Genome complexity: what genes do and don't do (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, January 18, 2019, 11:00 (1926 days ago) @ dhw

I posted this last Tuesday, and since it has a vital bearing on your pet theory that your God preprogrammed all undabbled innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders, I was a little surprised that you didn't respond. However, you accidentally repeated the same response to another piece on "Big brain evolution", so I'm wondering if in fact you did answer my post but pressed the wrong button and are now waiting for my reply! Anyway, here it is again, just in case...

dhw: I really don’t see how your definitions are compatible with the statements I have bolded.

DAVID: Sloppy thinking and writing. My boldings above and below are my thoughts exactly.

Just to recap: your statements were: “…the original DNA may have contained all the info for evolution”, and your definition of intelligent information was “a complete set of instructions for cells to respond to all stimuli they must deal with.”

You are now agreeing that:

QUOTE: Scientists now understand that the information in the DNA code can only serve as a template for a protein. It cannot possibly serve as instructions for the more complex task of putting the proteins together into a fully functioning being, no more than the characters on a typewriter can produce a story.

And:

DNA is not a cause in an active sense. I think it is better described as a passive data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires.

I added the following quotes:

QUOTES: "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.”
“Through the statistical patterns within the storms, instructions are, again, created de novo. The cells, all with the same genes, multiply into hundreds of starkly different types, moving in a glorious ballet to find just the right places at the right times. That could not have been specified in the fixed linear strings of DNA.”

I would just like to be sure that I have understood you. Are you now saying that the original DNA could not have contained complete instructions for the whole of evolution, apart from when your God dabbled?

DAVID’s comment: We have a long way to go to really understand how the orchestrated layers of the genome works.

dhw: Yes, we do. And therefore we should at the very least remain open-minded on the subject of cellular intelligence versus automaticity.

DAVID: DNA codes for protein but most of the so-called junk DNA provides the modifiers for gene expression. We still don 't know how it all works. It is far more complex than we demonstrate at this point. There must be integrated levels of control. Looking at a code as simply a code doesn't see the whole picture.

Of course it doesn’t. But since you now agree that the organism (= a collection of cell communities) uses the passive data base -and perhaps you also agree that instructions are created de novo - wouldn’t you say that one should at the very least remain open-minded on the subject of cellular intelligence versus automaticity?