New Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Monday, January 27, 2025, 09:25 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed.

dhw: Perhaps you will tell us how you and the author know how long life normally takes to appear.

DAVID: You are in lala land. There are fossils of ancient life at 3.8 billion year ago and suggestive fossils at 4.1, with the Earth formed at 4.5. At 4.1 all of the necessary factors were in place for life to start as the fossils show. You are corrupted with the idea fossils have birthdays. How life starts is totally unknown. Where is unknown. When is unknown.

dhw: Thank you for this summary of what is known and what is unknown. It is the unknown factors which show precisely why you and the author are “in lala land” when you claim that the time taken for life to appear on Earth was “surprisingly short”. It could only have been surprisingly short (you say “how quickly” it appeared) if you already knew how long it normally takes for life to appear anywhere. You don’t.

DAVID: You are complaining about an impossible piece of knowledge. We only can show when life appeared, and since we do not know how it happened, when it started to form is unknown. It appeared right after the hellish bombardment period on Earth so it had a short time of formation.

It is you who claim to have an impossible piece of knowledge. We have no criteria by which to judge what constitutes a short or a long period of formation, since the only formation of life we know about is our own! If your figures (and mine) are correct, it took 40,000,000 years for life to appear. Short in comparison to what?

T-cells help gut immunity

dhw: The whole article exemplifies the manner in which cells can transform themselves in response to different requirements, and cooperate with other cells within their community. Cells “instructing” other cells as and when necessary suggests to me (as it does to many experts in the field) that cells have the autonomous ability to absorb and process information and take their own decisions on how to use it. The possible origin of this form of intelligence is, of course, an open question, and I for one can quite understand the view that it would require a designer God to create such a mechanism. (David’s bold)

DAVID: I agree.

dhw: This should be a red letter day, as you have hitherto been so resolutely opposed to the concept of cellular intelligence. I’ll hold onto your agreement while it lasts.

DAVID: I agreed to your final comment above now bolded as it covers your God designer conclusion. It explains all of the preceding discussion you offer.

dhw: God as designer is not a conclusion but a rational possibility. In your original response, you did not bold the final comment. However, I think there is still hope that you will also come round to the possibility that cells/cell communities have autonomous intelligence that enables them to make their own designs and decisions. After all, on the “balance of nature” thread, you have frequently accepted that our fellow creatures do have it (e.g. all birds except weavers), and we and they are all made of cell communities cooperating with other cell communities!

DAVID: The cell communities are programmed to do that communication.

What is the “programme”? One might say that they are “programmed” to communicate, just as we are: i.e. they were given the intelligence and means with which to communicate, but what they communicate and what decisions they take are the product of that autonomous intelligence. Or do you really believe they have all been programmed with every single message they give and receive, and with every decision they take in response to every situation they will meet for the whole history of life?