New Miscellany 1 &:2: bio, evolution, intelligence, eco (General)

by dhw, Friday, May 09, 2025, 13:13 (9 hours, 26 minutes ago) @ dhw

Biochemical controls: maintaining a memory

DAVID: maintaining a memory involves maintaining a synapse all controlled by specific proteins, no thought involved by the proteins themselves.

dhw: Once they are established, the majority of activities within cellular communities (organisms) will be automatic. It’s only when new conditions require or allow new responses that cellular intelligence comes into play – and part of these responses will clearly be intelligent use of memory. The immune system is an obvious example.

DAVID: Not obvious at all. Immune responses are formulaic. Choose an enemy ligand, add a chemical killer and an antibiotic is produced.

Whereupon your intelligent bacteria sometimes find means of defence, and your unintelligent immune system has to unthinkingly produce a new antibiotic or leave it to humans to help out. We have discussed this many times before. If it’s that simple, how come humans have died in their millions from diseases such as influenza, malaria, AIDS etc, not to mention animal deaths from foot-and-mouth disease and bird flu? Are you blaming God for not providing a programme of antidotes that switch themselves on automatically? Or is it possible that cellular intelligence (including our own) is not powerful enough to devise antidotes? In time, though, immunity cells have built up what I believe you called a ”library” of responses, which cell memory may subsequently call on.

Fungus control

QUOTE: “Intestinal symbiotic fungi may be an untapped reservoir of possible therapeutic chemical compounds.”

DAVID: the same evolutionary system that dhw derides as causing 99.9$ unnecessary organisms, produced this helpful one. It is obvious others will be found as God designed helpful forms for human support.

dhw: I have never ever derided the evolutionary system! It is YOU who deride your God by insisting that he specially, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the single purpose you impose on him (us and our food). This has nothing whatsoever to do with a fungus which helps to protect mice against metabolic disease and might possibly have untapped potential for improving human health!

Not answered.

dhw: […] I see that you have not replied to my new miscellany post of yesterday. […]

DAVID: I checked it. This response is the one you wanted.

I’m relieved that you are OK, but you have ignored all the following subjects covered on my last “new miscellany” post. I’ll summarize the points that need answering, though it would help if you would read the arguments as well:

Evolution and intelligence

dhw: you refuse to recognize that dog-eat-dog = a free-for-all which DEMANDS the autonomous intelligence at both strategic and physical levels, which you keep rejecting.

DAVID: I said above all prey animals think, as can all predators. Not single cells in organisms. They fallow strict instructions for minor adjustments.

All life forms must protect themselves against predators and harmful environments and yet you insist that the possum could not have used its intelligence to devise its play-dead strategy, and the weaverbird could not have designed its nest. If you have changed your mind, and agree that they can think for themselves, please say so.

How bacteria control phages

QUOTE: Animal and bacterial cells use nucleotidyltransferase (NTase) enzymes to respond to viral infection and control major forms of immune signalling

DAVID: […] Note these are considered molecular guards against phage infection, no thought involved.

You have agreed many times that bacteria have autonomous intelligence. The article and the quote above tell us how both bacterial and animal cells USE molecules to defend themselves. Since when did “using” something mean the user can’t think?

Mind and cosmos

DAVID: The theory is we use His consciousness structure to form our consciousness.

How about putting it a different way: if he exists, he has provided our cells with consciousness? Doesn’t that make more sense?

Theoretical origin of life

DAVID: For the umpteenth time, God evolved us in a cumbersome way, but that was His choice. It was quite effective. We are here running the world.

dhw: We could also still be here running the world if he had WANTED the species you say he designed and culled: for example through a free-for-all (perhaps with occasional interventions […] Ah, but you “first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”” Why do you wish to believe in an inefficient designer?

eco-disaster

dhw: I’m arguing for a practical phasing out, geared to intensified research on alternatives. Destroying the world’s economic and social systems would be just as ruinous as continuing the practices that are currently destroying the environment.

DAVID: Fools' logic! Fossil fuels will never be stopped in use.

I really can’t see why it’s fool’s logic to advocate the practical approach above, and I’m afraid I don't have much faith in your gift of prophecy. “Never”? How about a hundred/thousand/ten thousand years from now (if humans are still around)?

NB These questions all revolve around your fixed beliefs, but they all allow for your God’s existence.