First multicellularity: algae (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, May 13, 2016, 12:21 (3114 days ago) @ David Turell

David: I agree we do not fully understand the algorithms that dictate the chemical cascades.
dhw: I agree that communication is accomplished by molecular reactions if by that you mean chemical processes. And although you have changed the terminology from decision-making to algorithms (so much more scientific than your usual God's instructions), you have agreed that we don't know what it is that dictates the “chemical cascades”, i.e. how cells decide to react in a certain manner. "Fully understand” is one of those weasel expressions to suggest that we are almost there.

DAVID: Sorry, either I'm not clear or you are twisting words. By 'fully understand' I did mean we are still learning how all these chemical reactions work in algorithms. They are being elucidated. Cell gets stimulus, cell responds with automatic chemical reactions, response may well be controlled by feedback loop of molecules. The Krebs cycle, which I have shown before is a typical loop which is stimulated. It is all chemicals, all automatic.-But that is the whole point at issue. You claim that all cellular activity (which must include evolutionary innovations and problem-solving) is made up of automatic chemical reactions preprogrammed by your God's instructions (algorithms). Then you claim that we are “still learning” about these. Some scientists argue for cellular intelligence, and you dismiss their findings. The truth is, we do not know how cellular communities solve problems and, crucially, have managed to reorganize themselves to create new organs (evolutionary innovation). Your approach is just like that of certain atheists who claim that we are still learning (or do not fully understand) how organic matter arose spontaneously from inorganic matter. Both sides have their basic premises, and then put the cart before the horse. -dhw: Our biggest problem is how cell communities innovate, i.e. decide to form new communities, but it may all be accomplished by the same mechanism. Your God's "instructions"? My cellular intelligence? 
DAVID: Ah, still on the fence.-My proposal of innovation through cellular intelligence is a hypothesis, not a belief. I don't know any more than you do. But in all honesty, I find it vastly more convincing than your own interpretation of evolution's higgledy-piggledy history. My fence-sitting relates to whether there is a God who set it all in motion.