Bacterial Intelligence? (General)
I have found a very long but revealing discussion on this subject: - The secret life of bacteria - small, smart and thoughtful! - All In ... - ABC-http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/the-secret-life-of-bacteria--...25 Oct 2008 ... Controversially, bacteria could even have cognitive talents that rival our own. -Below are a few quotes concerning some of the controversial topics we have been covering. Stock appears to agree that this is chemistry in action, but please note his other comments as well as Pamela Lyon's and the emphasis on “mind”. You will like “In the beginning was mind”. I found one website which suggests that J. Arthur Thomson's beliefs tended towards theistic panpsychism. -Natasha Mitchell: I mean many would argue that even a basic nervous system is a prerequisite for cognition, and it's been a controversial suggestion, hasn't it, that bacteria are somehow cognitive. Why the controversy? James Shapiro: Large organisms chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.-xxxxx-Jeffry Stock: They behave intelligently with respect to their environment and change themselves in response to environmental stimuli. What else is intelligence? Natasha Mitchell: Couldn't it be argued that this sort of behaviour that you've spent a career measuring in bacteria is simply a case of chemistry in action, they detect their chemical environment and act accordingly? Jeffry Stock: Absolutely, that's what they do. xxxxx-Natasha Mitchell: And yet this idea that bacteria might display cognitive talents, that they might come to know the world as you describe it rather than bump into it, is deeply controversial and for some very kooky. Pamela Lyon: Absolutely, because of this notion that became extraordinarily powerful in the 20th century that living creatures are essentially machines. We can say it's all chemistry, we are all chemistry too, that hormones can have profound cognitive effects on us. [Reading]: We must assume that there was something corresponding to mind in the first living creatures, just as is true of the first stages in the making of the individual man. It was part of the philosophical teaching of Aristotle that there is nothing in the end which was not also in kind in the beginning. Therefore, as we are sure that there is mind in the end, we may also, as evolutionists say -- In the beginning was mind. 1926 Professor J Arthur Thomson: The Gospel of Evolution.-xxxxx-Pamela Lyon: ...On the property list of things that cognition has to include you have perception, decision making, some ability to value states of affairs in the world -- like this is good for me, this is bad for me. [...] James Shapiro: I think the equation nervous system equals cognition is perhaps confusing us more than it's enlightening us. There are many, many cells which have all kinds of sensory receptors and ways of picking up information and then making use of it. And many of them don't have a differentiated nervous system. [...] Natasha Mitchell: Certainly though -- could we go as far as to say that a colony of bacteria possess self awareness? James Shapiro: I find that a hard question to answer, we don't yet know a great deal about self awareness. We know that there are interactions between bacterial colonies, and they can sometimes discriminate self from non-self. Take antagonistic actions from one colony to another. I think we need to investigate that more with an open mind. You know I think the concept of self awareness is probably essential to life [...] So the cell has sensory systems to pick up information about when mistakes are made and transmit that information so the cell can then undertake the appropriate action to continue its growth or to survive or to stop replicating its DNA while it's being repaired. And if that isn't self awareness I don't know what is.-xxxxx-Natasha Mitchell [commenting on Stock's belief that bacteria have a “nanobrain”]: But should we be calling it a brain, isn't that going one step too far? Jeffry Stock: Maybe. Well it's a brain in that it functions like a brain, it takes information like our brains do from our various sensory inputs and then it makes decisions that control motor activity. [...]Koshland said that there's no question that bacteria are the most intelligent organisms on earth, at least on a per gram weight basis because they are so small.-Xxxxxxxxxxx-Jeffry Stock: Most of the major universities in the United States at Harvard, at Yale, at Berkeley, at Princeton have really begun to delve into these organisms as models for understanding cognition without all the trappings that come with our human-centric view of intelligence. Natasha Mitchell: [...] I mean what do bacteria give us that the artificial intelligence approach can't? Jeffry Stock: That's a good point. People have a lot of problems imagining that bacteria have intelligence, that you know germs are thinking, cognizant, sentient organisms. But they have no problem at all in making that leap in terms of machines. But of course we put our brand of intelligence into the machines.-Xxxxxxxxxx-This is a very small, and drastically edited selection. They do not discuss the source or even the nature of consciousness, but the extent to which bacteria can be called cognitive, intelligent beings. Clearly a subject to be taken very seriously.
Bacterial Intelligence?
by BBella 
, Saturday, January 24, 2015, 22:08 (3589 days ago) @ dhw
> This is a very small, and drastically edited selection. They do not discuss the source or even the nature of consciousness, but the extent to which bacteria can be called cognitive, intelligent beings. Clearly a subject to be taken very seriously.-Clearly!-Thanks for the quotes. I've barely had time to keep up much less watch or read the links. So have to say I appreciate these tidbits.
Bacterial Intelligence?
by David Turell , Sunday, January 25, 2015, 01:22 (3589 days ago) @ BBella
> > dhw: This is a very small, and drastically edited selection. They do not discuss the source or even the nature of consciousness, but the extent to which bacteria can be called cognitive, intelligent beings. Clearly a subject to be taken very seriously. > > Clearly! > > Bbella: Thanks for the quotes. I've barely had time to keep up much less watch or read the links. So have to say I appreciate these tidbits.-I totally agree!
Bacterial Intelligence?
by David Turell , Sunday, January 25, 2015, 01:20 (3589 days ago) @ dhw
edited by dhw, Sunday, January 25, 2015, 09:41
dhw: I have found a very long but revealing discussion on this subject: > > > The secret life of bacteria - small, smart and thoughtful! - All In ... - ABC > > http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/the-secret-life-of-bacteria--... website find! Of course you and I differ in our view of the comments > > dhw: Below are a few quotes concerning some of the controversial topics we have been covering. -I like this quote
amela Lyon: Microbiologists use words like 'memory', 'decision making' you know they even talk about bacteria 'talking' to one another. Now press an individual microbiologist, they might say it's just a manner of speaking. But others find it very, very useful to describe behaviour in these terms.-Those terms make is easy to understand, because that is the way we react and we think and it is chemistry in action, controlled by intelligent information in the DNA of the bacteria. You and I differ on the source of the information.-> > Natasha Mitchell: I mean many would argue that even a basic nervous system is a prerequisite for cognition, and it's been a controversial suggestion, hasn't it, that bacteria are somehow cognitive. -Of course cognitive, in its broadest sense. > Jeffry Stock: They behave intelligently with respect to their environment and change themselves in response to environmental stimuli. What else is intelligence? > Natasha Mitchell: Couldn't it be argued that this sort of behaviour that you've spent a career measuring in bacteria is simply a case of chemistry in action, > Jeffry Stock: Absolutely, that's what they do.-Yes!-> [Reading]: > We must assume that there was something corresponding to mind in the first living creatures, ... Therefore, as we are sure that there is mind in the end, we may also, as evolutionists say -- In the beginning was mind. > 1926 Professor J Arthur Thomson: The Gospel of Evolution.-Without question!-> James Shapiro: You know I think the concept of self awareness is probably essential to life [...] So the cell has sensory systems to pick up information about when mistakes are made and transmit that information so the cell can then undertake the appropriate action to continue its growth or to survive And if that isn't self awareness I don't know what is.-Just fine with me.-I prefer this version of the quote you limited:- "they all have the same apparatus for processing information. And that apparatus consists of thousands of protein fibres so the structure of the protein is similar to hair, and I originally called it a hairbrain -- but the fibres are made in E coli there are about 10,000 of these fibres and at one end of each fibre is a little glob of protein that binds a spectrum of chemicals in the environment. And at the other end is a glob of protein that produces a signal that controls the motor and in between there's this bundle of interacting hairs, sort of, that do the information processing. The amount of information encoded in that fibre network is impossibly complex to actually work out for any particular network. One of the reasons I thought it was like a brain was because you'll never really figure out how one works.-"Natasha Mitchell: You suggest that these nano brains can process up to 10 to the 8, that's 10 with eight zeros after it bits of information per second. Information like temperature and the nutrients in the environment; salts, Ph, measure the Ph, that sort of thing. But should we be calling it a brain, isn't that going one step too far? (my Bold)-"Jeffry Stock: Maybe. Well it's a brain in that it functions like a brain, it takes information like our brains do from our various sensory inputs and then it makes decisions that control motor activity. So that's what a brain does, if you don't move, you're a plant and you don't have a brain. And bacteria that don't move don't have this apparatus. It's specialised for bacteria that move, which is what brains do. What do we mean by intelligence? It isn't really all about another organism communicating with us, that's not what intelligence is about. Intelligence is about taking information in the environment and making decisions that are advantageous to the organism. -We are seeing the participants discuss the intelligent handling of enormous amounts of information through bacterial genome controls, which per force, must contain huge amounts of intelligent information to do the interpretations.- > dhw: Jeffry Stock: Most of the major universities in the United States at Harvard, at Yale, at Berkeley, at Princeton have really begun to delve into these organisms as models for understanding cognition without all the trappings that come with our human-centric view of intelligence...... People have a lot of problems imagining that bacteria have intelligence, that you know germs are thinking, cognizant, sentient organisms. -I have always viewed bacteria as intelligently designed. Please consider the origin of life and recognize that the first cells had to be close to this level of complexity. This is one of the major reasons I believe in God. The information involved in a bacteria running its life is beyond belief. That information cannot have been developed by chance or any unguided process.
Bacterial Intelligence?
Pamela Lyon: Microbiologists use words like 'memory', 'decision making' you know they even talk about bacteria 'talking' to one another. Now press an individual microbiologist, they might say it's just a manner of speaking. But others find it very, very useful to describe behaviour in these terms.-DAVID: Those terms make is easy to understand, because that is the way we react and we think and it is chemistry in action, controlled by intelligent information in the DNA of the bacteria. You and I differ on the source of the information.-The question here is whether bacteria are or are not “intelligent”. Under “Panpsychism” I have listed attributes that seem to me (and the participants in this discussion) to denote that they are. It may be controversial, but Shapiro calls for open-mindedness, and at the same time says categorically that bacteria are self-aware, which you have accepted. Jeffry Stock: Intelligence is about taking information in the environment and making decisions that are advantageous to the organism. DAVID: We are seeing the participants discuss the intelligent handling of enormous amounts of information through bacterial genome controls, which per force, must contain huge amounts of intelligent information to do the interpretations.-And my point is that the intelligent handling of enormous amounts of information by living organisms denotes intelligence, not automatism. Jeffry Stock: Most of the major universities in the United States at Harvard, at Yale, at Berkeley, at Princeton have really begun to delve into these organisms as models for understanding cognition without all the trappings that come with our human-centric view of intelligence...... People have a lot of problems imagining that bacteria have intelligence, that you know germs are thinking, cognizant, sentient organisms. DAVID: I have always viewed bacteria as intelligently designed. Please consider the origin of life and recognize that the first cells had to be close to this level of complexity. This is one of the major reasons I believe in God. The information involved in a bacteria running its life is beyond belief. That information cannot have been developed by chance or any unguided process.-Over and over again I have emphasized that I am trying to understand how evolution works. I have conceded that life and the mechanism for invention and autonomous decision-making may or may not have been designed by your God. That is not the focus here. I am offering a view of evolution occurring through the autonomy of organisms as opposed to preplanning, dabbling and random mutations. For further discussion, please see my post under “Panpsychism”.
Bacterial Intelligence?
by David Turell , Sunday, January 25, 2015, 22:03 (3588 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The question here is whether bacteria are or are not “intelligent”. Under “Panpsychism” I have listed attributes that seem to me (and the participants in this discussion) to denote that they are. It may be controversial, but Shapiro calls for open-mindedness, and at the same time says categorically that bacteria are self-aware, which you have accepted.-The difference again in our thinking is that I attribute an enormous amount of intelligent information to the bacterial genome which can automatically guide the bacteria to make the proper adaptive responses to stimuli. Thus they look intelligent but are actually acting more as automatons. The effect we observe is the same but the mechanism is more controlled than the implied free-lance appearance. > > dhw: And my point is that the intelligent handling of enormous amounts of information by living organisms denotes intelligence, not automatism.-I've explained my difference above. They use implanted information.-> > dhw: Over and over again I have emphasized that I am trying to understand how evolution works. I have conceded that life and the mechanism for invention and autonomous decision-making may or may not have been designed by your God. That is not the focus here. I am offering a view of evolution occurring through the autonomy of organisms.-Again, what I mean by semi-autonomous is the organisms are limited or allowed to cerate small modifications of existing structure and processes. Which, seems it me, is what you are describing in the other thread.
Bacterial Intelligence?
dhw: The question here is whether bacteria are or are not “intelligent”. Under “Panpsychism” I have listed attributes that seem to me (and the participants in this discussion) to denote that they are. It may be controversial, but Shapiro calls for open-mindedness, and at the same time says categorically that bacteria are self-aware, which you have accepted. DAVID: The difference again in our thinking is that I attribute an enormous amount of intelligent information to the bacterial genome which can automatically guide the bacteria to make the proper adaptive responses to stimuli. Thus they look intelligent but are actually acting more as automatons. The effect we observe is the same but the mechanism is more controlled than the implied free-lance appearance.-You use expressions like “automatically” and “actually”, and (more vaguely) “more as automatons”, “more controlled”, which implies that you already know the answers to what the participants in this discussion are investigating. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I would be very hesitant to dismiss the opinions of those who have devoted years of research to the subject. -dhw: And my point is that the intelligent handling of enormous amounts of information by living organisms denotes intelligence, not automatism. DAVID: I've explained my difference above. They use implanted information.-And I've explained the need for open-mindedness on the subject, as called for by Shapiro amd other specialists in the field.-dhw: Over and over again I have emphasized that I am trying to understand how evolution works. I have conceded that life and the mechanism for invention and autonomous decision-making may or may not have been designed by your God. That is not the focus here. I am offering a view of evolution occurring through the autonomy of organisms. DAVID: Again, what I mean by semi-autonomous is the organisms are limited or allowed to cerate small modifications of existing structure and processes. Which, seems it me, is what you are describing in the other thread.-This we know, because we can directly observe organisms adapting. Nobody knows how innovations have come about, because nobody has observed them. Hence the fact that none of our hypotheses can be verified. But I am suggesting that since we know organisms possess an autonomous mechanism for change, we cannot discount the possibility that under certain conditions that mechanism may be capable of more than adaptation. The fact that some experts in the field detect a high degree of intelligence even in single-celled organisms lends credence to the idea, even if you are determined to dismiss their research. Please tell me how you personally can know that organisms which look intelligent and have all the attributes of intelligence (which I listed) are actually machines - the very prejudice that was criticized by participants in the discussion.
Bacterial Intelligence?
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 27, 2015, 00:29 (3587 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I would be very hesitant to dismiss the opinions of those who have devoted years of research to the subject. -As stated all along, I can read their findings and reach my own conclusions. -> > dhw: And I've explained the need for open-mindedness on the subject, as called for by Shapiro amd other specialists in the field.-I actually agree with Shapiro. Bacteria are amazingly responsive to stimuli. But I emphasize the source of the controls of responses as genomic information. Stepwise I am at a different level of explanation. I know how bacteria respond. I'm looking at the issue of how they do it from instructions they carry. > > This we know, because we can directly observe organisms adapting.....The fact that some experts in the field detect a high degree of intelligence even in single-celled organisms lends credence to the idea, even if you are determined to dismiss their research. Please tell me how you personally can know that organisms which look intelligent and have all the attributes of intelligence (which I listed) are actually machines - the very prejudice that was criticized by participants in the discussion.-Because I look at the issue differently as explained above. Previously, I especially noted the response in the discussion that presented bacterial response actions at a molecular level. I am looking theoretically at the control mechanisms in the genome, the copious instructions (information) that guides the processes. That information was not developed by chance. your favored discussants prefer to ignore that issue.
Bacterial Intelligence?
dhw: The fact that some experts in the field detect a high degree of intelligence even in single-celled organisms lends credence to the idea, even if you are determined to dismiss their research. Please tell me how you personally can know that organisms which look intelligent and have all the attributes of intelligence (which I listed) are actually machines - the very prejudice that was criticized by participants in the discussion.-DAVID: Because I look at the issue differently as explained above. Previously, I especially noted the response in the discussion that presented bacterial response actions at a molecular level. I am looking theoretically at the control mechanisms in the genome, the copious instructions (information) that guides the processes. That information was not developed by chance. your favored discussants prefer to ignore that issue.-You have stated that bacteria “look intelligent but are actually acting more as automatons”. I have asked how you know, and your response is that this is how you look at the issue. How does “looking theoretically” at theoretical instructions theoretically placed in the genome by your theoretical god enable you to tell the difference between an organism that LOOKS intelligent and an organism that IS intelligent? And would you accept the same argument from someone who used it to dismiss the concept of free will?
Bacterial Intelligence?
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 28, 2015, 00:05 (3586 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Because I look at the issue differently as explained above. Previously, I especially noted the response in the discussion that presented bacterial response actions at a molecular level. I am looking theoretically at the control mechanisms in the genome, the copious instructions (information) that guides the processes. That information was not developed by chance. your favored discussants prefer to ignore that issue. > > dhw: You have stated that bacteria “look intelligent but are actually acting more as automatons”. I have asked how you know, and your response is that this is how you look at the issue..... And would you accept the same argument from someone who used it to dismiss the concept of free will?-Because that is the way I reason it out. The bacteria MUST have that degree of information to function in responses as they do. As for free will, the concept is so different that I would argue it on different grounds.
Bacterial Intelligence?
dhw: You have stated that bacteria “look intelligent but are actually acting more as automatons”. I have asked how you know, and your response is that this is how you look at the issue. How does “looking theoretically” at theoretical instructions theoretically placed in the genome by your theoretical god enable you to tell the difference between an organism that LOOKS intelligent and an organism that IS intelligent? And would you accept the same argument from someone who used it to dismiss the concept of free will? -DAVID: Because that is the way I reason it out. The bacteria MUST have that degree of information to function in responses as they do. As for free will, the concept is so different that I would argue it on different grounds.-This is tautological. All organisms must have the degree of information that enables them to function as they do, otherwise they wouldn't function as they do. This does not answer the question how you can possibly know that an organism which LOOKS intelligent is actually an automaton. You appear to believe that bacteria act on instructions preprogrammed by your God. How do you know that you are not the same? Many free-will sceptics argue that although we appear to be acting of our own free will, all the processes that lead to our decisions are already preprogrammed (though of course not necessarily by your God). You may THINK you are autonomous, and you may even LOOK as if you are autonomous, they say, but you ain't. Shake metaphorical hands with your buddy the bacterium. Or if you insist that you are autonomous, explain to the bacterium how you know he's not. (Unfortunately, he doesn't speak your language, but that also makes you quits, since you don't speak his.)
Bacterial Intelligence?
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 28, 2015, 22:39 (3585 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: This is tautological. All organisms must have the degree of information that enables them to function as they do, otherwise they wouldn't function as they do.-And my question is how did they get that information-> dhw:This does not answer the question how you can possibly know that an organism which LOOKS intelligent is actually an automaton. You appear to believe that bacteria act on instructions preprogrammed by your God.-Exactly.-> dhw: How do you know that you are not the same? Many free-will sceptics argue that although we appear to be acting of our own free will, all the processes that lead to our decisions are already preprogrammed (though of course not necessarily by your God). You may THINK you are autonomous, and you may even LOOK as if you are autonomous, they say, but you ain't.-What anti-free-will theorists think is of no consequence to this discussion. I use a biological computer to run my thoughts and my life. That I have to use living cells which run automatically to develop my thoughts at my bidding has no place in this conversation. I'm not sure why you dragged it in. Bacterial cells and humans are light-years apart. What you want is to view evolution like a continuum, but the fossil record and the record of neurological development are not continuous. There are obvious huge gaps. IM's can't and don't explain those. All of this is is why we disagree. - > dhw: Shake metaphorical hands with your buddy the bacterium. Or if you insist that you are autonomous, explain to the bacterium how you know he's not. -For some reason you are not absorbing the material I present about cellular processes and how it is all about molecules acting through dynamic organic chemistry reactions, either joining atoms to make molecules or using ion (electrical) charges to aid in folding and in movement of parts and products, acting on very complex instructions just like an automatic auto factory. And if there is a sudden fire in a factory, alarms and sprinklers set off automatically to respond. Bacterial reactions to stimuli are the same. They act as if they have brains, but instead they are acting on very intelligent information implanted in their genome. Is your computer smart? No, but it sure acts that way. View the bacterium like a computerized factory and then you will see my viewpoint..
Bacterial Intelligence?
DAVID: What anti-free-will theorists think is of no consequence to this discussion. I use a biological computer to run my thoughts and my life. That I have to use living cells which run automatically to develop my thoughts at my bidding has no place in this conversation. I'm not sure why you dragged it in. Bacterial cells and humans are light-years apart. -I dragged it in because the issue between us is degrees of autonomy. Researchers claim that bacteria are cognitive, sentient, intelligent beings, whereas you insist that they are automatons obeying instructions. You say they seem to behave autonomously, but you know they don't. In your next comment, you explain all the chemical and electrical processes that take place when bacteria go into action, and you compare them to an automated factory and a computer - but that is the whole question here. We know that humans programme their machines, but according to some researchers, including Shapiro, bacteria are NOT machines. When asked why the concept of bacterial cognition is controversial, he replied: “Large organisms chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.” In response to the same question, Pamela Lyon responded: “...because of this notion that became extraordinarily powerful in the 20th century that living creatures are essentially machines.” Of course it's controversial, but the Shapiros and Margulises and McClintocks and Albrecht-Buehlers, all of whom have devoted themselves to the study of living cells, are not ignoramuses. Why must I take your word against theirs?-DAVID: What you want is to view evolution like a continuum, but the fossil record and the record of neurological development are not continuous. There are obvious huge gaps. IM's can't and don't explain those. All of this is is why we disagree.-It HAS to be a continuum in the sense that changes can only take place in living organisms, unless you think your God created every innovation separately from scratch in brand new organisms. Darwin, we agree, was wrong, and Nature does appear to take leaps. Your explanation of those leaps is that they were preprogrammed from the very beginning of life, or God stepped in to dabble with existing organisms. Either way, you still have a continuum from one living organism to another. If your God could alter the structure of existing organisms in leaps by preprogramming or by dabbling, he could also achieve the same results by endowing organisms with the ability to invent. No-one has witnessed any such invention. Nor has anyone witnessed God dabbling, and no-one has found the 3.7-billion-year-old divine computer programme for turning bacteria into humans. We can only speculate. Or as Charles Townes would say: “The best we can do is try to find answers to those questions.” He might even recommend open-mindedness.
Bacterial Intelligence?
by David Turell , Friday, January 30, 2015, 01:10 (3584 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I dragged it in because the issue between us is degrees of autonomy. Researchers claim that bacteria are cognitive, sentient, intelligent beings, whereas you insist that they are automatons obeying instructions.... Why must I take your word against theirs?-Because I view the issue differently as I have explained over and over. My ID friends understand this. Bacteria look intelligent because they are run by intelligent information codes. I put the intelligence at a different level than you imply from what you quote. Bacteria do not direct themselves. They are directed. > > dhw: It HAS to be a continuum in the sense that changes can only take place in living organisms, ...No-one has witnessed any such invention. Nor has anyone witnessed God dabbling, and no-one has found the 3.7-billion-year-old divine computer programme for turning bacteria into humans. We can only speculate. -You are right about the underlying continuum as living organisms evolve somehow.
Bacterial Intelligence?
Dhw: .....the issue between us is degrees of autonomy. Researchers claim that bacteria are cognitive, sentient, intelligent beings, whereas you insist that they are automatons obeying instructions. [...] Why must I take your word against theirs? DAVID: Because I view the issue differently, as I have explained over and over. My ID friends understand this. [...] Bacteria do not direct themselves. They are directed.-You don't need to explain your view over and over again. It is clear. But I have asked why you should expect me to take your word against that of experts in the field who have devoted years of study to this subject and have reached a different conclusion from yours. I'm not sure why your ID friends would insist that God didn't give bacteria the ability to direct themselves, but I will take your word for that. How does their opinion invalidate that of Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Albrecht-Bühler and Co.? You might just as well say the Pope agrees with you that God exists, and therefore Dawkins is wrong.-Dhw: [Evolution] HAS to be a continuum in the sense that changes can only take place in living organisms, unless you think your God created every innovation separately from scratch in brand new organisms. [...] No-one has witnessed any such invention. Nor has anyone witnessed God dabbling, and no-one has found the 3.7-year-old divine computer programme for turning bacteria into humans. -DAVID: You are right about the underlying continuum as living organisms evolve somehow.-Thank you. That brings us back to the fact that nobody can explain the apparent jumps. You insist they can only be explained by a 3.7-billion-year-old computer programme or divine dabbling. I offer an inventive mechanism. Darwin offered random mutations. Nobody knows. I wrote: “We can only speculate. Or as Charles Townes would say: “The best we can do is try to find answers to those questions.” He might even recommend open-mindedness.” Sadly, his obituary appeared in today's Guardian. He died on 27 January at the age of 99.
Bacterial Intelligence?
by David Turell , Friday, January 30, 2015, 19:08 (3583 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, January 30, 2015, 19:36
dhw: How does their opinion invalidate that of Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Albrecht-Bühler and Co.? -It is simply a different way of viewing the same observations. The bacteria act very intelligently. No question. When one asks how they do it, the Shapiro interpretation and the ID approach are just as equally reasonable.-An article today shows how proteins can control cell activity in reproduction. Do these cells control their activities or do instructions control the cells? It is the same way as I view bacteria.-http://phys.org/news/2015-01-protein-fertility-roles-sperm-eggs.html-"The BRWD1 protein is fascinating as it serves a completely different function in both sperm and eggs. In oocytes, we have yet to determine the epigenetic mechanisms that lead to chromosome instability. This study contributes to our understanding of the mechanisms of chromosome condensation in the female germ cell." (my bold)-"They determined that in sperm, when BRWD1 is absent, transcripts from hundreds of genes—all specific to spermatid development—were markedly reduced, suggesting that in males BRWD1 is responsible for regulating gene activity."-"By contrast, in oocytes, a lack of BRWD1 results in a surge of bad information via noncoding RNAs, and only three genes showed a dramatic increase in expression. Chromosomes were often abnormally long or fractured, and chromatids did not condense properly or stuck to one another only to stretch or break when they tried to separate. In other words, BRWD1 is necessary for chromosome stability during female meiosis."
Bacterial Intelligence?
dhw: I'm not sure why your ID friends would insist that God didn't give bacteria the ability to direct themselves, but I will take your word for that. How does their opinion invalidate that of Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Albrecht-Bühler and Co.? DAVID: It is simply a different way of viewing the same observations. The bacteria act very intelligently. No question. When one asks how they do it, the Shapiro interpretation and the ID approach are just as equally reasonable.-Thank you. If you find both approaches equally reasonable, perhaps you will now accept that the hypothesis of an autonomous inventive mechanism (possibly designed by your God) is just as reasonable as the hypothesis that all innovations and peculiar lifestyles were preprogrammed 3.7 billion years ago or are the result of divine dabbling.
Bacterial Intelligence?
by David Turell , Sunday, February 01, 2015, 19:42 (3581 days ago) @ dhw
[/i] > DAVID: It is simply a different way of viewing the same observations. The bacteria act very intelligently. No question. When one asks how they do it, the Shapiro interpretation and the ID approach are just as equally reasonable. > > dhw: Thank you. If you find both approaches equally reasonable, perhaps you will now accept that the hypothesis of an autonomous inventive mechanism (possibly designed by your God) is just as reasonable as the hypothesis that all innovations and peculiar lifestyles were preprogrammed 3.7 billion years ago or are the result of divine dabbling.-Could be autonomous, but since no one knows, semiautonomous fits my theories better.
Bacterial Intelligence? sensing surfaces
by David Turell , Friday, October 27, 2017, 15:18 (2582 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Friday, October 27, 2017, 15:37
A new study shows that bacteria can use their flagellum to sense a surface:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171026142320.htm
"Although bacteria have no sensory organs in the classical sense, they are still masters in perceiving their environment. A research group at the University of Basel's Biozentrum has now discovered that bacteria not only respond to chemical signals, but also possess a sense of touch. In their recent publication in Science, the researchers demonstrate how bacteria recognize surfaces and respond to this mechanical stimulus within seconds. This mechanism is also used by pathogens to colonize and attack their host cells.
***
"Swimming Caulobacter bacteria have a rotating motor in their cell envelope with a long protrusion, the flagellum. The rotation of the flagellum enables the bacteria to move in liquids. Much to the surprise of the researchers, the rotor is also used as a mechano-sensing organ. Motor rotation is powered by proton flow into the cell via ion channels. When swimming cells touch surfaces, the motor is disturbed and the proton flux interrupted.
"The researchers assume that this is the signal that sparks off the response: The bacterial cell now boosts the synthesis of a second messenger, which in turn stimulates the production of an adhesin that firmly anchors the bacteria on the surface within a few seconds. "This is an impressive example of how rapidly and specifically bacteria can change their behavior when they encounter surfaces," says Jenal."
Comment: the disturbed flagellum can easily be seen as an automatic signal to produce adhesin, following intelligent instructions in the DNA. Following a 'mechanosensitive channel'.
Note the study abstract: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6362/531
When bacteria encounter surfaces, they respond with surface colonization and virulence induction. The mechanisms of bacterial mechanosensation and downstream signaling remain poorly understood. Here, we describe a tactile sensing cascade in Caulobacter crescentus in which the flagellar motor acts as sensor. Surface-induced motor interference stimulated the production of the second messenger cyclic diguanylate by the motor-associated diguanylate cyclase DgcB. This led to the allosteric activation of the glycosyltransferase HfsJ to promote rapid synthesis of a polysaccharide adhesin and surface anchoring. Although the membrane-embedded motor unit was essential for surface sensing, mutants that lack external flagellar structures were hypersensitive to mechanical stimuli. Thus, the bacterial flagellar motor acts as a tetherless sensor reminiscent of mechanosensitive channels.
Bacterial Intelligence? sensing surfaces
QUOTE: "This is an impressive example of how rapidly and specifically bacteria can change their behavior when they encounter surfaces," says Jenal."
DAVID's comment: the disturbed flagellum can easily be seen as an automatic signal to produce adhesin, following intelligent instructions in the DNA.
And the whole process can easily be understood as a demonstration of how bacteria use their autonomous intelligence to adapt chemical processes to the requirements of new situations.
Bacterial Intelligence? sensing surfaces
by David Turell , Saturday, October 28, 2017, 15:41 (2581 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "This is an impressive example of how rapidly and specifically bacteria can change their behavior when they encounter surfaces," says Jenal."
DAVID's comment: the disturbed flagellum can easily be seen as an automatic signal to produce adhesin, following intelligent instructions in the DNA.
dhw: And the whole process can easily be understood as a demonstration of how bacteria use their autonomous intelligence to adapt chemical processes to the requirements of new situations.
And the study author's abstract says: "Here, we describe a tactile sensing cascade in Caulobacter crescentus in which the flagellar motor acts as sensor."
Simply a cascade [in biochemistry speak]is a series of molecular reactions. It is automatic, not thoughtful.
Bacterial Intelligence? sensing surfaces
QUOTE: "This is an impressive example of how rapidly and specifically bacteria can change their behavior when they encounter surfaces," says Jenal."
DAVID's comment: the disturbed flagellum can easily be seen as an automatic signal to produce adhesin, following intelligent instructions in the DNA.
dhw: And the whole process can easily be understood as a demonstration of how bacteria use their autonomous intelligence to adapt chemical processes to the requirements of new situations.
DAVID: And the study author's abstract says: "Here, we describe a tactile sensing cascade in Caulobacter crescentus in which the flagellar motor acts as sensor."
Simply a cascade [in biochemistry speak]is a series of molecular reactions. It is automatic, not thoughtful.
Once your automatic faculties have provided you with all the information, you take a conscious decision to respond in a certain way (behaviour), and that decision sets in motion a cascade of molecular reactions as your body implements the decision you have taken. You say the decisions are automatic in bacteria but conscious in humans, but you admit there is no way of telling the difference.
Bacterial Intelligence? sensing surfaces
by David Turell , Sunday, October 29, 2017, 14:20 (2580 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "This is an impressive example of how rapidly and specifically bacteria can change their behavior when they encounter surfaces," says Jenal."
DAVID's comment: the disturbed flagellum can easily be seen as an automatic signal to produce adhesin, following intelligent instructions in the DNA.
dhw: And the whole process can easily be understood as a demonstration of how bacteria use their autonomous intelligence to adapt chemical processes to the requirements of new situations.
DAVID: And the study author's abstract says: "Here, we describe a tactile sensing cascade in Caulobacter crescentus in which the flagellar motor acts as sensor."
Simply a cascade [in biochemistry speak]is a series of molecular reactions. It is automatic, not thoughtful.dhw: Once your automatic faculties have provided you with all the information, you take a conscious decision to respond in a certain way (behaviour), and that decision sets in motion a cascade of molecular reactions as your body implements the decision you have taken. You say the decisions are automatic in bacteria but conscious in humans, but you admit there is no way of telling the difference.
If God is universal consciousness, then perhaps bacteria share a bit of it. More likely they function automatically with the instructions they operate upon. But more importantly the flagellum turns out to be even more irreducibly complex, and even more defies chance evolution. God as designer is the only reasonable answer.
Bacterial Intelligence? sensing surfaces
dhw: And the whole process can easily be understood as a demonstration of how bacteria use their autonomous intelligence to adapt chemical processes to the requirements of new situations.
DAVID: And the study author's abstract says: "Here, we describe a tactile sensing cascade in Caulobacter crescentus in which the flagellar motor acts as sensor."
Simply a cascade [in biochemistry speak]is a series of molecular reactions. It is automatic, not thoughtful.
dhw: Once your automatic faculties have provided you with all the information, you take a conscious decision to respond in a certain way (behaviour), and that decision sets in motion a cascade of molecular reactions as your body implements the decision you have taken. You say the decisions are automatic in bacteria but conscious in humans, but you admit there is no way of telling the difference.
DAVID: If God is universal consciousness, then perhaps bacteria share a bit of it. More likely they function automatically with the instructions they operate upon.
Who says it is “more likely”? But thank you for the concession. At least you are no longer insisting that bacteria have no consciousness.
DAVID: But more importantly the flagellum turns out to be even more irreducibly complex, and even more defies chance evolution. God as designer is the only reasonable answer.
We agreed about nine years ago that chance was the least likely explanation of evolution. If bacteria are as intelligent as some experts in the field believe they are, then we have a readymade explanation for the inventive complexities of evolutionary development. How that intelligence might have come into being remains a mystery, but some sort of God is as reasonable or unreasonable an explanation as any other.
Bacterial Intelligence? sensing surfaces
by David Turell , Monday, October 30, 2017, 17:10 (2579 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: And the whole process can easily be understood as a demonstration of how bacteria use their autonomous intelligence to adapt chemical processes to the requirements of new situations.
DAVID: And the study author's abstract says: "Here, we describe a tactile sensing cascade in Caulobacter crescentus in which the flagellar motor acts as sensor."
Simply a cascade [in biochemistry speak]is a series of molecular reactions. It is automatic, not thoughtful.dhw: Once your automatic faculties have provided you with all the information, you take a conscious decision to respond in a certain way (behaviour), and that decision sets in motion a cascade of molecular reactions as your body implements the decision you have taken. You say the decisions are automatic in bacteria but conscious in humans, but you admit there is no way of telling the difference.
DAVID: If God is universal consciousness, then perhaps bacteria share a bit of it. More likely they function automatically with the instructions they operate upon.
Who says it is “more likely”? But thank you for the concession. At least you are no longer insisting that bacteria have no consciousness.
DAVID: But more importantly the flagellum turns out to be even more irreducibly complex, and even more defies chance evolution. God as designer is the only reasonable answer.
dhw: We agreed about nine years ago that chance was the least likely explanation of evolution. If bacteria are as intelligent as some experts in the field believe they are, then we have a readymade explanation for the inventive complexities of evolutionary development. How that intelligence might have come into being remains a mystery, but some sort of God is as reasonable or unreasonable an explanation as any other.
You haven't told me how bacteria become so intelligent by themselves. Only God is an acceptable anwser for me.
Bacterial Intelligence? sensing surfaces
dhw: We agreed about nine years ago that chance was the least likely explanation of evolution. If bacteria are as intelligent as some experts in the field believe they are, then we have a readymade explanation for the inventive complexities of evolutionary development. How that intelligence might have come into being remains a mystery, but some sort of God is as reasonable or unreasonable an explanation as any other.
DAVID: You haven't told me how bacteria become so intelligent by themselves. Only God is an acceptable anwser for me.
You have quoted me: “How that intelligence might have come into being remains a mystery, but some sort of God is as reasonable or unreasonable an explanation as any other.” Please substitute “acceptable or unacceptable” for “reasonable or unreasonable” if that helps.
Bacterial Intelligence? sensing surfaces
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 31, 2017, 16:33 (2578 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: We agreed about nine years ago that chance was the least likely explanation of evolution. If bacteria are as intelligent as some experts in the field believe they are, then we have a readymade explanation for the inventive complexities of evolutionary development. How that intelligence might have come into being remains a mystery, but some sort of God is as reasonable or unreasonable an explanation as any other.
DAVID: You haven't told me how bacteria become so intelligent by themselves. Only God is an acceptable anwser for me.
dhw: You have quoted me: “How that intelligence might have come into being remains a mystery, but some sort of God is as reasonable or unreasonable an explanation as any other.” Please substitute “acceptable or unacceptable” for “reasonable or unreasonable” if that helps.
What is reasonable is that a designing mind is required.
Bacterial Intelligence? sensing molecule
by David Turell , Monday, January 15, 2018, 15:23 (2502 days ago) @ David Turell
A protein that senses ammonium guides the metabolism of certain bacteria:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180113093731.htm
"Scientists have characterized a protein that enables certain microorganisms to recognize and absorb ammonium in their environment. Ammonium is considered a toxin that pollutes ecosystems - but for these bacteria it represents an important nutrient and energy source.
"A team led by the Freiburg biochemist Prof. Dr. Susana Andrade has characterized a protein that enables certain microorganisms to recognize and absorb ammonium in their environment. Ammonium is considered a toxin that pollutes ecosystems -- but for these bacteria it represents an important nutrient and energy source.
***
"The element nitrogen is an indispensable building block of all biomolecules and therefore of great importance to all organisms. In addition, some members of the microbial community have specialized in using various nitrogen compounds as energy source for optimal growth. This is especially the case amongst anaerobic ammonium oxidizers: These bacteria do not require oxygen for their metabolism but instead, convert two important nitrogen compounds, ammonium and nitrite, into nitrogen gas, which accounts for about 80 percent of the earth's atmosphere. Through this reaction, these microorganisms play an important role in the detoxification of nitrogen compounds that are increasingly released into the environment through the use of fertilizers.
"Andrade and her team from the Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy at the University of Freiburg have identified an unusual protein in such bacteria: Half of it resembles known transport proteins for ammonium ions and the other half belongs to a group of signal transducing proteins. This led to the suspicion that two building blocks, already existing in nature, had been combined in a modular way to enable a completely new functionality: the detection of ammonium from the environment and subsequent transmission of this information to the cellular signaling networks.
***
"Based on a highly selective ammonium transport protein, evolution has given rise to a new recognition site for the ions, whose occupation leads to conformational changes that are passed on to the signal transducing module. This direct modular coupling offers the prospect of fusing other signal transduction units to the ammonium sensor module to engineer new cellular functionalities."
Comment: Another clear example of how bacteria and other single cells pick up information using organic molecules, no thought required. All automatic.
Bacterial Intelligence? sensing molecules for food
by David Turell , Friday, August 03, 2018, 21:26 (2302 days ago) @ David Turell
Scientists have worked out the molecular machine that senses food for bacteria:
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-hungry-bacteria-nutrients-environment.html
"The research team, led by Dr. Helen O'Hare from the University of Leicester's Department of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation, has identified functions of a specific protein (Kinase G) that allow groups of bacteria such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis to detect amino acids in their surroundings, allowing the bacteria to regulate their metabolism in response to the available nutrients.
"This protein is found in a large and important group of bacteria that includes the causative agent of tuberculosis in humans, as well as bacteria important for food and antibiotic production. The research identified the types of nutrients that can be sensed (aspartate and glutamate) as well as the sensor protein that recognises the nutrients.
"'Serine threonine protein kinases are found in all organisms, from humans to bacteria, but they are less well understood in bacteria," says Dr. O'Hare. "The findings represent one of the first instances in bacteria where it has been possible to identify the stimuli that trigger signaling.
"'A bacterial pathogen can 'taste' the same amino acids that humans can. The sensor has a similar structure to human glutamate receptors but the way the information is transmitted into the bacterial cell is different and involves a different set of proteins, unlike signaling systems that have been studied previously.
"'The research brings understanding about how a pathogen can sense the nutrients in its niches in the human body, but also broad understanding of how non-pathogenic bacteria sense their surroundings."
"The team was able to work out which proteins helped bacteria sense nutrients by deleting specific genes for signaling proteins from a bacterial genome. With the genes removed, they found that this disrupted the ability of the bacteria to sense nutrients, confirming the function of the genes.
"Using X-ray crystallography at the Diamond Light Source at Harwell, they were then able to determine the structure of the sensor protein and predict which other bacteria may sense amino acids in the same way."
Comment: Once again we see that bacteria use purposeful molecular reactions to react to stimuli. These are automatic mechanisms that use enzymes, giant molecules to activate and control the response speedily.
Bacterial Intelligence? system analysis of bacteria
by David Turell , Monday, August 13, 2018, 18:13 (2292 days ago) @ David Turell
Introducing Lucy Shapiro's studies:
https://www.the-scientist.com/profile/the-cells-integrated-circuit--a-profile-of-lucy-s...
"She saw the cell as a dynamic, three-dimensional entity with spatial features that were as important as its genetics and biochemistry. So she formulated two questions that continue to drive her research: How is information on the spatial positioning of the cell’s molecules encoded, and how are the events inside a cell coordinated to yield an integrated system?
***
"Two postdocs in her lab, Janine Maddock and Dickon Alley, demonstrated that bacterial cells are highly organized. They showed that both in Caulobacter and in E. coli, the chemoreceptor proteins involved in chemotaxis—the movement of the bacterium in response to particular substances in its environment—are localized to one pole of the cell. The dogma in the field had been that bacterial cells were swimming pools of free-floating proteins with DNA, like an unorganized “ball of spaghetti,” Shapiro says. “It took the community five years to really believe our work that the cell’s proteins and other molecules are dynamically and highly regulated into subcellular domains.” Later, Shapiro and colleagues showed that a similar localization occurs with chromosomal loci on the single circular chromosome.
"In 1996, Shapiro’s graduate student, Kim Quon, was looking for mutations that prevented flagellum formation and discovered a master transcription factor, called CtrA, that controls an array of Caulobacter genes necessary to coordinate the cell cycle. “We knew this was big when we all swapped notes in the lab and realized that those working on chemoreceptor genes, flagella genes, DNA replication initiation, and other gene functions all had the same promoter sequence to which this transcription factor, CtrA, bound,” Shapiro explains. The discovery of a master gene regulator was among the first pieces of evidence showing that cells possess integrated genetic circuits, which orchestrate the complex set of cascading events that drive the cell cycle. The lab’s later work uncovered a hierarchical circuit in which one regulatory gene would turn on another set of genes, complete with feedback loops, and so on.
"Listening to Shapiro discuss the bacterial cell as a controlled circuit swayed her physicist husband, Harley McAdams, to join her in her research. Shapiro and McAdams opened a joint multidisciplinary lab in which biology students worked alongside engineering and physics students to address how the bacterial cell works as a complete system of genetic and spatial controls.
"Their collaborative efforts helped to launch the field of systems biology. In 1995, the pair proposed a model in which the genetic circuitry of the bacterial virus phage lambda parallels an electrical circuit. Five years later, Shapiro’s graduate student Mike Laub completed the first microarray experiment on the bacterial cell cycle, providing a comprehensive view of how all Caulobacter genes are transcriptionally controlled throughout the cycle. “That work told us that the bacterial cell doesn’t just turn genes on or off in response to its environment, but rather that there are hard-wired gene sets that are turned on in a temporal order as the bacterium progresses through the cell cycle,” Shapiro says.
"Her lab may be on the verge of yet another breakthrough. She and her students, along with collaborators, are among the first to study cytoplasm phase separations—non-membrane-bound cytoplasm regions that provide functional organization within the cell—in bacteria. “We’ve all missed this for years, thinking that membranous organelles provide the only structure within the cell,” Shapiro says. Instead, it appears that there are distinct and dynamic membraneless sections that carry out specific biochemical functions."
Comment: This is an editorial description of her work, and describes how highly organized and controlled are the systems in any bacteria. It reeks of intelligent design. No relation to James Shapiro.
Bacterial Intelligence? system analysis of bacteria
DAVID’s comment: This is an editorial description of her work, and describes how highly organized and controlled are the systems in any bacteria. It reeks of intelligent design.
I don’t know why you headed this: “Bacterial intelligence?” The article has nothing to do with the decision-making capabilities of bacteria. All organisms have highly organized and controlled systems that work automatically, and that “reek of intelligent design”. That doesn’t mean they are not intelligent.
In passing, I agree with your comments on the eye. Sorry, Matt, but I found the video rather irritating and the technique of finding faults in the “design” can be applied to every part of the body, because every part of the body can go wrong so there must be a “fault” of some kind. So what? That is not an argument for all the complexities of eyes, noses, ears etc. to be the result of chance. As we agnostics know, there are far more convincing arguments than this against the existence of an unknown, unknowable, immaterial, conscious, sourceless designer.
Bacterial Intelligence? system analysis of bacteria
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 19:02 (2291 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: This is an editorial description of her work, and describes how highly organized and controlled are the systems in any bacteria. It reeks of intelligent design.
dhw: I don’t know why you headed this: “Bacterial intelligence?” The article has nothing to do with the decision-making capabilities of bacteria. All organisms have highly organized and controlled systems that work automatically, and that “reek of intelligent design”. That doesn’t mean they are not intelligent.
Headed that way because we are in constant discussion about bacterial intelligence. If all of their activity is automatic, they are no innately intelligent.
dhw: In passing, I agree with your comments on the eye. Sorry, Matt, but I found the video rather irritating and the technique of finding faults in the “design” can be applied to every part of the body, because every part of the body can go wrong so there must be a “fault” of some kind. So what? That is not an argument for all the complexities of eyes, noses, ears etc. to be the result of chance. As we agnostics know, there are far more convincing arguments than this against the existence of an unknown, unknowable, immaterial, conscious, sourceless designer.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 16, 2019, 22:08 (2046 days ago) @ David Turell
Viruses attack bacteria, but for self-identification a virus can be useful:
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-bacteria-harness-viruses-distinguish-friend.html
"Bacterial cells that normally colonize our guts can distinguish themselves from other bacterial species using what's traditionally considered their enemy—a virus. Researchers report April 16 in the journal Cell Reports that some bacteria use viruses that have infected them (i.e., phages) for self-recognition and thereby show greater fitness, repelling competitors that lack this adaptation.
"'This is the first evidence that cells can distinguish themselves from related competitors through the use of a virus," says Thomas Wood of Pennsylvania State University, one of the co-senior authors on the study. "The implications are that we should re-evaluate the relationship between a virus and its cellular host in that there are sometimes benefits to having a viral infection."
***
"The findings suggested that phage-related proteins are responsible for bacterial self-recognition.
"Consistent with this idea, the researchers found that the demarcation line was also eliminated for an E. coli K-12 strain lacking all nine cryptic prophages—bacteriophage genomes that have integrated into bacterial chromosomes but do not form active phage particles or rupture ("lyse") their host cells. In particular, additional experiments revealed that the cryptic prophage CPS-53 and one of its proteins, YfdM, were required for the demarcation line.
"Since CPS-53 is essentially inactive in terms of cell lysis and phage-particle production, the researchers suspected that the demarcation line is formed through cell lysis caused by a different, active phage. They found that exposing bacterial cells containing an active lytic phage called SW1 to YfdM stimulated the production of phage particles and caused the lysis of cells, primarily those lacking SW1. Greater concentrations of YfdM or phage particles produced thicker demarcation lines between bacterial cells. The findings suggest that SW1 controls the formation of the demarcation line by using one of the host's cryptic prophage proteins, YfdM of CPS-53, to propagate.
"'E. coli utilizes the tools of its old enemy, which got stuck in its chromosome, to work with this new virus SW1, which stays primarily on the outside of the cell, basically surfing on the cell," Wood says. "So the bacterial cell is both using a new virus, SW1, against its competitors and using a protein from a virus that attacked millions of years ago."
"This strategy clearly benefitted the host cells, which repelled other strains that lacked SW1 and showed a growth advantage when challenged with phage particles from other strains. "A new virus, SW1, and an old virus protein, YfdM, are used as tools by the cell as it searches for food—and all bacteria are usually starving," Wood says. "The basic idea is that the cell that carries virus SW1 is not killed as much as the one that has not seen virus SW1 before. So the cell that carries virus SW1 is more fit than the cell that lacks the virus."
(my bold)
"This newly discovered mechanism of self-recognition allows bacteria to form social groups, cooperating with kin while antagonizing non-kin during behaviors that may be important for nourishment, virulence, protection, quorum sensing, and biofilm formation. "Bacteria are frequently thought of as living individually, but in fact they can forage for food as groups," Wood says. "In order to act as a group, they must be able to distinguish themselves from other bacteria. In one type of social activity, when they communicate, bacterial cells secrete chemical signals to communicate. Now we show cells utilize viruses to distinguish themselves from closely related bacteria.'" (my bold)
Comment: This is a lucky outcome. The helpful virus attacks the bacteria. That is what it is built to do. It doesn't have a good deed in mind. Note the bolds: it is interesting that bacteria are always hungry and hunt in groups. And note how they communicate, by sending chemical signals. This may well be entirely automatic.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
QUOTE: “all bacteria are usually starving," Wood says[/i]. (David’s bold)
I don’t know why you’ve bolded this. Hunger is a great spur to action in all organisms. How does this prove they are not intelligent?
QUOTE: "This newly discovered mechanism of allows bacteria to form social groups, cooperating with kin while antagonizing non-kin during behaviors that may be important for nourishment, virulence, protection, quorum sensing, and biofilm formation. (dhw’s bold) "Bacteria are frequently thought of as living individually, but in fact they can forage for food as groups," Wood says. "In order to act as a group, they must be able to distinguish themselves from other bacteria. In one type of social activity, when they communicate, bacterial cells secrete chemical signals to communicate. Now we show cells utilize viruses to distinguish themselves from closely related bacteria.'" (David’s bold)
Surprise, surprise, when material beings communicate, they use material means. How does this come to indicate that they may well be entirely automatic (see below)?
DAVID: This is a lucky outcome. The helpful virus attacks the bacteria. That is what it is built to do. It doesn't have a good deed in mind. Note the bolds: it is interesting that bacteria are always hungry and hunt in groups. And note how they communicate, by sending chemical signals. This may well be entirely automatic.
Why is it down to luck? (I thought anyway that you believed it was down to your God’s programming 3.8 billion years ago.) It is indeed interesting that they cooperate, communicate, distinguish one life form from another according to whether these are goodies or baddies. Sounds to me more like intelligence than luck or non-thinking obedience to instructions.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 17, 2019, 15:27 (2045 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “all bacteria are usually starving," Wood says[/i]. (David’s bold)
dhw: I don’t know why you’ve bolded this. Hunger is a great spur to action in all organisms. How does this prove they are not intelligent?
I did not equate hunger with intelligence. Why did you? Frankly, I did not know bacteria were never satiated.
QUOTE: "This newly discovered mechanism of allows bacteria to form social groups, cooperating with kin while antagonizing non-kin during behaviors that may be important for nourishment, virulence, protection, quorum sensing, and biofilm formation. (dhw’s bold) "Bacteria are frequently thought of as living individually, but in fact they can forage for food as groups," Wood says. "In order to act as a group, they must be able to distinguish themselves from other bacteria. In one type of social activity, when they communicate, bacterial cells secrete chemical signals to communicate. Now we show cells utilize viruses to distinguish themselves from closely related bacteria.'" (David’s bold)dhw: Surprise, surprise, when material beings communicate, they use material means. How does this come to indicate that they may well be entirely automatic (see below)?
Molecular reactions between ligands and sensors are molecular reactions, nothing more.
DAVID: This is a lucky outcome. The helpful virus attacks the bacteria. That is what it is built to do. It doesn't have a good deed in mind. Note the bolds: it is interesting that bacteria are always hungry and hunt in groups. And note how they communicate, by sending chemical signals. This may well be entirely automatic.dhw: Why is it down to luck? (I thought anyway that you believed it was down to your God’s programming 3.8 billion years ago.) It is indeed interesting that they cooperate, communicate, distinguish one life form from another according to whether these are goodies or baddies. Sounds to me more like intelligence than luck or non-thinking obedience to instructions.
Your statement is fuzzy logic. I do not think in a rigid fashion as you imply. God's control or His programs are not involved. In this case a virus infects a bacteria, which is its role in life. You imply the bacteria invited the virus in. Not so. The virus attacks the bacteria which cannot kill it, It just happens to help the bacteria in self-identification. What is not luck? No intelligence involved. Many bacteriophages (viruses) do kill bacteria.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
QUOTE: “all bacteria are usually starving," Wood says. (David’s bold)[/i]
dhw: I don’t know why you’ve bolded this. Hunger is a great spur to action in all organisms. How does this prove they are not intelligent?
DAVID: I did not equate hunger with intelligence. Why did you? Frankly, I did not know bacteria were never satiated.
I didn’t equate hunger with intelligence either! I didn’t know why you bolded it, and I still don’t. Later you again ask me to take note of it. Why?
QUOTE: […] In one type of social activity, when they communicate, bacterial cells secrete chemical signals to communicate. Now we show cells utilize viruses to distinguish themselves from closely related bacteria.'" (David’s bold)
dhw: Surprise, surprise, when material beings communicate, they use material means. How does this come to indicate that they may well be entirely automatic (see below)?
DAVID: Molecular reactions between ligands and sensors are molecular reactions, nothing more.
Now you are picking on the molecular reactions involved in perception and again totally ignoring the intelligence required to process information and form whatever messages are to be communicated.
DAVID: This is a lucky outcome. The helpful virus attacks the bacteria. That is what it is built to do. It doesn't have a good deed in mind. Note the bolds: it is interesting that bacteria are always hungry and hunt in groups. And note how they communicate, by sending chemical signals. This may well be entirely automatic.
dhw: Why is it down to luck? (I thought anyway that you believed it was down to your God’s programming 3.8 billion years ago.) It is indeed interesting that they cooperate, communicate, distinguish one life form from another according to whether these are goodies or baddies. Sounds to me more like intelligence than luck or non-thinking obedience to instructions.
DAVID: Your statement is fuzzy logic. I do not think in a rigid fashion as you imply. God's control or His programs are not involved. In this case a virus infects a bacteria, which is its role in life. You imply the bacteria invited the virus in. Not so. The virus attacks the bacteria which cannot kill it, It just happens to help the bacteria in self-identification. What is not luck? No intelligence involved. Many bacteriophages (viruses) do kill bacteria.
I did not imply any such thing! The article focuses on the ability of bacteria to identify kin and non-kin, to form social groups, to communicate with one another, and to use whatever favourable material comes their way. The only luck involved is the arrival of viruses that they can use. You even asked me to note that they are always hungry, hunt in groups, and communicate (as we all do) by using material signals. I see the whole picture you asked me to see - hungry bacteria using whatever means they can to satisfy their hunger. In the past you have had your God preprogramming or dabbling all their actions, but do please tell us your new explanation for all the above.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
by David Turell , Thursday, April 18, 2019, 19:06 (2044 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Surprise, surprise, when material beings communicate, they use material means. How does this come to indicate that they may well be entirely automatic (see below)?
DAVID: Molecular reactions between ligands and sensors are molecular reactions, nothing more.
dhw: Now you are picking on the molecular reactions involved in perception and again totally ignoring the intelligence required to process information and form whatever messages are to be communicated.
Not ignoring, but noting you conveniently ignore there are always two possibilities: actual intelligence or simply following intelligent instructions carried in the cells.
DAVID: This is a lucky outcome. The helpful virus attacks the bacteria. That is what it is built to do. It doesn't have a good deed in mind. Note the bolds: it is interesting that bacteria are always hungry and hunt in groups. And note how they communicate, by sending chemical signals. This may well be entirely automatic.dhw: Why is it down to luck? (I thought anyway that you believed it was down to your God’s programming 3.8 billion years ago.) It is indeed interesting that they cooperate, communicate, distinguish one life form from another according to whether these are goodies or baddies. Sounds to me more like intelligence than luck or non-thinking obedience to instructions.
DAVID: Your statement is fuzzy logic. I do not think in a rigid fashion as you imply. God's control or His programs are not involved. In this case a virus infects a bacteria, which is its role in life. You imply the bacteria invited the virus in. Not so. The virus attacks the bacteria which cannot kill it, It just happens to help the bacteria in self-identification. What is not luck? No intelligence involved. Many bacteriophages (viruses) do kill bacteria.
dhw: I did not imply any such thing! The article focuses on the ability of bacteria to identify kin and non-kin, to form social groups, to communicate with one another, and to use whatever favourable material comes their way. The only luck involved is the arrival of viruses that they can use. You even asked me to note that they are always hungry, hunt in groups, and communicate (as we all do) by using material signals. I see the whole picture you asked me to see - hungry bacteria using whatever means they can to satisfy their hunger. In the past you have had your God preprogramming or dabbling all their actions, but do please tell us your new explanation for all the above.
I have explained it above: "In this case a virus infects a bacteria, which is its role in life. You imply the bacteria invited the virus in. Not so. The virus attacks the bacteria which cannot kill it, It just happens to help the bacteria in self-identification. What is not luck? No intelligence involved. Many bacteriophages (viruses) do kill bacteria." You imply the bacteria happily gobbled up the 'useful' virus. The virus is the natural enemy of bacteria. In this case neither foe could kill the other, thus a lucky outcome for the bacteria which could then use the virus in a novel way. Read about them:
https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBacter...
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
DAVID: Molecular reactions between ligands and sensors are molecular reactions, nothing more.
dhw: Now you are picking on the molecular reactions involved in perception and again totally ignoring the intelligence required to process information and form whatever messages are to be communicated.
DAVID: Not ignoring, but noting you conveniently ignore there are always two possibilities: actual intelligence or simply following intelligent instructions carried in the cells.
I am always reassured when you acknowledge that intelligence is possible. Thank you. Your “intelligent instructions” can ONLY have been personally given ad hoc by your God (dabbling) or handed down by the first cells in a programme to deal with every new circumstance throughout life’s history. You have offered no alternative method. When last challenged on this, you said this hypothesis was not “at the level of belief”. Also reassuring. In your attacks on “actual intelligence”, you continually focus on automatic actions such as material means of perception and communication, ignoring actions that seem to denote intelligence: e.g. processing and use of information, decision-making, cooperation. Since you don’t actually believe that all these actions are dabbled/preprogrammed, I am at a loss as to why you are so opposed to my alternative (which apparently I share with the majority of modern scientists).
dhw:The article focuses on the ability of bacteria to identify kin and non-kin, to form social groups, to communicate with one another, and to use whatever favourable material comes their way. The only luck involved is the arrival of viruses that they can use. [dhw's bold] You even asked me to note that they are always hungry, hunt in groups, and communicate (as we all do) by using material signals. I see the whole picture you asked me to see - hungry bacteria using whatever means they can to satisfy their hunger. In the past you have had your God preprogramming or dabbling all their actions, but do please tell us your new explanation for all the above.
DAVID: I have explained it above: "In this case a virus infects a bacteria, which is its role in life. You imply the bacteria invited the virus in. Not so. The virus attacks the bacteria which cannot kill it, It just happens to help the bacteria in self-identification. What is not luck? No intelligence involved. Many bacteriophages (viruses) do kill bacteria." You imply the bacteria happily gobbled up the 'useful' virus. The virus is the natural enemy of bacteria. In this case neither foe could kill the other, thus a lucky outcome for the bacteria which could then use the virus in a novel way.
I did not imply that the bacteria invited the virus in, and I have agreed that the “luck” consists in the arrival of viruses that the bacteria can use (now bolded). They do so, in your own words, “in a novel way”. I have pointed out that the article focuses on the fact that bacteria can “identify kin and non-kin, form social groups, communicate with one another, and use whatever favourable material comes their way”, all of which are signs of intelligence. You have chosen to ignore all of this by focusing solely on one piece of luck.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
by David Turell , Friday, April 19, 2019, 20:22 (2043 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Molecular reactions between ligands and sensors are molecular reactions, nothing more.
dhw: Now you are picking on the molecular reactions involved in perception and again totally ignoring the intelligence required to process information and form whatever messages are to be communicated.
DAVID: Not ignoring, but noting you conveniently ignore there are always two possibilities: actual intelligence or simply following intelligent instructions carried in the cells.
dhw: I am always reassured when you acknowledge that intelligence is possible. Thank you. Your “intelligent instructions” can ONLY have been personally given ad hoc by your God (dabbling) or handed down by the first cells in a programme to deal with every new circumstance throughout life’s history. You have offered no alternative method. When last challenged on this, you said this hypothesis was not “at the level of belief”. Also reassuring. In your attacks on “actual intelligence”, you continually focus on automatic actions such as material means of perception and communication, ignoring actions that seem to denote intelligence: e.g. processing and use of information, decision-making, cooperation. Since you don’t actually believe that all these actions are dabbled/preprogrammed, I am at a loss as to why you are so opposed to my alternative (which apparently I share with the majority of modern scientists).
Your confusion about my beliefs continues, because you launch ahead to defend your point about intelligence without stopping to realize what I always state. I maintain a cell's actions can look intelligent because it is following intelligent instructions. The odds are 50/50 I am correct since we cannot be sure of the two probabilities. Since I believe God runs the show I'll stick with my choice as logically consistent. How God does it are my guesses, since I cannot know for sure how He controls.
dhw:The article focuses on the ability of bacteria to identify kin and non-kin, to form social groups, to communicate with one another, and to use whatever favourable material comes their way. The only luck involved is the arrival of viruses that they can use. [dhw's bold] You even asked me to note that they are always hungry, hunt in groups, and communicate (as we all do) by using material signals. I see the whole picture you asked me to see - hungry bacteria using whatever means they can to satisfy their hunger. In the past you have had your God preprogramming or dabbling all their actions, but do please tell us your new explanation for all the above.DAVID: I have explained it above: "In this case a virus infects a bacteria, which is its role in life. You imply the bacteria invited the virus in. Not so. The virus attacks the bacteria which cannot kill it, It just happens to help the bacteria in self-identification. What is not luck? No intelligence involved. Many bacteriophages (viruses) do kill bacteria." You imply the bacteria happily gobbled up the 'useful' virus. The virus is the natural enemy of bacteria. In this case neither foe could kill the other, thus a lucky outcome for the bacteria which could then use the virus in a novel way.
dhw: I did not imply that the bacteria invited the virus in, and I have agreed that the “luck” consists in the arrival of viruses that the bacteria can use (now bolded). They do so, in your own words, “in a novel way”. I have pointed out that the article focuses on the fact that bacteria can “identify kin and non-kin, form social groups, communicate with one another, and use whatever favourable material comes their way”, all of which are signs of intelligence. You have chosen to ignore all of this by focusing solely on one piece of luck.
All of the bacteria's actions to stimuli may be automatic to return to that point.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
dhw: I am always reassured when you acknowledge that intelligence is possible. Thank you. Your “intelligent instructions” can ONLY have been personally given ad hoc by your God (dabbling) or handed down by the first cells in a programme to deal with every new circumstance throughout life’s history. You have offered no alternative method. When last challenged on this, you said this hypothesis was not “at the level of belief”. Also reassuring. In your attacks on “actual intelligence”, you continually focus on automatic actions such as material means of perception and communication, ignoring actions that seem to denote intelligence: e.g. processing and use of information, decision-making, cooperation. Since you don’t actually believe that all these actions are dabbled/preprogrammed, I am at a loss as to why you are so opposed to my alternative (which apparently I share with the majority of modern scientists).
DAVID: Your confusion about my beliefs continues, because you launch ahead to defend your point about intelligence without stopping to realize what I always state. I maintain a cell's actions can look intelligent because it is following intelligent instructions. The odds are 50/50 I am correct since we cannot be sure of the two probabilities. Since I believe God runs the show I'll stick with my choice as logically consistent. How God does it are my guesses, since I cannot know for sure how He controls.
There is no confusion. I have thanked you for your willingness to accept that intelligence is possible. If by “God running the show” you mean he directly controls everything that happened (as opposed to allowing free rein), then of course your choice is logically consistent, but the only means of control you offer are preprogramming or dabbling the “intelligent instructions” for every single bacterial problem, evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the history of life. If you yourself cannot believe in these two explanations, and cannot think of any other, I am surprised that you stick so rigidly to your choice of direct control while still maintaining that the odds are 50/50.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
by David Turell , Saturday, April 20, 2019, 21:10 (2042 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I am always reassured when you acknowledge that intelligence is possible. Thank you. Your “intelligent instructions” can ONLY have been personally given ad hoc by your God (dabbling) or handed down by the first cells in a programme to deal with every new circumstance throughout life’s history. You have offered no alternative method. When last challenged on this, you said this hypothesis was not “at the level of belief”. Also reassuring. In your attacks on “actual intelligence”, you continually focus on automatic actions such as material means of perception and communication, ignoring actions that seem to denote intelligence: e.g. processing and use of information, decision-making, cooperation. Since you don’t actually believe that all these actions are dabbled/preprogrammed, I am at a loss as to why you are so opposed to my alternative (which apparently I share with the majority of modern scientists).
DAVID: Your confusion about my beliefs continues, because you launch ahead to defend your point about intelligence without stopping to realize what I always state. I maintain a cell's actions can look intelligent because it is following intelligent instructions. The odds are 50/50 I am correct since we cannot be sure of the two probabilities. Since I believe God runs the show I'll stick with my choice as logically consistent. How God does it are my guesses, since I cannot know for sure how He controls.
dhw: There is no confusion. I have thanked you for your willingness to accept that intelligence is possible. If by “God running the show” you mean he directly controls everything that happened (as opposed to allowing free rein), then of course your choice is logically consistent, but the only means of control you offer are preprogramming or dabbling the “intelligent instructions” for every single bacterial problem, evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the history of life. If you yourself cannot believe in these two explanations, and cannot think of any other, I am surprised that you stick so rigidly to your choice of direct control while still maintaining that the odds are 50/50.
You are still confused about my thinking. Of course, if God is in control, as I believe, He has methods of exerting that control. In our discussions we have come up with three possibilities: nothing but pre-programming, dabbling, or an inventive mechanism for organisms use which I insist must be under guidelines to exact God's total control. I think that covers the possibilities for evolutionary God control. But they remain possibilities. The bold above I've created in your statement is off target. '50/50' has nothing to do with evolutionary control, and only concerns the issue over obviously intelligent cellular activity which I believe is due to intelligent instructions the cell carries as a result of being created by evolution.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
I don't know what happened yesterday to this and my post on "Big brain evolution"! Perhaps I accidentally deleted them. My apologies!
dhw: There is no confusion. I have thanked you for your willingness to accept that intelligence is possible. If by “God running the show” you mean he directly controls everything that happened (as opposed to allowing free rein), then of course your choice is logically consistent, but the only means of control you offer are preprogramming or dabbling the “intelligent instructions” for every single bacterial problem, evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the history of life. If you yourself cannot believe in these two explanations, and cannot think of any other, I am surprised that you stick so rigidly to your choice of direct control while still maintaining that the odds are 50/50.
DAVID: You are still confused about my thinking. Of course, if God is in control, as I believe, He has methods of exerting that control. In our discussions we have come up with three possibilities: nothing but pre-programming, dabbling, or an inventive mechanism for organisms use which I insist must be under guidelines to exact God's total control. I think that covers the possibilities for evolutionary God control. But they remain possibilities. The bold above I've created in your statement is off target. '50/50' has nothing to do with evolutionary control, and only concerns the issue over obviously intelligent cellular activity which I believe is due to intelligent instructions the cell carries as a result of being created by evolution.
The only “guidelines” or “intelligent instructions” you have offered for control are preprogramming and dabbling, and the third possibility which I offer is an AUTONOMOUS inventive mechanism which may have been designed by your God. Your insistence that your God wants “total control” is what turns you off the idea of autonomous intelligence. Once you have agreed that it is possible, you are forced to agree that your God might NOT have wanted total control. And this undermines your proposal that he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sole purpose of keeping life going until he could specially design the only thing he wanted to design. The alternative is that he WANTED the unpredictability of the ever changing bush of life, and that H. sapiens was not the one and only purpose, although it also leaves open the option of dabbling when he felt like it. (See “Big brain evolution”.)
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
by David Turell , Monday, April 22, 2019, 15:32 (2040 days ago) @ dhw
I don't know what happened yesterday to this and my post on "Big brain evolution"! Perhaps I accidentally deleted them. My apologies!
dhw: There is no confusion. I have thanked you for your willingness to accept that intelligence is possible. If by “God running the show” you mean he directly controls everything that happened (as opposed to allowing free rein), then of course your choice is logically consistent, but the only means of control you offer are preprogramming or dabbling the “intelligent instructions” for every single bacterial problem, evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the history of life. If you yourself cannot believe in these two explanations, and cannot think of any other, I am surprised that you stick so rigidly to your choice of direct control while still maintaining that the odds are 50/50.
DAVID: You are still confused about my thinking. Of course, if God is in control, as I believe, He has methods of exerting that control. In our discussions we have come up with three possibilities: nothing but pre-programming, dabbling, or an inventive mechanism for organisms use which I insist must be under guidelines to exact God's total control. I think that covers the possibilities for evolutionary God control. But they remain possibilities. The bold above I've created in your statement is off target. '50/50' has nothing to do with evolutionary control, and only concerns the issue over obviously intelligent cellular activity which I believe is due to intelligent instructions the cell carries as a result of being created by evolution.
dhw: The only “guidelines” or “intelligent instructions” you have offered for control are preprogramming and dabbling, and the third possibility which I offer is an AUTONOMOUS inventive mechanism which may have been designed by your God. Your insistence that your God wants “total control” is what turns you off the idea of autonomous intelligence. Once you have agreed that it is possible, you are forced to agree that your God might NOT have wanted total control. And this undermines your proposal that he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sole purpose of keeping life going until he could specially design the only thing he wanted to design. The alternative is that he WANTED the unpredictability of the ever changing bush of life, and that H. sapiens was not the one and only purpose, although it also leaves open the option of dabbling when he felt like it. (See “Big brain evolution”.)
Note the bold. I've never agreed to the idea that God did not want total control. We have discussed it, but I have always rejected it. I have emphasized that strong evidence exists in all we know of history and biology to show that God is intensely purposeful.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
DAVID: You are still confused about my thinking. Of course, if God is in control, as I believe, He has methods of exerting that control. In our discussions we have come up with three possibilities: nothing but pre-programming, dabbling, or an inventive mechanism for organisms use which I insist must be under guidelines to exact God's total control. I think that covers the possibilities for evolutionary God control. But they remain possibilities. '50/50' has nothing to do with evolutionary control, and only concerns the issue over obviously intelligent cellular activity which I believe is due to intelligent instructions the cell carries as a result of being created by evolution.
dhw: The only “guidelines” or “intelligent instructions” you have offered for control are preprogramming and dabbling, and the third possibility which I offer is an AUTONOMOUS inventive mechanism which may have been designed by your God. Your insistence that your God wants “total control” is what turns you off the idea of autonomous intelligence. Once you have agreed that it is possible, you are forced to agree that your God might NOT have wanted total control. And this undermines your proposal that he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sole purpose of keeping life going until he could specially design the only thing he wanted to design. The alternative is that he WANTED the unpredictability of the ever changing bush of life, and that H. sapiens was not the one and only purpose, although it also leaves open the option of dabbling when he felt like it. (See “Big brain evolution”.) [David’s bold]
DAVID: Note the bold. I've never agreed to the idea that God did not want total control. We have discussed it, but I have always rejected it. I have emphasized that strong evidence exists in all we know of history and biology to show that God is intensely purposeful.
Of course if God exists he must have had a purpose in creating life in all its different forms. But that does not mean he specially designed all the different forms, or that his purpose for doing so was that they should eat or not eat one another until he specially designed H. sapiens! Perhaps I did not make my control argument clear. If you were to accept the concept of cellular intelligence, i.e. that your God deliberately created a mechanism whereby organisms did their own designing autonomously, you would be forced to abandon your fixed hypothesis that your God wanted total control. Hence perhaps your vehement opposition to it, despite your 50/50 odds either way. In any case, you have repeatedly accepted the possibility that your God did not actually have total control, e.g. 5 February under “God and Evolution”:
DAVID: I have clearly stated God may be unlimited or limited. History allows both possibilities…
dhw: One day you clearly state that he is in full control, and the next you say he may have limits.
The concept of autonomous cellular intelligence allows for God’s powers to be unlimited, but for him to have made the choice to give up control – just as you believe he has done by giving humans free will. In both cases, he would have established a system based on the principle of “Let’s see what happens…” – though always allowing himself the option of dabbling.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 23, 2019, 17:09 (2039 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The only “guidelines” or “intelligent instructions” you have offered for control are preprogramming and dabbling, and the third possibility which I offer is an AUTONOMOUS inventive mechanism which may have been designed by your God. Your insistence that your God wants “total control” is what turns you off the idea of autonomous intelligence. Once you have agreed that it is possible, you are forced to agree that your God might NOT have wanted total control. And this undermines your proposal that he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sole purpose of keeping life going until he could specially design the only thing he wanted to design. The alternative is that he WANTED the unpredictability of the ever changing bush of life, and that H. sapiens was not the one and only purpose, although it also leaves open the option of dabbling when he felt like it. (See “Big brain evolution”.) [David’s bold]
DAVID: Note the bold. I've never agreed to the idea that God did not want total control. We have discussed it, but I have always rejected it. I have emphasized that strong evidence exists in all we know of history and biology to show that God is intensely purposeful.
dhw: Of course if God exists he must have had a purpose in creating life in all its different forms. But that does not mean he specially designed all the different forms, or that his purpose for doing so was that they should eat or not eat one another until he specially designed H. sapiens! Perhaps I did not make my control argument clear. If you were to accept the concept of cellular intelligence, i.e. that your God deliberately created a mechanism whereby organisms did their own designing autonomously, you would be forced to abandon your fixed hypothesis that your God wanted total control. Hence perhaps your vehement opposition to it, despite your 50/50 odds either way. In any case, you have repeatedly accepted the possibility that your God did not actually have total control, e.g. 5 February under “God and Evolution”:
DAVID: I have clearly stated God may be unlimited or limited. History allows both possibilities…
dhw: One day you clearly state that he is in full control, and the next you say he may have limits.dhw: The concept of autonomous cellular intelligence allows for God’s powers to be unlimited, but for him to have made the choice to give up control – just as you believe he has done by giving humans free will. In both cases, he would have established a system based on the principle of “Let’s see what happens…” – though always allowing himself the option of dabbling.
We are debating a totally purposeful God, my view, vs. a tentative God which I think is your view. Of course, I've admitted God may have limits, but my position is I strongly doubt it. Since you live in doubt, you will posit all sorts of possibilities about God. I am sure will have some areas of agreement, but more than likely it will be mostly disagreements.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
dhw: Of course if God exists he must have had a purpose in creating life in all its different forms. But that does not mean he specially designed all the different forms, or that his purpose for doing so was that they should eat or not eat one another until he specially designed H. sapiens! Perhaps I did not make my control argument clear. If you were to accept the concept of cellular intelligence, i.e. that your God deliberately created a mechanism whereby organisms did their own designing autonomously, you would be forced to abandon your fixed hypothesis that your God wanted total control. Hence perhaps your vehement opposition to it, despite your 50/50 odds either way. In any case, you have repeatedly accepted the possibility that your God did not actually have total control, e.g. 5 February under “God and Evolution”:
DAVID: I have clearly stated God may be unlimited or limited. History allows both possibilities…
dhw: One day you clearly state that he is in full control, and the next you say he may have limits.
dhw: The concept of autonomous cellular intelligence allows for God’s powers to be unlimited, but for him to have made the choice to give up control – just as you believe he has done by giving humans free will. In both cases, he would have established a system based on the principle of “Let’s see what happens…” – though always allowing himself the option of dabbling.
DAVID: We are debating a totally purposeful God, my view, vs. a tentative God which I think is your view. Of course, I've admitted God may have limits, but my position is I strongly doubt it. Since you live in doubt, you will posit all sorts of possibilities about God. I am sure will have some areas of agreement, but more than likely it will be mostly disagreements.
A “totally purposeful God” is not what we are debating at all. On this thread the subject is cellular intelligence and its relevance to your God’s use of evolution to achieve his purpose(s). In my proposal there is “total” purpose and nothing tentative, the purpose being to create a process that will provide the ever changing spectacle of life which constitutes its history (but always allowing for dabbles). I am suggesting that your vehement opposition to the concept of cellular intelligence – despite your setting the odds at 50/50 – is that it represents a major threat to your strong belief that your always-in-control God’s one and only purpose was to produce H. sapiens, linked to your proposal (but not belief) that for no apparent reason – you have “no idea” why he chose this method – he specially designed every life form in life’s history for the purpose of getting them to eat or not eat one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID using a virus
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 24, 2019, 19:29 (2038 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I have clearly stated God may be unlimited or limited. History allows both possibilities…
dhw: One day you clearly state that he is in full control, and the next you say he may have limits.
I cannot have exactitude about God. He is concealed. It is possible that God is limited in how He can create. Doesn't seem likely in that He created the universe with a Big Bang from what I think was pure energy, started life which is very complex on a very special planet. It simply may be that life is so complex, advances must be evolved, but that still puts God completely in charge.
dhw: The concept of autonomous cellular intelligence allows for God’s powers to be unlimited, but for him to have made the choice to give up control – just as you believe he has done by giving humans free will. In both cases, he would have established a system based on the principle of “Let’s see what happens…” – though always allowing himself the option of dabbling.DAVID: We are debating a totally purposeful God, my view, vs. a tentative God which I think is your view. Of course, I've admitted God may have limits, but my position is I strongly doubt it. Since you live in doubt, you will posit all sorts of possibilities about God. I am sure will have some areas of agreement, but more than likely it will be mostly disagreements.
dhw: A “totally purposeful God” is not what we are debating at all. On this thread the subject is cellular intelligence and its relevance to your God’s use of evolution to achieve his purpose(s). In my proposal there is “total” purpose and nothing tentative, the purpose being to create a process that will provide the ever changing spectacle of life which constitutes its history (but always allowing for dabbles).
We are certainly discussing a 'totally purposeful God'. An 'ever changing spectacle' is humanizing God in the extreme. A purposeful God does not need spectacle. In my view, He fully knows what He wants as a goal, and accomplishes it.
dhw: I am suggesting that your vehement opposition to the concept of cellular intelligence – despite your setting the odds at 50/50 – is that it represents a major threat to your strong belief that your always-in-control God’s one and only purpose was to produce H. sapiens, linked to your proposal (but not belief) that for no apparent reason – you have “no idea” why he chose this method – he specially designed every life form in life’s history for the purpose of getting them to eat or not eat one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.
Again your irrational refrain. I fully believe God chose to evolve humans. His choice of method is His choice, and clearly is supported by the historical record. We evolved. I cannot know His reasons for the choice, which you constantly demand I reveal. Yes, I have 'strong beliefs', but, surprise, that is what faith involves. As for the bolded comment, it is totally off the mark as it implies God diddled aimless around until He finally plugged in the goal, humans. We are certainly discussing purpose and God's purpose. A purposeful God creates one event after another as described above. No dawdling around. But you want 'purpose' as in a weak view of God looking for spectacles He can enjoy! He saw the Big Bang, Earth appear and evolve. As a human I would have loved to see those events but it is because I am human. God is not. He was creating sequentially, with purpose and with a final goal in mind. But every step had purpose.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
by David Turell , Thursday, April 25, 2019, 19:57 (2037 days ago) @ David Turell
Another version of the story as to how an onboard virus protects its E' coli host:
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-bacteria-viral-weapon.html
"Bacterial cells use both a virus—traditionally thought to be an enemy—and a prehistoric viral protein to kill other bacteria that competes with it for food according to an international team of researchers who believe this has potential implications for future infectious disease treatment.
***
"The team not only found that a bacterial cell uses the SW1 virus to kill bacteria that are its competitors for food, they also discovered that bacteria that carry the virus are more fit and not killed as often as bacteria without the virus. In addition, they found that for a bacterium to be able to use SW1, it needs a protein fossil of a bacterium that came from another virus millions of years ago.
"Wood explained that sometimes a virus will enter a cell and hide in the chromosome until it is ready to attack and kill the cell. However, due to random mutations, a virus sometimes is stuck in the chromosome and cannot leave to attack. There are nine viruses trapped in this way in the beneficial gut bacterium E. coli. To be activated and used by E. coli against other bacteria, the virus SW1 needs a protein, YfdM, from a virus that became caught in the E. coli chromosome millions of years ago.
"In addition, the virus is used by the bacterium as an identifier.
"'Bacteria are frequently thought of as living alone but instead they can forage for food as groups. In order to act as a group, they must be able to distinguish themselves from other bacteria," Wood said. "In one type of social activity, bacterial cells secrete chemical signals to communicate. But now, we show that bacterium cells use viruses to distinguish themselves from closely-related bacteria."
"If the bacterium does not detect the virus in the other bacterium, it identifies a competitor for food, and unleashes the virus to kill its competition. While the exact workings of this process are not yet understood, it may hold potential benefits for research and medicine."
Comment: Once again it looks like a lucky relationship, with a trapped virus helping a bacteria.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
Under: The biochemistry of cell: information delivery
QUOTE: The interior of all living cells is separated from the outside world by membranes. These membranes keep the cells intact and protect them from negative influences. But they also act as a barrier for nutrients and information. For this reason, cell membranes contain mechanisms that enable selective access to desired substances or transmit information from external signals into the cell. (dhw's bold)
DAVID: In this case the stimulus to the cell is meant to initiate a specific required reaction and a series of specific molecules, one of which is especially designed to employ inhibition. The research makes it clear the cell is obviously programmed to make the proper response, no innate intelligence necessary.
Information delivery, like the vast majority of physical processes, is automatic in all forms of life, including ours. Intelligence is required for the use of information, for communicating with other organisms, for making decisions etc. – i.e. for all those aspects of behaviour which you agree are commensurate with intelligence and which you prefer to ignore, as bolded in the following:
EDITED QUOTES: "The team not only found that a bacterial cell uses the SW1 virus to kill bacteria that are its competitors for food […] they found that for a bacterium to be able to use SW1, it needs a protein fossil of a bacterium that came from another virus millions of years ago.
"To be activated and used by E. coli against other bacteria, the virus SW1 needs a protein, YfdM, from a virus that became caught in the E. coli chromosome millions of years ago.
"In addition, the virus is used by the bacterium as an identifier.”
"'Bacteria are frequently thought of as living alone but instead they can forage for food as groups. In order to act as a group, they must be able to distinguish themselves from other bacteria," Wood said. "In one type of social activity, bacterial cells secrete chemical signals to communicate. But now, we show that bacterium cells use viruses to distinguish themselves from closely-related bacteria."
DAVID: Once again it looks like a lucky relationship, with a trapped virus helping a bacteria.
In all walks of life, luck may trigger whole processes, but intelligence is required to use that luck. However, at least your championship of randomness makes a change from your insistence that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every aspect of bacterial behaviour. Or do you think he preprogrammed E-coli’s response just in case it ever met up with SW1?
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
by David Turell , Friday, April 26, 2019, 19:02 (2036 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, April 26, 2019, 19:22
dhw: Under: The biochemistry of cell: information delivery
QUOTE: The interior of all living cells is separated from the outside world by membranes. These membranes keep the cells intact and protect them from negative influences. But they also act as a barrier for nutrients and information. For this reason, cell membranes contain mechanisms that enable selective access to desired substances or transmit information from external signals into the cell. (dhw's bold)
DAVID: In this case the stimulus to the cell is meant to initiate a specific required reaction and a series of specific molecules, one of which is especially designed to employ inhibition. The research makes it clear the cell is obviously programmed to make the proper response, no innate intelligence necessary.
dhw; Information delivery, like the vast majority of physical processes, is automatic in all forms of life, including ours. Intelligence is required for the use of information, for communicating with other organisms, for making decisions etc. – i.e. for all those aspects of behaviour which you agree are commensurate with intelligence and which you prefer to ignore, as bolded in the following:
EDITED QUOTES: "The team not only found that a bacterial cell uses the SW1 virus to kill bacteria that are its competitors for food […] they found that for a bacterium to be able to use SW1, it needs a protein fossil of a bacterium that came from another virus millions of years ago.
"To be activated and used by E. coli against other bacteria, the virus SW1 needs a protein, YfdM, from a virus that became caught in the E. coli chromosome millions of years ago.
"In addition, the virus is used by the bacterium as an identifier.”
"'Bacteria are frequently thought of as living alone but instead they can forage for food as groups. In order to act as a group, they must be able to distinguish themselves from other bacteria," Wood said. "In one type of social activity, bacterial cells secrete chemical signals to communicate. But now, we show that bacterium cells use viruses to distinguish themselves from closely-related bacteria."
DAVID: Once again it looks like a lucky relationship, with a trapped virus helping a bacteria.
dhw: In all walks of life, luck may trigger whole processes, but intelligence is required to use that luck. However, at least your championship of randomness makes a change from your insistence that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every aspect of bacterial behaviour. Or do you think he preprogrammed E-coli’s response just in case it ever met up with SW1?
In human life we use our intelligence. That doesn't mean it is present 'in all walks of life', which has all sorts of levels of possible mentation. My interpretation of how cells receive information through chemical reactions is clear in the article. I have just avoided the Darwinian interpretations of the authors. When they say the bacteria 'uses the virus', hey purposely imply the bacteria knows what it is doing, when it all looks perfectly automatic to me and they even discuss the protein reaction involved. A protein molecule is not like as trained dog. It reacts to other proteins in a series of reactions, as far as I am concerned all set off automatically .
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
DAVID: Once again it looks like a lucky relationship, with a trapped virus helping a bacteria.
dhw: In all walks of life, luck may trigger whole processes, but intelligence is required to use that luck. However, at least your championship of randomness makes a change from your insistence that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every aspect of bacterial behaviour. Or do you think he preprogrammed E-coli’s response just in case it ever met up with SW1?
DAVID: In human life we use our intelligence. That doesn't mean it is present 'in all walks of life', which has all sorts of levels of possible mentation.
Nobody is even suggesting that bacterial intelligence is on a level with or even of the same kind as human intelligence.
DAVID: My interpretation of how cells receive information through chemical reactions is clear in the article. I have just avoided the Darwinian interpretations of the authors. When they say the bacteria 'uses the virus', they purposely imply the bacteria knows what it is doing, when it all looks perfectly automatic to me and they even discuss the protein reaction involved.
You continue to ignore the fact that all forms of life, including ourselves, receive information through chemical reactions. Even you, when you claim to be a dualist, draw a distinction between material acquisition of information and the processes through which we analyse that information, choose between options, take decisions etc. You acknowledge that these are the hallmarks of intelligence, but then you always fall back on the automatic material or chemical processes as if they provided evidence that there is no intelligence.
DAVID: A protein molecule is not like as trained dog. It reacts to other proteins in a series of reactions, as far as I am concerned all set off automatically.
Molecules react automatically to receive information and to implement decisions. But what sets off the process of implementation (i.e. decision-making) is a mystery. You tell us your God must have preprogrammed or dabbled all the decisions or steps for whenever a decision is required. A theistic alternative is that he gave all organisms, including bacteria, the means by which to take their own decisions. Simple choice for you. You have now at least acknowledged that your own choice is not a belief, which I find encouraging.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
by David Turell , Saturday, April 27, 2019, 16:18 (2035 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My interpretation of how cells receive information through chemical reactions is clear in the article. I have just avoided the Darwinian interpretations of the authors. When they say the bacteria 'uses the virus', they purposely imply the bacteria knows what it is doing, when it all looks perfectly automatic to me and they even discuss the protein reaction involved.dhw: You continue to ignore the fact that all forms of life, including ourselves, receive information through chemical reactions. Even you, when you claim to be a dualist, draw a distinction between material acquisition of information and the processes through which we analyse that information, choose between options, take decisions etc. You acknowledge that these are the hallmarks of intelligence, but then you always fall back on the automatic material or chemical processes as if they provided evidence that there is no intelligence.
What chemical processes show is that life at the cellular level can easily be seen and understood as automatic reactions following intelligent instructions. All the research shows is a series of chemical reactions, not the purposeful underlying controls. All biological processes exhibit purpose.
DAVID: A protein molecule is not like as trained dog. It reacts to other proteins in a series of reactions, as far as I am concerned all set off automatically.dhw: Molecules react automatically to receive information and to implement decisions. But what sets off the process of implementation (i.e. decision-making) is a mystery. You tell us your God must have preprogrammed or dabbled all the decisions or steps for whenever a decision is required. A theistic alternative is that he gave all organisms, including bacteria, the means by which to take their own decisions. Simple choice for you. You have now at least acknowledged that your own choice is not a belief, which I find encouraging.
How God controlled the advances of evolution are logical speculations. Bacterial decisions follow logical underlying algorithms.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
DAVID: My interpretation of how cells receive information through chemical reactions is clear in the article. I have just avoided the Darwinian interpretations of the authors. When they say the bacteria 'uses the virus', they purposely imply the bacteria knows what it is doing, when it all looks perfectly automatic to me and they even discuss the protein reaction involved.
dhw: You continue to ignore the fact that all forms of life, including ourselves, receive information through chemical reactions. Even you, when you claim to be a dualist, draw a distinction between material acquisition of information and the processes through which we analyse that information, choose between options, take decisions etc. You acknowledge that these are the hallmarks of intelligence, but then you always fall back on the automatic material or chemical processes as if they provided evidence that there is no intelligence.
DAVID: What chemical processes show is that life at the cellular level can easily be seen and understood as automatic reactions following intelligent instructions. All the research shows is a series of chemical reactions, not the purposeful underlying controls. All biological processes exhibit purpose.
The research CAN only show chemical reactions, cellular or human. Of course the processes are purposeful, so what “intelligent instructions” or “purposeful controls” are you thinking of, other than your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all cellular actions, or his personal dabbling?
DAVID: A protein molecule is not like as trained dog. It reacts to other proteins in a series of reactions, as far as I am concerned all set off automatically.
dhw: Molecules react automatically to receive information and to implement decisions. But what sets off the process of implementation (i.e. decision-making) is a mystery. You tell us your God must have preprogrammed or dabbled all the decisions or steps for whenever a decision is required. A theistic alternative is that he gave all organisms, including bacteria, the means by which to take their own decisions. Simple choice for you. You have now at least acknowledged that your own choice is not a belief, which I find encouraging.
DAVID: How God controlled the advances of evolution are logical speculations. Bacterial decisions follow logical underlying algorithms.
Your “algorithms” are the same as your “intelligent instructions” which are the same as your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled decision. You may introduce as many scientific terms as you like, but you are still faced with a stark choice between these two options and cellular intelligence, and I remain encouraged by the fact that your personal choice is not a belief.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
by David Turell , Sunday, April 28, 2019, 20:30 (2034 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: What chemical processes show is that life at the cellular level can easily be seen and understood as automatic reactions following intelligent instructions. All the research shows is a series of chemical reactions, not the purposeful underlying controls. All biological processes exhibit purpose.
dhw: The research CAN only show chemical reactions, cellular or human. Of course the processes are purposeful, so what “intelligent instructions” or “purposeful controls” are you thinking of, other than your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all cellular actions, or his personal dabbling?
Same approach: God started life by designing a very complex code to carry instructions (information) to form and control all the processes of life. Science is showing that DNA may be a protein coding mechanism but huge parts of the code are not just genes but interpreters and modifiers of genes. The complexity is only partially unraveled, but in my view the future will find a degree of complexity we can only imagine at this time. That is what I refer to as God's initial program.
DAVID: A protein molecule is not like as trained dog. It reacts to other proteins in a series of reactions, as far as I am concerned all set off automatically.dhw: Molecules react automatically to receive information and to implement decisions. But what sets off the process of implementation (i.e. decision-making) is a mystery. You tell us your God must have preprogrammed or dabbled all the decisions or steps for whenever a decision is required. A theistic alternative is that he gave all organisms, including bacteria, the means by which to take their own decisions. Simple choice for you. You have now at least acknowledged that your own choice is not a belief, which I find encouraging.
I view God as maintaining full control at all times.
DAVID: How God controlled the advances of evolution are logical speculations. Bacterial decisions follow logical underlying algorithms.dhw: Your “algorithms” are the same as your “intelligent instructions” which are the same as your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled decision. You may introduce as many scientific terms as you like, but you are still faced with a stark choice between these two options and cellular intelligence, and I remain encouraged by the fact that your personal choice is not a belief.
I've expressed my view of the original genome above as related to the start of life. The genome contains enormous amounts of intelligent information to exert control over life's
processes.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
by David Turell , Sunday, April 28, 2019, 20:46 (2034 days ago) @ David Turell
Chemical sensing and reactions guide bacteria:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190423133557.htm
Although they are considered the simplest of all life forms, even microorganisms sense their environment and are able to actively move within it. This allows them to identify both food and harmful substances and to move towards or away from them, guided by the concentration gradient of the substance in their environment. The journey of many microbes can thus be viewed as a sequence of decisions based on chemical gradients. (my bold)
The ability of cells to target or avoid particular substances is called chemotaxis. Until now, scientists have generally considered the chemotactic properties of bacteria to be a common feature of a species or population -- as if all cells behaved more or less the same. In this case, average values are sufficient to describe their movement behaviour. Now, researchers at ETH Zurich have observed the chemotaxis of bacteria in a behavioural experiment. "If you look with the appropriate technology, you'll find astonishing behavioural differences even within a population of genetically identical cells,"
***
they have developed a special microfluidic system that allows them to observe the movement of thousands of individual bacteria in a liquid at extremely small scales. The system comprises a series of narrow channels that branch out on to a thin glass plate to form a sort of microscopic maze through which the bacteria swim.
***
The bacteria all start in the same place -- and visibly divide up within the channel system as they are forced to decide at each fork whether to swim up or down the gradient of attractant. The bacteria owe their chemotactic abilities to specialised receptors that allow them to identify the attractant. In addition, they have about half a dozen flagella, which can rotate eithe ETH researchers found individuals that were able to follow the attractant well (by navigating towards the higher concentration whenever they came to a fork), and those that were less able to negotiate the maze. The scientists attribute these behavioural differences to variations in the genetic activity of identical genes in sister cells. This means the cells have different amounts of the corresponding proteins. "There is biochemical noise in every cell. As a fundamental random component, this causes diversity of appearance and behaviour," say the researchers.her clockwise or anti-clockwise. "Based on this, the bacterium changes its direction or continues to swim in one direction," explain Salek and Carrara.
Even within a group of genetically identical cells -- that is, clones -- the ETH researchers found individuals that were able to follow the attractant well (by navigating towards the higher concentration whenever they came to a fork), and those that were less able to negotiate the maze. The scientists attribute these behavioural differences to variations in the genetic activity of identical genes in sister cells. This means the cells have different amounts of the corresponding proteins. "There is biochemical noise in every cell. As a fundamental random component, this causes diversity of appearance and behaviour," say the researchers.
Diversity, or heterogeneity, of chemotaxis may provide an evolutionary advantage for the bacteria, since although those skilled at chemotaxis can quickly locate and exploit locally stable food sources, their sister cells less affected by the attractant are more likely to venture into new territory, where they may encounter additional food sources in a constantly changing environment.
"Non-genetic diversity has long been known in the biomedical life sciences; for example, it is thought to play a role in antibiotic resistance. Now, environmental scientists have shown that this diversity also affects fundamental behaviours of bacteria, such as locomotion and chemotaxis -- further expanding the concept of bacterial individuality," says Stocker.
Comment: Note that this study shows chemical decisions caused by underlying variations in bacteria of their genetic makeup. It adds to my evidence as to why antibiotic resistance develops. The 'intelligence' of their decisions is all in their individual makeup.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
DAVID: Chemical sensing and reactions guide bacteria:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190423133557.htm
QUOTE: “Although they are considered the simplest of all life forms, even microorganisms sense their environment and are able to actively move within it. This allows them to identify both food and harmful substances and to move towards or away from them, guided by the concentration gradient of the substance in their environment. The journey of many microbes can thus be viewed as a sequence of decisions based on chemical gradients[/b].” (David’s bold)
Just like humans, they make their decisions according to the conditions, and the rest of the article shows how even individuals with the same genome may have different perceptions and responses.
QUOTE: "If you look with the appropriate technology, you'll find astonishing behavioural differences even within a population of genetically identical cells,"
QUOTE: “Diversity, or heterogeneity, of chemotaxis may provide an evolutionary advantage for the bacteria, since although those skilled at chemotaxis can quickly locate and exploit locally stable food sources, their sister cells less affected by the attractant are more likely to venture into new territory, where they may encounter additional food sources in a constantly changing environment.”
Yep, that’s how evolution seems to work: individuals differ, and their different responses to changing conditions trigger new behaviour which, in more complex cell communities might even lead to innovation.
DAVID: Note that this study shows chemical decisions caused by underlying variations in bacteria of their genetic makeup. It adds to my evidence as to why antibiotic resistance develops. The 'intelligence' of their decisions is all in their individual makeup.
That is precisely the argument used by materialists, who claim that our intelligence and “free will” depend on our individual material makeup. Science can only observe the actions and reactions of materials, and of course it is possible that both bacteria and humans are merely the product of those materials. However, if you regard information-processing, communication, decision-making etc. as attributes of autonomous intelligence, you can also argue that both bacteria and humans are intelligent regardless of the source of that intelligence. Indeed, it appears that the majority of scientists today favour the concept of bacterial intelligence, but of course that does not mean you are wrong.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
by David Turell , Monday, April 29, 2019, 18:13 (2033 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Chemical sensing and reactions guide bacteria:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190423133557.htmQUOTE: “Although they are considered the simplest of all life forms, even microorganisms sense their environment and are able to actively move within it. This allows them to identify both food and harmful substances and to move towards or away from them, guided by the concentration gradient of the substance in their environment. The journey of many microbes can thus be viewed as a sequence of decisions based on chemical gradients[/b].” (David’s bold)
dhw: Just like humans, they make their decisions according to the conditions, and the rest of the article shows how even individuals with the same genome may have different perceptions and responses.
QUOTE: "If you look with the appropriate technology, you'll find astonishing behavioural differences even within a population of genetically identical cells,"
QUOTE: “Diversity, or heterogeneity, of chemotaxis may provide an evolutionary advantage for the bacteria, since although those skilled at chemotaxis can quickly locate and exploit locally stable food sources, their sister cells less affected by the attractant are more likely to venture into new territory, where they may encounter additional food sources in a constantly changing environment.”
dhw: Yep, that’s how evolution seems to work: individuals differ, and their different responses to changing conditions trigger new behaviour which, in more complex cell communities might even lead to innovation.
Are you sure the behaviour is 'new'or simply different among different individuals. After all we are seeing is a study about variations in the same bacterial species.
DAVID: Note that this study shows chemical decisions caused by underlying variations in bacteria of their genetic makeup. It adds to my evidence as to why antibiotic resistance develops. The 'intelligence' of their decisions is all in their individual makeup.dhw; That is precisely the argument used by materialists, who claim that our intelligence and “free will” depend on our individual material makeup. Science can only observe the actions and reactions of materials, and of course it is possible that both bacteria and humans are merely the product of those materials. However, if you regard information-processing, communication, decision-making etc. as attributes of autonomous intelligence, you can also argue that both bacteria and humans are intelligent regardless of the source of that intelligence. Indeed, it appears that the majority of scientists today favour the concept of bacterial intelligence, but of course that does not mean you are wrong.
Our intelligence and free will have to do with our consciousness. What a stretch of comparisons! You suggest by your comparison bacteria are somehow conscious.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
QUOTE: “Diversity, or heterogeneity, of chemotaxis may provide an evolutionary advantage for the bacteria, since although those skilled at chemotaxis can quickly locate and exploit locally stable food sources, their sister cells less affected by the attractant are more likely to venture into new territory, where they may encounter additional food sources in a constantly changing environment.”
dhw: Yep, that’s how evolution seems to work: individuals differ, and their different responses to changing conditions trigger new behaviour which, in more complex cell communities might even lead to innovation.
DAVID: Are you sure the behaviour is 'new' or simply different among different individuals. After all we are seeing is a study about variations in the same bacterial species.
If new conditions arise (e.g. new drugs to be combated), then of course the behaviour is new. If the species remains the same, that is adaptation. And I have suggested the possibility that in multicellular organisms, the same mechanism “might even lead to innovation” and hence evolution.
DAVID: Note that this study shows chemical decisions caused by underlying variations in bacteria of their genetic makeup. It adds to my evidence as to why antibiotic resistance develops. The 'intelligence' of their decisions is all in their individual makeup.
dhw: That is precisely the argument used by materialists, who claim that our intelligence and “free will” depend on our individual material makeup. Science can only observe the actions and reactions of materials, and of course it is possible that both bacteria and humans are merely the product of those materials. However, if you regard information-processing, communication, decision-making etc. as attributes of autonomous intelligence, you can also argue that both bacteria and humans are intelligent regardless of the source of that intelligence. Indeed, it appears that the majority of scientists today favour the concept of bacterial intelligence, but of course that does not mean you are wrong.
DAVID: Our intelligence and free will have to do with our consciousness. What a stretch of comparisons! You suggest by your comparison bacteria are somehow conscious.
Do you really think I am stupid enough to propose that bacterial intelligence is on a par with human intelligence? On Saturday 27 April I replied to the same point: “Nobody is even suggesting that bacterial intelligence is on a level with or even of the same kind as human intelligence.” You know perfectly well from your own experience with animals that there are different LEVELS of intelligence. You usually like to equate consciousness with self-awareness, which is perhaps why you introduced the word. I don’t, so let’s stick to intelligence in order to avoid that pitfall.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 14:50 (2032 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “Diversity, or heterogeneity, of chemotaxis may provide an evolutionary advantage for the bacteria, since although those skilled at chemotaxis can quickly locate and exploit locally stable food sources, their sister cells less affected by the attractant are more likely to venture into new territory, where they may encounter additional food sources in a constantly changing environment.”
dhw: Yep, that’s how evolution seems to work: individuals differ, and their different responses to changing conditions trigger new behaviour which, in more complex cell communities might even lead to innovation.
DAVID: Are you sure the behaviour is 'new' or simply different among different individuals. After all we are seeing is a study about variations in the same bacterial species.
dhw: If new conditions arise (e.g. new drugs to be combated), then of course the behaviour is new. If the species remains the same, that is adaptation. And I have suggested the possibility that in multicellular organisms, the same mechanism “might even lead to innovation” and hence evolution.
You have again stretched adaptation to speciation. Back to pure Darwin.
DAVID: Note that this study shows chemical decisions caused by underlying variations in bacteria of their genetic makeup. It adds to my evidence as to why antibiotic resistance develops. The 'intelligence' of their decisions is all in their individual makeup.dhw: That is precisely the argument used by materialists, who claim that our intelligence and “free will” depend on our individual material makeup. Science can only observe the actions and reactions of materials, and of course it is possible that both bacteria and humans are merely the product of those materials. However, if you regard information-processing, communication, decision-making etc. as attributes of autonomous intelligence, you can also argue that both bacteria and humans are intelligent regardless of the source of that intelligence. Indeed, it appears that the majority of scientists today favour the concept of bacterial intelligence, but of course that does not mean you are wrong.
DAVID: Our intelligence and free will have to do with our consciousness. What a stretch of comparisons! You suggest by your comparison bacteria are somehow conscious.
dhw: Do you really think I am stupid enough to propose that bacterial intelligence is on a par with human intelligence? On Saturday 27 April I replied to the same point: “Nobody is even suggesting that bacterial intelligence is on a level with or even of the same kind as human intelligence.” You know perfectly well from your own experience with animals that there are different LEVELS of intelligence. You usually like to equate consciousness with self-awareness, which is perhaps why you introduced the word. I don’t, so let’s stick to intelligence in order to avoid that pitfall.
I can certainly agree that conscious organisms (without self-awareness) show intelligence.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
dhw: Yep, that’s how evolution seems to work: individuals differ, and their different responses to changing conditions trigger new behaviour which, in more complex cell communities might even lead to innovation.
DAVID: Are you sure the behaviour is 'new' or simply different among different individuals. After all we are seeing is a study about variations in the same bacterial species.
dhw: If new conditions arise (e.g. new drugs to be combated), then of course the behaviour is new. If the species remains the same, that is adaptation. And I have suggested the possibility that in multicellular organisms, the same mechanism “might even lead to innovation” and hence evolution.
DAVID: You have again stretched adaptation to speciation. Back to pure Darwin.
I have suggested that cellular intelligence may be responsible for innovation as well as adaptation. It is a hypothesis, just like your divine preprogramming and dabbling. Please tell me where Darwin proposes that cellular intelligence might be the driving force behind evolutionary change.
DAVID: Our intelligence and free will have to do with our consciousness. What a stretch of comparisons! You suggest by your comparison bacteria are somehow conscious.
dhw: Do you really think I am stupid enough to propose that bacterial intelligence is on a par with human intelligence? On Saturday 27 April I replied to the same point: “Nobody is even suggesting that bacterial intelligence is on a level with or even of the same kind as human intelligence.” You know perfectly well from your own experience with animals that there are different LEVELS of intelligence. You usually like to equate consciousness with self-awareness, which is perhaps why you introduced the word. I don’t, so let’s stick to intelligence in order to avoid that pitfall.
DAVID: I can certainly agree that conscious organisms (without self-awareness) show intelligence.
Thank you. And bearing in mind that the majority of modern scientists apparently agree that bacteria are (rather than seem to be) intelligent, you can hardly assert with any authority that intelligent human behaviour is autonomous but intelligent bacterial behaviour is preprogrammed or dabbled.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 01, 2019, 19:49 (2031 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If new conditions arise (e.g. new drugs to be combated), then of course the behaviour is new. If the species remains the same, that is adaptation. And I have suggested the possibility that in multicellular organisms, the same mechanism “might even lead to innovation” and hence evolution.
DAVID: You have again stretched adaptation to speciation. Back to pure Darwin.dhw: I have suggested that cellular intelligence may be responsible for innovation as well as adaptation. It is a hypothesis, just like your divine preprogramming and dabbling. Please tell me where Darwin proposes that cellular intelligence might be the driving force behind evolutionary change.
But what you stated is pure Darwin, adaptation after adaptation leading to speciation, whether by intelligent action or not. Darwin never discussed intelligence as a driving force. That is your imagined process.
DAVID: Our intelligence and free will have to do with our consciousness. What a stretch of comparisons! You suggest by your comparison bacteria are somehow conscious.dhw: Do you really think I am stupid enough to propose that bacterial intelligence is on a par with human intelligence? On Saturday 27 April I replied to the same point: “Nobody is even suggesting that bacterial intelligence is on a level with or even of the same kind as human intelligence.” You know perfectly well from your own experience with animals that there are different LEVELS of intelligence. You usually like to equate consciousness with self-awareness, which is perhaps why you introduced the word. I don’t, so let’s stick to intelligence in order to avoid that pitfall.
DAVID: I can certainly agree that conscious organisms (without self-awareness) show intelligence.
dhw: Thank you. And bearing in mind that the majority of modern scientists apparently agree that bacteria are (rather than seem to be) intelligent, you can hardly assert with any authority that intelligent human behaviour is autonomous but intelligent bacterial behaviour is preprogrammed or dabbled.
Nothing factual here just consensus opinion. Cells actions are seen only from outside the cell. Still 50/50 probability as to how it is achieved.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
I have combined the two posts on “Bacterial intelligence”:
dhw: If new conditions arise (e.g. new drugs to be combated), then of course the behaviour is new. If the species remains the same, that is adaptation. And I have suggested the possibility that in multicellular organisms, the same mechanism “might even lead to innovation” and hence evolution.
DAVID: You have again stretched adaptation to speciation. Back to pure Darwin.
dhw: I have suggested that cellular intelligence may be responsible for innovation as well as adaptation. It is a hypothesis, just like your divine preprogramming and dabbling. Please tell me where Darwin proposes that cellular intelligence might be the driving force behind evolutionary change.
DAVID: But what you stated is pure Darwin, adaptation after adaptation leading to speciation, whether by intelligent action or not. Darwin never discussed intelligence as a driving force. That is your imagined process.
I have not stated that adaptation after adaptation leads to speciation, and Darwin himself proposed random mutations, not cellular intelligence, as key to innovation. I have suggested that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) responsible for adaptation – a process we know takes place – may also be responsible for innovation. Nothing to do with Darwin. However, unlike you, I do not reject Darwin just because he’s Darwin. We do not know the precise borderline between adaptation and innovation, and there can be no doubt that, for instance, the history of bipedalism described under “Arthropithicus” does entail one adaptation after another. However, the Cambrian remains the prime example of apparent leaps. It may be that cellular intelligence is able to exploit sudden changes in the environment to create the innovations which drive evolution forwards.
DAVID: I can certainly agree that conscious organisms (without self-awareness) show intelligence.
dhw: Thank you. And bearing in mind that the majority of modern scientists apparently agree that bacteria are (rather than seem to be) intelligent, you can hardly assert with any authority that intelligent human behaviour is autonomous but intelligent bacterial behaviour is preprogrammed or dabbled.
DAVID: Nothing factual here just consensus opinion. Cells actions are seen only from outside the cell. Still 50/50 probability as to how it is achieved.
Consensus opinion is often the nearest we can get to the objective truth, but I am not saying my hypothesis is a fact. Nor is God, and nor is your opinion that cells are automatons.
DAVID: Yes, I refuse to accept innate cellular intelligence. My belief is that cells are programmed to respond properly to stimuli.
And yet on 16 April under “big brain evolution”, in answer to my direct question whether you really believed your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single bacterial action, you responded that they were your suggestions as to how your God achieved his goal, and they “are not at the level of belief”. You have a dogmatic disbelief in cellular intelligence coupled with a non-belief belief in preprogramming/dabbling.
DAVID: I try to base every theory on the scientific facts we have uncovered.
dhw: I also “try to base every theory on the scientific facts we have uncovered”. I accept the logic of your scientific design argument (though of course the God hypothesis remains “totally unproven”), but your preprogammed/dabbled, anthropocentric interpretation of evolution’s history is a “totally unproven conjecture” with no scientific basis whatsoever. Cellular intelligence is a conclusion based on scientists’ observations, but its role in evolutionary innovation, if any, remains as unproven as your own hypotheses.
DAVID: Agreed. I've made intelligent guesses as to how God m ight have exerted control over evolution.
Equally unproven, and no more science-based than my own alternative “intelligent guesses”.
DAVID: Your alternative is pure speculation. I start with what science shows us as established.
dhw: You start with the established scientific fact that there have been countless numbers of life forms. You and I accept that these are the products of evolution (Tony would say this is far from being a fact.) Your above description perfectly matches the hypothesis of cellular intelligence, which is no “purer” a speculation than your hypothesis of a 3.8- billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled evolutionary development, from bacteria to whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, weaverbirds’ nests and the human brain. Please stop kidding yourself that your speculations are more "scientific" than mine.
DAVID: The difference is I do my own interpretation of studies I read, and accept author's conclusions judgmentally.
There is no scientific evidence for your hypothesis above, and I do my own interpretation and pass my own judgement on your conclusion that, although you have no idea why he would have chosen it, this was his method of fulfilling his one and only goal of specially designing H. sapiens.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
by David Turell , Thursday, May 02, 2019, 20:02 (2030 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: But what you stated is pure Darwin, adaptation after adaptation leading to speciation, whether by intelligent action or not. Darwin never discussed intelligence as a driving force. That is your imagined process.
dhw: I have not stated that adaptation after adaptation leads to speciation, and Darwin himself proposed random mutations, not cellular intelligence, as key to innovation. I have suggested that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) responsible for adaptation – a process we know takes place – may also be responsible for innovation.
Confused answer. The second sentence refutes the first. Does adaptation following adaptation lead to innovation (speciation ) or not?
DAVID: The difference is I do my own interpretation of studies I read, and accept author's conclusions judgmentally.
dhw: There is no scientific evidence for your hypothesis above, and I do my own interpretation and pass my own judgement on your conclusion that, although you have no idea why he would have chosen it, this was his method of fulfilling his one and only goal of specially designing H. sapiens.
Fair enough. Do you arrive at a theory and look for support on the internet, or read and absorb and then make a decision as I do??
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
DAVID: But what you stated is pure Darwin, adaptation after adaptation leading to speciation, whether by intelligent action or not. Darwin never discussed intelligence as a driving force. That is your imagined process.
dhw: I have not stated that adaptation after adaptation leads to speciation, and Darwin himself proposed random mutations, not cellular intelligence, as key to innovation. I have suggested that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) responsible for adaptation – a process we know takes place – may also be responsible for innovation.
DAVID: Confused answer. The second sentence refutes the first. Does adaptation following adaptation lead to innovation (speciation ) or not?
No refutation. Speciation results from major changes, but in the section of my post that you have omitted I explained that it is sometimes difficult to separate adaptation from innovation (as in the transformation of tree-dwelling apes to bipedal humans). My proposal is that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) is responsible both for adaptation and innovation. Straightforward cases of the former will obviously not result in speciation, whereas the latter will, but I would not like to draw a strict borderline between the two processes.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
by David Turell , Friday, May 03, 2019, 19:31 (2029 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: But what you stated is pure Darwin, adaptation after adaptation leading to speciation, whether by intelligent action or not. Darwin never discussed intelligence as a driving force. That is your imagined process.
dhw: I have not stated that adaptation after adaptation leads to speciation, and Darwin himself proposed random mutations, not cellular intelligence, as key to innovation. I have suggested that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) responsible for adaptation – a process we know takes place – may also be responsible for innovation.
DAVID: Confused answer. The second sentence refutes the first. Does adaptation following adaptation lead to innovation (speciation ) or not?
dhw: No refutation. Speciation results from major changes, but in the section of my post that you have omitted I explained that it is sometimes difficult to separate adaptation from innovation (as in the transformation of tree-dwelling apes to bipedal humans).
Exactly my point. From tree dwelling to ground dwelling is speciation. Adaptation is the minor alteration of existing species.
dhw: My proposal is that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) is responsible both for adaptation and innovation. Straightforward cases of the former will obviously not result in speciation, whereas the latter will, but I would not like to draw a strict borderline between the two processes.
I fully understand your theory, which means cells have the capacity to plan for the future.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
DAVID: But what you stated is pure Darwin, adaptation after adaptation leading to speciation, whether by intelligent action or not. Darwin never discussed intelligence as a driving force. That is your imagined process.
dhw: I have not stated that adaptation after adaptation leads to speciation, and Darwin himself proposed random mutations, not cellular intelligence, as key to innovation. I have suggested that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) responsible for adaptation – a process we know takes place – may also be responsible for innovation.
DAVID: Confused answer. The second sentence refutes the first. Does adaptation following adaptation lead to innovation (speciation ) or not?
dhw: No refutation. Speciation results from major changes, but in the section of my post that you have omitted I explained that it is sometimes difficult to separate adaptation from innovation (as in the transformation of tree-dwelling apes to bipedal humans).
DAVID: Exactly my point. From tree dwelling to ground dwelling is speciation. Adaptation is the minor alteration of existing species.
But we do not know to what extent adaptation may lead to sufficient innovation to produce new species (broad sense). The evolution of the whale is a case in point. Do you regard the flipper as an innovation or an adaptation of the leg? Each change is an adaptation to life in the water, but the accumulation of changes results in a creature that is radically different from its ancestors, as is the big-brained bipedal H. sapiens from its ape ancestors. That is the history of evolution if you believe in common descent! One vast history of adaptations and innovations, with no clear borderline between the two processes.
dhw: My proposal is that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) is responsible both for adaptation and innovation. Straightforward cases of the former will obviously not result in speciation, whereas the latter will, but I would not like to draw a strict borderline between the two processes.
DAVID: I fully understand your theory, which means cells have the capacity to plan for the future.
No it doesn’t. It means the capacity to make the necessary changes to cope with or exploit existing (not future) environmental conditions. I do not imagine pre-whale cells saying to themselves: some time in the future, we shall have to leave dry land, so let us change our legs into flippers before it happens.
Bacterial Intelligence? making decisions chemically
by David Turell , Saturday, May 04, 2019, 19:16 (2028 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: But what you stated is pure Darwin, adaptation after adaptation leading to speciation, whether by intelligent action or not. Darwin never discussed intelligence as a driving force. That is your imagined process.
dhw: I have not stated that adaptation after adaptation leads to speciation, and Darwin himself proposed random mutations, not cellular intelligence, as key to innovation. I have suggested that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) responsible for adaptation – a process we know takes place – may also be responsible for innovation.
DAVID: Confused answer. The second sentence refutes the first. Does adaptation following adaptation lead to innovation (speciation ) or not?
dhw: No refutation. Speciation results from major changes, but in the section of my post that you have omitted I explained that it is sometimes difficult to separate adaptation from innovation (as in the transformation of tree-dwelling apes to bipedal humans).
DAVID: Exactly my point. From tree dwelling to ground dwelling is speciation. Adaptation is the minor alteration of existing species.
dhw: But we do not know to what extent adaptation may lead to sufficient innovation to produce new species (broad sense). The evolution of the whale is a case in point. Do you regard the flipper as an innovation or an adaptation of the leg? Each change is an adaptation to life in the water, but the accumulation of changes results in a creature that is radically different from its ancestors, as is the big-brained bipedal H. sapiens from its ape ancestors. That is the history of evolution if you believe in common descent! One vast history of adaptations and innovations, with no clear borderline between the two processes.
I do not accept that minor adaptations within an existing species would ever lead to eventual speciation . That is pure Darwin little step by little step. The known gaps between species evolution from the fossil record refutes it. Punc Inc theory is a result of trying to explain the gaps.
dhw: My proposal is that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) is responsible both for adaptation and innovation. Straightforward cases of the former will obviously not result in speciation, whereas the latter will, but I would not like to draw a strict borderline between the two processes.DAVID: I fully understand your theory, which means cells have the capacity to plan for the future.
dhw; No it doesn’t. It means the capacity to make the necessary changes to cope with or exploit existing (not future) environmental conditions. I do not imagine pre-whale cells saying to themselves: some time in the future, we shall have to leave dry land, so let us change our legs into flippers before it happens.
Well, surprise! Cells inventing new species is exactly what you have been touting.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
I am combining several threads, since they all focus on the same arguments.
DAVID: I fully understand your theory, which means cells have the capacity to plan for the future.
dhw; No it doesn’t. It means the capacity to make the necessary changes to cope with or exploit existing (not future) environmental conditions. I do not imagine pre-whale cells saying to themselves: some time in the future, we shall have to leave dry land, so let us change our legs into flippers before it happens.
DAVID: Well, surprise! Cells inventing new species is exactly what you have been touting.
What is the surprise? The whole point of the hypothesis is that they invent new species (i.e. change their own structure) IN RESPONSE TO to changing conditions and not in advance of them.
DAVID: I do not accept that minor adaptations within an existing species would ever lead to eventual speciation.
dhw: My proposal is that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) is responsible both for adaptation and innovation. Straightforward cases of the former will obviously not result in speciation, whereas the latter will, but I would not like to draw a strict borderline between the two processes.
Perhaps you would tell us whether you regard a flipper as an innovation or as an adaptation of the pre-existing leg to enable it to function better in water.
DAVID: (under "Early embryology"): What we are debating is the necessity of a planning mind to arrange for the complex designs we see as evolution advances for simple to very complex. You have extrapolated simple cellular responses, which have the appearance of intellectual guidance because they are purposeful in their results, to the suggestion they can actually plan for the future complexities.
Yet again: my suggestion is evolution as the history of intelligent cells REACTING to changing conditions, not anticipating them. Many scientists now believe that the purposeful results achieved by cells denote autonomous (as opposed to your God-guided) intelligence, but whether this is inventive enough to power speciation remains a hypothesis.
DAVID: I find that idea as totally fanciful. I see the mind of God as necessary.
Your suggestion is that your God provided the very first cells with an undiscovered 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled bacterial variation, evolutionary innovation, econiche, life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, but you do not regard that as fanciful. My theistic alternative is that your God may have provided the first cells with the mechanisms to do their own designing in response to changing conditions. Why is that more fanciful than your proposal?
DAVID: You constantly come back to my simple acceptance of God's choice of method as somehow lacking substance. We see the evolutionary history as evidence of how it was done. What more do you need? I can only think of direct creation or evolution as possibilities. Do you know of a third way?
We both accept that evolution happened, but your concept of evolution is that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled (both of which are a form of direct creation). This in itself is not illogical. It only leaves you floundering when you insist that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled so that God could fulfil his one and only purpose of specially preprogramming/dabbling H. sapiens, leading to your exasperated cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”.
DAVID (under “anthropithicus”): Evolution requires steps to reach a goal. No matter how hard you try to make the steps as small, the design requirements and the gaps in forms is very large. Each step in whale evolution is the result of highly complex phenotypical and physiological design steps. In my view as God chose evolution to reach His goal of large-brained humans He knew He had to provide a larger bush of eco-niches to feel everyone on the way over lots of time. I don't know why you cannot see that as totally logical?
You cannot even see the logic yourself. Of course evolution is the history of steps, and of course the steps may be highly complex and sometimes large, and the gap between bacteria, whales, elephants, the duckbilled platypus and humans is also large. However, none of that explains why your God would choose to specially design all these life forms to eat or not eat one another if H. sapiens was the only thing he wanted to specially design, and if – as you maintain – he could and actually did specially design all the features (brain, pelvis, bipedalism) peculiar to H. sapiens. Hence the fact that you have no idea why he would have chosen your version of his method in order to achieve your version of his purpose.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
by David Turell , Sunday, May 05, 2019, 20:00 (2027 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Well, surprise! Cells inventing new species is exactly what you have been touting.
dhw: What is the surprise? The whole point of the hypothesis is that they invent new species (i.e. change their own structure) IN RESPONSE TO to changing conditions and not in advance of them.
Perhaps you would tell us whether you regard a flipper as an innovation or as an adaptation of the pre-existing leg to enable it to function better in water.
The flipper is an innovation since its function is different than weight bearing. The bony pattern is used in both, but the muscle functions and the controls by the brain will be different. Walking and paddling are totally different motions. The difference requires planning as no tiny steps are seen in the gap between leg and flipper. Gaps absolutely require planning in my view and the fossil record is filled with gaps.
dhw: Yet again: my suggestion is evolution as the history of intelligent cells REACTING to changing conditions, not anticipating them. Many scientists now believe that the purposeful results achieved by cells denote autonomous (as opposed to your God-guided) intelligence, but whether this is inventive enough to power speciation remains a hypothesis.
The known fact is that what we see in existing species are minor adaptations to the changing conditions as you describe. The gap of speciation requires planning for the future existence of the new species, which it can be assumed will involve new capabilities of action.
DAVID: I find that idea as totally fanciful. I see the mind of God as necessary.dhw: Your suggestion is that your God provided the very first cells with an undiscovered 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled bacterial variation, evolutionary innovation, econiche, life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, but you do not regard that as fanciful. My theistic alternative is that your God may have provided the first cells with the mechanisms to do their own designing in response to changing conditions. Why is that more fanciful than your proposal.
The difference is I view God as very purposeful, and your fancy allows the organisms to evolve as they wish, under a God you envision as less purposeful..
dhw: We both accept that evolution happened, but your concept of evolution is that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled (both of which are a form of direct creation). This in itself is not illogical. It only leaves you floundering when you insist that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled so that God could fulfil his one and only purpose of specially preprogramming/dabbling H. sapiens, leading to your exasperated cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”.
I'll stick with my view of God as purposeful, and not wonder about His choice of method.
DAVID (under “anthropithicus”): Evolution requires steps to reach a goal. No matter how hard you try to make the steps as small, the design requirements and the gaps in forms is very large. Each step in whale evolution is the result of highly complex phenotypical and physiological design steps. In my view as God chose evolution to reach His goal of large-brained humans He knew He had to provide a larger bush of eco-niches to feel everyone on the way over lots of time. I don't know why you cannot see that as totally logical?dhw: You cannot even see the logic yourself. Of course evolution is the history of steps, and of course the steps may be highly complex and sometimes large, and the gap between bacteria, whales, elephants, the duckbilled platypus and humans is also large. However, none of that explains why your God would choose to specially design all these life forms to eat or not eat one another if H. sapiens was the only thing he wanted to specially design, and if – as you maintain – he could and actually did specially design all the features (brain, pelvis, bipedalism) peculiar to H. sapiens. Hence the fact that you have no idea why he would have chosen your version of his method in order to achieve your version of his purpose.
It is your problem. There are no answers as to why God chose his method of creation. He had the right to chose, as you admit, so why question it? And the methods He chose to control evolution are the only ones that are reasonable to me.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
dhw: Perhaps you would tell us whether you regard a flipper as an innovation or as an adaptation of the pre-existing leg to enable it to function better in water.
DAVID: The flipper is an innovation since its function is different than weight bearing. The bony pattern is used in both, but the muscle functions and the controls by the brain will be different. Walking and paddling are totally different motions.
Of course the function and motions are different! Different functions and motions were required when the land-dweller took to the water. Hence the changes!
UCSB Science Line
scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2536
QUOTE: "For whales and dolphins, their front legs turned into flippers. Their back legs became really tiny, so tiny that you can't even see them when you look at these animals, but they have hind legs still inside their bodies -- if you see a skeleton of a whale you can see it has tiny leg bones near its tail."
It doesn’t matter two hoots whether you call this adaptation or innovation (which is why I say we cannot draw a borderline between the two) – it is the process by which evolutionary changes occur in response to different environments, and such major changes lead to speciation.
DAVID: The difference requires planning as no tiny steps are seen in the gap between leg and flipper. Gaps absolutely require planning in my view and the fossil record is filled with gaps.
Yes, the fossil record is incomplete. In order to satisfy you, we would need a complete set of thousands of fossils recording every millimetre of front leg into flipper and big back leg into mini back leg. I’m afraid I still find RESPONSE to environmental requirements more likely than your God performing a one-off leg-into-flipper-and-shrink-the-back-leg operation on umpteen pre-whales in advance of sending them into the water to eat and be eaten until he performed all the operations necessary to produce H. sapiens.
DAVID: The known fact is that what we see in existing species are minor adaptations to the changing conditions as you describe. The gap of speciation requires planning for the future existence of the new species, which it can be assumed will involve new capabilities of action.
I keep agreeing that there is no proof that cellular intelligence can innovate, and that is why it is a hypothesis. The same applies to your hypothesis of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled innovation. And there really is no point in your repeating that speciation requires planning for the future, and making me repeat that I see evolution/speciation as a process of response and not planning. Neither of us has the authority or the evidence to state their opinion as if it were a fact.
dhw: Your suggestion is that your God provided the very first cells with an undiscovered 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled bacterial variation, evolutionary innovation, econiche, life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, but you do not regard that as fanciful. My theistic alternative is that your God may have provided the first cells with the mechanisms to do their own designing in response to changing conditions. Why is that more fanciful than your proposal?
DAVID: The difference is I view God as very purposeful, and your fancy allows the organisms to evolve as they wish, under a God you envision as less purposeful.
Dealt with over and over again. If God’s purpose was to create a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling), then that is purposeful.
dhw: We both accept that evolution happened, but your concept of evolution is that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled (both of which are a form of direct creation). This in itself is not illogical. It only leaves you floundering when you insist that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled so that God could fulfil his one and only purpose of specially preprogramming/dabbling H. sapiens, leading to your exasperated cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”.
DAVID: I'll stick with my view of God as purposeful, and not wonder about His choice of method.
And later: There are no answers as to why God chose his method of creation. He had the right to chose, as you admit, so why question it? And the methods He chose to control evolution are the only ones that are reasonable to me.
Nothing to do with purposefulness. You cannot make sense of your hypothesis, which suggests that either your concept of God’s one and only purpose (to design H. sapiens) or of his method of achieving his purpose (designing billions of other life forms to eat or not one another until he designed H. sapiens), or both, may be flawed. Why you should consider an undiscovered 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all undabbled bacterial behaviour, innovations, life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders more “reasonable” than a (possibly God-given) mechanism for autonomous invention remains a mystery to me.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
by David Turell , Monday, May 06, 2019, 20:25 (2026 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: UCSB Science Line
scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2536QUOTE: "For whales and dolphins, their front legs turned into flippers. Their back legs became really tiny, so tiny that you can't even see them when you look at these animals, but they have hind legs still inside their bodies -- if you see a skeleton of a whale you can see it has tiny leg bones near its tail."
It doesn’t matter two hoots whether you call this adaptation or innovation (which is why I say we cannot draw a borderline between the two) – it is the process by which evolutionary changes occur in response to different environments, and such major changes lead to speciation.
In Alaska I've seen a whale skeleton with the vestigial limbs. I view innovation as major modifications, and see a major demarcation, which to support your view, you want to blur.
DAVID: The difference requires planning as no tiny steps are seen in the gap between leg and flipper. Gaps absolutely require planning in my view and the fossil record is filled with gaps.dhw: Yes, the fossil record is incomplete. In order to satisfy you, we would need a complete set of thousands of fossils recording every millimetre of front leg into flipper and big back leg into mini back leg. I’m afraid I still find RESPONSE to environmental requirements more likely than your God performing a one-off leg-into-flipper-and-shrink-the-back-leg operation on umpteen pre-whales in advance of sending them into the water to eat and be eaten until he performed all the operations necessary to produce H. sapiens.
Gould was so worried about the gaps he invented punc inc theory, but you are not worried!
DAVID: The difference is I view God as very purposeful, and your fancy allows the organisms to evolve as they wish, under a God you envision as less purposeful.dhw: Dealt with over and over again. If God’s purpose was to create a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling), then that is purposeful.
I follow experts just as you do. Karen Armstrong viewed the Koran as having the most mature view of God by concentrating on His works which to me means a God of very strong purpose, who k new what He wanted to accomplish and did it directly. You view of God is mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, who struggles to decide what to do, clearly based on your suppositions about Him, which always make Him humanized.
DAVID: I'll stick with my view of God as purposeful, and not wonder about His choice of method.
And later: There are no answers as to why God chose his method of creation. He had the right to chose, as you admit, so why question it? And the methods He chose to control evolution are the only ones that are reasonable to me.dhw: Nothing to do with purposefulness. You cannot make sense of your hypothesis, which suggests that either your concept of God’s one and only purpose (to design H. sapiens) or of his method of achieving his purpose (designing billions of other life forms to eat or not one another until he designed H. sapiens), or both, may be flawed. Why you should consider an undiscovered 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all undabbled bacterial behaviour, innovations, life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders more “reasonable” than a (possibly God-given) mechanism for autonomous invention remains a mystery to me.
The whole problem is your view of God as stated above. You agree God, in charge, had the right to choose and then give Him a weak personality, so His choices became less firm decisions.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
Dhw: It doesn’t matter two hoots whether you call this adaptation or innovation (which is why I say we cannot draw a borderline between the two) – it is the process by which evolutionary changes occur in response to different environments, and such major changes lead to speciation.
DAVID: In Alaska I've seen a whale skeleton with the vestigial limbs. I view innovation as major modifications, and see a major demarcation, which to support your view, you want to blur.
Your view is exactly the same as mine, except that you have used “modifications” instead of “changes”. There are small modifications (adaptations), and the species remains the same, and there are major modifications (innovations) which result in speciation. However, we are in no position to pinpoint the precise borderline between the two: you presumably think your God shrunk the pre-whale’s hind legs in one go when he turned legs into flippers in one go, in advance of sending the pre-whale into the water. I would propose that both sets of limbs underwent a series of modifications (the hind legs shrinking away because of non-use) as the pre-whale adapted to life in the water. In the case of the whale, I find this Darwinian theory far more convincing than yours – but I have always disputed his belief that Nature does not make jumps. See below.
DAVID: The difference requires planning as no tiny steps are seen in the gap between leg and flipper. Gaps absolutely require planning in my view and the fossil record is filled with gaps.
dhw: Yes, the fossil record is incomplete. In order to satisfy you, we would need a complete set of thousands of fossils recording every millimetre of front leg into flipper and big back leg into mini back leg. I’m afraid I still find RESPONSE to environmental requirements more likely than your God performing a one-off leg-into-flipper-and-shrink-the-back-leg operation on umpteen pre-whales in advance of sending them into the water to eat and be eaten until he performed all the operations necessary to produce H. sapiens.
DAVID: Gould was so worried about the gaps he invented punc inc theory, but you are not worried!
This is no answer to the point I have raised. I find Gould’s theory very reasonable: while conditions remain stable, we may have evolutionary stasis; when conditions change, we may have evolutionary change – and this may be gradual (whale) or comparatively swift (Cambrian). What’s wrong with that?
DAVID: The difference is I view God as very purposeful, and your fancy allows the organisms to evolve as they wish, under a God you envision as less purposeful.
dhw: Dealt with over and over again. If your God’s purpose was to create a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling), then that is purposeful.
DAVID: I follow experts just as you do. Karen Armstrong viewed the Koran as having the most mature view of God by concentrating on His works which to me means a God of very strong purpose, who k new what He wanted to accomplish and did it directly.
I thought you prided yourself on NOT following experts but forming your own judgement. If I believed in God, I would share your view that he had a strong purpose, knew what he wanted, and did it directly. The exact opposite of a God who wanted nothing but H. sapiens and proceeded to produce H. sapiens by specially designing 3.5+ billion years’ worth of non-sapiens.
DAVID: You view of God is mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, who struggles to decide what to do, clearly based on your suppositions about Him, which always make Him humanized.
I have alternative views of your God. You can’t make up your own mind whether he is limited or unlimited in his powers, and you have no idea why he would use an indirect method to achieve the one and only purpose you give him. I have no suppositions but only hypotheses, one of which is an all-powerful God who decides to occupy himself by creating an ever changing bush of life, giving this free rein except for when he feels like dabbling. The bush, at least for now, has culminated in H. sapiens, whose extraordinary intelligence also has free rein and has itself produced an astonishing variety of spectacles. It is perfectly feasible that such a God would himself experience all the feelings known to humans. This fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it, and if you would regard such a God as namby-pamby and wishy-washy (I wouldn’t), so be it. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis is wrong.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 07, 2019, 15:16 (2025 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Your view is exactly the same as mine, except that you have used “modifications” instead of “changes”. There are small modifications (adaptations), and the species remains the same, and there are major modifications (innovations) which result in speciation. However, we are in no position to pinpoint the precise borderline between the two: you presumably think your God shrunk the pre-whale’s hind legs in one go when he turned legs into flippers in one go, in advance of sending the pre-whale into the water. I would propose that both sets of limbs underwent a series of modifications (the hind legs shrinking away because of non-use) as the pre-whale adapted to life in the water. In the case of the whale, I find this Darwinian theory far more convincing than yours – but I have always disputed his belief that Nature does not make jumps. See below.
The whale series of eight or nine forms show major changes (gaps) with each change. Nothing Darwinian about it, my constant point .
DAVID: Gould was so worried about the gaps he invented punc inc theory, but you are not worried!dhw: This is no answer to the point I have raised. I find Gould’s theory very reasonable: while conditions remain stable, we may have evolutionary stasis; when conditions change, we may have evolutionary change – and this may be gradual (whale) or comparatively swift (Cambrian). What’s wrong with that?
Whale not gradual in the sense the gaps in form are sizable.
DAVID: I follow experts just as you do. Karen Armstrong viewed the Koran as having the most mature view of God by concentrating on His works which to me means a God of very strong purpose, who k new what He wanted to accomplish and did it directly.
dhw: I thought you prided yourself on NOT following experts but forming your own judgement. If I believed in God, I would share your view that he had a strong purpose, knew what he wanted, and did it directly. The exact opposite of a God who wanted nothing but H. sapiens and proceeded to produce H. sapiens by specially designing 3.5+ billion years’ worth of non-sapiens.
Of course I've incorporated experts into my thinking. I interpret new findings without any Darwin propaganda.
DAVID: You view of God is mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, who struggles to decide what to do, clearly based on your suppositions about Him, which always make Him humanized.dhw: I have alternative views of your God. You can’t make up your own mind whether he is limited or unlimited in his powers, and you have no idea why he would use an indirect method to achieve the one and only purpose you give him. I have no suppositions but only hypotheses, one of which is an all-powerful God who decides to occupy himself by creating an ever changing bush of life, giving this free rein except for when he feels like dabbling. The bush, at least for now, has culminated in H. sapiens, whose extraordinary intelligence also has free rein and has itself produced an astonishing variety of spectacles. It is perfectly feasible that such a God would himself experience all the feelings known to humans. This fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it, and if you would regard such a God as namby-pamby and wishy-washy (I wouldn’t), so be it. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis is wrong.
I don't try decide whether God has limits. You are the one to do that. And the bold above is your quandary, which you try to apply to me. But I don't see it that way. Simply, God made a choice of methods.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
dhw: […] you presumably think your God shrunk the pre-whale’s hind legs in one go when he turned legs into flippers in one go, in advance of sending the pre-whale into the water. I would propose that both sets of limbs underwent a series of modifications (the hind legs shrinking away because of non-use) as the pre-whale adapted to life in the water. In the case of the whale, I find this Darwinian theory far more convincing than yours – but I have always disputed his belief that Nature does not make jumps. See below.
DAVID: The whale series of eight or nine forms show major changes (gaps) with each change. Nothing Darwinian about it, my constant point.
It makes no difference to the argument. Evolution proceeds through a process of modifications – some small and some big. I propose that all these modifications, big and small, are the result of intelligent cells RESPONDING to changes in the environment, whereas you think they are all preprogrammed or dabbled IN ANTICIPATION of environmental changes. I find that highly unconvincing.
DAVID: I follow experts just as you do. Karen Armstrong viewed the Koran as having the most mature view of God by concentrating on His works which to me means a God of very strong purpose, who knew what He wanted to accomplish and did it directly.
dhw: I thought you prided yourself on NOT following experts but forming your own judgement. If I believed in God, I would share your view that he had a strong purpose, knew what he wanted, and did it directly. The exact opposite of a God who wanted nothing but H. sapiens and proceeded to produce H. sapiens by specially designing 3.5+ billion years’ worth of non-sapiens.
DAVID: Of course I've incorporated experts into my thinking. I interpret new findings without any Darwin propaganda.
You interpret new findings with God propaganda, and you have not answered my point that you have no idea why a God with a strong purpose who knew what he wanted and did it directly would use such an indirect means of specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: You view of God is mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, who struggles to decide what to do, clearly based on your suppositions about Him, which always make Him humanized.
dhw: I have alternative views of your God. You can’t make up your own mind whether he is limited or unlimited in his powers, and you have no idea why he would use an indirect method to achieve the one and only purpose you give him. […]
DAVID: I don't try decide whether God has limits. You are the one to do that. And the bold above is your quandary, which you try to apply to me. But I don't see it that way. Simply, God made a choice of methods.
You have no idea why he would have chosen your interpretation of his method to fulfil your interpretation of his purpose, but you don’t see that as a possible indication that your interpretations might be wrong. So be it. I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 08, 2019, 19:58 (2024 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The whale series of eight or nine forms show major changes (gaps) with each change. Nothing Darwinian about it, my constant point.
dhw:It makes no difference to the argument. Evolution proceeds through a process of modifications – some small and some big. I propose that all these modifications, big and small, are the result of intelligent cells RESPONDING to changes in the environment, whereas you think they are all preprogrammed or dabbled IN ANTICIPATION of environmental changes. I find that highly unconvincing.
Then explain how whale mother's figured out how to nurse their baby whales, or seals or any other aquatic mammal? This cannot be developed step-by-step:
"Species from three orders – Carnivora (including seals and sea lions), Cetacea (dolphins and whales) and Sirenia (manatees and dugongs) – live and feed at sea, but they’ve evolved different methods for breastfeeding.
Seals and sea lions have retractable nipples that tuck inside the body when the baby is not feeding, but animals that are fully restricted to the sea, such as whales and dolphins, have evolved ‘mammary slits’ – special folds of skin that enclose the feeding glands.
We’re still not completely sure how they do it, but it is thought that either the calves can curl their tongues to channel released milk, or that specialised muscles actually contract the mammary glands, squeezing milk into the baby’s mouth."
https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/marine-animals/how-do-whales-breastfeed-u...
DAVID: Of course I've incorporated experts into my thinking. I interpret new findings without any Darwin propaganda.
dhw: You interpret new findings with God propaganda, and you have not answered my point that you have no idea why a God with a strong purpose who knew what he wanted and did it directly would use such an indirect means of specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.
Your human logic refuses to accept the method God had the absolute right to choose. You are totally confused about God. I don't have to know why. I've told you that over and over.
DAVID: You view of God is mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, who struggles to decide what to do, clearly based on your suppositions about Him, which always make Him humanized.dhw: I have alternative views of your God. You can’t make up your own mind whether he is limited or unlimited in his powers, and you have no idea why he would use an indirect method to achieve the one and only purpose you give him. […]
DAVID: I don't try decide whether God has limits. You are the one to do that. And the bold above is your quandary, which you try to apply to me. But I don't see it that way. Simply, God made a choice of methods.
dhw: You have no idea why he would have chosen your interpretation of his method to fulfil your interpretation of his purpose, but you don’t see that as a possible indication that your interpretations might be wrong. So be it. I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.
I would change your bolded statement to say : 'I can't make a decision', and I would add you have the absolute right not to.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
dhw: Evolution proceeds through a process of modifications – some small and some big. I propose that all these modifications, big and small, are the result of intelligent cells RESPONDING to changes in the environment, whereas you think they are all preprogrammed or dabbled IN ANTICIPATION of environmental changes. I find that highly unconvincing.
DAVID: Then explain how whale mother's figured out how to nurse their baby whales, or seals or any other aquatic mammal? This cannot be developed step-by-step:
"Species from three orders – Carnivora (including seals and sea lions), Cetacea (dolphins and whales) and Sirenia (manatees and dugongs) – live and feed at sea, but they’ve evolved different methods for breastfeeding.
Seals and sea lions have retractable nipples that tuck inside the body when the baby is not feeding, but animals that are fully restricted to the sea, such as whales and dolphins, have evolved ‘mammary slits’ – special folds of skin that enclose the feeding glands.
We’re still not completely sure how they do it, but it is thought that either the calves can curl their tongues to channel released milk, or that specialised muscles actually contract the mammary glands, squeezing milk into the baby’s mouth.
We can spend the rest of our lives detailing every single special feature of every single species! Yes, they all have different methods of breast feeding. So what is your explanation: that either your God, whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens, provided the first living cells with a programme for every form of breastfeeding that you can think of, or he popped in to adjust all the glands and nipples? I propose that the different cell communities designed their own modes of breastfeeding as best suited to the requirements of the environment.
DAVID: I interpret new findings without any Darwin propaganda.
dhw: You interpret new findings with God propaganda, and you have not answered my point that you have no idea why a God with a strong purpose who knew what he wanted and did it directly would use such an indirect means of specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: Your human logic refuses to accept the method God had the absolute right to choose.
Yet again: my human logic, in keeping with your own (“you have no idea why…”) refuses to accept your INTERPRETATION of your God’s method: i.e. that he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, and did so in order to enable organisms to eat or not each one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.
dhw: I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.
DAVID: I would change your bolded statement to say : 'I can't make a decision', and I would add you have the absolute right not to.
Fair enough. That is no defence of your insistence that only your decision can be valid, even though you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, May 09, 2019, 22:03 (2023 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Evolution proceeds through a process of modifications – some small and some big. I propose that all these modifications, big and small, are the result of intelligent cells RESPONDING to changes in the environment, whereas you think they are all preprogrammed or dabbled IN ANTICIPATION of environmental changes. I find that highly unconvincing.
DAVID: Then explain how whale mother's figured out how to nurse their baby whales, or seals or any other aquatic mammal? This cannot be developed step-by-step:
"Species from three orders – Carnivora (including seals and sea lions), Cetacea (dolphins and whales) and Sirenia (manatees and dugongs) – live and feed at sea, but they’ve evolved different methods for breastfeeding.
Seals and sea lions have retractable nipples that tuck inside the body when the baby is not feeding, but animals that are fully restricted to the sea, such as whales and dolphins, have evolved ‘mammary slits’ – special folds of skin that enclose the feeding glands.
We’re still not completely sure how they do it, but it is thought that either the calves can curl their tongues to channel released milk, or that specialised muscles actually contract the mammary glands, squeezing milk into the baby’s mouth.dhw: We can spend the rest of our lives detailing every single special feature of every single species! Yes, they all have different methods of breast feeding. So what is your explanation: that either your God, whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens, provided the first living cells with a programme for every form of breastfeeding that you can think of, or he popped in to adjust all the glands and nipples? I propose that the different cell communities designed their own modes of breastfeeding as best suited to the requirements of the environment.
I will never believe that such steps as beast feeding under water developed without mental planning.
DAVID: I interpret new findings without any Darwin propaganda.dhw: You interpret new findings with God propaganda, and you have not answered my point that you have no idea why a God with a strong purpose who knew what he wanted and did it directly would use such an indirect means of specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: Your human logic refuses to accept the method God had the absolute right to choose.
dhw: Yet again: my human logic, in keeping with your own (“you have no idea why…”) refuses to accept your INTERPRETATION of your God’s method: i.e. that he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, and did so in order to enable organisms to eat or not each one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.
I simply say : it was God's choice of method.
dhw: I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.DAVID: I would change your bolded statement to say : 'I can't make a decision', and I would add you have the absolute right not to.
dhw: Fair enough. That is no defence of your insistence that only your decision can be valid, even though you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him.
I don't have to know why He made he choice He did. Only you want it.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
dhw: We can spend the rest of our lives detailing every single special feature of every single species! Yes, they all have different methods of breast feeding. So what is your explanation: that either your God, whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens, provided the first living cells with a programme for every form of breastfeeding that you can think of, or he popped in to adjust all the glands and nipples? I propose that the different cell communities designed their own modes of breastfeeding as best suited to the requirements of the environment.
DAVID: I will never believe that such steps as breast feeding under water developed without
mental planning.
I also believe that such changes in cellular structures must be the result of mental activity. The difference between us is that you claim breasts were changed in advance by your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for breast feeding, or by his performing operations on individual organisms, whereas I suggest the changes took place through cellular response to the organisms going under water.
DAVID: Your human logic refuses to accept the method God had the absolute right to choose.
dhw: Yet again: my human logic, in keeping with your own (“you have no idea why…”) refuses to accept your INTERPRETATION of your God’s method: i.e. that he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, and did so in order to enable organisms to eat or not each one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: I simply say: it was God's choice of method.
And I say how do you know, and why do you assume that he chose a method you cannot understand whereas there are alternatives which you can understand?
dhw: I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.
DAVID: I would change your bolded statement to say : 'I can't make a decision', and I would add you have the absolute right not to.
dhw: Fair enough. That is no defence of your insistence that only your decision can be valid, even though you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him.
DAVID: I don't have to know why He made he choice He did. Only you want it.
Again you take it as a fact that he chose to specially design thousand of non-human life forms to eat or not eat one another until he finally specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design: H. sapiens. I want to know what logical reason you can find for this interpretation of his choice – but you have no idea.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
by David Turell , Friday, May 10, 2019, 20:39 (2022 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I simply say: it was God's choice of method.
dhw: And I say how do you know, and why do you assume that he chose a method you cannot understand whereas there are alternatives which you can understand?
We have exhaustively discussed all the alternative reasons in the past. Why try to repeat them? I've simply chosen to accept God's choice of method to create what He desires to create.
dhw: I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.DAVID: I would change your bolded statement to say : 'I can't make a decision', and I would add you have the absolute right not to.
dhw: Fair enough. That is no defence of your insistence that only your decision can be valid, even though you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him.
DAVID: I don't have to know why He made he choice He did. Only you want it.
dhw: Again you take it as a fact that he chose to specially design thousand of non-human life forms to eat or not eat one another until he finally specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design: H. sapiens. I want to know what logical reason you can find for this interpretation of his choice – but you have no idea.
History tells me, if God is in change, and I believe He is, that what you have described is what He chose to do. I don't find a need to interpret known history, and just accept it as God's choice. I repeat, for some reason you want an interpretation, when any other thought would be an unsubstantiated guess.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
DAVID: I simply say: it was God's choice of method.
dhw: And I say how do you know, and why do you assume that he chose a method you cannot understand whereas there are alternatives which you can understand?
DAVID: We have exhaustively discussed all the alternative reasons in the past. Why try to repeat them? I've simply chosen to accept God's choice of method to create what He desires to create.
If God exists, and since we both accept that evolution happened, we both accept that he used evolution to create what he wanted to create. Our disagreement is over how he used evolution and what he wanted to create.
DAVID: I don't have to know why He made he choice He did. Only you want it.
dhw: Again you take it as a fact that he chose to specially design thousands of non-human life forms to eat or not eat one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design: H. sapiens.I want to know what logical reason you can find for this interpretation of his choice – but you have no idea.
DAVID: History tells me, if God is in change, and I believe He is, that what you have described is what He chose to do. I don't find a need to interpret known history, and just accept it as God's choice. I repeat, for some reason you want an interpretation, when any other thought would be an unsubstantiated guess.
If God exists, of course he is in charge. But it is NOT “known history” that he preprogrammed or dabbled every life form etc., or that he set out with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens. That is YOUR interpretation, but “known history” is confined to the existence of all the different life forms extant and extinct, and the fact that H. sapiens is the latest of these life forms. You admit that you have no idea why he would have chosen your “unsubstantiated guess” at his method in order to fulfil your “unsubstantiated guess” at his goal, both of which are your attempts to interpret known history, and then you complain that I want an interpretation! No, I am simply challenging the logic of your interpretation and offering alternatives which you yourself have agreed are logical.
Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution
by David Turell , Saturday, May 11, 2019, 20:44 (2021 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I simply say: it was God's choice of method.
dhw: And I say how do you know, and why do you assume that he chose a method you cannot understand whereas there are alternatives which you can understand?
DAVID: We have exhaustively discussed all the alternative reasons in the past. Why try to repeat them? I've simply chosen to accept God's choice of method to create what He desires to create.
dhw: If God exists, and since we both accept that evolution happened, we both accept that he used evolution to create what he wanted to create. Our disagreement is over how he used evolution and what he wanted to create.
We both see the same history of evolution. You are the one fighting with God's choice. It cannot be explained, just accepted.
DAVID: I don't have to know why He made he choice He did. Only you want it.dhw: Again you take it as a fact that he chose to specially design thousands of non-human life forms to eat or not eat one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design: H. sapiens.I want to know what logical reason you can find for this interpretation of his choice – but you have no idea.
DAVID: History tells me, if God is in change, and I believe He is, that what you have described is what He chose to do. I don't find a need to interpret known history, and just accept it as God's choice. I repeat, for some reason you want an interpretation, when any other thought would be an unsubstantiated guess.
dhw: If God exists, of course he is in charge. But it is NOT “known history” that he preprogrammed or dabbled every life form etc., or that he set out with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens. That is YOUR interpretation, but “known history” is confined to the existence of all the different life forms extant and extinct, and the fact that H. sapiens is the latest of these life forms. You admit that you have no idea why he would have chosen your “unsubstantiated guess” at his method in order to fulfil your “unsubstantiated guess” at his goal, both of which are your attempts to interpret known history, and then you complain that I want an interpretation! No, I am simply challenging the logic of your interpretation and offering alternatives which you yourself have agreed are logical.
Of course it is not 'known history' that He pre-programmed or dabbled. I am simply using the known history of evolution to say that it presents God's choice of creation method. How He controlled it is my attempt at guessing how He managed the genetics. You keep conflating my guesses as a history. I've never done that. If you accept the possibility that God ran the progressive complexity of advancing evolution, and humans are the current last event, than obviously they must be accepted as a goal. You are arguing that other goals might be coming. That is as much guesswork as my suppositions about He has run the show. I'm simply sticking with what has happened so far, and my supposition is that more advanced organisms will never appear.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
DAVID: What chemical processes show is that life at the cellular level can easily be seen and understood as automatic reactions following intelligent instructions. All the research shows is a series of chemical reactions, not the purposeful underlying controls. All biological processes exhibit purpose.
dhw: The research CAN only show chemical reactions, cellular or human. Of course the processes are purposeful, so what “intelligent instructions” or “purposeful controls” are you thinking of, other than your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all cellular actions, or his personal dabbling?
DAVID: Same approach: God started life by designing a very complex code to carry instructions (information) to form and control all the processes of life. Science is showing that DNA may be a protein coding mechanism but huge parts of the code are not just genes but interpreters and modifiers of genes. The complexity is only partially unraveled, but in my view the future will find a degree of complexity we can only imagine at this time. That is what I refer to as God's initial program.
There can be no doubt that a programme for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder will be mind-bogglingly complex, and all you are saying now is that this mind-bogglingly complex programme will be discovered in the future.
DAVID: A protein molecule is not like as trained dog. It reacts to other proteins in a series of reactions, as far as I am concerned all set off automatically.
dhw: Molecules react automatically to receive information and to implement decisions. But what sets off the process of implementation (i.e. decision-making) is a mystery. You tell us your God must have preprogrammed or dabbled all the decisions or steps for whenever a decision is required. A theistic alternative is that he gave all organisms, including bacteria, the means by which to take their own decisions. Simple choice for you. You have now at least acknowledged that your own choice is not a belief, which I find encouraging.
DAVID: I view God as maintaining full control at all times.
I know you do, and that means an undiscovered, 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all undabbled developments, including bacterial behaviour for the rest of time, though you don’t actually believe in it.
DAVID: How God controlled the advances of evolution are logical speculations. Bacterial decisions follow logical underlying algorithms.
dhw: Your “algorithms” are the same as your “intelligent instructions” which are the same as your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled decision. You may introduce as many scientific terms as you like, but you are still faced with a stark choice between these two options and cellular intelligence, and I remain encouraged by the fact that your personal choice is not a belief.
DAVID: I've expressed my view of the original genome above as related to the start of life. The genome contains enormous amounts of intelligent information to exert control over life's processes.
According to you it contains ALL the instructions for ALL processes except those that your God personally dabbled. I’m not surprised that you don’t actually believe it.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
by David Turell , Monday, April 29, 2019, 22:16 (2033 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Same approach: God started life by designing a very complex code to carry instructions (information) to form and control all the processes of life. Science is showing that DNA may be a protein coding mechanism but huge parts of the code are not just genes but interpreters and modifiers of genes. The complexity is only partially unraveled, but in my view the future will find a degree of complexity we can only imagine at this time. That is what I refer to as God's initial program.
dhw: There can be no doubt that a programme for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder will be mind-bogglingly complex, and all you are saying now is that this mind-bogglingly complex programme will be discovered in the future.
And my point is that degree of complexity will require an acceptance that God did it.
DAVID: A protein molecule is not like as trained dog. It reacts to other proteins in a series of reactions, as far as I am concerned all set off automatically.dhw: Molecules react automatically to receive information and to implement decisions. But what sets off the process of implementation (i.e. decision-making) is a mystery. You tell us your God must have preprogrammed or dabbled all the decisions or steps for whenever a decision is required. A theistic alternative is that he gave all organisms, including bacteria, the means by which to take their own decisions. Simple choice for you. You have now at least acknowledged that your own choice is not a belief, which I find encouraging.
DAVID: I view God as maintaining full control at all times.
dhw: I know you do, and that means an undiscovered, 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all undabbled developments, including bacterial behaviour for the rest of time, though you don’t actually believe in it.
My belief system simply proposes how God might have exerted His controls.
DAVID: How God controlled the advances of evolution are logical speculations. Bacterial decisions follow logical underlying algorithms.dhw: Your “algorithms” are the same as your “intelligent instructions” which are the same as your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled decision. You may introduce as many scientific terms as you like, but you are still faced with a stark choice between these two options and cellular intelligence, and I remain encouraged by the fact that your personal choice is not a belief.
DAVID: I've expressed my view of the original genome above as related to the start of life. The genome contains enormous amounts of intelligent information to exert control over life's processes.
dhw: According to you it contains ALL the instructions for ALL processes except those that your God personally dabbled. I’m not surprised that you don’t actually believe it.
Distorting what I have stated again: God is in charge, created a massively complex genome in all its various layers of control to create all of the evolutionary processes. Precise knowledge of how God exerted controls is unknown but I have presented obvious possibilities.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
dhw: There can be no doubt that a programme for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder will be mind-bogglingly complex, and all you are saying now is that this mind-bogglingly complex programme will be discovered in the future.
DAVID: And my point is that degree of complexity will require an acceptance that God did it.
That is the design argument for the existence of God, which I accept as perfectly logical. It is your championship of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all undabbled evolutionary innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders that is in dispute.
DAVID: I view God as maintaining full control at all times.
dhw: I know you do, and that means an undiscovered, 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all undabbled developments, including bacterial behaviour for the rest of time, though you don’t actually believe in it.
DAVID: My belief system simply proposes how God might have exerted His controls.
But you admit that you do not actually believe in this undiscovered programme. Good. That leaves open the possibility that your God might have used a different method from programming and dabbling, and the only one you and I can think of – apart from randomness, which we both reject – is autonomous cellular intelligence. (But NOT with instructions or guidelines, because these once again could only come through the computer programme or dabbling.)
DAVID: How God controlled the advances of evolution are logical speculations. Bacterial decisions follow logical underlying algorithms.
dhw: Your “algorithms” are the same as your “intelligent instructions” which are the same as your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled decision. You may introduce as many scientific terms as you like, but you are still faced with a stark choice between these two options and cellular intelligence, and I remain encouraged by the fact that your personal choice is not a belief.
DAVID: I've expressed my view of the original genome above as related to the start of life. The genome contains enormous amounts of intelligent information to exert control over life's processes.
dhw: According to you it contains ALL the instructions for ALL processes except those that your God personally dabbled. I’m not surprised that you don’t actually believe it.
DAVID: Distorting what I have stated again: God is in charge, created a massively complex genome in all its various layers of control to create all of the evolutionary processes. Precise knowledge of how God exerted controls is unknown but I have presented obvious possibilities.
This is excellent news. If God exists, obviously he is in charge, in the sense that he would have chosen the method to suit his purpose. A massively complex genome with all its layers of control to create all of the evolutionary processes would be just as apt a description of cellular intelligence as of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all undabbled changes. Since you do not believe in the computer programme hypothesis, your new description seems to suggest that you are now open to my alternative.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 15:05 (2032 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: There can be no doubt that a programme for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder will be mind-bogglingly complex, and all you are saying now is that this mind-bogglingly complex programme will be discovered in the future.
DAVID: And my point is that degree of complexity will require an acceptance that God did it.
dhw: That is the design argument for the existence of God, which I accept as perfectly logical. It is your championship of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all undabbled evolutionary innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders that is in dispute.
I've admitted my speculations as to how God produced or guided evolution are just that, speculations. I can think of no other processes than massive pre-programming for which there is much evidence, intermittent dabbling (no evidence) or constant dabbling (no evidence). Your proposed inventive mechanism used by organisms to speciate (no evidence) I accept only with guidelines from God, whom I consider wholly in charge of any advances.
dhw: But you admit that you do not actually believe in this undiscovered programme. Good. That leaves open the possibility that your God might have used a different method from programming and dabbling, and the only one you and I can think of – apart from randomness, which we both reject – is autonomous cellular intelligence. (But NOT with instructions or guidelines, because these once again could only come through the computer programme or dabbling.)
Cellular intelligence is your totally unproven conjecture. You have every right to it. I try to base every theory on the scientific facts we have uncovered.
DAVID: I've expressed my view of the original genome above as related to the start of life. The genome contains enormous amounts of intelligent information to exert control over life's processes.dhw: According to you it contains ALL the instructions for ALL processes except those that your God personally dabbled. I’m not surprised that you don’t actually believe it.
DAVID: Distorting what I have stated again: God is in charge, created a massively complex genome in all its various layers of control to create all of the evolutionary processes. Precise knowledge of how God exerted controls is unknown but I have presented obvious possibilities.
dhw: This is excellent news. If God exists, obviously he is in charge, in the sense that he would have chosen the method to suit his purpose. A massively complex genome with all its layers of control to create all of the evolutionary processes would be just as apt a description of cellular intelligence as of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all undabbled changes. Since you do not believe in the computer programme hypothesis, your new description seems to suggest that you are now open to my alternative.
Your alternative is pure speculation. I start with what science shows us as established.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
DAVID: I've admitted my speculations as to how God produced or guided evolution are just that, speculations. I can think of no other processes than massive pre-programming for which there is much evidence, intermittent dabbling (no evidence) or constant dabbling (no evidence). Your proposed inventive mechanism used by organisms to speciate (no evidence) I accept only with guidelines from God, whom I consider wholly in charge of any advances.
Guidelines are either preprogrammed or dabbled, but there is no evidence for the existence of your 3.8-billion-year-old set of programmes – you simply hope it will be discovered one day. This means you only accept your speculative preprogramming and dabbling hypothesis, although you don’t believe in it, and you refuse to consider autonomous cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God).
DAVID: Cellular intelligence is your totally unproven conjecture. You have every right to it. I try to base every theory on the scientific facts we have uncovered.
I also “try to base every theory on the scientific facts we have uncovered”. I accept the logic of your scientific design argument (though of course the God hypothesis remains “totally unproven”), but your preprogammed/dabbled, anthropocentric interpretation of evolution’s history is a “totally unproven conjecture” with no scientific basis whatsoever. Cellular intelligence is a conclusion based on scientists’ observations, but its role in evolutionary innovation, if any, remains as unproven as your own hypotheses.
DAVID: God is in charge, created a massively complex genome in all its various layers of control to create all of the evolutionary processes. Precise knowledge of how God exerted controls is unknown but I have presented obvious possibilities.
dhw: This is excellent news. If God exists, obviously he is in charge, in the sense that he would have chosen the method to suit his purpose. A massively complex genome with all its layers of control to create all of the evolutionary processes would be just as apt a description of cellular intelligence as of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all undabbled changes. Since you do not believe in the computer programme hypothesis, your new description seems to suggest that you are now open to my alternative.
DAVID: Your alternative is pure speculation. I start with what science shows us as established.
You start with the established scientific fact that there have been countless numbers of life forms. You and I accept that these are the products of evolution (Tony would say this is far from being a fact.) Your above description perfectly matches the hypothesis of cellular intelligence, which is no “purer” a speculation than your hypothesis of a 3.8- billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled evolutionary development, from bacteria to whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, weaverbirds’ nests and the human brain. Please stop kidding yourself that your speculations are more "scientific" than mine.
Bacterial Intelligence? self ID virus that kills enemies
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 01, 2019, 19:57 (2031 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I've admitted my speculations as to how God produced or guided evolution are just that, speculations. I can think of no other processes than massive pre-programming for which there is much evidence, intermittent dabbling (no evidence) or constant dabbling (no evidence). Your proposed inventive mechanism used by organisms to speciate (no evidence) I accept only with guidelines from God, whom I consider wholly in charge of any advances.
dhw: Guidelines are either preprogrammed or dabbled, but there is no evidence for the existence of your 3.8-billion-year-old set of programmes – you simply hope it will be discovered one day. This means you only accept your speculative preprogramming and dabbling hypothesis, although you don’t believe in it, and you refuse to consider autonomous cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God).
Yes, I refuse to accept innate cellular intelligence. My belief is that cells are programmed to respond properly to stimuli.
DAVID: Cellular intelligence is your totally unproven conjecture. You have every right to it. I try to base every theory on the scientific facts we have uncovered.dhw: I also “try to base every theory on the scientific facts we have uncovered”. I accept the logic of your scientific design argument (though of course the God hypothesis remains “totally unproven”), but your preprogammed/dabbled, anthropocentric interpretation of evolution’s history is a “totally unproven conjecture” with no scientific basis whatsoever. Cellular intelligence is a conclusion based on scientists’ observations, but its role in evolutionary innovation, if any, remains as unproven as your own hypotheses.
Agreed. I've made intelligent guesses as to how God m ight have exerted control over evolution.
DAVID: God is in charge, created a massively complex genome in all its various layers of control to create all of the evolutionary processes. Precise knowledge of how God exerted controls is unknown but I have presented obvious possibilities.dhw: This is excellent news. If God exists, obviously he is in charge, in the sense that he would have chosen the method to suit his purpose. A massively complex genome with all its layers of control to create all of the evolutionary processes would be just as apt a description of cellular intelligence as of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all undabbled changes. Since you do not believe in the computer programme hypothesis, your new description seems to suggest that you are now open to my alternative.
DAVID: Your alternative is pure speculation. I start with what science shows us as established.
dhw: You start with the established scientific fact that there have been countless numbers of life forms. You and I accept that these are the products of evolution (Tony would say this is far from being a fact.) Your above description perfectly matches the hypothesis of cellular intelligence, which is no “purer” a speculation than your hypothesis of a 3.8- billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled evolutionary development, from bacteria to whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, weaverbirds’ nests and the human brain. Please stop kidding yourself that your speculations are more "scientific" than mine.
The difference is I do my own interpretation of studies I read, and accept author's conclusions judgmentally.
Bacterial Intelligence? navigation and sensing
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 03, 2024, 01:18 (80 days ago) @ David Turell
A new study:
https://phys.org/news/2024-09-discovery-bacteria-environment-infection.html
"...contrary to decades of established scientific belief, a new study has shown bacteria can in fact directly sense their chemical environment across the length of their cell bodies with an unprecedented degree of precision.
***
"Dr. William Durham, Senior Lecturer in Biological Physics at the University of Sheffield's Department of Physics and Astronomy, said, "In principle, cells can figure out whether they are moving towards or away from a nutrient source in two different ways.
"'First, they can wander randomly and measure if the concentration increases or decreases over time. Alternatively, cells can measure changes in concentration over the length of their bodies, allowing them to directly move towards the source. Our research demonstrates that bacteria can do the latter, which was previously thought beyond their capabilities due to their tiny size.
"'Bacteria then use this information to navigate across surfaces toward chemical sources using tiny grappling hooks called pili."
***
"...the researchers mapped out how individual cells responded to precise changes in nutrient concentrations. They uncovered that these cells can compare nutrient concentrations along the length of their cell bodies—a phenomenon termed "spatial sensing."
"Dr. Jamie Wheeler, a postdoctoral researcher in the University of Sheffield's Department of Physics and Astronomy, and lead author of the study, said, "This work overturns our understanding of how bacteria navigate and sense their environment. As such, it sheds new light on how bacteria could direct their motility during human infection and potentially how it could be manipulated by different clinical treatments.'"
Comment: this chemo-sensory ability is built into the bacterial DNA, which certainly makes them move intelligently.