Intelligence & Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, November 08, 2013, 19:41 (4031 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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. 
DAVID: You would have to read the science itself to understand that they really are talking about biochemical reactions. No one yet understands how DNA controls this.-You always make it seem that somehow DNA is not part of the cell! Perhaps the cell is the microbody and DNA is or rather contains the equivalent of a microbrain - the mysterious mechanism that controls the activities of the cell (which Albrecht-Buehler calls the centrosome).
 
dhw: And similarly no-one understands how cells are able to code and send the messages that enable them to cooperate with one another.
DAVID: I agree, but we recognize that is is chemical signalling.-They may use chemicals as we use the voice. Chemical is not a synonym for automatic.-dhw: Nor do we learn anything from statements such as "Cells do not of their own volition cooperate." This is opinion masquerading as scientific fact.-DAVID: No masquerade. Of course cells are not independent. They operate exactly according to DNA plans, which we as yet do not fully understand. You again sound as if you are giving cells thoughts and minds.-Again you talk as if DNA were not part of the cell (see above). We do not have a clue how these plans are formed. We only know that cells cooperate in producing adaptation and innovation. We are composed of cells, and our minds may emerge from cells, and I believe we are descended from cell communities all the way back to the beginning of life. If this is true, our thoughts and minds are developments from their cooperation, whether preplanned or not. We are told by some scientists that bacteria (single cells) "sense the environment, process information, solve problems and make decisions", and even "save for the future". I would regard those as attributes required for "intelligence". Other scientists tell us that cells are "sentient (by choosing) and intelligent (by communicating)" and socially organized. Margulis says outright that intelligence is "an intrinsic property of cells". Albrecht-Buehler has written a book about the intelligence of cells. These scientists don't anthropomorphize them ... which seems to be your stock reply ("giving cells thoughts and minds") ... but they all agree that cells have the attributes of intelligence. Of course you have the right to believe that cells are automatons, but you don't know any more than the rest of us how DNA produces the "plans". Your dismissal of all this research is on a par with that of the atheist who says, "We don't know how it all happened, but it certainly wasn't God."-dhw: And you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm happy to see your "other hand" as a promising sign of agnostic tolerance!
DAVID: No I more than tolerate your right to agnosticism. What bothers me is your invention of an impossible theory to protect your on-the-fence position.-And yet according to some scientists in the field, it is not impossible. And according to your figures, your own theory of divine preprogramming is regarded as impossible by 90% of all those in the field. The strange thing is that, just like Darwin's theory, the one I'm offering is perfectly compatible with faith in God. It requires an intelligent mechanism within the cells that is flexible enough to cope with different environments and to produce an almost infinite number of combinations to invent new forms. (Precisely what we have, of course.) And the theist can argue to his heart's content that such a mechanism could not have invented itself, and so must have been designed. You constantly exhort us all to think out of the box. Is it possible, just possible that your refusal even to consider this hypothesis is due to your eagerness to place man as the be-all and end-all of evolution (which requires the notion of cells as automatons merely obeying God's instructions). Is it possible, just possible that your attempt to read God's mind has boxed you in?