Miscellaneous (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 04, 2024, 12:18 (13 hours, 16 minutes ago) @ David Turell

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

dhw: I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.

DAVID: […] renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require […]

dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.

DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.

dhw: Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?

DAVID: No.

So when people die from renal or liver failure, it’s because your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s instructions are inadequate. All part of his general inefficiency. I get it.

Keeping the brain clean

QUOTE: "It's beautiful to imagine that changing metabolism results in this symphony of molecules cooperating together to improve brain function.'"

DAVID: this adds a whole new approach to protecting the brain. This is certainly a model for design.

Yet another sensational new discovery. I love the emphasis on molecular cooperation which figures so regularly in these articles, as does the fact that so much research is done on mice, which evolved millions and millions of years before we did. Our brains may be unique in their complexity, but clearly they are the product of evolutionary development. Design? Yes indeed. But what conducts the “symphony”? Back we go to our theories: Darwin’s random mutations, David’s divine dabbles or 3.8 billion-years-old instructions, or Shapiro’s intelligent cells (possibly designed by David’s God)?

Theoretical origin of life

QUOTE: "Our new research adds to a small but growing body of evidence that ancient versions of these hot springs could have played a pivotal role in the emergence of life on Earth. This helps bridge the gap between competing hypotheses regarding where life could have emerged.”

I think the emphasis here should be on “could have played” and “where life could have emerged”. This tells us nothing about the mystery of HOW life emerged. We know that certain ingredients were necessary, and we know where these ingredients may be found, but we are not even one tiny step closer to discovering how all the ingredients were assembled and transformed from the inanimate to the animate.