Biochemistry of cell communication; message molecules (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 14:56 (2250 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've always stated that the consciousness of the universe is God's, and that He has designed cells to appear conscious as in my entry today about cell products addressed to arrive at the right useful point.

I presume you’re referring to this comment:

DAVID's comment: The complexity of the structure and of the functions of this giant enzyme demands that a designer of life be strongly considered. Only a planning mind can create such structures with such precise mechanisms of function.

dhw: I’m quite happy with the design argument. I don’t see how that means that God’s consciousness pervades the universe at all levels, and you and I are conscious, and your dog is conscious, and an ant is conscious, and bacteria seem to be conscious but you happen to know that they are robots.

My comment that God pervades also includes that He designed intelligent responses in bacteria as well as my dog and ants are conscious.

XXXXX

Under “neurons”
QUOTES: "Nerve cells are constantly firing off in your body. They control your eyes as you read these words, and they send back the images you see on this page to your brain. They, along with chemical signals, control a multitude of processes in our bodies, and there is no scientific reason to think they gradually evolved, one mutation at time.
"Indeed, that idea contradicts everything we know from the science. And yet this is what evolutionists believe. Let me repeat that: evolutionists believe nerve cells and their action potential designs evolved one mutation at time. Indeed, evolutionists believe this is a proven fact, beyond all reasonable doubt."

dhw: This evolutionist here suggests that cells from the very beginning had the perhaps God-given potential to change their structure and to combine in an almost endless variety of forms and functions – a kind of autonomous inventive intelligence.

If not God-given you have no explanation for the appearance of autonomous inventive intelligence which must operate with an understanding of the information it receives.

dhw: For some reason the word “mutation” has come to be linked with the word “random”. Every change is a mutation, whether random or designed. Assuming the author doesn’t believe that every form of life existed from the very beginning, I cannot see any objection to the argument that the multitude of processes has come about through a multitude of mutations – though not one at a time, since one major mutation would require others throughout the rest of the body to accommodate it, affecting whole communities of cells. Even if a creationist argues that his God has personally changed the designs, he still can’t avoid the fact that each change is a mutation, unless he wishes to argue that his God has created every single life form and variation from scratch.

I did not reproduce the part of the article that showed the odds against multiple coordinated mutuations to produce a major change:

"Are there long, gradual, pathways of functional intermediate structures, separated by only one or perhaps a few mutations, leading to every single species, and every single design and structure in all of biology? As we saw last time, this has been a fundamental claim and expectation of evolutionary theory which is at odds with the science.* If one mutation is rare, a lot of mutations are astronomically rare. For instance, if a particular mutation has a one-in-a-hundred million (one in 10^8) chance of occurring in a new individual, then a hundred such particular mutations have a one in 10^800 chance of occurring. It’s not going to happen."

https://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/02/this-didnt-evolve-few-mutations-at-time.html