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

by David Turell , Saturday, November 17, 2018, 15:31 (2199 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: And that should be the end of this discussion, because “just as easily” is an acknowledgement that “my” scientists may just as easily be right. But you refuse to leave it at that.

You are ignoring my point that we look in at the cell from the outside and either assumption can be accepted, and I have the right to accept mine, and you have the right to accept your guys point of view. I will never accept that view, until there is proof they are correct.

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!

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

dhw: Why “but”? His article supports design, and has nothing to do with intelligence versus automaticity. The background of “my scientists” is a lifetime study of the behaviour of real cells.

Behavior as I have pointed out has two equally possible reasons. You have decided to chose one interpretation because it fits what you want to believe.

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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I know you have chosen the latter view. You have also acknowledged that you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong, and I trust you will now also acknowledge that the concept of cellular intelligence (as opposed to your automaticity) is not superficial or based on a flimsy understanding of what is involved.

I never said superficial or flimsy. That is your interpretation. All of them have done magnificent work. They are as amazed at the work of cells as I am. Their statements are only a human interpretation of what they have found. They do not have proof, nor do I. You are simply offering their opinions as fact. It isn't

DAVID: Note they have heretical ideas like evolution is really devolution. You made no comment.

dhw: I really don’t know why you think the heretical ideas of your ID herd should convince me that Shapiro and Co are wrong. As for devolution:

QUOTE: "This famous evolutionary experiment proves that in deep time, even given a model population that is optimal for validating evolution , populations do not evolve – but instead devolve."

dhw: Nothing to do with cellular intelligence. I actually wrote a reply to this, and then decided it wasn’t worth bothering. My reply was and is:

So humans devolved from bacteria, did they?

Do you miss the point? The claim seems to be all the information was there from the beginning and evolution advances from subtraction.