Cellular intelligence (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, February 18, 2022, 16:43 (798 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My theory is an amalgam of sources. ID gives me the design backing. Adler adds humans as an endpoint.

dhw: We needn’t dwell on the now defunct theory that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, which received backing from nobody, but we are still left with your theory that all cellular behaviour is automatic and predetermined by God’s instructions. This is tantamount to saying that all of evolution is dictated by God’s instructions. It’s another major issue, since it leads us back to the “facetious “ questions on the thread concerning your theory of evolution.

Why can't you accept the idea that God speciates, even from your iffy God? Evolution needs a designer, and to that extent, a designing mind is necessary. We won't call it God to proceed.

DAVID: It is rational to see the possibility of innate cellular intelligence, but how cells could possibly cause future design as well as all their obvious automatic activity is an extrapolation beyond rational belief.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, they do not “cause future design”. They respond to present needs or opportunities. Once they have created a successful design, then of course it will remain as it is until the next change in conditions either kills them off or makes them adapt or allows them to innovate. Their automatic activities are what enable them to remain stable as species.

DAVID: This comment is simply survival of the species leading to new speciation. Pure Darwin.

dhw: You have agreed that the changes that lead to speciation are all associated with the purpose of improving chances of survival. You seem to think that the very mention of the word “Darwin” invalidates any argument against your own theory, which is that your God makes all these changes before they are needed (i.e. in anticipation of the future). This in spite of the fact that in your analysis of the Cambrian explosion, you agree that oxygen came first, because if the species had been designed before the oxygen was there, it could not have survived. I maintain that this principle applies to all speciation. Changes first, and speciation is in response to those changes. This argument removes your objection that cells can’t design for the future, because cells don’t do so – they design responses to present conditions. But of course so long as those conditions continue unchanged, the new species will have a future (i.e. will survive).

Don't you realize or recognize your return to pure Darwinism? Oxygen is simply an element required to be present for further evolution to occur. We are discussing how biological organisms can be evolved, so physical conditions must allow evolution, but do not drive evolution.

Immunity system explaining B cells

dhw: Firstly, you said “most scientists I know”. I presume you know of scientists who are not ID-ers. Secondly, once again you dismiss my question as facetious. Why? You keep repeating over and over again that cells obey your God’s instructions. That is your explanation of their automaticity! I keep repeating that many activities have to be automatic to preserve the status quo, but other activities require intelligent reactions to new situations. The scientists you quote make no reference whatsoever to the question of HOW cells know what to do.

DAVID: Yes they do, giving an answer you seem to hate: information in their genome drives all living cell activity. Information from a designing mind.

dhw: We are not talking about “information”, but even if we were, do all the scientists you know say that the information came from a "designing mind"? We are actually talking specifically about instructions, and so my question is: do all the scientists you know tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions?

Simply, yes! Among all IDers. But I constantly present articles from others who have no reason to discuss a designer.