An inventive mechanism (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, August 30, 2014, 23:36 (3736 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The complex biology is one of the main reasons why I cannot accept atheism. Please don't insult my intelligence.-This quote set me to thinking. Your intelligence is just fine. The problem is you do not understand how I view things. You and I think of functioning cells from very different viewpoints. The unicellular organisms that Shapiro studies are very much on their own. They have to take care of their whole 'self' and have more latitude from their genome in adaptations than cells in a complex multicellular organism. What Shapiro studies is primarily much different than looking at a kidney cell.-> dhw: An inventive mechanism in the cells is the hypothesis I have been putting forward for months, but an inventive mechanism would not come WITH full-blown plans, it would INVENT plans.-I view the inventive mechanism as coming with plans at the multicellular level of evoltion. At the single cell stage, baceria remain bacteria and modify. The jump to complex multicellularity probably still requires God's preplanning or dabbling.-The variety of cells in a human are not independent. They are responsible to their brothers in an organ and also to outside signals for cooperative changes in cellular product output for the whole organism with its different parts. -A cell in this circumstance is not like a human with a brain. This is a comparison you keep using. It is not a true comparison. The cell in a multicellular animal is a tightly controlled factory, just like an auto factory run by computers. The computer is in the genome and its translation parts. Feedback controls are in place to reduce error to almost zero. These cells have very little latitude. In this instance, it is impossible to understand the appearance of a new species through cell community action.-This exchange between Tony and I fits the discussion:-> by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, August 30, 2014, 08:15 (14 hours, 5 minutes ago) @ David Turell
Tony: It would have to be from within. My point was that polymorphism doesn't mean that a subclass creates its own implementation of a method. That implementation still has to be 'written', as it were, by the programmer before it is implemented.-> David: Your version then of the 'inventive mechanism' would be written into the genome at the beginning of life? That would equate to pre-planning with built-in dabbling.
> Tony: Yes, precisely. And that actually lines up with the biblical account.-Your comment on Aug 30 12:11 leads to my point: -> dhw: Let's confine the discussion to the theistic interpretation of my hypothesis. The inventive mechanism within the cells/cell communities is therefore your God's way of enabling life to advance from single cells to us.-Not exactly. If my interpretation of cell activity is correct, unicellular forms have more leeway to use a pre-planned inventive mechanism for adaptation, while complex multicellular forms have apparently much less leeway and Tony's polymorphism plays a larger role. This does not help to explain the Cambrian, because the jump to complexity is so large, unless we go back to pre-planning and dabbling at that juncture, before Tony's programming of 'classes of polymorphism' are employed in complex organisms.- Conclusion: I think the inventive mechanism in bacteria has somewhat more latitude at that stage of evolution for invention, and polymorphism is more at play in the inventive mechanism of complex animals and plants. Tony's explanation is the best partial approach to my dilemma of how God guides evolution. And your 'intelligent cell communities' is still a non-answer for my search. It may provide some answer for very simple multicellular sheets of cooperative cells, but nothing more complex.