Explaining natural wonders: bacterial intelligence (Animals)

by David Turell , Thursday, May 25, 2017, 19:17 (2741 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

Not all bacteria have alternative pathways. There are individual differences. That is why I used the word lucky. I was rejecting the idea that Lady luck helped bacteria invent something that did not exist. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

dhw: 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.

In my view, God uses an evolutionary process to advance complex life. You are assuming His unlimited powers. I am saying He didn't choose instant creation. You are saying He can. Are you now religious?

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.

dhw: 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.

We have covered all this before. We remain apart.