Cellular intelligence (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, February 21, 2022, 11:29 (1004 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Please recognize the difference I have stated and noted yesterday. Conditions becoming ripe for new evolution is not the process of evolution itself, which is a biological response to what is available to use.

dhw: Thank you for telling me what I have been telling you for months: speciation is a response to new conditions and does not take place in anticipation of them! I don’t know where you’ve picked up the idea that anyone believes new conditions mean the process of evolution! As I wrote in my last post: "There couldn’t be any evolution if there were no organisms around to use it [the oxygen], or if the organisms didn’t have the means to adapt to or exploit the new conditions."

DAVID: That does not explain our giant, capable brain arriving so far in advance of its massive use today.

First of all, our giant brain is the product of a step-by-step increase in brain size. It is not giant by comparison with late erectus, and it is actually smaller than Neanderthal. All inventions arrive in advance of their future!!! Evolution entails the arrival of something new which will then continue to function into its future until/unless conditions demand or allow change. I suggest that in the same way, all past brains arrived and then complexified and then expanded in response to new conditions, while sapiens’ brain responds to new conditions by complexifying but not expanding. As you have agreed, the process of evolution is a response to new conditions, not an anticipation of them.

DAVID: I don't know how you interpret my views that way? God prepares species for new lifestyles.

But according to your own theory, he does not produce the species in anticipation of the new conditions that will require or allow new lifestyles. The new conditions (e.g. oxygen) must come first. You have just said so, quoted above: evolution “is a biological response to what is available to use”.

Immunity system explaining B cells

dhw: ...my question is: do all the scientists you know tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions?

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

dhw: So all ID-ers believe God issued instructions for all cellular behaviour, though they never mention God, but it’s presumably possible that there are other scientists who don’t believe this, only they don’t count because you don’t know them. Got it!

DAVID: I do read many articles by non-IDers. Of course I offer comments sowing how the findings fit design.

dhw: Let me help you: your answer to my question whether all the scientists you know “tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions” should be “no”!

DAVID: Word game playing. All scientists are not IDers. I follow all.

I have found the original quote, and I exaggerated slightly, for which I apologize. You wrote: “…immunity is seen as automatic by most scientists I know.” You did not say “all”. However, it makes little difference to my scepticism, because I very much doubt whether even the majority of your known scientists would declare that cellular behaviour is governed by “God’s instructions” – this being your explanation for the “automatic” behaviour of cells, even when they are called upon to absorb and process new information, communicate with other cells, and take decisions to deal with new problems.