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

by David Turell , Friday, January 04, 2019, 15:35 (1937 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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!

No letter. I've always accepted Shapiro's studies that shows bacteria can alter their DNA. In Lenski's studies with perpetual E. coli colonies they alter their use of glucose and citrate. Both mechanisms of metabolism are present, but they are able to shift when necessary to what is available and that requires some change in DNA. The 3.8 byo program gets evidence from this knowledge.

dhw: 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.

The ability to alter metabolism can well be a 3.8 byo programmed ability.

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.

dhw: 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).

Cells in legs cannot decide to create fins and design them. Cells simply can alter metabolism as shown above. Animals are designed to fit their environments requirements which can change requiring new design or extinction. 'Bad luck' still applies. God steps in where He wishes.