Biological complexity: protozoa sans mitochondria (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, June 06, 2016, 12:52 (3093 days ago) @ David Turell

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.
DAVID: 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-...-I do not need to hear theists screaming at me that atheists are fools, or to be told that the complexity of the cell is evidence of design. Our discussion concerns the intelligence of the cell, and the question whether the cell is intelligent has nothing to do with whether God exists or not, as explained above.-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” [….] 
DAVID: As long as we are discussing possibilities, why can't God offer guidelines? …-Yes, it is possible that God can offer guidelines. Or that he created every single species individually. Or that evolution proceeds through random mutations. What is not possible, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that God created every species individually AND evolution proceeds through random mutations. Similarly, if God gives “guidelines”, how can the mechanism be “FREE” and act INDEPENDENTLY in INITIATING an innovation, while God steps in to solve RESULTANT problems if any? You can't have a free autonomous inventive complexity mechanism that works according to God's guidelines.-DAVID: …[Shapiro's] 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!-DAVID: This phrase fits my interpretation completely: ""guiding intelligence" is to be found within the cell." Not by chance and not from an inorganic beginning.-You are having fun again. You know perfectly well that he is referring to the intelligence of the cell, and not to chance or the origin of life (or God's “guidance”). Why else would the article explain his criteria for intelligence? Put your misfiring guns down, hold your hands high in the air, and say after me: 
“The intelligent cell is evolution's hero,
According to the work of James Shapiro.”