New Miscellany 2: fossils, Shapiro, HARs & chirality (General)

by dhw, Friday, May 16, 2025, 08:54 (4 days ago) @ dhw

Bat wings and cellular intelligence reduced here to fossils

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

dhw: 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 not been found???

DAVID: What is found now fills gaps in the current record as Bechly pointed out.

An excellent observation. And no doubt what will be found in the future will continue to fill gaps in the record. But what has not been found will leave the gaps unfilled.

Shapiro

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I've read Denton without finding any mention of Shapiro.

dhw: Sorry, my comment above was badly phrased. I only meant that there are plenty of scientists who agree that cells are autonomously intelligent. I find it quite shocking that your ID-ers as well as some current champions of CI seem to ignore Shapiro. But I’ve no idea whether the authors I’ve listed give Shapiro due credit for getting there before them.

DAVID: You seize on Shapiro since he offers some support for your beloved cell intelligence theory. Shapiro never moved on to test non-bacterial living cells for 'intelligence'. Why? Ran out of time? He did not leave an ongoing research group.

It is Shapiro’s theory, not mine, and it makes perfect sense to me. You asked me who else supports/supported the theory of cellular intelligence, and I have given you a list. You have now joined them (see your agreement in Part 1), so please stop pretending that the theory has no support from other scientists.

Human evolution: HARs

DAVID: HAR's make us human:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09002-1

QUOTES: Here, using genome-edited mouse (Mus musculus, Mm) and primate models, we demonstrated that human (Homo sapiens, Hs) HARE5 fine-tunes cortical development and connectivity by controlling the proliferative and neurogenic capacities of neural progenitor cells.

Using genome-edited human and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes, Pt) neural progenitor cells and cortical organoids, we showed that four human-specific variants of Hs-HARE5 drive increased enhancer activity that promotes progenitor proliferation.

DAVID: It is not clear why HAR's should exist unless we assume God as our designer. Our brain is the most unusual item in the universe.

I shan’t pretend that I understand any of this, but the fact that these conclusions have been reached through studying the HARs of mouse and primate models, and human HARs “fine-tune” development and “increase” activity, suggests to me that our HARs have evolved from those of our fellow mammals. The difference between their capabilities is one of degree. And it’s not clear why ANY live organ or organism should exist – though I agree that our brain is special.

Chirality

DAVID: chirality seems to be the key to everything. That specificity seems designed. Since both handedness types are naturally available why does biochemistry make such choices?
DAVID: Not answered.

As with the HARS article, this one is way beyond my comprehension – as I’m sure you knew when you posted it - and I am totally incapable of giving you an answer. But how right-handed/left-handed particles can be the key to the origin of life, the mechanisms of evolution, the nature of God if he exists, the origin and nature of consciousness, dualism versus materialism, theodicy etc. is quite simply beyond me. Please tell us your answer.
However, if your answer is unequivocally that chirality proves the existence of your God, perhaps you can also explain to me why so many scientists remain atheists. According to one website:

"One fact that concerns some Christians and elates some atheists is that 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most elite scientific organizations in the United States, do not believe in God."
Another offers a more general poll:
"30–37% of scientists identify as non-believers or atheists, and an additional 10–28% as agnostic (with wide geographical differences)."

If all these scientific studies prove the existence of your God, please explain why so many scientists do not believe in God.

PS Neither of these articles mentions God.