More "miscellany" PART TWO (General)

by dhw, Monday, October 10, 2022, 09:25 (535 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

Plant immunity

This discussion began with conifers protecting themselves against a particular beetle, and you asked if the defence was developed naturally or by God. I proposed a possible combination: cellular intelligence, which in turn may have been designed by your God. This seemed to me less far-fetched than your theory that your God designed “every single DNA modification (not to mention ecosystem, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc.) in the history of life.” Your response to this was: “ And where did all that needed information come from?” From then on, we have been sidetracked into a discussion on “information”, which is a term I find irritatingly vague (as in the absurd description on an earlier thread: “Information as the source of life”), so I asked what sort of information you meant.

DAVID: When B & T cells do their work, they learn new enemies by encoding that information into their DNA. Their developing library of new antibodies is new information!!! In speciation new animals are made with new information in their DNA. Both immunity and speciation involve new information in DNA code. Stop denying the role of information.

I’m reluctant to play this game, especially with an expert on information theory, but in answer to your original question, I would say that the new information about new enemies comes from the new enemies. I would propose that the new information about new antibodies comes from the responses of intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) cooperating in designing ways to defeat the new enemies. The new information for speciation comes from the responses of existing organisms to new conditions. Meanwhile, I still find it difficult to believe that your God specially designed the conifer’s defences against the beetle, along with every single DNA modification, ecosystem etc. in life’s history – especially when you tell us that all these changes were necessary for him to design his one and only goal, which was us and our food.

Cambrian: early brain

DAVID: To do the 410,000-year gap required identifying all Ediacaran and Cambrian fossils in sediment studied. You want to invent missing fossils?

dhw: I am merely pointing out (a) that new fossils are being discovered all the time, and (b) each one is a miracle in itself, since dead bodies are unlikely to remain intact for hundreds of millions of years. Why do you assume that there will be no more discoveries in the future?

DAVID: New fossils, yes. Smaller gap, no. You can wish for magic fossils to close the gap.

I’m not wishing for anything. I just cannot assume as you do that in, say, a thousand years’ time, there will be no more discoveries. As it is, the discovery below is already a closure of the gap.

Immortal bacteria (spores)

QUOTE: "The way spores process information is similar to how neurons operate in our brain."

DAVID: did this develop in natural evolution by trial and error? A highly complex mechanism of this sort imitating neurons demands it be designed. It is by definition, irreducibly complex.

dhw: This is mind-boggling. Once again, huge thanks for passing it on. I have no answer to the design argument, but I would gently quibble over the imitation, which is surely the other way round. Our brain neurons, like every other type of cell, are descended from bacteria, and I would see this article as evidence for common descent. [...] [dhw’s bold]

DAVID: Yes, design wins.

dhw: So does the theory of common descent.

DAVID: Not really:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-michael-behe-in-world-...
Not by natural processes; Behe explains

dhw: No need to repeat this or the article about the anthropic principle. They both put the case for design as opposed to chance, which I keep telling you I accept as perfectly logical. There is not a word against the theory of common descent, despite the wording of the link. The theories are not incompatible.

DAVID: Naturally occurring common descent doesn't exist.

What a shame that we’ve left our immortal bacteria behind, as they are a newly discovered and important link in the chain of common descent. Ah well...The meaning of the word “natural”, like that of “information”, is gradually becoming blurred. I know you believe your God engineered every single change in every single organism, and we both reject the theory that speciation was caused by random mutations. Would you call common descent through cellular intelligence, possibly designed by your God, “natural” or “unnatural”?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum