Natures wonders: fungal symbiosis by gene loss (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 02, 2018, 13:26 (2242 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID; Thank you for your attention to the educational articles I present, all of which easily show the designs in life that require a thoughtful designer to produce them. Even Dawkins admitted the design, as he denigrated the designer.

dhw: My own point, of course, was to suggest that all these articles suggest organismal intelligence at work – the alternatives to which I have listed above (3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes or private divine tutorials). I find these a colossal strain on my credulity. I'm sure Dawkins does as well, but I do wish he would ask himself what other way organisms could arrive at such complexity without intelligence of their own, regardless of its source.

DAVID: And my response as usual is to what tutorial did the cells attend to learn to be intelligent? Intelligent action has to be designed into them to guide their automatic molecular reactions.

No tutorial. My hypothesis (theistic version) is that intelligence was designed into cells so that they could determine their own reactions. One design right from the start (though allowing for the odd dabble), compared to billions of computer programmes and tutorials. I can hear Ockham cheering.