Innovation and Speciation: aquatic mammals avoid bends (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, December 07, 2020, 19:14 (1229 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: His theory is an extrapolation from bacteria, nothing more. Other cells only have epigenetics. An unproven extension of theory.

dhw: His theory is consistent with the findings of notable scientists such as McLintock and Margulis, who firmly believed in cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Reread his British Royal Society paper:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0115 That address should work

dhw: For some reason, I can’t get onto it

Site given above. He never mentions intelligent cells!!! Only all the DNA changes we know:

"The intersections of cell fusion activities, horizontal DNA transfers and natural genetic engineering of Read–Write genomes provide a rich molecular and biological foundation for understanding how ecological disruptions can stimulate productive, often abrupt, evolutionary transformations."

"Considering potential interactions between dynamic ecological conditions and the biological engines of cell and genome variation raises important questions about control and specificity in evolutionary innovation. The years to come likely hold surprising lessons about how cell fusions, genome doublings, and natural genetic engineering may operate non-randomly to enhance the probabilities of evolutionary success."

dhw: Aquatic mammals

DAVID: Limited ability does not necessarily imply experimentation, just an alternate route to use.

dhw: My point is that it fits in very well with experimentation. If he was incapable of doing something one way, is it not logical that he would have tried another way? That’s experimentation. I don’t know why you think God’s limited abilities make him less human than a God who experiments.

My God knows exactly what He can do and never experiments.

dhw: Primate vision

DAVID: This is one system in organisms, not a whole new organism. He chose to evolve, remember?

dhw: He created a perfect eye system in one go, and directly created millions of other, perfectly functioning life forms etc., but apparently he was incapable of directly designing H. sapiens, and that is why he directly created all the others, though 99% of them had no connection with humans. I find this interpretation of God’s powers hard to follow.

I know. He decided to evolved, His usual practice

dhw: “Fine tuning of water” and “new extremophiles”

DAVID: Intelligent designing cells is God going to second-hand control of creation. I can't imagine my purposeful God doing that. Your intelligent cell approach is a way to minimize God and His real powers.

dhw: I honestly cannot see how your theory that God has limited powers, and therefore has to design life forms that have no connection with the life form he wants to design, does not minimize him, whereas a God who knows exactly what he wants – a free-for-all – and gets it is somehow diminished.

Same old humanized God. I don't know if He has any limitations. Proposed only for completeness of considerations

dhw: Sea turtles
DAVID: Great navigators but they make mistakes. Amazing migration that I think God designed as part of an oceanic ecosystem.

dhw: So your God can design a perfect eye system, but he can’t design a perfect navigation system, and I can't help wondering how his design of a turtle navigation system was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans".

Part of ecosystems. The turtles do quite well considering hey are not human.

New found plant defenses
DAVID: How cow peas signal an attack:

DAVID: I see no way that chance mutation or trial an error can produce this type of specific molecular response signaling. Only design fits.

dhw: Thank you for these lovely articles. Yes, one can only admire the manner in which the cell communities of plants as well as animals design their own defences. Of course if they didn’t, they wouldn’t survive.

I'm delighted God showed them how to do it.