Genome complexity: controlling DNA in the cell (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, November 07, 2018, 18:43 (1989 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So (a) please stop focusing solely on the automatic activities, as if they proved that there is no intelligence in the problem-solving activities, and (b) please recognize that what you have just written acknowledges that the solving of problems can “just as well” be interpreted as evidence that cells/cell communities are autonomously intelligent.

DAVID: All biochemical research shows that molecules act robotically in the series of reactions exposed.

dhw: Why have you changed cells/cell communities to molecules? I’m amazed that you think “my” advocates of cellular intelligence, who have spent a lifetime researching the behaviour of cells, have done no research on the behaviour of cells.

What do you think your guys study except molecular reactions in cells? That is what biological research is at the intracellular level!.

DAVID: The automaticity discussion involves intracellular reactions, not inventing a new pelvis, which is the subject under discussion. Your lifetime group studied cells not major evolutionary changes. Your hypothesis is a huge extrapolation from the single cell reactions to whole body alterations.

dhw: Agreed a thousand times over, and that is why it is a hypothesis. But the automaticity discussion is not confined to my extrapolation. It relates to the basis from which I extrapolate my hypothesis – namely, that of cellular intelligence, which you continue to try and dismiss although at the same time you admit to a “just as well” parity of possibilities.

Intelligent molecular reactions in cells cannot create evolution All they are doing is performing life's homeostasis. Do any of your folks think cellular intelligence leads to evolution?

dhw: Your “interpretation” is correct, except that my hypothesis does not include “can only be created by a designing mind” if by that you mean your God. And my hypothesis leaves out your nebulous “with guidelines”, which takes away the all-important autonomy which I suggest has led to the vast variety of life forms. In other words, your God could certainly have provided organisms with an autonomous inventive mechanism for future species in evolution.

DAVID: He is my God. We disagree about how He works. Diversity is needed for balance of nature, and therefore is part of the world God created. Why wouldn't God create the diversity on His own? You are asking for helter skelter creation. It was obviously controlled.

See my fungus entry today. Perfect example of preplanning by God.

dhw: If your God exists, there is no question that diversity is part of the world he created, and the constantly shifting balance of nature must be linked to constantly changing conditions which in turn lead to diversity. But you are right, he is your God, and you can imagine him doing whatever you want him to do: so yes, he could deliberately have created every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct in the whole history of life, controlling every action by every organism, and probably controlling every change in conditions as well (since the changing balance of nature depends on changing conditions). How all this fits in with his purpose of creating the brain and body of H. sapiens is a mystery, but God’s logic is different from ours so we shouldn’t try to fit the different parts of the hypothesis together. And we shouldn’t consider a different hypothesis whose parts actually do fit together, because…because…? Well, he is your God and you can imagine him doing...etc.

I fully understand where your rump is placed on the picket fence. You admit design is needed to explain the tremendous changes in evolution, but can't explain where the design originated
so you invent what to me are preposterous hypotheses based on a monstrous extrapolation of cellular intelligence, when all they are doing is intelligently running life's homeostasis because of how they are designed. Which is why this website exists to help clear up agnostic confusion.