Cellular intelligence (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, February 05, 2022, 08:27 (1020 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: So you have a theory that brains expand by doing it themselves, and I have God, the designer.

dhw: Why have you changed the subject? You claim that your God expands brains before any expansion is needed, and he designs life forms before the new conditions exist in which they are to live. I propose that brains expand IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and species evolve IN RESPONSE to new conditions. And there is no “overexpansion” of brains, because all the cells are used for complexification until a new major requirement demands additional cells. You know perfectly well that my theory allows for your God as the designer of the mechanisms for complexification and expansion, and you have already agreed that complexification takes place without his intervention, so why shouldn’t expansion do the same? If he can design cells to establish their own connections, why should it be impossible for him to enable them to add to their numbers and to enable the skull cells to adjust accordingly?

DAVID: Back to the past: The design of the new bony skull must allow the new bigger brain to have enough room in the skull brain pan cavity, and somehow the Mother's bony pelvis must adjust its birth canal size to the new bigger skull. All must be coordinated simultaneously. How do the disparate cells communicate through time and space, telepathy? Mother and baby are separate individuals as is Dad's DNA input in to the fertilized egg.

You have ignored the whole of my entry above, including the questions, and as usual, tried to change the subject. You raised exactly the same issue in almost exactly the same words, even down to the “telepathy” sneer, about 10 days ago. I gave you a complete answer in my post of January 25th on this thread. This whole discussion about the brain is part of your desperate attempt to prove your theory that speciation occurs in anticipation of changing conditions – a theory which you yourself have demolished in post after post, the latest being under the heading of “Mass extinctions relate to volcanos”.

Fire spot

dhw: You have told us repeatedly that the new brain went unused for thousands of years. That was the whole point of your theory that it was “overexpanded”, with God giving us extra cells in anticipation of later requirements. The new brain clearly did not go unused if it was already solving such problems.

DAVID: The usual distortion of what has been presented. A new sized, more complex brain obviously can be used in new ways immediately. You are conflating expected future use, with no immediate use. Totally illogical. The sapiens brain from 310,000 years ago is now fully used, starting with new uses 310,000 years ago. Slicing and dicing as usual.

What “expected future use” are you talking about? And what on earth do you mean by “fully used”? Are you telling us that 310,000 years ago your God looked into his crystal ball and provided humans with cells that would not be used (= overexpansion) until we invented computers and rockets and the theory of relativity? My point is that ALL the cells were used, and new ideas, requirements etc. resulted in the SAME CELLS COMPLEXIFYING. Cells do not complexify in anticipation of new requirements, and complexification is now so efficient that some cells which were previously in use became redundant – hence shrinkage. Why do you think the brain is now “fully” used? Do you really believe that even a hundred years from now, humans will have stopped coming up with new ideas etc. that result in new complexifications? In brief: There was no overexpansion, all cells were used 310,000 years ago and then complexified - and still do - to cope with "future uses", you have agreed that complexification takes place without divine intervention, and the brain is not now “fully used” unless you think humankind is about to disappear.

Transferred from “More Miscellany”:

dhw: Yep, a molecule with a mind of its own would certainly be a brilliant design. Why do you assume that a life form that acts intelligently (as if it has a mind of its own) is not intelligent and does not have a mind of its own?

DAVID: 'We cannot agree if the possible interpretations from the outside of cells are 50/50. From inside the cell, all studies show automaticity.

dhw: You must be joking. We can only draw conclusions from the behaviour of cells – i.e. we are outside them and observing them from the outside. Or are you telling me you know of a scientist who turned himself into a cell, found himself obeying God's instructions, and then came back to tell us all about it?

DAVID: Don't you realize all the intracellular molecular reaction studies are really intracellular?

How on earth does that obvious fact mean that your scientists can study cells from the inside? They can only observe cellular behaviour (which includes molecular behaviour) from the outside, and many scientists have published studies which suggest intelligence, not automaticity (though I’d better repeat that SOME behaviour has to be automatic to preserve the status quo, and intelligence only comes into play when cells must change in response to new conditions.)