David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, February 22, 2020, 10:27 (137 days ago) @ dhw

Once again I am combining different posts. This time I’m putting them on th Shapiro thread, since they all refer to cellular intelligence, which is the bedrock of his theory (and mine).

dhw: Delighted to see you acknowledging that even a single neuron acts like a tiny lone computer. Some people would say that just like bees and every other living organism, it acts like a tiny lone sentient, information-processing, communicating, decision-making being. And even you agree that this theory has a 50/50 chance of being correct, but you reckon 50/50 possibility = 100% impossibility.

DAVID: You are grasping at your usual straws to support a cell intelligence theory most scientists don't believe. Note today I enter a new layer of genome controls, a new aspect of RNA modification.

So 50/50 possible = 100% impossible.

DAVID: I wonder what A-B [Albrecht Buehler]thinks now since his research dates from 25-50 years ago.

dhw:He suggested that the centrosome was the equivalent of the brain. I suspect that if he had changed his mind, he would have said so. There are now plenty of scientists in the field who agree with him that cells are intelligent."The times, they are a-changin'."

DAVID: I assume he is long retired and the research I see is still about molecular reactions. Still all an outlier opinion, but to be fair Shapiro is mainline. Show me your 'plenty of scientists'.

You have asked me this before, and I referred you to the references and reading list on this website:
Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence

You immediately dismissed it because it was Wikipedia, but you can hardly dismiss the list of references, which = plenty of scientists. You might perhaps read the article too.

DAVID: [Albrecht-Bühler’s] defense of 'non-molecular' cell biology is all 30 years old with nothing since. Then he knew he was an odd ball. I have no idea how current ideas and findings have influenced him. Your use of Shapiro's brilliant work is much more to the point.

What makes you think his ideas are out of tune with current ideas or that his research is now invalid? You have quoted an article that focuses on information in DNA. (No need to repeat it here.) I have quoted scientists who focus on the intelligent behaviour of cells. I’m not denying that much of cellular behaviour is automatic, but I wonder how many of “your” scientists believe your God provided the first cells with information to control every single undabbled response to every single situation that would confront all the cell communities of the future.


QUOTE: "In addition to m6A, researchers have found about 150 other alterations to RNA. Klungland agrees that there’s a lot we don’t know, such as what actually controls these alterations.

quote:"Epigenetic changes in DNA are clearly influenced by the environment, but we do not know if this is the case with modifications in RNA," he says. “I wouldn't be surprised if the environment was also controlling RNA modification, but this is difficult to study.”

DAVID: All of the controls in the body are this precise, automatic, no cellular intelligence involved just following instructions from the layers of information in the genome through molecular reactions.

Please note my bold. We don’t know what controls the alterations. But you say you do. Of course they are precise. And the link with the environment is all-important to my own theory, which is that cells respond intelligently to changing conditions. The automatic side of things is that just as our legs and arms respond automatically to instructions from our brain, the components of cells/cell communities respond to instructions from the cellular equivalent of the brain. But we must not forget the rest of your theory, which is that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the very first cells with programmes for every single cellular response to all environmental changes, apart from those responses which he personally “dabbled”.

Under "Orphan genes": "We found that simple order is rampant everywhere in the genome. The propensity to make simple shapes that are stable is already there, waiting to be exposed. De novo gene birth is thus becoming less and less mysterious as we better understand molecular innovation."

DAVID: the bolds just an assumption based on hope and wishful thinking. Of course the useful orphans when useful were quickly expressed, but the study did not show why they should spontaneously appear from no antecedent DNA. True de novo is true de novo.

Yes, of course, any idea and/or observation which supports the inventiveness of cells is hope and wishful thinking to you.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum