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

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 07, 2019, 20:14 (573 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: For years now you have been telling us that your God provided the first unicellular forms of life with a computer programme for every single undabbled innovation etc. in the history of evolution. Now you are telling us that bacteria were only provided with a library for bacteria. ...Your library theory is literally falling to pieces.

DAVID: Use your logic. My concept is that Bacteria are bacteria because their only genome access is the bacterial level of instructions. Different levels open up throughout evolution.

dhw: So the first living cells contained a library of programmes for every single undabbled life form etc. in the history of life, but although unicellular forms were the only life forms, they only contained the programmes pertinent to themselves. So how on earth did they manage to pass on the programmes for elephants, whales, humans and the duckbilled platypus?

You do not understand what I wrote. Bacteria have a set of instructions they use, but they carry instructions for the future in a closed file (to use computer terms).

dhw:...this indeed is what you frequently imply in your wonderful catalogue of Nature’s wonders, normally accompanied by the comment that these must be the product of design. You haven’t made that comment on the latest of these, but we can use it as an example:

QUOTE: Today, the transient anus may be unique to the warty comb jelly. Tamm is now looking at other species of comb jelly, but so far they appear to have permanent anuses."

DAVID: The bush of life has some strange twigs.

dhw: It certainly does. May I ask if you think the disappearing anus was programmed 3.8 billion years ago or was the result of a divine dabble, ...Or could this strange twig have been uniquely designed by the cell communities of the warty comb jelly?

How could I answer or know?

dhw: Bacteria have been found in virtually every environment on earth. Each one demands special adaptation. And I am not “imagining” the health crisis that has arisen through the fact that they always find a solution to the tricky situations created by antibiotics. Millions of them die. God didn’t dabble to save them, or they didn’t receive the anti-antibiotic programme he is supposed to have installed 3.8 billion years ago. But eventually they come up with a solution. Yes, they remain themselves, and automatic cell division is an integral part of all life: once a system is successful, its accurate reproduction is essential to the survival of the system. And to anticipate your usual question, nobody knows how life, reproduction and the ability to adapt and to innovate (i.e. to restructure existing cell communities) first arose. One theory is that a universal mind we call God did the original engineering.

DAVID: I agree.

dhw: Then please stop harping on about simple lives, Lenski’s E-coli and cell division, as if somehow they prove that bacteria cannot be intelligent.

Lenski's E. coli, after 22,000 generations are still E. coli with minor metabolic changes.

dhw: Wikipedia definition: Quorum sensing is the ability to detect and to respond to cell population density by gene regulation. […] Many species of bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate gene expression according to the density of their local population. In similar fashion, some social insects use quorum sensing to determine where to nest.
No mention of the word “automatic”. Bacteria USE quorum sensing to detect and respond, to coordinate and to determine.

DAVID: And I view it as automatic. Wikipedia is not authoritative, it is full of opinion You don 't know the background of that particular writer. Is he a Darwin follower?

dhw: What on earth does this have to do with Darwin? I don’t recall Darwin ever promoting the idea that bacteria are intelligent organisms which use quorum sensing to cooperate in making decisions. You are the one who insists that their decision-making is automatic, and for some reason you brought up quorum sensing to try and discredit the proposal that the more successful bacterial cooperation is, the more likely it is to be active and intentional.

I'm referencing conclusion bias. Is automatic quorum sensing automatic (/) is my point.

dhw: Under “confirmation bias”:

DAVID: The worst cases are in the sociology and psychology sciences where much research cannot be confirmed. But this clearly points out skepticism is needed when reading any article with Darwin-inculcated authors.

dhw: Nobody knows the objective truth about any of the major issues we keep discussing. Therefore scepticism is needed when reading any article written by authors with fixed beliefs of whatever kind.

Exactly my point.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum