Bacteria, God & Double Standards (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 08, 2015, 20:30 (3424 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Good arguments, but since the odds are on the surface 50/50 I have a right to take a firm choice and choose one for strong belief, which I have done. Call it faith if you will.-Thank you. Of course I accept your right to choose, just as I accept your right to choose God over chance. My only objection is to the apparent authority with which you reject the opinions of others (“absolutely wrong”), which in a religious or anti-religious context would be tantamount to extremism - something we both abhor.
 
DAVID: One other point I keep repeating is the fact that our bodies are made up of trillions of little machine cells that work and respond perfectly on their own to all sorts of stimuli so we can live, if lucky, to eight score and ten plus, very automatically. Our cells are an exact reproduction of the single-celled organisms we evolved from. Therefore the single cells are also automatons. Remember it is DNA all the way down (!) to paraphrase Hawkins' funny tale.-I also accept this argument, apart from your conclusion that “therefore single cells are also automatons”. When cell communities combine into new organs/organisms, they must clearly establish a pattern that will be repeated over and over again if the new organ/organism is to survive. The cells accept their role, much like ants, and will fulfil it automatically. However, when conditions change, pure automatism may result in extinction. That is why some cells/cell communities change. Adaptation is one possibility, but the same mechanism may also be capable of innovation. If the innovation works, the new cell communities will again function automatically. That is the alternative I am suggesting to Darwin's random mutations and your own divine preprogramming and dabbling, though it does not exclude your God's invention of the mechanism. The claim by many experts that bacteria (single cells) are capable of thought gives credibility to this proposal, and if faith is the factor that makes you choose one 50% over the other 50%, you will surely acknowledge that my 50% provides a possible theoretical basis for this hypothesis. (I see ALL the hypotheses, including your own, as having nothing but theoretical bases.)