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

by dhw, Tuesday, February 19, 2019, 08:59 (1894 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are quoting Darwinian scientists who wrote the article. I carefully watch the obvious background thinking of those who write whatever. It always has great influence on interpretation of results.

dhw: They would say exactly the same about your interpretation of results. But in any case, cellular intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with "Darwinian" science, and I wish you would stop blaming Darwin(ism) for any science you don’t like.

DAVID: Answered below in the on point C. Hunter article below.

Not answered at all. The hypothesis of cellular intelligence plays no role whatsoever in Darwin, and interpretation of results is no more and no less influenced by theism than it is by atheism.

dhw: Yet again you revert to the design argument, which I keep accepting. It is your interpretation of your God’s purposes and methods that I question, but the alternative hypothesis – that evolution proceeds and immediate problems are solved through design by (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence, as opposed to a 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled solution, innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder – clearly depends on the concept of cellular intelligence! That is why I object to your continually ignoring or attempting to discredit the evidence offered by earlier scientists as well as by scientists working today.

DAVID: Yet you have agreed with me what cells do requires interpretation. I like mine and the odds are still 50/50, since we sit on the outside of cells as we see them respond to stimuli.

Of course I agree. And if you see the odds as 50/50, then I don’t see how you can categorically dismiss the interpretation you don’t like.

DAVID: Once again, kidney cells act in lockstep making urine. Shapiro's bacterial studies are on whole animals responses to needs. Different breed of cats.

I keep agreeing with you that once an innovation has proved successful, the cells must act automatically for it to survive. Bacteria only change their behaviour when there are new problems for them to solve, and the same applies to our human cells.

https://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2019/02/finally-details-of-how-proteins-evolve.html

DAVID: Please read entirely: it is brief but it shows the inventiveness of Darwinian scientists' suppositions. Look up the original report if you wish. Hunter is directly quoting it. And his complaints are right on. Nothing of what they describe as real evolution in DNA is proven, It is call guess work as to what might have happened.

dhw: I agree. Their whole hypothesis is based on random mutations, which you and I have long since rejected. There is no more evidence for their claims than there is for the claim that an unknown, sourceless, eternal mind set out to design the brain of H. sapiens, and in order to do so spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing billions of problem-solutions, life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders, including anti-freeze for fish. When will you ever understand that the root of my agnosticism lies in my inability to choose one just-so story in preference to another?

DAVID: And I publish here to present the complexity of life that cannot have appeared naturally, and to show the fallacies of relying on Darwin-interpreting scientists, as they strain to explain their results. I thank you for saying the is "no... evidence for their claims".

No need to thank me. This website came into being because of my opposition to Dawkins’ version of life’s history, which for me is every bit as “just-so” as your own version of life’s history. When we started up, one critic even thought it was a disguised advert for ID! We agnostics get stick from both sides. Fair enough, since one of the two must be closer to the truth than the other. Ah, but which one?

David: In the last entry bias in interpretation of scientific studies results was discussed. I've mentioned before the problem of overenthusiastic reporting by science writers:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190213132309.htm

QUOTE: "Biology textbooks teach us that adult cell types remain fixed in the identity they have acquired upon differentiation. By inducing non-insulin-producing human pancreatic cells to modify their function to produce insulin in a sustainable way, researchers show for the first time that the adaptive capacity of our cells is much greater than previously thought. Moreover, this plasticity would not be exclusive to human pancreatic cells."

DAVID: sounds like the cells can do what they want to do. No Way.

Not quite. There have to be limits. These people are simply saying that our cells can adapt more than we previously thought. That is the great question for my hypothesis: just how much can they change?

DAVID: sure the cells can BE changed by human manipulation! NOT NATURALLY as the opening intro seems to state. Beware of what you read.

According to you they can be changed either by your God's 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme, or by your God popping in to do a dabble. Maybe they can also be changed by their own innate intelligence, which may originally have been designed by your God. That would then be “natural”, since if your God exists, he created Nature. (If your God does not exist, then of course the process would also be natural.)