Biological complexity: protozoa sans mitochondria (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, June 04, 2016, 11:37 (3095 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You cannot shake my view of cellular function, which I have had for over 50 years. You must be content with the observation that no one outside the cells can tell if they run on intelligently planned information automatically, or have some independent decision making process. -I am quite content with that observation. I only object to the dogmatic dismissal of one of the alternatives, as if 50 years of dogmatism provided some sort of justification! -DAVID: All Shapiro shows in his work is the cell's ability to have some simple epigenetic adaptations and responses…-But as you know, he has come to the opposite conclusion from yours (see below). You are not alone, however, and I only ask for 50/50 instead of your dogmatic 100-0, especially since it has no bearing on theism versus atheism. -dhw: But if you are now willing to concede that your God may have given organisms an autonomous “complexification” mechanism […] then instead of marvelling at your God's wonderful dabbles or 3.8 billion-year computer programme, perhaps you can marvel at his ability to endow cell communities with the intelligence to come up with these complexities! 
DAVID: I am getting to like the complexity idea more and more, not your version of course, of free rein cell committees.-If organisms have an autonomous “complexification” mechanism which results in complex functioning organs, you are left with a choice between the sheer luck of Darwin's random mutations (i.e. organs produced by a non-intelligent mechanism), and design which requires the mechanism's autonomous intelligence. Which do you think it is? -dhw: You said you would love to interview Shapiro because “I think we actually believe the same things.” I repeated the quote to point out that with regard to the issue we are discussing, you do not believe the same things.
DAVID: I don't know that we don't. Shapiro was president of his Jewish Temple. He may sound atheistic in his scientific work, but I would not be surprised that he really is agnostic or a believer based on his personal history. -I would not be surprised either. Our focus, however, is on his belief in cellular intelligence.-DAVID: …His work does not imply your cellular intelligence theory of invention…
-Nobody knows how innovations happen. However, Shapiro suggests that it is the product of what he calls “Natural Genetic Engineering”, and this is guided by the intelligent cell. I have found the following in Wikipedia: -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering-"Within the context of the article [in the Boston Review] in particular and Shapiro's work on Natural Genetic Engineering in general, the "guiding intelligence" is to be found within the cell. (For example, in a Huffington Post essay entitled Cell Cognition and Cell Decision-Making[11] Shapiro defines cognitive actions as those that are "knowledge-based and involve decisions appropriate to acquired information," arguing that cells meet this criteria.)" -You don't have to believe him, but his work certainly does imply my “cellular intelligence theory of invention”. And he obviously got there long before I did!