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

by dhw, Saturday, May 17, 2025, 08:28 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

Bat wings and cellular intelligence reduced here to fossils

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.

DAVID: Defined gaps do not need filling to understand the evolutionary tale.

That depends on your understanding of the evolutionary tale. You insist that defined gaps can never be filled, which proves that the evolutionary tale includes both common descent and “de novo” creation. Others may suggest that enough gaps have been filled to demonstrate the truth of common descent, and we cannot expect every defined gap to be filled, since fossils are so rare, although each new find confirms common descent.

Shapiro

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.

dhw: 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. So please stop pretending that the theory has no support from other scientists.

DAVID: No one is following up on his work.

I have no idea how many of the authors I listed refer to his work, but it makes no difference: the theory of cellular intelligence is alive and kicking in the scientific world.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Wow. This moment should be enshrined.

I have never ever questioned the specialness of our brain. Do you agree with me that the article lays emphasis on the fact that our brain is a development of former brains, and that it’s not clear why ANY live organ or organism should exist?

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.

dhw: 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.

You have not given us your answer.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Open or closed minded to the evidence is the reason.

Do you regard your own mind as open or closed?