Cell Memories (Identity)

by David Turell , Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 18:28 (3755 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Perhaps this is another example of Americans murdering our beautiful English language. “Assume” in British English = to take for granted that something is true. If you assumed that God dabbled in the Cambrian, you could not favour a different explanation. -We may have inherited the language from you guys, but we have improved it in any ways. I fully known the meaning of 'assume', but it is certainly not as strong as 'I know for a fact'
> 
> DAVID: That is exactly where we disagree. If the cells were brilliant enough the same result is probable.
> 
> dhw;Then you agree!-Note the proviso: 'if the cells were brilliant enough'. They are not according to current research.- 
> 
> DAVID: However, present evidence does not take slightly sentient cells with simple reactions to the level required to plan the complexity and coordination of advanced organisms. Your theory requires extreme faith in those cells, and you eschew faith.
> 
> dhw:I have repeated several times that I offer this hypothesis as an alternative, not as a belief. My objection was to your claim that it didn't fit the history, not to the fact that it didn't conform to our current knowledge of the cell's capabilities.-The history of life's designs, as shown in the Natures wonders thread, requires cells much more brilliant than currently shown. It is much more a stretch to accept Dawkins' comment that nature looks designed but isn't than to say, a designer's hand is much more apparent. Your choice assigns design capacity to primarily automatically functional cells. Show me brilliant cells and I will accept your hypothesis.