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

by dhw, Sunday, February 23, 2020, 08:45 (1733 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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

And so do all the scientists who believe in cellular intelligence and in some cases have spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.

DAVID: 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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence

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

You asked me to show you my “plenty of scientists”. I have done so.

DAVID: 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.

I think you said the article was written 30 years ago. But in any case, not being mainstream does not necessarily mean you are wrong. Plenty of scientists agree with him now, as shown above. Now please tell me who are the ID scientists that claim your God provided the first cells with programmes for every undabbled life form, natural wonder and 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. (dhw’s bold)

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.

DHW: 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.

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

Answered above. You pick on the automatic processes, and I pick on the response of cells when conditions change.

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.

DAVID: And it is your wishful thinking.

It is a theory, as is your own interpretation of cellular behaviour as being the result of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled action of cells throughout the history of life. I try to gauge the reasonableness of each theory, and in all honesty I must say I find your theory less credible than that of Albrecht-Bühler, McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro and “plenty of” others.