Explaining natural wonders: bacterial intelligence (Animals)

by dhw, Thursday, May 25, 2017, 13:56 (2741 days ago) @ David Turell

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.
DAVID: 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.

As I said above, the potential solution already exists. Yesterday you wrote: “You are ignoring my point that the alternate pathways already exist. It is just a matter of the lucky ones switching them on.” Today: “No Lady Luck involved.” Please make up your mind.

DAVID: 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.
DAVID: 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.

Dealt with comprehensively under “whale changes”.

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

How is it possible for your God to design anything without “mental processes”. I am pointing out the illogicality of your scenario. See my next comment.

DAVID: 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.

Who has said anything about “not fair”? It is simply not logical that your God with his unlimited powers should have planned homo sapiens from the start, but specially designed ancestors with useless new spines in preparation for a proper spine a few million years later. I would suggest that the various modifications of existing structures (common descent) – probably triggered by environmental changes - took place as a result of a drive for improvement (which you call complexity), leading to different species of pre-humans.

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.
DAVID: 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.

There is no such thing as a “solitary” few. A few = a few, and they are/were all dedicated experts in their field. In any case, you have admitted that there is no way of knowing whether the biologic facts denote intelligence or automaticity. But my reference was not to the solitary issue of bacterial intelligence, and your divine preprogramming/dabbling anthropocentric hypothesis is based on nothing known or demonstrated.