Biological complexity: protozoa sans mitochondria (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, June 05, 2016, 15:43 (3093 days ago) @ dhw

[/i]. 
> DAVID: But it does bear on theism. The point is: God implanted the proper intelligent responses for stimuli into bacteria, which makes it look like they are picking and choosing. They either approach and engulf, fight or run away.
> 
> dhw: Theism versus atheism means whether God exists or not! The intelligence of the cell has absolutely no bearing on that subject. Your God could have made the cell an automaton or could have given it intelligence.-Theism denies that inorganic matter can evolve into intelligently acting cells. They look to the activity of cells as proof of God:-http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2016/06/05/the-atheist-delusion-ray-comforts-masterpiece-n2173715?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=-
> 
> DAVID: I think the mechanism would have intelligent construction guidelines coming from God, but act independently in initiating an innovation. Thus the h-p bush would appear. God then steps in to solve resultant problems if any.
> 
> dhw: You are back to your nebulous “guidelines”. If organisms have been given a “free complexification mechanism”, act independently in initiating an innovation, and God only dabbles to solve problems, the organisms must have an autonomous intelligence. -As long as we are discussing possibilities, why can't God offer guidelines? You look at God as 'nebulous' in your role as an agnostic-> 
> DAVID: 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. 
> 
> dhw: He says he believes cells are intelligent. Isn't that enough? (Of course he could view it as God-given. As an agnostic I also accept that possibility.)-Thank you.
> 
> DAVID: …His work does not imply your cellular intelligence theory of invention…
> dhw: ...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!
>> 
> dhw: You said his work did not imply that cellular intelligence was the driving force behind innovation, and I have found a quotation that shows it does. I know you disagree with his view.-This phrase fits my interpretation completely: ""guiding intelligence" is to be found within the cell." Not by chance and not from an inorganic beginning.