cellular intelligence (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 17, 2020, 17:43 (5 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I view multicellularity as a much more complex arrangement than single cells cooperating. That is a step on the way, just as Edicarans were multicellular but so much simpler than Cambrians.

dhw: What else is multicellularity if it is not single cells cooperating? The increasing complexity would be the result of millions and millions of years during which cells increased their range of activity and knowledge as they met with new conditions.

The cooperation in multicellularity is each cell in each organ working for a common purpose, each organ working with the other organs for common purpose. The cells are trapped in a network of controls. Cell committees don't speciate.

[…]
DAVID: There is no question God gave organisms the ability to adapt to changing conditions, but that does not mean they could self-speciate.

dhw: Do you agree, then, that adaptation is an autonomous mechanism, or do you think your God pre-planned every adaptation 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to dabble each one? You are quite right that adaptation is not the same as speciation, but it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between the two (e.g. pre-whales adapting to marine life, with legs giving way to fins). The theory therefore remains feasible: if there is a mechanism for cells autonomously restructuring themselves to make minor changes, maybe they were able to make major changes as well.

You can have that 'maybe' approach. I think only a designer can speciate


DAVID: I don't know how God ran the process of evolution, as you note, but my thoughts are not unreasonable.

dhw: What is unreasonable is (a) your total rejection of what you agree is a 50/50 chance (cellular intelligence), and (b) your whole anthropocentric theory of evolution (= direct design) as dissected on various threads.

I don't reject that cells act intelligently. The evidence for the need for design is overwhelming and keeps you agnostic.


DAVID: You think cells are intelligent. How did they develop intelligence? It seems I always propose theories and you poke holes. Do you have a solid theory for cell intelligence source?

dhw: You know perfectly well that nobody has a "solid" theory about any of our subjects, but in this particular one, God is a possible source. However, we are not arguing here about the source! We are arguing about the concept of cellular intelligence, whether designed by God or not. Yes, I poke holes in your theories as you do in mine, but there is one great difference between us: your theories are fixed beliefs, whereas mine are alternatives but not fixed beliefs. However, in the case of the intelligent cell, I must confess I do find it vastly more credible than your fixed belief that every single development and natural wonder in the history of life on Earth was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or was personally dabbled by your God as “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

You only fixed belief is design keeps you agnostic.

X
DAVID: Shapiro tells us bacteria can edit their genome. Great example. Which I think is a God=given attribute God gave them.

dhw: Wonderful. If a single cell can edit its genome, it makes perfect sense to assume that lots of cells can edit their genome. Hence the birth of the intelligent cell community and a simple explanation for how evolution works: every cell community edits its genome in order to adapt to or exploit changing conditions, as exemplified by single-celled bacteria.

The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells simply cogs in parts of constructive activities. The only way change occurs is change in the genome of germ cells. Bacteria reproduce by simply splitting, which makes them in full control of any change, and so far Lenski's E. coli are still E. coli after enormous numbers of generations.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum