bat wings and cellular intelligence (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 14, 2025, 13:31 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The whale series proves my point: a rather full story; but none for bats.

dhw: It proves MY point. Each discovery is a miracle in itself, and the whale series is EXCEPTIONALLY miraculous. It clearly demonstrates how species can pass through different developmental stages over millions of years, and so it’s not unreasonable to assume that there are countless species, variations and intermediate stages of which there are no miraculous fossils to be found.

DAVID: Yet to be found. Fossil search is very active, but according to Bechly most important finds have occurred.

You have kindly updated us on all the new important fossil finds month after month, but in any case, how can anyone possibly know what fossils have yet to be found???

DAVID: The intricacies of biochemical life require a designing mind as its source.

dhw: Or designing minds in the form of intelligent cell communities responding to the demands or opportunities arising from changing conditions. And it would be fair enough for the theist to argue that such designing minds must themselves have been designed. And it would be equally fair for atheists to claim that if designing minds must have been designed, who designed the designing mind you call God? Your answer is “first cause”, which proves absolutely nothing, since “first cause” consciousness is no more and no less incredible than first cause matter and energy producing consciousness.

DAVID: We understand your mind is cemented into agnosticism.

Agnosticism is open-minded: we don’t profess to know the truth, and so our vision is less clouded by prejudgements or, in your case, by what you WISH to believe. Your mind is cemented into theories which don’t even make sense to you. Why don’t you consider the arguments instead of telling me that I am an agnostic?

dhw: There are now over 1400 bat species worldwide. I presume you do not believe your God designed each one individually, and indeed on occasions you have accepted the possibility that he gave cells sufficient autonomous intelligence to make what would have been minor changes in response to different conditions. But still you refuse to consider the POSSIBILITY that their intelligence might extend to a gradual improvement leap by leap that would lead to the finished product we know today.
If you can imagine a small degree of autonomy, I still find it hard to understand why you can’t accept the POSSIBILITY of a large degree.

DAVID: There is no autonomy in organismal cells. They follow directions.

dhw: Your usual statement of your beliefs as if they were facts. Once more:

SHAPIRO: Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully […] They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision making capabilities. […] Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics etc.

dhw:There are plenty of experts in the field who agree with him.

DAVID: Show me.

Quite apart from predecessors like Margulis, McLintock and Bühler, you recently drew our attention to a book or article with contributions from scientists from different fields, all of whom supported the theory of cellular intelligence. Unfortunately, I didn’t note down the details, but even a very quick trawl of the Internet brings up books on the subject written by Michael Levin, Michael Denton, Patrick McMillen, Thomas R. Verny, William B. Miller. It’s still only a theory, but so is your belief that there is an omnipotent but inefficient God who takes all the decisions.