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

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 22, 2020, 18:33 (220 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: So 50/50 possible = 100% impossible.

Only a statistical fact. Only one is 100%. I have my well-thought-out logical position.

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'.

dhw: You have asked me this before, and I referred you to the references and reading list on this website:
Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia

dhw: 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.

I agree the article shows remarkable purposeful activity, all of which can be automatically programmed

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.

dhw: 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.

I presented that A-B noted that he was not mainstream in his article. My theory is based on the contributions of many ID scientists

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.

I remind you, your kidneys maintain precise sodium levels, all though automatic molecular reactions

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.

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

And it is your wishful thinking.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum