Defining sentient cells: Cell receptors (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, April 10, 2018, 15:38 (2208 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If a particular stimulus to a bacterium results in a series of molecular reactions leading to a molecular response, as research shows, it must be inferred that it is automatic. I'll stick to that interpretation as a strong inference.

dhw: Of course you will. And you will ignore any research which suggests that bacteria are capable of autonomous self-modification, cooperation, problem-solving, decision-making and any other attribute that we associate with intelligence, even though you admit that you have no way of distinguishing between automatic and autonomously intelligent behaviour.

But neither can your favorite scientists. They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine. Your faith in cell intelligence implies there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made, but are automatic actions programmed in the molecular reactions.

DAVID (under “plant automatic breathing”): Plants open and close breathing pores by automatic molecular reactions:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180409103942.htm

DAVID’s comment: A great example of automaticity.

dhw: So is our own breathing. That doesn’t mean all our actions are automatic.

Most of your ability to live goes on automatically. Thinking is one of the few differences. The automatic pore responses are simply a series of molecular reactions to a stimulus, no decisions required.

dhw: As in my two comments above, you ignore all the attributes of intelligence, and insist that every bacterial adaptation – both nice and nasty – in the history of life has been preprogrammed or personally dabbled by your God, whose one and only purpose, let us remember, was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. And you think this is logical.
DAVID: Inventing bacteria is only the beginning of evolution of the brain. Evolution had to proceed from that point to now. The brain is the most complex unexpected outcome one could imagine.

dhw: For those of us who believe in common descent, evolution did (why “had to”?) proceed from that point until now. I don’t see how that proves that every bacterial adaptation in the history of life has been preprogrammed or dabbled by your God in order to produce the complexity of our brain. He could have given bacteria the means to do their own adapting. And he could have been pleasantly surprised by the unexpected outcome, or he could have experimented to get the outcome he desired, or he could suddenly have thought of a great new idea and done a dabble. All of these are far more logical and no more "humanizing" than his having a desire right from the beginning to create something that would recognize him and have a relationship with him, but first having to build the weaverbird’s nest (plus a few million other examples) in order to keep life going before he could do what he wanted to do.

Evolution had to proceed under God's direction because of His purpose to produce humans. I think God knew what He wanted to do from the point that He started he universe. You produce a doubtful hesitant God in your mind's meanderings about Him.