Genome complexity: variation within species (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, December 11, 2016, 13:06 (2905 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As always, a powerful case for design. But design of what? A microcosm within a macrocosm? “[…] It’s as if we are inhabited by a colony of ants, each with their own particular role to play, but constantly communicating, adapting, making decisions in the world that is you or me. It’s what some scientists call cellular intelligence.
DAVID: The design comes from the intelligent information in DNA. The entire design of the organism. The source of that information is what you and I debate.

I’m always queasy about the expression “intelligent information”, as it seems to me that intelligence either invents or uses information. But even if we accept it, one can argue that just as the “intelligent information” in the human brain autonomously produces its own designs, the intelligent information in cellular DNA does the same, redesigning itself and the rest of the cell/cell community.

dhw: May I suggest that if the killifish is able to cope so quickly with different pollutants, what it carries before the sites are polluted is not an alternative metabolic pathway anticipating whatever might happen next, but the ability to process new information and change its genome accordingly – which means it can construct a new metabolic pathway to cope with each new threat. And I would suggest that this applies to all processes of adaptation, though different organisms will have different capacities for change.

DAVID: On the other hand the article clearly suggests there are variable individuals in the species some of whom can handle the pollution and survive.

You are repeating precisely what I have just said, and what I repeat later: "But what is really interesting is the variability between individuals. This would explain how common descent works. Changes can only take place in individuals, and individuals are different. So some will respond to environmental change and others won’t. The same point is made in the second article you have quoted, and in my view fits in perfectly with the hypothesis that evolution is driven by individual intelligences.

Dhw: We don’t know how far the ability for change can extend. Or do you still think your God put each alternative metabolic pathway for all eventualities into the first cells to pass on to the killifish a few thousand million years later?
DAVID: Many species have variable individuals who can survive changes, nothing more.

That does not answer my question. We agree that some individuals are more adaptable than others. I have suggested that organisms are able to work out their own metabolic pathways. If you disagree, what is your alternative, if it is NOT divine preprogramming or dabbling?

dhw: So far we only know of adaptation and non-adaptation (those that can’t respond will die). But it is conceivable that the variation will also apply to innovation. Some organisms may have the wherewithal to invent. In much the same way as some humans are creative, and some are not.
DAVID: All organisms can adapt to some degree. To invent a new species is a whole different ball game. Darwin theory has no explanation for it.

Nobody can explain it. That is why we have different hypotheses: Darwin’s random mutations, David’s divine preprogramming/dabbling, and dhw’s cellular intelligence.