Genome complexity: DNA 3-D importance in replication (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, January 04, 2019, 13:22 (2152 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The question is not whether DNA editing happens, but whether your God’s “information/instructions used by the cell” means a specific, 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single change in the history of evolution, switched on automatically by the cell when conditions require or allow it – which seems to me extremely unlikely – or a mechanism which enables the cell to change itself autonomously, i.e. to devise its own programme as conditions change. Shapiro clearly believes in the latter.

DAVID: The only issue here is I believe God gave the cells that mechanism.

I’ve read this through several times, and I’m still not sure that I dare to celebrate. Can it really be true that you have jettisoned the hypothesis of the first cells containing a 3.8-billion-year old programme for every change, and are now in favour of an autonomous mechanism whereby cells change in response to changing conditions? (I have always allowed for your God being the inventor of the mechanism.) This may be a red letter day in the history of the AgnosticWeb!

Quotes from “Genome complexity: DNA tiny part of the controls”: "Accordingly, even single cells change their metabolic pathways, and the way they use their genes to suit those patterns. That is, they “learn,” and create instructions on the hoof. Genes are used as templates for making vital resources, of course. But directions and outcomes of the system are not controlled by genes. Like colonies of ants or bees, there are deeper dynamical laws at work in the development of forms and variations.

"In a paper in Physics of Life Reviews in 2013, James Shapiro describes how cells and organisms are capable of “natural genetic engineering.” That is, they frequently alter their own DNA sequences, rewriting their own genomes throughout life. The startling implication is that the gene as popularly conceived—a blueprint on a strand of DNA, determining development and its variations—does not really exist."

Once more I must thank you for your admirable integrity in offering us an article which supports the hypothesis you have so long resisted. It even uses my own favourite analogy of ant colonies. Shapiro champions cellular intelligence, and I don’t see how any organism that “learns” and creates instructions on the hoof (as opposed to being preprogrammed) can be seen as an automaton.

DAVID (under “Gulls change wing shape”): Helps them glide and fly in different ways:
https://techxplore.com/news/2019-01-zoologists-reveal-gulls-wing-morph.html

DAVID: It is not known if the original gulls had this ability from the beginning or developed it over time. If it wasn't present in the beginning they had trouble hunting over the oceans so one can wonder how they survived until they developed these adaptations of elbow joints which require exact design.

dhw: Perhaps they initially found plenty of food close at wing (like pre-whales having plenty of food close at leg) but then conditions changed and they had to hunt further afield, which occasioned the changes made by the cell communities that constitute the wings and their connections.

DAVID: You are still using environmental changes to push evolution, but some one or some thing has to do the designing for the large body changes.

Yes of course I am. Fins would not be much use if the pre-whale hadn’t taken to the water. You have just agreed that the ‘some thing’ is the cells themselves containing the mechanism which enables them to change autonomously as conditions change (provided God invented the mechanism).