Biological complexity:how toxoplasmosis parasitizes (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, December 03, 2016, 13:59 (2912 days ago) @ David Turell

The start of this discussion was:
Dhw: “you refuse even to consider the possibility of cellular intelligence without absolute proof, which is also impossible. Your hypothesis does not require absolute proof, but mine does. Double standards.”

DAVID: My decision is based on the cellular complexities I have been presenting, and I believe they provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that cellular intelligence, if any existed, cannot be complex enough to invent the complex biochemistry I present. Later today I will bring the latest diagrams on nuclear membrane pores which are still only partially understood and fantastically complex as far as they are described.[…]

dhw: You are conflating two issues. The evidence for cellular intelligence comes from scientists who have observed the behaviour of cells. You disagree with them, which is your right, but please don’t try to defend your double standards by pretending that the complexity of the cell precludes the possibility that the cell is intelligent.
DAVID: Cellular intelligence is not the issue.

Yes it is, but you are fudging the issue. You insist that cells are automatons. Shapiro says they are sentient intelligent beings, but you demand absolute proof before you will even consider it as a possibility. Hence my reference to your double standards. I use cellular intelligence as the basis for a hypothesis that maybe cells/cell communities are intelligent enough to create the innovations that drive evolution. You have every right not to believe that, but here you are conflating the issue of cellular intelligence with the issue of whether cells are intelligent ENOUGH to create the complexities of evolution, as below:

DAVID: I present complexity, as you state, to raise this issue: how much complexity will it take for you to recognize that intense mental planning is required to produce that complexity. Primarily there are only two choices, chance development or design of the complexity.

Again you are fudging the issue. WHICH complexity – the complexity of the cell, or the complexities of evolutionary innovations? Your post dealt with the cell, and I agree: chance v design. Complexities of evolutionary innovations leading to speciation: I offer cellular intelligence (perhaps God-given) v divine preprogramming and/or dabbling. A totally different issue.

DAVID: Your 'third way' with cellular intelligence assumes cells themselves can work out the exquisite complexity. By offering the 'God-given intelligence' you are not taking a 'third way', you are just coming back to God and joining me.

I am not offering a third way. I am disputing your account of how evolution works (= God planned absolutely everything in order to produce humans) in favour of God (theistic version) planning a free-for-all through autonomous cellular intelligence, with possible dabbling.

DAVID: I've agreed God may have provided them with an inventive mechanism.

There is no agreement between us on this, because you insist that the mechanism for invention is always guided by God. My hypothesis depends on it being autonomous. An inventor is not someone who obeys instructions.