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

by dhw, Wednesday, February 20, 2019, 09:58 (2103 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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

And I have no doubt that biologists such as Margulis, McClintock, Buehler, Shapiro have a plethora of science-based reasons for proposing the other. 50/50 should at least allow for a degree of open-mindedness.

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’s 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.

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.)

DAVID: 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.

And there you go again with your “not proven”. If anything is proven, it becomes a fact as opposed to a hypothesis or theory. NONE of our hypotheses are proven, and that is why these discussions go on. You propose hypotheses that range from the existence of God to his special design of slug glue as a means of enabling him to produce the brain of H. sapiens. Not proven, and yet your belief is fixed.

DAVID (under “Biological complexity”):Recent research reveals a huge variety of different parts of living organisms produce an enormous number if different hormones so every part communicates with all the other parts through the circulatory system:
https://aeon.co/essays/the-revolutionary-idea-revealing-the-bodys-hormonal-democracy?ut...

QUOTES: "Karsenty and others eventually confirmed that bones secrete hormones essential for an animal’s health. And with that finding, the skeleton joined a growing list of tissues shown to participate in a body-wide conversation between organs. The traditional concept of the endocrine system as a second-command system working in tandem with the nervous system – and largely directed by the brain – is being replaced with a more autonomous view of interorgan communication, one in which most, if not all, organs have a voice. (dhw’s bold)

"Perrimon and Droujinine have written that it might be as fundamental as going back to the advent of early multicellular life.[/b] (David’s bold) As organisms became more complex, and different types of cells evolved to have specialised functions within a cellular collective, there was a need to coordinate those functions. […] it’s now clear that the hormonal link – and the autonomous character of peripheral tissues – never went away. As specialised populations of cells evolved, the total organism benefitted from individual tissues broadcasting their status to modulate other organs. As Karsenty puts it, ‘no organ is an island in our body.’ (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Wow. There is no end to unearthing the real complexity of living beings. Only a designer can create this.

Wow indeed. Yet another article laying emphasis on the autonomous cooperation between cell communities (which you try to ridicule by calling them “committees”). And your bold suggests that precisely the same process of autonomous cellular communication underlay multicellularity. NB: This still allows for your God as the inventor of the mechanism that gave rise to these different autonomous, cooperating, decision-making cell communities.