Cellular intelligence (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, January 31, 2022, 18:42 (1025 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: By your rule our brain is the endpoint of evolution. No matter how much we learn that is new, the brain stays the same by master complexification.

We are discussing whether evolutionary changes occur before or after changes in conditions – not what might or might not be an endpoint. The brain never stayed/stays the same....You have no evidence that complexification occurs in ANTICIPATION of the new tasks that are to be performed later, just as you have no evidence that speciation occurs IN ANTICIPATION of conditions that do not yet exist.

It all depends upon interpretation. A huge brain that appears barely used 310,000 years ago, that can easily accommodate all the new uses we have found over the time since it appeared, is obviously is ready for all that can be anticipated.

DAVID: Once again you turn to secondhand designing. I view God as never giving up tight control.

dhw: You still haven’t found a single example of evolutionary changes taking place in anticipation of future changes in conditions, and a possibly God-designed intelligence is not a “non-God” approach.

As above, our brain is the best obvious one I know.

Molecular binding controls.

DAVID: All in the eye of the beholders prejudice. All I see is intelligent design.

dhw: I also see intelligent design, and your prejudice lies in your assumption that your God would not design intelligent cells, but would prefer to do it all himself.

DAVID: I repeat: "Once again you turn to secondhand designing. I view God as never giving up tight control."

dhw: We both see intelligent design. Your rigid belief that your God preprogrammed or individually dabbled every single stage of every organ, organism, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder, solution to problems etc. and could not possibly have given cells the same autonomous ability he has given to sapiens to perceive and process information, communicate and take decisions, might be described as “in the eye of the beholder’s prejudice.” NB It remains a theory, however. I only ask you not to reject it, as you do, solely on the grounds that although it offers a logical explanation of life’s history, it conflicts with your own rigid belief.

A debate does not involve acceptance. I think your view is wrong.