Immunity: Gamma Delta T cells hunt with precision (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, November 16, 2018, 15:15 (2200 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course your statement about intelligence is a truism for anyone with a conscious state. But we look at the molecular reactions from the outside and do not see the controls.

dhw: If it’s a truism that the ability to learn and make judgements is an attribute of intelligence, then why do you constantly reject the argument that the ability of cells to learn and make judgements means that they are intelligent?

And as I continuously remind you, the appearance of intelligent cells can just as easily be explained as intelligently designed responses, the explanation I accept.

DAVID: Dr. Tour is a famous organic biomolecular scientist, an atheist Jew who accepted Christianity. His view of the cell:
https://www.hbu.edu/news-and-events/2018/11/13/world-renowned-scientist-dr-james-tour/

QUOTE: “'When I look at biological systems, and the amazing functionality of a biological system, even if we just take a cell – just a single cell – and you look at the mechanisms within that cell, it is utterly amazing. How can you look at that and just say, ’Oh well, 3.8 billion years ago, under a rock, it just got started up’ – that’s idiocy. It is amazing to look at that. You don’t even have to look at a human being with all of this. You just look at a single cell – a simple cell and the mechanisms within that cell are huge in complexity,” he said.

dhw: And the rest of this brilliant article goes into more detail concerning the wondrous complexity of the cell (he doesn’t mention the molecules, which are simply component parts of the cell) and offers the same highly convincing argument for design as your own. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence versus automaticity!

But his entire expertese is studying in making man-made organic molecules, so his view of the cell comes from that background.

DAVID: All he can study is the molecules. There is nothing else to study. In the cell as in the genome we do not know how controls are exerted.

So if we do not know, why do you categorically refuse to accept the possibility that the controls are exerted by autonomous intelligence, as championed by “my” scientists.

DAVID: We can only look in from outside. We can reduce the reactions to each step. I frankly doubt we will ever fully understand how the controls work. I view it as possible that all of the carefully orchestrated interactions are all that is needed to have a living cell emerge.

dhw: The subject under discussion is not how cells emerge but whether they are intelligent.

Or are designed to respond intelligently.

DAVID: I will not ever leave behind the concept that what we see is pure design and needed before each gap in the fossil record. Of course I switched from cells to molecules! I think your concept of complexity of the cell is superficial since you have not studied biochemistry. This is not meant to criticize you but to indicate that your theorizing is based on a flimsy basis of understanding of what is involved. I hope the Tour quote indicates that to you.

dhw: Once more: we are not discussing the complexity of the cell, which I acknowledge presents the best possible case for design. We are discussing the concept of cellular intelligence! I do not claim to be a biochemist. I owe my concept of cellular intelligence to people who have spent a lifetime studying cells - sources such as Barbara McClintock, Lynn Margulis, Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, James A. Shapiro – and I do not think their conclusions are superficial or based on a flimsy understanding of what is involved.

And I view their statements as hyperbole to make the point of cells amazing responsiveness. It is simple. From the outside cells are intelligent or they are programmed to respond intelligently. I chose the latter view, as do a herd of ID folks. Note they have heretical ideas like evolution is really devolution. You made no comment.