An inventive mechanism (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, September 28, 2014, 01:56 (3708 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Exactly. It's taken best part of two years for you to accept that cells have the equivalent of a brain.-I did not accept the idea of 'brain' the way you have interpreted it. I should have stated it more clearly. The genome runs the cell. The cell does not run the genome, but can introduce minor adaptations. I used a slang way of referring to the genome as a brain . Computers are the 'brains' of many items, but they are not thinking and planning brains like we have. I have, in the past, referred to the cell as if it was an automated car factory. That is exactly what it is.Run by computers, but the few workers can make minior steps on their own, and also by plan.
> 
> dhw: The intelligent cell hypothesis does not specify the location of the mechanism, but if you say it's in the genome, that's fine with me.[/i]-I still keep the concept of the cell as being almost totally controlled by the genome. If there is an invented section of the genome, we have yet to find it, but I suspect we will.
> 
> dhw; The point of the analogy is that cells are not automatons because they have an autonomous “brain” that takes its own decisions and is not preprogrammed.-Your presumption is not what I intended to impart. The cells are basically automatons.
> 
> dhw: Cooperation between cells (all hail, Lynn Margulis!) lies at the heart of the hypothesis concerning evolutionary innovations. These can only come about through intelligent communication, cell to cell or genome to genome if you like. -Cells have to communicate for life to be life. That communication is intelligently set up by the instructions in the genome. The communication is highly controlled by the genome.
> 
> dhw: You have now agreed that the cell is not an automaton - its body automatically obeys its brain (although some feedback will go the other way, since the brain also needs the material provided by the rest of the body).-This seems to be your wish that is so strong, you have grossly misintepreted me. When I discuused the autonomic functions of the body, it is analagous to a modern car. There is a computer onboard which takes care of fuel mixture supply and other functions while the driver is the brain that navigates the trip and stays out of accidents by steering and braking the car. The driver functions without awareness of the computer's role, unless he thinks about it or dwells on it. 
> 
> dhw: My hypothesis that innovation (and hence speciation) is the product of cooperation between intelligent and inventive mechanisms within the cells, which initially you dismissed as a load of nonsense, is simply an extension of her [Margulis] ideas. -And you are still extrapolating her thoughts over the rainbow. The closest you and I have gotten together is the possibility of an inventive mechanism in the genome which might possibly account for speciation. As far as research shows, the body of the cell has influence on the genome through epigenetic effects. It is the genome that decides to methylate based on influence from the cells' experiences. Without exception, the genome is in charge of cell function. The genome itself within established species is also mostly very automatic. This is a major reason why we have no theory of speciation. By now you must realize that I view life as mostly automatic biologicly functioning machines. The only difference is in brain function, where our thoughts can modify brain function and structure. The lesser animals' brains have a small amount of that capacity for brain plasticity.