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

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 05, 2019, 15:23 (1908 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So cells already know all the information necessary for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution, and along with that, your God has provided them with all the instructions necessary for picking out the one instruction (out of the billions) required for their particular situation. And this is your fixed belief?

DAVID: Unless I see research to convince me otherwise.

dhw: So whereabouts in the cell have you found the evidence for a 3.8-billion-year-old library of information and instructions for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life?

It is theoretical just like your cell committees.

DAVID: My bolds are all analogies that are imagined by the authors. The scientists re-directed cell activity by changing genes and the cells changed. The genes told them to change! All we know is the cells know how to interpret gene instructions. "An amazing tool' bold is the scientists praising heir new technique! All comment hyperbole. Remember these guys live by grant money, which they have to justify by touting their results. Please keep that in mind when you swallow the propaganda hook line and sinker. An interesting point: do you fully understand how the grant game is conducted?? I've had grants.

dhw: So now we should ignore the findings of Margulis, McClintock, Shapiro, Buehler, and the authors of the different articles you have quoted, because they are/were all only touting these views in order to gain grant money. I hope Shapiro never sees your comments.

I did not bring up MMSB. They existed before the current mess of ecstatic fake reviews of science overstating what the results mean, fraudulent peer reviews ,and actually proven fake results. I see what you don't. Chasing grant money for the sake of income. You sidestepped my question to you.

DAVID: This still does [not] tell us how genes act to create the final physical results they control. We do see they order the production of certain proteins at certain places b ut we do not know exactly how they exert their controls. We just see beginning and end but not much of the middle molecular activity.

dhw: Precisely. We do not know how cells exert their controls.

DAVID: Misinterpreted. Note I said the genes control cell reactions. We don't know how that is done. Cells access the gene and respond. All we know is from outside the actual process. The gene may precisely tell the cell what to do, which is to make a precise set of protein molecules, and in this case placed at a precise position. An automatic response to direct instructions.

dhw: We do not know how the process works, but according to the articles, it is the cells that actively use passive genetic information and create or “figure out” their own instructions. I am not questioning that when the cell issues an instruction, the rest of the system automatically obeys.

Of course cells use the information they have. Each cell follows what it is told to do by the genome.

DAVID: I still have a totally different interpretation as seen in my current comments.

And of course you have every right to your interpretation. But that does not mean no other interpretation is possible.

Under “How neurons grow their axons”

DAVID: Once again we see the complex controls and the resulting axon formation, but we have no information about how it all works, or how the cell and the cells genes manipulate each other. The inner workings are all a black box. We do not know whether all of this is automatic, or alternatively there must be some independent initiation activity.

dhw: After all the above, we now have a glimmer of recognition. Yes indeed, the alternative to your fixed belief is an INDEPENDENT - I call it “autonomous” - activity, whereby the cells independently create their own instructions by using their perhaps God-given intelligence.

And I am sure it is all following instructions from each cell genome.