.-A fair summary. It does not alter the fact that 90% of professional scientists working in your field do not endorse your interpretation of the science, and I wonder if even the other 10% would do so.-dhw: If you mean that cells follow a plan devised BY a mechanism of unknown origin within their DNA, we might strike a deal.
DAVID: I can agree that cells follow a plan and no proven source of the plan is at issue.-Not sure what you mean by no "proven" source is "at issue". Keep it simple. We do not know the source.-Dhw: ...if you mean the plan has been placed there by your God and cells are automatons (which of course you have always maintained), you are missing my point, which is quite simply that we DO NOT KNOW. This is admirably illustrated by your misinterpretation of the sentence you bolded in one of the three quotations supporting the concept or at least the possibility of the intelligent cell. The sentence begins: "Though the researchers do not understand the process(es) by which bacteria code messages and send them...."-DAVID: But that is exactly my point: the coded messages are biochemical series of reactions. We don't fully understand the DNA control of those messages.-Your point is not their point. They are not talking about the messages as a series of reactions. They are talking about how cells code and send messages. You can argue that ALL communication is reaction ... to the environment, to the presence of other organisms, or even to oneself. The messages are the result of the reactions. "Don't fully understand..." and "don't yet understand..." (below): another Dawkins tactic. Both of you try to make out that we know or will soon know most of it, and what we know confirms your/his personal opinion. The above researchers simply "do not understand..." No adverb.-dhw: Do you understand the processes by which your brain and body translate your thoughts into spoken or written words?
DAVID: No one does.-And similarly no-one understands how cells are able to code and send the messages that enable them to cooperate with one another.-dhw; The researchers do argue, however, that it implies a shared knowledge of the semantic meanings, which suggests that bacteria are sentient (by choosing), intelligent (by communicating) and socially organized. Of course you prefer not to "bold" that.
DAVID: I have a perfect right to disagree with their far out interpretation.-You do indeed have a perfect right to disagree, and to denigrate their research as "far out" or "poppycock" or "kooky". They would have the same right to denigrate your divine preprogramming as "far out", and Dawkins has a perfect right to call God a delusion. We learn nothing from such subjective use of language. Nor do we learn anything from statements such as "Cells do not of their own volition cooperate." This is opinion masquerading as scientific fact, which is no doubt precisely the accusation you would like to level at Margulis. One eye open, one eye shut!
 
dhw: You should consider her research on cells and her conclusion in the context only of her science.
DAVID: A fair criticism. To me some of the ideas seem like a wooly extention of reality. But on the other hand living organisms emerge as more than a sum of their parts. Life itself is an emergent process.I just think Margulis pushes the point romantically too far.-And you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm happy to see your "other hand" as a promising sign of agnostic tolerance!