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

by David Turell , Monday, November 19, 2018, 20:46 (1978 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I can only consider the pros and cons of all the hypotheses, theistic and atheistic, but because I find flaws in all of them, I remain without belief in any of them.

DAVID: A definition of a rigid agnostic.

dhw: Your use of the word “rigid” does not provide any defence of the flaws I keep pointing out.

DAVID: I never said superficial or flimsy.

dhw:[…] Here are your exact words: “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.” My theorizing, as you know perfectly well, has nothing to do with design but is based on the concept of cellular intelligence, which in turn is based entirely on the magnificent work of “my” scientists. If my concept of cellular intelligence is superficial and flimsy, that can only mean that their concept is superficial and flimsy.

A twisted assertion of what I said. You are not in first hand knowledge of biochemistry. You are secondhandedly accepting the opinions of well-known excellent scientists who have simply expressed an interpretation of their studies that you are willing to accept. Other excellent scientists disagree with their interpretations. Interpretations are not fact but a preferred explanation. You have picked a preference. You are, as usual, missing the difference in results and their interpretation.

DAVID: Note they [ID-ers] have heretical ideas like evolution is really devolution. You made no comment.

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: […] So humans devolved from bacteria, did they?

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

dhw: I would suggest that multicellularity = addition, not subtraction. Why do you think their view is considered heretical?

DAVID: You misunderstand. Behe has a new book on it which I intend to read. Multicellularity is simply a larger organism than single cells. The subtraction, if it occurs, is in DNA, not phenotypes which appear from its work.

dhw: It is not “simply” larger. It involves cells being added to cells. You have called the “devolution” idea heretical. Why? Could it be because it goes against the conventional view that evolution is evolution and not devolution? And are you now saying that parts of bacterial DNA have been subtracted on the way to human DNA?

That is what they Are implying.