Explaining natural wonders: bacterial intelligence (Animals)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 24, 2017, 19:14 (926 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are ignoring my point that the alternate pathways already exist. It is just a matter of the lucky ones switching them on.

dhw: As I wrote on Saturday, "all adaptation and innovation must entail 'alternative pathways'”. Whatever measures and countermeasures are taken must already exist potentially, but that does not mean that 3.8 billion years ago the first cells were loaded with programmes for every single measure and countermeasure, leaving it to Lady Luck whether today’s bacteria would accidentally switch on the right one. I have offered an alternative above.

You've ignored my previous comment that antibiotic chemicals are rampant in nature. Bacteria survived despite them, which means bacteria have had alternative pathways from the beginning. Certainly they have them now, and they have not been shown to invent new ones. See Lenski's E. coli over 58,000 generations, in which they altered existing ones. No Lady Luck involved. I follow observed facts about bacteria.


DAVID: You have not mentioned my entry from yesterday about intrinsic hominin spine changes from 3.3 million years ago which are an obvious preparation for fully upright posture: Monday, May 22, 2017, 20:43. These changes are certainly a speciation change, which offers no immediate environmental advantage, since the change is only a step in a process, but a major complex phenotypic change, allowing eventual bipedalism. The spinal advances allowed humans to change environment, while apes stayed in their accustomed range. Speciation first, environment second. But I agree environment can drive adaptations of existing species.

dhw: You have also agreed that environmental change can initiate speciation.

You keep making this statement about my thinking, but it is not true. Environment does not initiate speciation. That is a separate process. It changes conditions so that an advance in complexity is possible, never probable. Speciation can occur without environmental change or by taking advantage of it. Both obviously happen.

dhw: We have no idea what triggered this particular change, or whether it offered an improvement. Improvement is not an absolute, and a small advantage can still be improved on. (Each stage of whale evolution must have improved its aquatic lifestyle.)

Of course each new species in the whale series improved its aquatic abilities. Each step was A huge jump is phenotypic form or physiologic organ change.

dhw: What on earth would have been the point anyway of your God changing Salem’s spine if it was of no immediate advantage?

What is wrong with advanced design changes as the future goal was contemplated. Note the mental processes involved that you seem not to notice:

dhw: He popped down to Ethiopia, did a dabble, and said: “Go forth with your new spine, Salem & Co. It won’t be of any use to you now, but in the future I shall improve it still further, so that in a few million years’ time it will allow bipedalism and I shall achieve my one and only purpose, which is upright homo sapiens.” Truly your God works in mysterious ways his purpose to achieve.

H. sapiens did appear, didn't they, while apes are still apes? So we have God favoring one group only. Not fair for God to do that. Your comment does not recognize your own acceptance of common descent by speciation change.


dhw: It is not "known" and has not been "demonstrated" anywhere at any time by anyone that God exists, let alone that God planned every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution, let alone that he did so for the sole purpose of producing humans.
DAVID: It requires analysis and the recognition of the need for design. Then faith can appear.

dhw: You said you “prefer to follow what is known and demonstrated”. I am merely pointing out that absolutely nothing in your hypothesis is known or demonstrated.

Remember, I go by the scientific facts that have been demonstrated, and the hypothesize. I interpret. You accept the interpretation of a solitary few scientists about cells' intelligence and hypothesize. We differ. I prefer my analysis from the biologic facts I know.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum