Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, August 20, 2018, 13:03 (391 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: If you look at DNA as a programming language, the commonalities do not HAVE to represent common decent so much as common functionality. Let me give you an example […]

DHW: I listened to the opinion of a microbiologist, and was struck by what she said. However, I notice that your objection is that “the commonalities do not HAVE to represent common descent” (which certainly modifies her statement). At least that means, though, that you believe they CAN represent common descent. My point was that the cell is the basis of all life, and I find it perfectly conceivable that its design (which believers may attribute to their God) would render cells capable of combining with other cells to create every single organism, extant and extinct, throughout the history of life. This means common descent from the first living cells. Your post clearly doesn’t exclude this possibility, which is good enough for me.

That tiny bit of code simply said, as long as some condition(i being with the span of two values) is true, do something. For example, as long as a creature is feeling threatened, engage the sympathetic nervous system for fight-or-flight, or as long as food is abundant, have more babies.

DAVID: This has got to be a different branch than Archaea. It is not a candidate for origin of life since its reproductive rate is so long, it doesn't allow for evolution at the rate we see it out in the sunlight on the surface of Earth or at ocean bottom interface with salt water.

DHW: I don’t know why you have switched the subject from common descent to origin of life. I may be wrong, but I don’t remember Karen Lloyd even mentioning the origin of life, and she gave the same explanation for why the microbes couldn’t evolve.

DAVID: Thank you Tony. Great lecture. And further thank you for interpreting DNA as a program for processing life with functional coding. Easy to imagine a primary designer for the first living cells from which these sub-sea ogranisms must have developed.

DHW: Ah! I’d be interested to know, then, if you reject Tony's conclusion and agree with Karen Lloyd that ALL organisms, from bacteria to humans, must have developed from the first living cells.

Interpretation of data is largely dependent upon cognitive bias. I don't claim that this bias is necessarily mistaken, but it is always present. For example, each of us three almost universally interprets data in a way that fits our preferred theory, which is why we always disagree and always end up having the same arguments. These biases are formed from the narrative, or combination of narratives, that we have chosen to believe. The primary issue is that each of our narratives are mutually exclusive, and for the most part, none of us are really interested in understanding each other's narrative framework as much as we are interested in defending our own framework, or as DHW is fond of doing, trying to wrangle someone into saying they agree with him. :-P

When I said that it did not HAVE to mean something, I wasn't implying that I thought it meant something different than I stated. I as simply saying that it CAN and WILL be interpreted differently, depending on the starting cognitive bias of the interpreter. Evolution is slippery because the cognitive bias is very entrenched culturally, because the cognitive bias appears to make sense when not examined too deeply, because humans stink at understanding odds, and because it frees them up from ideas that they feel are limiting or painful to think about(i.e. God and the ramifications of his existence).

DHW claims a third option, that he doesn't know and so refuses to choose, but that is not really the case. By his arguments, he has clearly made a choice and there is likely no evidence short of divine explanation which would convince him otherwise, as evidenced by our repeated and well documented attempts to show all the evidence AGAINST cellular intelligence and common descent on the scale he discusses.

David generally tries to have the best of both worlds; he recognizes the need for a designer, but tends to agree with evolution from common descent, though I think he waffles on that slightly, perhaps recognizing that the so-called bush of life doesn't match the genetic data, which seriously undermines the theory of common descent.

Personally, I believe in a creator God, reject mainstream evolution and common descent, but acknowledge the role of epigenetics, inheritance, and variation within a single species type, citing the commonality of genetic language as a prime illustration of how designers design! In short, a bear will always be a bear, and never anything but a bear, but it may be one of any number of bear variations. It never has been, nor will it ever be, a cow or dog, or cat or whale. And yet, it will have similarities with them because they all have similar functionality which requires similar design elements, just like most cars and trucks have 4 wheels and a engine, despite their other differences, and most of those wheels and engines will have similar elements and components even though they perform differently. This is true, and will always be true, because of the mechanical, physical requirements of being a car or truck. Likewise, all combustion engines, whether jet planes, boat engines, or car motors, will all has similar properties defined by mechanical need.

What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum