The biochemistry of cell communication (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, October 07, 2016, 21:46 (2968 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw; You are clear. However, you do not have a scrap of evidence that 3.7 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with programmes to cover every single innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution, apart from those he produced by direct dabbling. Hence the problem of double standards.-Of course no proof. But that seems all you are satisfied with. I see a reality that demands a mind to plan it, and then faith takes over. I started in hour position years cago.
> 
> DAVID: On your side you accept comments by a few research folks who view sentient actions of unicellular organisms as more than simply an automatic response to stimuli. 
> 
> dhw: My hypothesis remains a hypothesis. Like everyone else in this field, I am unable to find a clear explanation for evolutionary innovation. I am prepared to accept the possibility that these research folks are right, and if they are, their findings provide a basis on which to build my hypothesis. I am certainly not prepared to reject their findings, as you do.-I reject them because I know how cells work their biochemistry.
> 
> DAVID: Studies of the cells through biochemistry show only a series of specific metabolic reactions, always the same. In counter to your quotes from these few, I could quote all the ID scientists with whom I agree.
> 
> dhw: Why only ID scientists? Our disagreement over cellular intelligence has nothing to do with ID, since your God could have designed it. But out of interest, do all your ID scientists agree with you that 3.7 billion years ago God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on every subsequent innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution, apart from those he dabbled?-No they don't try to go further than obviously God had to do it.
> 
> DAVID: No double standard. I know you can't take the leap, so you look for possible reasonable alternatives. I cannot accept the intelligent cell as reasonable. Let's end this aspect of debate and move on.
> 
> dhw; With admirable integrity, you sometimes provide us with some wonderful posts that support the case for cellular intelligence (though you argue the opposite). We can try to stay clear of the topic, but I must have the right to reply to your comments.-No, please comment.