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

by dhw, Thursday, February 07, 2019, 10:36 (1906 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

DAVID: It is theoretical just like your cell committees.

dhw: Of course it is. But despite the lack of evidence you are convinced that this astonishingly convoluted hypothesis is true, and you see no reason even to consider the possibility that one single mechanism might explain all the developments that have led to the vast higgledy-piggledy bush of life, allowing – theistic version – for dabbles.

DAVID: But my opinion is based the fact that life continues through automatic activity, with no evidence of inventive activity except in Shapiro's bacterial studies.

The whole of evolution depends on inventive activity! Once the innovation has been invented, then it will be automatically repeated until conditions change, in which case there may be adaptation, extinction, and/or innovation. You have no evidence that all undabbled innovations (new inventions) derive from a 3.8-billion-year old library of information and instructions, plus instructions on how to choose the right instruction, but you are convinced that it is true because new inventions are automatically repeated and you reject the concept of cellular intelligence, although it has a 50/50 chance of being right. How does this count as evidence for your "library"?

dhw: Our subject is cellular intelligence, not the shenanigans of grant-hunting! Suddenly, an article which you quoted and said was an exact expression of your thoughts has become the product of fake results because you realize that its conclusions contradict your own beliefs. You could end up in court over such allegations!

DAVID: I think you know I use current science news reports and some actual papers to present here. We can only conclude a view or views based on the information presented, not the hyperbole that always seems to accompany their description. Note my entries about origin of life and how each new piece of lab work provides a way for life to easily appear, until you note the 'maybes' or 'possiblies' interspersed in some of the verbiage. My caution above is right on point. You love to look into the articles and quote, which I think you should, but I see you swallowing the hyperbole.

You quoted the article, and said it was an exact expression of your thoughts. You quote article after article that dwells on the automaticity of cellular behaviour, and never complain about the grant system (but in such cases frequently ignore the fact that nobody knows where the original instructions came from). Why don’t you stick to the subject and acknowledge that some highly reputable scientists believe/believed in cellular intelligence, and in your fairer moments you acknowledge that cellular behaviour appears to be intelligent, and there is a 50/50 chance that it is, but you yourself simply don’t believe in it?

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

dhw: Even if you were right, it could simply mean that the cell’s intelligence is located in the genome.

DAVID: How do stem cells become a whole organism? Follow instructions to make an identical copy.

The issue is where the instructions came from in the first place: your 3.8 billion-year-old library etc. as bolded above, or the cells themselves, with an inbuilt and perhaps God-given ability to process information and take their own decisions.

dhw: I would love to know more about stem cells, as it seems to me that their versatility could provide a vital clue as to how evolutionary innovation works.

DAVID: The zygote (sperm and egg joined) become a hollow sphere of blastocyst cells, each one determined to direct construction of different parts of the embryo. A head/tail axis is established, and both genetic instructions for protein production and mechanical-biological forces play a role, as cells grow and push push other cells around. Most of it is still poorly understood.

Yet again, the issue is where the original instructions came from, but what interests me here is the versatility of stem cells. When conditions change, cells/cell communities must also change if they are to survive (adaptation), but perhaps innovation takes place when certain cells are given totally new functions. It seems that stem cells can do precisely this.

DAVID: (under “How macrophages repair nerves”): Note how precise this mechanism is. The cells obviously don't stop and think about a plan of action. My usual question. How did chance evolution find this exact set of proteins?

Since these discussions have become confined to you and me, your usual question has become irrelevant. Both of us reject chance. The usual question has now become: did the process originate 1) through a 3.8-billion-year-old library of information and instructions to cover the whole of evolution, plus instructions on which instructions to follow; 2) divine dabbling; 3) the intelligence of cells working out ways to repair damage, precisely as bacteria work out ways to cope with new threats?