New Miscellany2: intelligence, savannah, Cambrian, origins (General)

by dhw, Thursday, March 27, 2025, 11:52 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

More about intelligence

dhw: […] You are willing to accept that bacteria have their own autonomous form of intelligence, but you refuse to believe that the cell communities which fight them may also have autonomy. And the battle for survival is not confined to competition between organisms; it also encompasses the battle between organisms and environmental conditions. […] This is the essence of Shapiro’s theory of evolution: “cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly….Evolutionary novelty arises….as a result of cellular self-modification…” Only a theory, of course, but it makes perfect sense. And it should present no problem for a theist, since it allows for God as the designer of the autonomously intelligent cell.

DAVID: Cells are built to have an enormous degree of automatic adaptability to changing circumstances.

You seem to think that by inserting the word “automatic” you have proved that Shapiro is wrong, and therefore the “enormous” range of adaptations, strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. can only be the result of your God’s personal dabbles or his 3.8 billion-year-old instructions. I must confess that given the choice between these two theories (we both reject Darwin’s theory that new species and organs stem from chance mutations), I would find Shapiro’s vastly more convincing, bearing in mind the possibility that your God is the inventor of the intelligent cell.

The savannah theory

DAVID: God did it is just as valid as the savannah theory.

dhw: So has your God theory been “diluted” by the new findings?

DAVID: No. Why did you ask? The two theories are at two different levels of thought.

The two theories are meant to explain what caused our ancestors to descend from the trees. You claim that the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory. I say the new findings are irrelevant to that unknown first cause. You agree. So in what way do the new findings support your theory that your God operated on a group or groups of tree-dwellers’ legs and pelvises (and possibly brains) and then told them to descend from the trees?

The Cambrian

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...

QUOT0E: "Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

dhw: […] […] it’s good to see that you accept not only the ability of extremophiles to modify themselves, but also that of the ancestors of all animal life today, which would include ourselves. The changes enabling these life forms to survive would have had to be very rapid, or they could not have survived. So for once you now you have “a logical set of reasons” for the Cambrian Explosion. […]

DAVID: I never agreed with them!!! As you know, in my fashion, I present all sorts of views.

“For once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms” sounds like agreement to me. But that was before I pointed out to you that they were talking about
the Cambrian.

Theoretical origin of life: soda lakes

QUOTE: "The origin of life could therefore be closely linked to the special environment of large soda lakes, which, due to their geological setting and phosphorus balance, provided ideal conditions for prebiotic chemistry. This new theory helps to solve another piece of the puzzle of the origin of life on Earth," says Walton.

“The origin of life could be closely linked….” would only help to solve the mystery if it WAS closely linked. Every week we read about sensational new discoveries that will somehow solve various mysteries but somehow don’t actually do so. (See all the articles about the origin of sapiens which actually tell us nothing about the origin of sapiens.)

DAVID: a new and interesting approach. Land-based fossils do not support the idea. I still favor deep sea vents.

I thought it was generally agreed that life began in the water. In that case, how would land-based fossils support either theory?

The brain’s cleaning fluid

DAVID: the brain floats in a liquid which is a very good way to protect it from blows to the skull. The CSF must pick up waste and remove it. We still don't know how. Such a intricate system must be designed.

It’s worth remembering that these experiments are carried out on mice, offering yet more proof that the human brain has evolved from earlier brains, as opposed to “de novo” creation.