David's theory of evolution Part One (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, November 16, 2019, 19:24 (1832 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Wow! None of your scientists talk about the equivalent of a cellular brain. They simply note the cells show reactions that appear to be intelligent, an impression which is never proof.

dhw: We know the theory can’t be proved, any more than you can prove that they are NOT intelligent, but if one believes that cells are intelligent and intelligence is linked to a brain, it is only logical to assume that cells have the equivalent of a brain. Albrecht-Bühler thinks the centrosome is the cell’s equivalent of the brain.

DAVID: I don't care what one hyperbolic scientist thinks. He has no consensus.

dhw: You said none of “my scientists” talks about the equivalent. I have named one. There is no theory that has a consensus – otherwise there would be no discussion. But your dismissal of “most scientists” as unthinking Darwinists, and of scientists who disagree with you over cellular intelligence as “hyperbolic”, casts a much darker shadow over yourself than over them. I hope these statements were merely the product of a bad day on the ranch.

DAVID: You are the one who is using a singular opinion and contort it into a possible fact. I have a whole bunch of ID folks with me at Uncommondescent.com.

dhw: Of course it’s a possible fact. You yourself have said that we cannot judge from the outside whether organisms are intelligent or not, and the chances are 50/50. If theories are not “possible facts”, they will disappear immediately. ID folks are with you on the need for design, but cellular intelligence does not in any way contradict the idea of design: it only contradicts your belief that every undabbled lifestyle, strategy, econiche and natural wonder was specially preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago, and every innovation took place in anticipation of and not in response to changing conditions. Belief in cellular intelligence is not a “singular opinion”, but you simply refuse to give any credence to the views of some scientists who have spent a lifetime studying cells.

Their odds of being right are 50/50 just like mine. We can only look at the cells and what they do.