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

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 19, 2019, 22:49 (1893 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw; 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.

Since the options number two, the truth is either or. But I have a plethora of biochemical reasons to propose only one.

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".

dhw: 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." (my bold)

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

dhw: 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.[/i]

dhw: 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.)

Very fine point: the article starts by stating that cells have the ability to change. All the article shows is that several designed manipulations can cause them to act differently by the actions of intelligent designers manipulating from outside the cell. That cells that can do it themselves is not proven. Note my bold in the quote. The implied meaning of the statement is that the cells can do it on their own. Not what was proven in the study. I would again point out, science writers portray hopeful interpretations well beyond what they are describing in the facts of the story.