cellular intelligence; information controls (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, May 28, 2019, 09:41 (1794 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Are you missing the point that the ability of the cells to reconfigure themselves is part of the programming I believe exists? Again it is 50/50 in probability, and I'll stick with programming will not accept chance evolution at this level of complexity.

dhw: I could hardly miss your point, since you continue to insist that every single cellular response to every single environmental change in the history of evolution was either divinely dabbled or preprogrammed in the very first cells, and passed down through millions and millions of generations of life forms. As for your final comment here, how often do I have to repeat that I do not accept chance evolution either? The alternative for me is not chance but a possibly God-given autonomous intelligence. Since you concede 50/50, I really don’t know why you then go to insist that for you it’s 100/0.

DAVID: Because of this aspect of my thinking from the whale thread today: "My comment about cell intelligence relates only to the momentary activities of individual cells as they respond to stimuli or manufacture necessary proteins. It does not apply to your fantasy that cells can invent new complex forms of whole animals."

Answered on the whale thread, except that if you think the autonomous ability of cells to “reconfigure” themselves momentarily is 50/50, you can hardly discount the possibility that this ability may extend beyond the momentary.

DAVID: This is well beyond anything a Darwin-style evolution could develop. It requires exquisite design by a master designer. God is required.

dhw: Darwin did not deal with the origin of the mechanisms that drive evolution (although in later editions he frequently refers to the Creator). I have always accepted the argument that the complexities of my (still unproven) cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. That is not the issue here.

DAVID: Darwin's first book shows his real feelings. My thought is that social pressures made him pop in God later.

dhw: As you well know, Darwin said explicitly that he regarded himself as an agnostic. But my point is that he did not deal with the origin of the mechanism, so why bring him into it? The issue here is the nature of the mechanism, not the existence of God.

DAVID: But in considering mechanisms God is always involved. that is the underlying point of this website

The underlying point of this website is to discuss every theoretical solution to the unsolved mysteries of the universe. For those of us who believe in evolution, the unsolved mystery is how speciation occurs. Godly preprogramming and dabbling are one possible solution; a godly or godless autonomous mechanism is another; godly or godless random mutations are another. Speciation is the subject here, and not the existence of God.