Cambrian Explosion, Chinese style (Introduction)
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 15:10 (4896 days ago)
It turns out the Cambrian shales in China are revealing better preserved fossils, and some new species when compared to the Burgess shales in Canada. this is an interview with Paul Chien, a major researcher. Note specifically the Yunnanzoon, first vertebrate ever to appear, de novo!-http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9701/chien.html
Cambrian Explosion, Chinese style
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 02, 2011, 11:05 (4893 days ago) @ David Turell
Pretty damning for Darwin. However, it does jive with a recent post here regarding genetic degradation over time.
Cambrian Explosion, Chinese style
by David Turell , Saturday, July 02, 2011, 15:12 (4893 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Pretty damning for Darwin. However, it does jive with a recent post here regarding genetic degradation over time.-Try this for damning:--http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/07/01/modern_optics_in_the_eyes_of_an_early_ca
Cambrian Explosion, Chinese style
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, July 02, 2011, 15:45 (4893 days ago) @ David Turell
It turns out the Cambrian shales in China are revealing better preserved fossils, and some new species when compared to the Burgess shales in Canada. this is an interview with Paul Chien, a major researcher. Note specifically the Yunnanzoon, first vertebrate ever to appear, de novo! > > http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9701/chien.html-First time I've heard that... an assertion that we started out with tons of creatures and it funneled to a few. It's certainly a different way of looking at things.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Cambrian Explosion, Chinese style
by David Turell , Saturday, July 02, 2011, 17:44 (4893 days ago) @ xeno6696
It turns out the Cambrian shales in China are revealing better preserved fossils, and some new species when compared to the Burgess shales in Canada. this is an interview with Paul Chien, a major researcher. Note specifically the Yunnanzoon, first vertebrate ever to appear, de novo! > > > > http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9701/chien.html > > First time I've heard that... an assertion that we started out with tons of creatures and it funneled to a few. It's certainly a different way of looking at things.-Covered in my book. There were oveer 50+ phyla developed, only 37 now.
Cambrian Explosion; the Gap
by David Turell , Friday, November 25, 2011, 05:35 (4748 days ago) @ David Turell
How did it happen? The huge gap, over 220 million years of very little new development. So let Darwinists invent a new theory. Give the lack of progress a new name and wa-la, the gap is all explained away. Darwin twisted thinking at its best:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6059/1091.abstract
or at its worst.
Cambrian Explosion; the Gap
by dhw, Friday, November 25, 2011, 15:47 (4747 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: How did it happen? The huge gap, over 220 million years of very little new development. So let Darwinists invent a new theory. Give the lack of progress a new name and wa-la, the gap is all explained away. Darwin twisted thinking at its best:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6059/1091.abstract
or at its worst.
One has to subscribe to get the full article, but the summary contains the following: “We argue that this diversification involved new forms of developmental regulation, as well as innovations in networks of ecological interaction within the context of permissive environmental circumstances.†‘Permissive’ sounds pretty licentious to me! I don’t know why the authors distinguish between ecological and environmental, but isn’t this yet another indication that epigenetics may be the key mechanism for evolution – interaction between organisms and their environment leading to innovation and hence diversification?
Of course I don’t know what the rest of the article says, but if this is the general gist, Darwinists don’t need to invent a new theory – they only need to jettison gradualism, and I think many already have.
Thank you, David, for a wide range of interesting articles - too numerous to comment on individually.
Cambrian Explosion; the rogues gallery
by David Turell , Saturday, December 17, 2011, 00:18 (4726 days ago) @ dhw
Pictures of many, many of the complex forms, and some simple ones:
http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/fossil-gallery/list-species.php
Cambrian Explosion; the great unconformity
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 19:01 (4602 days ago) @ David Turell
Another tortured explanation of rhte Cambrian Explosion:-http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7394/full/nature10969.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120419
Cambrian Explosion; the great unconformity
by David Turell , Monday, April 30, 2012, 16:27 (4590 days ago) @ David Turell
Another tortured explanation of the Cambrian Explosion: > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7394/full/nature10969.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-2... version of this theory. I've actually touched the great unconformity in the Grand canyon during a lecture by a recognized world expert on Canyon geology who was rafting with us. 750 million years of rock is absent, but is present in other parts of the world to let us recognize the absence in the canyon. The sediment formation in the cambrian as a result may offer a substrate for the development of the cambrian organisms, but the drive for the changes came from the genomes, not the sediment. -http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418131429.htm
Cambrian Explosion; the great unconformity
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, May 01, 2012, 03:35 (4590 days ago) @ David Turell
Another tortured explanation of the Cambrian Explosion: > > > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7394/full/nature10969.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-2... > Another version of this theory. I've actually touched the great unconformity in the Grand canyon during a lecture by a recognized world expert on Canyon geology who was rafting with us. 750 million years of rock is absent, but is present in other parts of the world to let us recognize the absence in the canyon. The sediment formation in the cambrian as a result may offer a substrate for the development of the cambrian organisms, but the drive for the changes came from the genomes, not the sediment. > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418131429.htm-I won't let you be the only one to remark about this. -Good find!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Cambrian Explosion; the great unconformity
by dhw, Tuesday, May 01, 2012, 16:57 (4589 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Another version of this theory. I've actually touched the great unconformity in the Grand canyon during a lecture by a recognized world expert on Canyon geology who was rafting with us. 750 million years of rock is absent, but is present in other parts of the world to let us recognize the absence in the canyon. The sediment formation in the cambrian as a result may offer a substrate for the development of the cambrian organisms, but the drive for the changes came from the genomes, not the sediment. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418131429.htm-These theories are certainly coming in thick and fast. Again, I was struck by a particular observation:-"It's likely biomineralization didn't evolve for something, it evolved in response to something ... in this case, changing seawater chemistry driving the formation of the Great Unconformity." Yet again, as in the brilliant Shapiro article and in previous Cambrian theories concerning the increase in oxygen, the emphasis seems to be on innovation springing from organisms responding to environmental influences (as opposed to Darwin's random mutations being tested by the environment). I'm also increasingly attracted to the idea that gaps in the fossil record are in themselves informative. Maybe they aren't gaps at all. Maybe the old adage 'Natura non facit saltum' is in the process of being disproved. After all, innovations can only take place in individual living organisms, and if they don't work, the organisms probably won't survive.
Cambrian Explosion; the Gap
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 17:55 (4050 days ago) @ dhw
A new Chinese fossil has accentuated the gap in evolution. this fissil has a demonstrated brain and nevous system, two sets of eyes and is the ancestor of modern spiders. Appears out of nowhere are usual with the Cambrian. Nervous tissue is the most specialized to be developed. This is a full blown animal with all the modern parts, and no precursors in previous geologic periods.:-http://www.livescience.com/40474-ancient-mega-clawed-creature-fossilized-brain.html
Cambrian Explosion; is real
by David Turell , Monday, June 17, 2013, 14:49 (4177 days ago) @ David Turell
There are no precursors. Ediacarans may have been land forms. Cambrians are all developed in the ocean.-http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/5213/ediacarans-on-land -20 million years with these forms, and then the explosion.-Darwin himself very honestly: "Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures... "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer... the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence beneath the Upper Cambrian formations of vast piles of strata rich in fossils is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more it has invariably suffered extreme denudation and metamorphism. "The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." —Chapter IX, "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record," On the Origin of Species, fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381.
Cambrian Explosion, New discoveries
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 27, 2013, 19:38 (4287 days ago) @ David Turell
A new shale area in China is providing a great number of new fossils from 520 million years ago. Early nerves, feeding legs:-http://phys.org/news/2013-02-limbs-nervous-earth-earliest-animals.html
Cambrian Explosion, is real
by David Turell , Thursday, June 27, 2013, 02:21 (4168 days ago) @ David Turell
The pre-cambrian flora have no explanation for the Cambrian. Red in tooth and claw arrives in the Cambrian. No claws or teeth in prior periods. Darwin has no explanation except a paucity of fossil record. That record is now well documented and precursors just ain't there. No Mt. Improbable to climb.-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/as_darwins_doub073571.html
Cambrian Explosion, is real
by dhw, Thursday, June 27, 2013, 17:47 (4167 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: The pre-cambrian flora have no explanation for the Cambrian. Red in tooth and claw arrives in the Cambrian. No claws or teeth in prior periods. Darwin has no explanation except a paucity of fossil record. That record is now well documented and precursors just ain't there. No Mt. Improbable to climb.-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/as_darwins_doub073571.html-It's not just Darwin who had no explanation. Nobody can explain it. At the risk of becoming a prize bore, may I repeat my hypothesis?-It's obvious that all these new organs and organisms could not have come into being or survived unless the environment was conducive to their invention and survival. The "intelligent cell/genome" is the driving force behind innovation, and once an invention is successful, as we know from our own human experience, it not only catches on, but gives rise to countless variations. (Think of the wheel.) Whether the Cambrian lasted for 5, 10 or 20 million years, this so-called "blink of an eye" allows for hundreds of thousands of generations, and hundreds of thousands of variations. The key has to be a change in the environment which allowed the "intelligent cell/genome" to come up with a vast new range of inventions.-Of course, this doesn't answer the question of how the "intelligent genome" came into being in the first place. But Darwin's theory is not concerned with such origins ... it only focuses on common descent and how evolution might work. My proposal dispenses with Darwin's weak links (random mutations, gradualism, lack of fossils), but ... since the "intelligent genome" can only operate from within existing organisms ... preserves the all-important lines of common descent, even throughout the Cambrian Explosion. Natural selection would then have determined which innovations survived. Environmental change, innovative responses from the "intelligent genome", natural selection. Can anyone come up with a more convincing explanation?
Cambrian Explosion, is real
by David Turell , Thursday, June 27, 2013, 19:11 (4167 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: It's not just Darwin who had no explanation. Nobody can explain it. -Agreed-> > dhw: Environmental change, innovative responses from the "intelligent genome", natural selection. Can anyone come up with a more convincing explanation?-No, except life is instilled with this inventiveness in a coded genome, and neither Darwin nor you can accept a prior intelligence put the whole show together. Did the coded complex genome put itself together by chance? I know your answer is not to accept chance, but a weird idea of intelligence building itself from scratch. And you have admitted to not believing that. What is left is logically a first cause intelligence. But you can't imagine a first cause eternal intelligence. So you are stuck on your picket fence, which I don't think is padded, because your lack of acceptable answers should make you very uncomfortable. But since you feel comfortable, there is no hope to change your mind.
Cambrian Explosion, is real
by dhw, Friday, June 28, 2013, 12:16 (4166 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: Environmental change, innovative responses from the "intelligent genome", natural selection. Can anyone come up with a more convincing explanation?-DAVID: No, except life is instilled with this inventiveness in a coded genome, and neither Darwin nor you can accept a prior intelligence put the whole show together. Did the coded complex genome put itself together by chance? I know your answer is not to accept chance, but a weird idea of intelligence building itself from scratch. And you have admitted to not believing that. What is left is logically a first cause intelligence. But you can't imagine a first cause eternal intelligence. So you are stuck on your picket fence, which I don't think is padded, because your lack of acceptable answers should make you very uncomfortable. But since you feel comfortable, there is no hope to change your mind.-Your "no" is music to my ears, but I had hoped to forestall the rest of your comment (which I will answer under "God and Reality"). I wrotehw: Of course, this doesn't answer the question of how the "intelligent genome" came into being in the first place. But Darwin's theory is not concerned with such origins ... it only focuses on common descent and how evolution might work.-My post is an attempt to grapple with the problems the Cambrian Explosion poses for Darwin's theory, and for everyone else who believes in evolution. You yourself constantly ... and justifiably ... refer to it, but have never offered an explanation. You only use it to attack Darwin. Like you, I'm highly sceptical about certain aspects of Darwin's theory (random mutations, gradualism, the imperfect fossil record as an explanation for missing links), but I remain convinced that its basis is true: common descent, and natural selection determining which forms of life survive. The fact that you cannot come up with a more convincing explanation than the one I have offered is all I ask. The chance v. design debate is a separate issue. If it was OK for Darwin to propose his theory without discussing the origin of life and its mechanisms (though in later editions he refers repeatedly to "the Creator" ... a fact which both theists and atheists prefer to ignore completely), I think I should be allowed to do the same!
Cambrian Explosion, is real
by David Turell , Friday, June 28, 2013, 15:31 (4166 days ago) @ dhw
> Dhw: Of course, this doesn't answer the question of how the "intelligent genome" came into being in the first place. But Darwin's theory is not concerned with such origins ... it only focuses on common descent and how evolution might work. > > dhw: My post is an attempt to grapple with the problems the Cambrian Explosion poses for Darwin's theory, and for everyone else who believes in evolution........If it was OK for Darwin to propose his theory without discussing the origin of life and its mechanisms (though in later editions he refers repeatedly to "the Creator" ... a fact which both theists and atheists prefer to ignore completely), I think I should be allowed to do the same!-The Cambrian posed Darwin the same problem that we face today. He admitted it and hoped for step-by-step precursors, that we now know don't exist. As for his use of 'the Creator' I am fully aware of it, and that Darwin probably sat on your fence before you got there.
Cambrian Explosion, is real
by dhw, Saturday, June 29, 2013, 08:31 (4166 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: My post is an attempt to grapple with the problems the Cambrian Explosion poses for Darwin's theory, and for everyone else who believes in evolution........If it was OK for Darwin to propose his theory without discussing the origin of life and its mechanisms (though in later editions he refers repeatedly to "the Creator" ... a fact which both theists and atheists prefer to ignore completely), I think I should be allowed to do the same!-DAVID: The Cambrian posed Darwin the same problem that we face today. He admitted it and hoped for step-by-step precursors, that we now know don't exist. As for his use of 'the Creator' I am fully aware of it, and that Darwin probably sat on your fence before you got there.-Long, long before I got there. (Remember, I am younger than you!) In fact, it was after reading Darwin that I climbed out of the atheist field and took up my position on the fence. I was in my late teens at the time. I'd associated his theory exclusively with atheism and was shocked to find that my edition of Origin was full of these references to the Creator. It was only later that I discovered that Darwin was in fact an agnostic. Origin made me ask new questions which I couldn't answer and which, of course, I still can't answer!
Cambrian Explosion, timetable
by David Turell , Thursday, July 18, 2013, 21:58 (4146 days ago) @ dhw
5-10 million years according to most of the literature. Nothing like it before hand. Not enough time for chance mutations to get the job done.-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/how_sudden_was_074511.html
Cambrian Explosion, oxygen
by David Turell , Thursday, August 01, 2013, 03:32 (4133 days ago) @ David Turell
Same theory, slightly new data. Oxygen levels rose and pushed the Cambrian:- http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/351963/description/Oxygen_boost_aided_carnivore_evolution_in_Cambrian_Explosion
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Saturday, September 14, 2013, 15:44 (4088 days ago) @ David Turell
"They found that when some early branches of the arthropod family tree were splitting off, creatures were evolving new traits about four times faster than they did in the following 500 million years. The creatures' genetic codes were changing by about .117% every million years—approximately 5.5 times faster than modern estimates, the group reports online today in Current Biology. Lee calls this pace "fast, but not too fast" to reconcile with Darwin's theory."-Whistling in the wind. This does not account for the complexity of kidneys and livers and nervous systems. Fossil body forms are only a small part of the story.-http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/09/evolution%E2%80%99s-clock-ticked-faster-dawn-modern-animals
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by dhw, Sunday, September 15, 2013, 17:37 (4087 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: "They found that when some early branches of the arthropod family tree were splitting off, creatures were evolving new traits about four times faster than they did in the following 500 million years. The creatures' genetic codes were changing by about .117% every million years—approximately 5.5 times faster than modern estimates, the group reports online today in Current Biology. Lee calls this pace "fast, but not too fast" to reconcile with Darwin's theory."-Whistling in the wind. This does not account for the complexity of kidneys and livers and nervous systems. Fossil body forms are only a small part of the story.-http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/09/evolution%E2%80%99s-clock-ticked-faster-da...-QUOTE: The results not only show that the evolutionary clock ticked much faster around the time of the Cambrian, but also hint at what may have sped it up. The fact that genes and anatomy evolved at roughly the same rate suggest that pressures to adapt and survive in a world of new, complex predators drove both, the authors speculate. Innovations such as exoskeletons, vision, and jaws created new niches and evolution sped up to fill them. Wills agrees that the new research makes this explanation for the Cambrian explosion "look a lot more probable now."-I've read this a few times, and still don't understand it. Pressures to adapt and survive in a world of new, complex predators drove the evolution of genes and anatomy? I thought the new complex predators and prey, with exoskeletons, vision and jaws, and all the organs David has listed, were not the explanation but were the thing to be explained! -As for speed, how can anyone know what was feasible? We have nothing to compare it with. And so we speculate, just as we do about complexity. Random mutations? God having a field day dibbling and dabbling? Or how about a major change in the environment which enabled intelligent cell communities to experiment, creating organs that would not have been possible without such a change? Speed would then be irrelevant since there would have been so many potential inventors. There would certainly have been a mushrooming effect of inventions following on from or responding to earlier inventions (prey responding to predators and vice versa), but you still have to explain the initial burst of activity. For kidneys, livers and nervous systems to function, you require intelligent cooperation between cells and cell communities, regardless of whether God created the intelligence or not. Can anyone think of a more rational explanation?
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Sunday, September 15, 2013, 22:04 (4087 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:As for speed, how can anyone know what was feasible? We have nothing to compare it with. ...... For kidneys, livers and nervous systems to function, you require intelligent cooperation between cells and cell communities, regardless of whether God created the intelligence or not. Can anyone think of a more rational explanation?-Before cells cooperate, one needs a good design. Cells cannot create that design. They ony know their own coded job. I would guess there are 20-30 different cell types in a kidney. How do they individually decide what part each plays?
Cambrian Explosion: further commentary
by David Turell , Monday, September 16, 2013, 05:45 (4087 days ago) @ David Turell
A thoughtful disucussion of the problem, rasing my issue that all the new cell types are not accounted for in the Lee paper. It also discusses a new book raising the same issues:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-dilemma-remains-unresolved-what-lees-paper-didnt-discuss/
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by dhw, Monday, September 16, 2013, 22:57 (4086 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: As for speed, how can anyone know what was feasible? We have nothing to compare it with. ...... For kidneys, livers and nervous systems to function, you require intelligent cooperation between cells and cell communities, regardless of whether God created the intelligence or not. Can anyone think of a more rational explanation?-DAVID: Before cells cooperate, one needs a good design. Cells cannot create that design. They ony know their own coded job. I would guess there are 20-30 different cell types in a kidney. How do they individually decide what part each plays?-Because cells communicate individually, just as bacteria do and ants do. That's why the parallel is so fascinating! Ants can change roles, while within the same community you will also find different forms of the same species, and since we know innovations happen, obviously cells can do the same. The coding only becomes binding when an innovation works and the cells adopt their respective roles. There have to be the two stages: 1) innovation, 2) perpetuation, always in accordance with the prevailing environment. Ant colonies must have developed their different engineering works, military strategies, farming techniques etc. from scratch, and each invention required new roles. Ditto the formation of new organs by the cells. I simply do not believe that innovation can be the product of instinct. (That is why your foal is irrelevant.) DAVID: A thoughtful discussion of the problem, raising my issue that all the new cell types are not accounted for in the Lee paper. It also discusses a new book raising the same issues:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-dilemma-remains-unresolved-wh...-Is there anything in my proposal that is contradicted by the following passage from Erwin and Valentin on the website you refer to?-"Increased genetic and developmental interactions were also critical to the formation of new animal body plans. By the time a branch of advanced sponges gave rise to more complex animals, their genomes comprised genes whose products could interact with regulatory elements in a coordinated network. Network interactions were critical to the spatial and temporal patterning of gene expression, to the formation of new cell types, and to the generation of a hierarchical morphology of tissues and organs. The evolving lineages could begin to adapt to different regions within the rich mosaic of conditions they encountered across the environmental landscape, diverging and specializing to diversify into an array of body forms."
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 17, 2013, 02:41 (4086 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Because cells communicate individually, just as bacteria do and ants do. That's why the parallel is so fascinating! -How do these early primative cells commmunicate? Chemically and reacting to chemical stimuli. Even now that is the way it works.-> dhw;Ants can change roles, while within the same community you will also find different forms of the same species, and since we know innovations happen, obviously cells can do the same. -Perhaps obvious to you, not me. Cells do not think, as noted above. Ants are whole organisms reacting to instincts.-> dhe:The coding only becomes binding when an innovation works and the cells adopt their respective roles. There have to be the two stages: 1) innovation, 2) perpetuation, always in accordance with the prevailing environment.-Do the cells hold a meeting and decide which ones are solid in their roles and which ones are not? Remember I told you a kidney has probably 20-30 different cell types with different functions. I have no idea how they individually decided to adapt their DNA to differing expressions to become each type. And those types must coordinate their functions so the kidney actually works. The glomeruli act as filters and the urine-to-be travels over a very large distance (microscopically) throught the Loops of Henley, where the concentrations of various chemicals and salts are graded out to the right concentration for the blood and separately for the urine, all done by chemical reaction. No thought!-> dhw: Ant colonies must have developed their different engineering works, military strategies, farming techniques etc. from scratch, and each invention required new roles. Ditto the formation of new organs by the cells. I simply do not believe that innovation can be the product of instinct. (That is why your foal is irrelevant.)-Unless planned from the beginning. How did instincts develop in trilobites? I should have brought that up in the book. We have de novo forms. Did they arrive instincts intact? And my foal is very relavent. At bith he sees his mother loves me. What is his problem that he runs from me automatically?- > dhw: Is there anything in my proposal that is contradicted by the following passage from Erwin and Valentin on the website you refer to?- > > "Increased genetic and developmental interactions were also critical to the formation of new animal body plans. By the time a branch of advanced sponges gave rise to more complex animals, their genomes comprised genes whose products could interact with regulatory elements in a coordinated network. Network interactions were critical to the spatial and temporal patterning of gene expression, to the formation of new cell types, and to the generation of a hierarchical morphology of tissues and organs. The evolving lineages could begin to adapt to different regions within the rich mosaic of conditions they encountered across the environmental landscape, diverging and specializing to diversify into an array of body forms."-It depends upon the interpretation of their suppositions. I view their description as allowing for information in the DNA which drove the changes they assume happened. It all depends upon where and how the information in the DNA came from. You don't like chance and I strongly object to chance, so then what? I choose an information maker who planned for an evolutionary process that was coded for increasing complexity. You want the cells to hold a convention and make decisions. Poppy cock! There is too much biological complexity in advanced animals of the Cambrian to imagine your way is correct. That is why Darwin was so frightened of the Silurian as he called it. And why current Darwinist papers are scrambling around trying to confuse the iissue.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by dhw, Tuesday, September 17, 2013, 22:29 (4085 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: The coding only becomes binding when an innovation works and the cells adopt their respective roles. There have to be the two stages: 1) innovation, 2) perpetuation, always in accordance with the prevailing environment.-DAVID: Do the cells hold a meeting and decide which ones are solid in their roles and which ones are not? Remember I told you a kidney has probably 20-30 different cell types with different functions. I have no idea how they individually decided to adapt their DNA to differing expressions to become each type. And those types must coordinate their functions so the kidney actually works. -You have no idea how they decided, but you know they did not decide. They must coordinate their functions, but you know there is no kind of thought process involved even during innovation.-dhw: Ant colonies must have developed their different engineering works, military strategies, farming techniques etc. from scratch, and each invention required new roles. Ditto the formation of new organs by the cells. I simply do not believe that innovation can be the product of instinct. (That is why your foal is irrelevant.)-DAVID: Unless planned from the beginning. How did instincts develop in trilobites? I should have brought that up in the book. We have de novo forms. Did they arrive instincts intact? And my foal is very relavent. At bith he sees his mother loves me. What is his problem that he runs from me automatically?-One might argue that instincts are examples of cell (or cell communities) exercising intelligence independently of overall conscious control by the organism (hence suckling). My question, though, is how de novo forms are produced in the first place, if not through new types and combinations of cells. Your foal's instinctive fear of you tells us no more about how its liver was invented than a new born babe's instinctive cries tell us about Beethoven's 9th.-DAVID: I view their description as allowing for information in the DNA which drove the changes they assume happened. It all depends upon where and how the information in the DNA came from. You don't like chance and I strongly object to chance, so then what? I choose an information maker who planned for an evolutionary process that was coded for increasing complexity. You want the cells to hold a convention and make decisions. Poppy cock!-What was coded? You can't plant a code in an abstract process ... it can only have been planted in the physical mechanism, which is the cell. It's easy to ridicule the manner in which cells slot into their roles (or invent new ones) by anthropomorphizing them, but that is why the ant analogy is so valuable. No, ants do not gather in a conference room and discuss General Formichael's master plan. But even you must acknowledge that they do have some means of devising and implementing strategies. What I'm suggesting is not nearly as wacky as you would like it to seem. You yourself drew attention to the work of Lynn Margulis, who observed similar "conscious" activities among bacteria. She also wrote: "In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already "conscious" entities." As an agnostic, I naturally sympathize with sceptical responses, but I would not dare to call Margulis's research poppycock. Nor would I call your theory of an information maker poppycock, but as I keep emphasizing, you are then faced with these alternatives: either your God preprogrammed every single innovation into the first forms of life (barring the odd dabble now and then) ... plus the environmental changes necessary for them to happen - or he created cells in such a way that they were capable of independent invention as well as self-perpetuation. Margulis's "conscious", cooperating entities offer an explanation of this evolutionary process (whether theistic or not) which surely deserves to be taken seriously by someone who otherwise has "no idea how [cells] individually decided to adapt their DNA to differing expressions to become each type".
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 17, 2013, 23:21 (4085 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You have no idea how they decided, but you know they did not decide. They must coordinate their functions, but you know there is no kind of thought process involved even during innovation.-The DNA tells them what to do. it contains the information > > dhw: Ant colonies must have developed their different engineering works, military strategies, farming techniques etc. from scratch, and each invention required new roles. Ditto the formation of new organs by the cells. I simply do not believe that innovation can be the product of instinct. (That is why your foal is irrelevant.)-Instinct is there from the beginning. That is my point. It comes from the built-in informaton in DNA.- > dhw: One might argue that instincts are examples of cell (or cell communities) exercising intelligence independently of overall conscious control by the organism (hence suckling).-I wouldn't argue that at all. Instincts are the property of brain neurons coordinated in their action by exisdting information in their DNA.-> dhw: My question, though, is how de novo forms are produced in the first place, if not through new types and combinations of cells. -That is a truism, but I don't know how the de novo forms appear, and neither does Darwin.- > > dhw: What was coded? You can't plant a code in an abstract process ... it can only have been planted in the physical mechanism, which is the cell. -Codes are the property of intelligence. Codes do not appear by chance.-> dhw: You yourself drew attention to the work of Lynn Margulis, who observed similar "conscious" activities among bacteria. She also wrote: "In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already "conscious" entities." As an agnostic, I naturally sympathize with sceptical responses, but I would not dare to call Margulis's research poppycock.-Those comments of hers are philosophical and surmises. She is supporting the idea that intelligence pervades life. I take the view that intelligence provides the information for life's functions.-> dhw: [your god] created cells in such a way that they were capable of independent invention as well as self-perpetuation.-That I can accept in my context.-> dhw: Margulis's "conscious", cooperating entities offer an explanation of this evolutionary process (whether theistic or not) which surely deserves to be taken seriously by someone who otherwise has "no idea how [cells] individually decided to adapt their DNA to differing expressions to become each type".-I take her point seriously, but she is no more an authority on exactly how it all worked than I am. Conscious intelligence is at the basis of life. In a way back to your panpsychism approach, but I won't drag that thought so far into the underbrush of avoidance of recognizing that without chance there is only one other road to understanding, a pervading intelligence runs the show.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by dhw, Wednesday, September 18, 2013, 15:39 (4084 days ago) @ David Turell
David and I are locked in battle over the concept of the intelligent cell. I apologize for the length of this post, but it seems to me that each of the answers below suggests we are finally approaching the grand climax of our debate!-PART ONE-dhw: You have no idea how they decided, but you know they did not decide. They must coordinate their functions, but you know there is no kind of thought process involved even during innovation.-DAVID: The DNA tells them what to do. it contains the information.-That is like saying the DNA is the intelligence within the cell, just as the brain cells tell intelligent humans what to do, because they contain the information. dhw: I simply do not believe that innovation can be the product of instinct. DAVID: Instinct is there from the beginning. That is my point. It comes from the built-in informaton in DNA.-Same point, same answer. Our human instincts and innovations both "come from" the brain. You are assuming that cells are capable only of instinct, but that does not account for innovation.-dhw: One might argue that instincts are examples of cell (or cell communities) exercising intelligence independently of overall conscious control by the organism (hence suckling).-DAVID: I wouldn't argue that at all. Instincts are the property of brain neurons coordinated in their action by exisdting information in their DNA.-The brain is a community of cells. Instincts are the product of coordinating brain cells using information independently of any conscious control. Human invention is also the product of coordinating brain cells, but is controlled by consciousness, the source of which is unknown. So why assume that cells and cell communities are capable only of instinct and not of innovation? -dhw: My question, though, is how de novo forms are produced in the first place, if not through new types and combinations of cells. DAVID: That is a truism, but I don't know how the de novo forms appear, and neither does Darwin.-Nobody does, so why dismiss as poppycock a theory which offers an explanation that covers all the problems thrown up by Darwin's theory?-dhw: What was coded? You can't plant a code in an abstract process ... it can only have been planted in the physical mechanism, which is the cell. -DAVID: Codes are the property of intelligence. Codes do not appear by chance.-That is not the point here. We are discussing whether or not cells have a degree of consciousness that enables them to innovate. In your context, this would mean God endowing his invention with independent intelligence.-dhw: You yourself drew attention to the work of Lynn Margulis, who observed similar "conscious" activities among bacteria. She also wrote: "In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already "conscious" entities." As an agnostic, I naturally sympathize with sceptical responses, but I would not dare to call Margulis's research poppycock.-DAVID: Those comments of hers are philosophical and surmises. She is supporting the idea that intelligence pervades life. I take the view that intelligence provides the information for life's functions.-Your own comments are also philosophical surmises, but that, you will agree, is not a reason to dismiss them as poppycock. Her surmises, like your own, were based on her scientific studies, and as far as I can tell they do not preclude your own philosophical surmises (she was an agnostic). -Continued...
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by dhw, Wednesday, September 18, 2013, 15:44 (4084 days ago) @ dhw
PART TWO-dhw: [your god] created cells in such a way that they were capable of independent invention as well as self-perpetuation.-DAVID: That I can accept in my context.-And that is all I ask. You have rejected the alternative that your God preprogrammed every single innovation barring the odd dabble. On several occasions in the past you have accepted the basic premise of the intelligent cell with the proviso that it was created by your God (who occasionally dabbled), but for some reason you seem averse to using the word "intelligent", as if that must be reserved for your God and for humans, with a tiny nod of concession towards our fellow animals. (I prefer "intelligent" to Margulis's "conscious", which is too readily mistaken for human-type self-awareness.) dhw: Margulis's "conscious", cooperating entities offer an explanation of this evolutionary process (whether theistic or not) which surely deserves to be taken seriously by someone who otherwise has "no idea how [cells] individually decided to adapt their DNA to differing expressions to become each type".-DAVID: I take her point seriously, but she is no more an authority on exactly how it all worked than I am. Conscious intelligence is at the basis of life. In a way back to your panpsychism approach, but I won't drag that thought so far into the underbrush of avoidance of recognizing that without chance there is only one other road to understanding, a pervading intelligence runs the show.-She is no more an authority than you or anyone else now or at any time. Nobody is an authority, and that is why we should respect one another's views. I agree that conscious intelligence is at the basis of life, and I am suggesting that it is present in all forms of life, in varying forms and degrees. The intelligent cell is a proposal put forward to explain the course of evolution, and in The Origin of Species Darwin was only concerned with evolution and explicitly not with the origin of life itself. I don't know whether Margulis theorized about that or not, but in our discussions, it is essential to draw the dividing line. Once we agree that "conscious" intelligence is at the basis of life and is therefore present in the cell and in cell communities and in all forms of life, we are left with the problem of its source. That's where the different parties diverge.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 18, 2013, 16:14 (4084 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I agree that conscious intelligence is at the basis of life, and I am suggesting that it is present in all forms of life, in varying forms and degrees. ........ Once we agree that "conscious" intelligence is at the basis of life and is therefore present in the cell and in cell communities and in all forms of life, we are left with the problem of its source. That's where the different parties diverge.-I agree with your statement. The best way to prove life's inventiveness and conscious resource is convergence: Birds fly (vertebrates); insects fly (arthorpods); and bats fly (mammals):- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130917123613.htm-But you haven't picked a source for the conscious intelligence. Your problem, not mine.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 18, 2013, 16:25 (4084 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Same point, same answer. Our human instincts and innovations both "come from" the brain. You are assuming that cells are capable only of instinct, but that does not account for innovation.-I've explained that. DNA contains information whic hallows innovation.- > dhw: The brain is a community of cells. Instincts are the product of coordinating brain cells using information independently of any conscious control. Human invention is also the product of coordinating brain cells, but is controlled by consciousness, the source of which is unknown. So why assume that cells and cell communities are capable only of instinct and not of innovation?-How conscious are cells? Do they think? I believe they react to chemical stimuli with programmed responses. > > dhw: My question, though, is how de novo forms are produced in the first place, if not through new types and combinations of cells. > > DAVID: That is a truism, but I don't know how the de novo forms appear, and neither does Darwin. > > Nobody does, so why dismiss as poppycock a theory which offers an explanation that covers all the problems thrown up by Darwin's theory?-Only by throwing up a nebulous theory with no basis in biochemistry.- > > dhw;That is not the point here. We are discussing whether or not cells have a degree of consciousness that enables them to innovate. In your context, this would mean God endowing his invention with independent intelligence.-Not intelligence, useful information, in DNA and used by DNA- > dhw: Your own comments are also philosophical surmises, but that, you will agree, is not a reason to dismiss them as poppycock. Her surmises, like your own, were based on her scientific studies, and as far as I can tell they do not preclude your own philosophical surmises (she was an agnostic).-No. What is poppycock is your 'intelligent cell' which can think and plan. Cells are automatic reactors and innovation comes from those epigenetic reactions, pre-provided by information from an intelligent conscious source.
Cambrian Explosion: changing instinct
by David Turell , Thursday, September 19, 2013, 16:22 (4083 days ago) @ David Turell
DAvid: No. What is poppycock is your 'intelligent cell' which can think and plan. Cells are automatic reactors and innovation comes from those epigenetic reactions, pre-provided by information from an intelligent conscious source.-A parasite changes mouse fear instinct of cats:-http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/353325/description/News_in_Brief_Mice_lose_cat_fear_for_good_after_infection- Instinct is mental automaticity
Cambrian Explosion: changing instinct
by dhw, Thursday, September 19, 2013, 20:08 (4083 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: No. What is poppycock is your 'intelligent cell' which can think and plan. Cells are automatic reactors and innovation comes from those epigenetic reactions, pre-provided by information from an intelligent conscious source. A parasite changes mouse fear instinct of cats:-http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/353325/description/News_in_Brief_Mice_lose_cat_fear_for_good_after_infection -Instinct is mental automaticity-Agreed. I described instinct as "the product of coordinating brain cells using information independently of any conscious control". However, automaticity does not explain innovation. See my earlier post on the subjectAVID: Not intelligence, useful information, in DNA and used by DNA. dhw: How can information be used for innovation without the user being possessed of intelligence?
Cambrian Explosion: changing instinct
by David Turell , Thursday, September 19, 2013, 23:28 (4083 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:Agreed. I described instinct as "the product of coordinating brain cells using information independently of any conscious control". However, automaticity does not explain innovation. See my earlier post on the subject: > > DAVID: Not intelligence, seful information, in DNA and used by DNA. > > dhw: How can information be used for innovation without the user being possessed of intelligence?-Explained in my last post. Basically intelligent processes as responses to stress are available to be chosen for use, with the characteristics of the stress guiding the choice.
Cambrian Explosion: best non-answer
by David Turell , Friday, September 20, 2013, 15:23 (4082 days ago) @ David Turell
Here is grantsmanship at its best or worst if you are a taxpayer. A lot of words saying nothing, but they had a great trip to Northern Greenland:-"Professor Harper, Professor of Palaeontology in the Department of Earth Sciences at Durham University, said: 'The Cambrian Explosion is one of the most important events in the history of life on our planet, establishing animals as the most visible part of the planet's marine ecosystems. 'It would be naïve to think that any one cause ignited this phenomenal explosion of animal life. Rather, a chain reaction involving a number of biological and geological drivers kicked into gear, escalating the planet's diversity during a relatively short interval of deep time. 'The Cambrian Explosion set the scene for much of the subsequent marine life that built on cascading and nested feedback loops, linking the organisms and their environment, that first developed some 520 million years ago.' "Professor Smith said: 'Work at the Siriuspasset site in north Greenland has cemented our thinking that it wasn't a matter of saying one hypothesis is right and one is wrong. Rather than focusing on one single cause, we should be looking at the interaction of a number of different mechanisms. 'Most of the hypotheses have at least a kernel of truth, but each is insufficient to have been the single cause of the Cambrian explosion. What we need to do now is focus on the sequence of interconnected events and the way they related to each other ... the initial geological triggers that led to the geochemical effects, followed by a range of biological processes.'- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-cascade-events-sudden-explosion-animal.html#jCp
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by dhw, Thursday, September 19, 2013, 19:43 (4083 days ago) @ David Turell
Dhw: why dismiss as poppycock a theory which offers an explanation that covers all the problems thrown up by Darwin's theory?-DAVID: Only by throwing up a nebulous theory with no basis in biochemistry.-I wonder how you would describe the God theory.-dhw;We are discussing whether or not cells have a degree of consciousness that enables them to innovate. In your context, this would mean God endowing his invention with independent intelligence.-DAVID: Not intelligence, useful information, in DNA and used by DNA-How can information be used for innovation without the user being possessed of intelligence?-dhw: Your own comments are also philosophical surmises, but that, you will agree, is not a reason to dismiss them as poppycock. Her surmises, like your own, were based on her scientific studies, and as far as I can tell they do not preclude your own philosophical surmises (she was an agnostic).-DAVID: No. What is poppycock is your 'intelligent cell' which can think and plan. Cells are automatic reactors and innovation comes from those epigenetic reactions, pre-provided by information from an intelligent conscious source.-So the concept of conscious cells is not poppycock, but that of intelligent cells is poppycock. Consciousness/intelligence can hardly be disassociated from thought of some kind, but Margulis is careful to avoid anthropomorphizing her bacteria / cells. I do not see how automatic reactors can possibly combine to invent totally new organs. You have accepted that cells are "capable of independent invention as well as self-perpetuation", with the proviso that your God created them, and you have rejected the alternative, which is that your God preprogrammed every innovation. What does "pre-provided by information from an intelligent conscious source" mean, if not "preprogramming"? You may vary the vocabulary as much as you like, but you are still stuck with these two choices (qualified by your God's occasional dabbling). -dhw: I agree that conscious intelligence is at the basis of life, and I am suggesting that it is present in all forms of life, in varying forms and degrees. ........ Once we agree that "conscious" intelligence is at the basis of life and is therefore present in the cell and in cell communities and in all forms of life, we are left with the problem of its source. That's where the different parties diverge.-DAVID: I agree with your statement. [...] But you haven't picked a source for the conscious intelligence. Your problem, not mine.-You agree that there is "conscious intelligence" in the cell and in cell communities, and yet you keep disagreeing! -DAVID (quoting under "Origin of Life: whole cell"): "A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity," said Huck. "We are now closer to building a synthetic cell than anyone ever before us." [David's bold]-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130702100115.htm-Why would organic molecules decide to play together without some kind of guidance?-Perhaps because they are possessed of an independent, intelligent decision-making mechanism, which may or may not have been invented by your God.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Thursday, September 19, 2013, 23:23 (4083 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:I wonder how you would describe the God theory.-It doesn't involve biochemistry. > > > dhw: How can information be used for innovation without the user being possessed of intelligence?-It is given automatic intelligent processes to use. Cells do not think.-> > So the concept of conscious cells is not poppycock, but that of intelligent cells is poppycock. Consciousness/intelligence can hardly be disassociated from thought of some kind, but Margulis is careful to avoid anthropomorphizing her bacteria / cells. I do not see how automatic reactors can possibly combine to invent totally new organs. -By the processes described above. Cells do not think or plan. - > dhw: You agree that there is "conscious intelligence" in the cell and in cell communities, and yet you keep disagreeing! -Because I'm not gettng across my concepts to you, and I think in part it is because you have pre-ceceived ideas about how cells work. Cells are automatic machines run by information in DNA and their responses are automatic. They have some degree of latitude by having alternate routes of epigenetic response when under stress. The overall animal is more than the sum of its parts. there is a minimal degree of consciousness, but not to the point of being self-aware, not aesthetically. This minimal consciousness is what pervades the cells. > > Perhaps because they are possessed of an independent, intelligent decision-making mechanism, which may or may not have been invented by your God.-And you want it invented by chance? Add the word automatic and you've got it.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by dhw, Friday, September 20, 2013, 19:51 (4082 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID describes the theory of the intelligent cell as "a nebulous theory with no basis in biochemistry."-dhw:I wonder how you would describe the God theory.-DAVID: It doesn't involve biochemistry.-Not much of a description, is it? But please note, I do not dismiss your God Theory. I respect it. I simply challenge your right to dismiss a serious hypothesis as poppycock when your own serious hypothesis is no less nebulous and no less unscientific. dhw: You agree that there is "conscious intelligence" in the cell and in cell communities, and yet you keep disagreeing! DAVID: Because I'm not gettng across my concepts to you, and I think in part it is because you have pre-ceceived ideas about how cells work. Cells are automatic machines run by information in DNA and their responses are automatic. They have some degree of latitude by having alternate routes of epigenetic response when under stress. The overall animal is more than the sum of its parts. there is a minimal degree of consciousness, but not to the point of being self-aware, not aesthetically. This minimal consciousness is what pervades the cells. (My bold)-And this is the nub of our disagreement. You constantly ignore the point that I constantly emphasize. On 18 September at 15.44 I wrote: "I prefer "intelligent" to Margulis's "conscious", which is too readily mistaken for human-type self-awareness." On 19 September at 19.43 I wrote: "Margulis is careful to avoid anthropomorphizing her bacteria / cells." (She wrote: "Of course bacterial awareness is more limited than that of a human mind.") No-one is claiming that ants, bacteria and cells think and plan self-consciously or "aesthetically" in the same manner as humans. The whole point is that they have a degree of intelligence that enables them to link up and create something new. The sum is indeed greater than the parts ... as with a colony of ants. Each individual ant is not an Einstein or even a Turell, but they have sufficient "intelligence" between them to plan and to invent within the parameters of their ant-ness. Cells have no such parameters, because they are capable of an almost infinite variety of combinations. They are the interactive building blocks. Your alternative, as I keep repeating, is for your God to have preprogrammed every innovation, and even you have rejected that.-Dhw: Perhaps because they are possessed of an independent, intelligent decision-making mechanism, which may or may not have been invented by your God.-DAVID: And you want it invented by chance? Add the word automatic and you've got it.-Another distortion. I do not want it invented by chance. I have no idea how it was invented. I keep repeating that I am only trying to figure out how evolution works. "Automatic" is a denial of independence, and again involves preprogramming. dhw: How can information be used for innovation without the user being possessed of intelligence?-DAVID: Explained in my last post. Basically intelligent processes as responses to stress are available to be chosen for use, with the characteristics of the stress guiding the choice. -I don't think innovation is caused solely by stress. If it were, there would be no reason for evolution to have gone beyond bacteria. I think that changes in the environment may also have offered opportunities for cell communities to experiment intelligently with different forms, as in the Cambrian Explosion. I would suggest that stress is more liable to lead to adaptation than innovation. But in both cases, cells must combine in new ways, and unless they are preprogrammed for all innovations, these can only be the result of their innate intelligence. You have agreed that conscious intelligence (but not human self-awareness) is present in cells and cell communities, and that cells are capable of independent invention and self-perpetuation. That is what I mean by the intelligent cell.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Friday, September 20, 2013, 22:26 (4082 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Not much of a description, is it? But please note, I do not dismiss your God Theory. I respect it. I simply challenge your right to dismiss a serious hypothesis as poppycock when your own serious hypothesis is no less nebulous and no less unscientific.-My problem with discussing cell activity is you don't understand the biochemistry. Your hypothesis and my God theory are horses of different colors. I am trying to follow the philosophic approach of 'theory to the best explanation' for what we see. You have invented your panpsychic cell theory that makes no sense in the biochemistry of cells. I admit my God theory explains everything, but it is an extrapolation to best explanation, with no basis of proof. > > dhw: You agree that there is "conscious intelligence" in the cell and in cell communities, and yet you keep disagreeing!-Yes there is conscious intelligence in cells, but it is under tight control in the genome, coded into the DNA, and it allows the cells to make epigenetic changes. > > And this is the nub of our disagreement. You constantly ignore the point that I constantly emphasize. On 18 September at 15.44 I wrote: "I prefer "intelligent" to Margulis's "conscious", which is too readily mistaken for human-type self-awareness." On 19 September at 19.43 I wrote: "Margulis is careful to avoid anthropomorphizing her bacteria / cells." (She wrote: "Of course bacterial awareness is more limited than that of a human mind.") No-one is claiming that ants, bacteria and cells think and plan self-consciously or "aesthetically" in the same manner as humans. The whole point is that they have a degree of intelligence that enables them to link up and create something new. ....... Your alternative, as I keep repeating, is for your God to have preprogrammed every innovation, and even you have rejected that.-In the cells and in the ants there is preprogrammed intelligent information that the cells and the ants can use, but as relatively automatic responses to their stresses or other changes. Chance did not invent the kidney. The odds are enormously against it. Pre-programming is the only conceivable way. > > Dhw: Perhaps because they are possessed of an independent, intelligent decision-making mechanism, which may or may not have been invented by your God. > > DAVID: And you want it invented by chance? Add the word automatic and you've got it. > > dhw: Another distortion. I do not want it invented by chance. I have no idea how it was invented. I keep repeating that I am only trying to figure out how evolution works. "Automatic" is a denial of independence, and again involves preprogramming.-Exactly. > > dhw: How can information be used for innovation without the user being possessed of intelligence? > > DAVID: Explained in my last post. Basically intelligent processes as responses to stress are available to be chosen for use, with the characteristics of the stress guiding the choice. > > dhw: I don't think innovation is caused solely by stress. ..... You have agreed that conscious intelligence (but not human self-awareness) is present in cells and cell communities, and that cells are capable of independent invention and self-perpetuation. That is what I mean by the intelligent cell.-We go round and round. I am using 'stress' to mean any change that requires the organism to respond in phenotype change. Yes, the cell is intelligent in that it has intelligent information available to use. You admit cells don't think. That means their responses are relatively automatic.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by dhw, Saturday, September 21, 2013, 14:16 (4081 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: My problem with discussing cell activity is you don't understand the biochemistry.- You may understand the biochemistry of cells, but do you understand the nature and source of conscious intelligence? If cell communities are incapable of any kind of thought, where does human intelligence come from? Nobody knows. You acknowledge that our fellow animals also have a degree of conscious intelligence. Where does that come from? Nobody knows. All organisms depend on their biochemistry, but if you believe that "higher" animals have a form of conscious intelligence that does not depend on biochemistry, you can't assume it's confined to them. However, if you believe that biochemistry is the sole source of intelligence, you will have to accept that your knowledge of biochemistry doesn't encompass it, and you will also have to reconsider your beliefs about free will, psychic experiences, and especially an afterlife.-DAVID: Your hypothesis and my God theory are horses of different colors. I am trying to follow the philosophic approach of 'theory to the best explanation' for what we see. You have invented your panpsychic cell theory that makes no sense in the biochemistry of cells. I admit my God theory explains everything, but it is an extrapolation to best explanation, with no basis of proof.-See above for biochemistry. Most forms of panpsychism are theistic. You yourself believe your intelligent God is within and without everything, which means he's within every cell. That is a form of panpsychism. I've offered an atheistic alternative, in which intelligences evolve individually from within. Needless to say, I don't subscribe to either form ... I'm merely lining up options. Your objection is not to panpsychism as such, but to any nebulous unscientific hypothetical alternative to your own nebulous unscientific hypothesis.-DAVID: In the cells and in the ants there is preprogrammed intelligent information that the cells and the ants can use, but as relatively automatic responses to their stresses or other changes. Chance did not invent the kidney. The odds are enormously against it. Pre-programming is the only conceivable way.-"Relatively" is a flexible term. Relatively to what? -Innovations are the exception to the rule ... most of the time, organisms remain the same, and the cell communities don't change their behaviour. My suggestion is that mutations were not random ... i.e. chance did not invent the kidney ... but that the invention of the kidney marks an intelligent, non-automatic response by cell communities to changes in the environment. And this is where your own argument becomes so contradictory. At one moment you agree that God did not preprogramme every innovation, and now you say preprogramming is the only conceivable way. dhw: How can information be used for innovation without the user being possessed of intelligence? DAVID: Basically intelligent processes as responses to stress are available to be chosen for use, with the characteristics of the stress guiding the choice. dhw: I don't think innovation is caused solely by stress. If it were, there would be no reason for evolution to have gone beyond bacteria ... DAVID: I am using 'stress' to mean any change that requires the organism to respond in phenotype change.-I know you are. And I'm pointing out that environmental change may not necessarily require the organism to change. It may also give the organism the opportunity to create something new. -DAVID: Yes, the cell is intelligent in that it has intelligent information available to use. You admit cells don't think. That means their responses are relatively automatic.-I do not admit that at all. I wrote: "No-one is claiming that ants, bacteria and cells think and plan self-consciously or "aesthetically" in the same manner as humans." I have no idea what mental processes are like at any level of existence other than our own. Like you, "I am trying to follow the philosophic approach of 'theory to the best explanation' for what we see." I suggest that the intelligent cell theory (whether God designed it or not) explains all the mysteries of evolution, but "it is an extrapolation to best explanation, with no basis of proof."-Under "Review: Darwin's Doubt", I gave you four options to choose from, as explanations of the Cambrian innovations. You chose 2: God designing the intelligent mechanism that designed every new organ. And so yet again you agree that the cell is intelligent, but you also believe it is not intelligent; you agree that it designed every organ, but you do not agree that it designed every organ, because God preprogrammed the design of every organ. And you have agreed that your God invented cells in such a way that they were capable of independent invention, but you do not agree that they are capable of independent invention because they were preprogrammed to come up with every invention. Surely you should have chosen option 1): God himself designing every new organ. What's more, since you believe evolution happened, he built the design of the liver, the kidney, the eye, the lungs, the brain, the penis, the wing etc. into the very first forms of life, and presumably also preprogrammed the environmental changes without which they could not have been produced. Is this your best explanation?
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Saturday, September 21, 2013, 16:05 (4081 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My problem with discussing cell activity is you don't understand the biochemistry. > > dhw: You may understand the biochemistry of cells, but do you understand the nature and source of conscious intelligence? ....... However, if you believe that biochemistry is the sole source of intelligence, you will have to accept that your knowledge of biochemistry doesn't encompass it, and you will also have to reconsider your beliefs about free will, psychic experiences, and especially an afterlife.-I view this as a straw man switch. Biochemistry at a simple level is automatic responses of giant molecules to chemical stimuli. What I believe is the case is there is intelligent information and instruction in DNA which the cells can source to handle any changes/challenges that may arise. Don't try to equate this level of function with consciousness, free will, afterlife, etc. > > dhw: See above for biochemistry. Most forms of panpsychism are theistic. You yourself believe your intelligent God is within and without everything, which means he's within every cell. That is a form of panpsychism. -I'll agree to that description, but I have always supported the idea of pre-planning and pre-programming, which means the cells are automatic responders, and I presume their response follows a plan of limited alternatives; i.e., try this or that to see what will work best.-> > DAVID: [as relatively automatic responses to their stresses or other changes. > > dhw: "Relatively" is a flexible term. Relatively to what?-Explained above > > dhw: Innovations are the exception to the rule ... most of the time, organisms remain the same, and the cell communities don't change their behaviour. My suggestion is that mutations were not random ... i.e. chance did not invent the kidney ... but that the invention of the kidney marks an intelligent, non-automatic response by cell communities to changes in the environment.-Thank you for forcing me th sharpen my way of explaining. There is no way for cells independently to create a kidney. They have to be provided with an overall plan to follow. They are given this in my concept of pre-programming. Again, cells contain intelligence but are not themselves intelligent in that they cannot conujure up new information necessary for advances in complexity. Cells do not think in any sense of the word, and your theory implies thinking cells.-> > dhw: How can information be used for innovation without the user being possessed of intelligence?-The cells use it automatically- > dhw; I have no idea what mental processes are like at any level of existence other than our own. Like you, "I am trying to follow the philosophic approach of 'theory to the best explanation' for what we see." I suggest that the intelligent cell theory (whether God designed it or not) explains all the mysteries of evolution, but "it is an extrapolation to best explanation, with no basis of proof."-And all I am doing is agreeing with you that the intelligent cell automatically uses implanted intelligent information and may follow automatic choices a,b, or c. this allows for variation and some degree of natural selection. I still champion theistic evolution. > > dhw: Under "Review: Darwin's Doubt", I gave you four options to choose from, as explanations of the Cambrian innovations. You chose 2: God designing the intelligent mechanism that designed every new organ..... And you have agreed that your God invented cells in such a way that they were capable of independent invention, but you do not agree that they are capable of independent invention because they were preprogrammed to come up with every invention. -I understand I have confused you. I have explained above, and your final thought is what I believe. My 'choices' for cells is what creates variation and some degree of trial and error, with God watching the result. I am am theist not a deist. Pre-programming sounds like deism, but not under my theory.-Review my next note on origin of life, initial cell complexity. Cells described in the article can evolve.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by dhw, Sunday, September 22, 2013, 19:01 (4080 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: My problem with discussing cell activity is you don't understand the biochemistry.-dhw: You may understand the biochemistry of cells, but do you understand the nature and source of conscious intelligence? ....... However, if you believe that biochemistry is the sole source of intelligence, you will have to accept that your knowledge of biochemistry doesn't encompass it, and you will also have to reconsider your beliefs about free will, psychic experiences, and especially an afterlife.-DAVID: I view this as a straw man switch. Biochemistry at a simple level is automatic responses of giant molecules to chemical stimuli. What I believe is the case is there is intelligent information and instruction in DNA which the cells can source to handle any changes/challenges that may arise. Don't try to equate this level of function with consciousness, free will, afterlife, etc.-Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't know where your "simple level of biochemistry" begins, but my focal point is innovation, which is not simple. You dismiss the idea of the intelligent cell (Margulis calls it a "conscious entity") as poppycock because I don't understand the biochemistry. This can only mean you know that the source of intelligence (at no matter what level) is biochemical, and you know that cells don't have it. You don't, and you don't. Furthermore, if the source is biochemical, this casts doubt on the concepts of free will and of an afterlife (since physically sourced intelligence would die when the body dies). If the source of intelligence is not biochemical (you believe in non-corporeal conscious energy called God), you can hardly dismiss the intelligent cell on grounds of biochemistry. DAVID: I have always supported the idea of pre-planning and pre-programming, which means the cells are automatic responders.-You might as well say: "I believe in God", which means God created the universe. One belief doesn't prove another! Your assumptions about cells are based on your religious beliefs ... not on biochemistry.-DAVID: Thank you for forcing me th sharpen my way of explaining. There is no way for cells independently to create a kidney. They have to be provided with an overall plan to follow. They are given this in my concept of pre-programming. -They are also given this in Margulis's concept of cooperation between "conscious entities". See my next response.-DAVID: Again, cells contain intelligence but are not themselves intelligent in that they cannot conujure up new information necessary for advances in complexity. Cells do not think in any sense of the word, and your theory implies thinking cells.-Again you state this as if it were a fact, but it's a belief. An alternative is that as environments change, and cell communities combine, they accumulate and exchange more and more information. This leads to advances in complexity through independent intelligences cooperating in order to adapt and innovate (as in many of "Nature's Wonders"). Thought, yes, but not self-awareness in the human sense. For further comment, please see my post under "Origin of Life: whole cell".-DAVID: And all I am doing is agreeing with you that the intelligent cell automatically uses implanted intelligent information and may follow automatic choices a,b, or c. this allows for variation and some degree of natural selection. I still champion theistic evolution.-How do you "follow" a choice? You "make" a choice, and that requires decision-making. But according to you, the invention of the kidney was preprogrammed, and that precludes choice. I don't see innovation as a matter of choice. It requires original thought. If we go back to ants, I don't think the ur-ants found themselves confronted with a choice between hives, twiggy nests, caves and anthills. They invented their colonies from scratch. You go on to say, "My 'choices' for cells is what creates variation and some degree of trial and error, with God watching the result." Trial and error would certainly be part of the process, which involves natural selection. I see variation as being created by the flexibility of cell combinations (though once a pattern is established, it sets its own parameters ... innovation being the exception, not the rule). On Friday at 22.35 you accepted option 2): God designed the intelligent mechanism that designed every new organ. It's like saying God designed the human brain which designed the motor car. That is a form of theistic evolution. And God watching the results produced by his intelligent, independently thinking inventors is also compatible with theistic evolution. On Friday at 22.26, however, you had insisted that the invention of the kidney was preprogrammed ("preprogramming is the only conceivable way"), and that the cells were automata (which makes them incapable of designing anything). This suggested that you were in favour of option 1): God himself designing every new organ. On Saturday you neatly sidestepped the fact that since you believe evolution happened, this means the very first forms of life contained programmes for all innovations, not to mention the environmental changes without which they could not have been produced, and you wrote: "your final thought is what I believe." I am confused again. Is this option 1) or option 2)?
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Sunday, September 22, 2013, 21:28 (4080 days ago) @ dhw
dhw; Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't know where your "simple level of biochemistry" begins, but my focal point is innovation, which is not simple. You dismiss the idea of the intelligent cell (Margulis calls it a "conscious entity") as poppycock because I don't understand the biochemistry. This can only mean you know that the source of intelligence (at no matter what level) is biochemical, and you know that cells don't have it. > DAVID: I have always supported the idea of pre-planning and pre-programming, which means the cells are automatic responders.- You misunderstand. The source of intelligence is instructions in DNA. The biochemistry is automatic responses. Innovation comes out of the DNA, given to the cells by intelligence. > > dhw: You might as well say: "I believe in God", which means God created the universe. One belief doesn't prove another! Your assumptions about cells are based on your religious beliefs ... not on biochemistry.-Yes, my belief does come from study of the chemistry. God had to set up pre-planning in DNA. Only theistic evolution makes sense. > > DAVID: Thank you for forcing me th sharpen my way of explaining. There is no way for cells independently to create a kidney. They have to be provided with an overall plan to follow. They are given this in my concept of pre-programming. > > dhw: They are also given this in Margulis's concept of cooperation between "conscious entities". -That is her interpretation, which I do not accept. Yes, consciousness pervades the universe, but it doesn't help cells innovate. There must be a prior overall plan.- > DAVID: Again, cells contain intelligence but are not themselves intelligent in that they cannot conujure up new information necessary for advances in complexity. Cells do not think in any sense of the word, and your theory implies thinking cells. > > Again you state this as if it were a fact, but it's a belief. An alternative is that as environments change, and cell communities combine, they accumulate and exchange more and more information. -Bluntly cell do not exchange information, only chemical reactions. Transfer of DNA is done between species. Cells have the same DNA with different funtions by differential expression of genees.- > DAVID: And all I am doing is agreeing with you that the intelligent cell automatically uses implanted intelligent information and may follow automatic choices a,b, or c. this allows for variation and some degree of natural selection. I still champion theistic evolution. > > dhw: I don't see innovation as a matter of choice. It requires original thought. -The thought comes from God's planning. > dhw:On Friday at 22.35 you accepted option 2): God designed the intelligent mechanism that designed every new organ. It's like saying God designed the human brain which designed the motor car. That is a form of theistic evolution. And God watching the results produced by his intelligent, independently thinking inventors is also compatible with theistic evolution. -This is where I am in my theorizing. You've got it. You are confused by cells. When you set up a team, football, cricket, baseball, everyone assumes different skills for different functions. An organ is the same with 30-50 or more different cells assuming differentfunctions and skills. Where does the plan come from that assigns the postions? From a rule book. Biochemistry of cells must follow a rule book to set up an organ. -Your cellular plan is like sending a group of folks out on the field who don't know what game they are supposed to play.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by BBella , Monday, September 23, 2013, 05:25 (4080 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: Again you state this as if it were a fact, but it's a belief. An alternative is that as environments change, and cell communities combine, they accumulate and exchange more and more information. > >david: Bluntly cell do not exchange information, only chemical reactions. Transfer of DNA is done between species. Cells have the same DNA with different funtions by differential expression of genees.-I thought this an interesting lecture (Lecture 6 in a series). -How do cells talk to each other and what do they say?-http://www.sysbio.org/resources/tutorials/2003series/biolecture5.pdf-Page 31 says this:-"Cells make different decisions depending on the input" -Seems as though cells do exchange information with each other. They may not speak in our language but through cell signals, etc., they do exchange information and make decisions accordingly.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Monday, September 23, 2013, 15:51 (4079 days ago) @ BBella
> Bbella:How do cells talk to each other and what do they say? > > http://www.sysbio.org/resources/tutorials/2003series/biolecture5.pdf > > Page 31 says this: > > "Cells make different decisions depending on the input" > > Seems as though cells do exchange information with each other. They may not speak in our language but through cell signals, etc., they do exchange information and make decisions accordingly.-Of course cells communicate. Thank you for this presentation. I have been remiss. You have presented for dhw what I have been trying to say in simple summary. You have presented what he needs to understand my point of view. The cells are highly complex and the biochemicals which control their actions and reactions are also highly complex with tight controls. There is an enormous amount of information in cedlls which they use, roughly as automatons. There is no thought in these reactions, for that is what the lecture shows. The consciousness, as I see it, is in the provided information.
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by dhw, Monday, September 23, 2013, 13:39 (4079 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: There is no way for cells independently to create a kidney. They have to be provided with an overall plan to follow. They are given this in my concept of pre-programming. -dhw: They are also given this in Margulis's concept of cooperation between "conscious entities". -DAVID: That is her interpretation, which I do not accept. Yes, consciousness pervades the universe, but it doesn't help cells innovate. There must be a prior overall plan.-I do not have a problem with your rejection of Margulis's interpretation. The problem is with your rejection of the concept as "poppycock", backed up only by your own subjective interpretations. DAVID: Bluntly cells do not exchange information, only chemical reactions. BBella has challenged this: BBELLA: I thought this an interesting lecture (Lecture 6 in a series). -How do cells talk to each other and what do they say?-http://www.sysbio.org/resources/tutorials/2003series/biolecture5.pdf-Page 31 says this:-"Cells make different decisions depending on the input" Seems as though cells do exchange information with each other. They may not speak in our language but through cell signals, etc., they do exchange information and make decisions accordingly.-I did a quick google under cell communication, and found the following, which I quote in full:-	The Evolution of Cell-to-Cell Communication in ...www.scoop.it/t/social-foraging/p/3867153222/the-evolution-of-cell...-From www.ploscompbiol.org - December 27, 2012 2:53 AM -"Traditionally microorganisms were considered to be autonomous organisms that could be studied in isolation. However, over the last decades cell-to-cell communication has been found to be ubiquitous. By secreting molecular signals in the extracellular environment microorganisms can indirectly assess the cell density and respond in accordance. In one of the best-studied microorganisms, Bacillus subtilis, the differentiation processes into a number of distinct cell types have been shown to depend on cell-to-cell communication. One of these cell types is the spore. Spores are metabolically inactive cells that are highly resistant against environmental stress. The onset of sporulation is dependent on cell-to-cell communication, as well as on a number of other environmental cues. By using individual-based simulations we examine when cell-to-cell communication that is involved in the onset of sporulation can evolve. We show that it evolves when three basic premises are satisfied. First, the population of cells has to affect the nutrient conditions. Second, there should be a time-lag between the moment that a cell decides to sporulate and the moment that it turns into a mature spore. Third, there has to be environmental variation. Cell-to-cell communication is a strategy to cope with environmental variation, by allowing cells to predict future environmental conditions. As a consequence, cells can anticipate environmental stress by initiating sporulation. Furthermore, signal production could be considered a cooperative trait and therefore evolves when it is not too costly to produce signal and when there are recurrent colony bottlenecks, which facilitate assortment. Finally, we also show that cell-to-cell communication can drive ecological diversification. Different ecotypes can evolve and be maintained due to frequency-dependent selection."-As with Margulis, the emphasis is on communication, and cooperation, decision-making, and most interestingly diversification. Perhaps you do not regard communication as the exchange of information. DAVID: Your cellular plan is like sending a group of folks out on the field who don't know what game they are supposed to play.-I like this analogy, because it draws a clear dividing line between innovation and established patterns. How do you think games like football, baseball, cricket etc. originated? When living conditions were suitable, groups of humans got together and devised the games and the rules, and then they stuck to them (with minor variations as conditions dictated). Of course one might argue that it was your God who put the idea and the rules in their heads ... but you don't do so, because you believe humans are able to design things independently of God's planning. That, however, is precisely the scenario I am suggesting as an alternative to your preprogramming: that when living conditions demanded it (adaptation) or allowed for it (innovation), existing cell communities cooperated in order to design the new organs and the rules that govern them. Once the system is established, the players know precisely what game they have to play.-Yet again, you have sidestepped the fact that, since you believe evolution happened, your God must have preproprammed every innovation into the very first organisms, as well as the environmental changes that enabled them to come into being. And once more you claim that only this particular theistic interpretation makes sense. If I were a believer, I would find it far less convincing than the hypothesis that God created an intelligent mechanism (the cell) which over billions of years and through zillions of combinations devised its own evolutionary programmes. And if I were your God, I'm sure I'd find that scenario a good deal more interesting than yours!
Cambrian Explosion: mutation rate
by David Turell , Monday, September 23, 2013, 19:37 (4079 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As with Margulis, the emphasis is on communication, and cooperation, decision-making, and most interestingly diversification. Perhaps you do not regard communication as the exchange of information.-Please study bbella's find closely. It carefully describes the chemical interactions and control loops that guide cellular communication in a biochemical way. This is how the cells automatically tell each other what is going on. There is no thought. It is all biochemical interaction. The lecture she presents shows that clearly. > > DAVID: Your cellular plan is like sending a group of folks out on the field who don't know what game they are supposed to play. > > dhw: I like this analogy, because it draws a clear dividing line between innovation and established patterns. ..... That, however, is precisely the scenario I am suggesting as an alternative to your preprogramming: that when living conditions demanded it (adaptation) or allowed for it (innovation), existing cell communities cooperated in order to design the new organs and the rules that govern them. Once the system is established, the players know precisely what game they have to play.-If the players have no teleology in mind, have no plan, and if as described their responses are automatic biochemistry, it doesn't work as you would wish. The cells have to dig into their DNA instructions to try a new approach. And it is my theory that the instructions are there, placed pre-planned by God. > > dhw: Yet again, you have sidestepped the fact that, since you believe evolution happened, your God must have preproprammed every innovation into the very first organisms, as well as the environmental changes that enabled them to come into being. And once more you claim that only this particular theistic interpretation makes sense.-No. you have my thesis twisted below.-> dhw: If I were a believer, I would find it far less convincing than the hypothesis that God created an intelligent mechanism (the cell) which over billions of years and through zillions of combinations devised its own evolutionary programmes. And if I were your God, I'm sure I'd find that scenario a good deal more interesting than yours!-Once again, the cells follow a program that allows for epigentic adjustments, but follows a general direction for more precise complexity. There is room for natural selection to act as a final filter for the choices the cellular innovations present. Yes I believe a theistic evolution happened. Environmental changes follow general patterns, but are not tightly controlled by God. The Chicxulub crator may be an exception.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Monday, September 23, 2013, 21:29 (4079 days ago) @ David Turell
Where there is confusion about conscious cells is this: As I have stated cells follow plans presented by conscious intellingence. This is information presented in the genome by a conscious intelligence and it makes it seem that the cells themselves are acting consciously. If I sat down with Margulis and discussed this I feel she would agree with me. All biochemistry follows the pattern of chemical cause and effect. - Dear, dear dhw: We are conscious and can plan intelligently. Our dialysis machines are very poor substitutes for a naturally functional kidney, and you want some sort of individual cells to plan one? That is why your theory is poppycock. You don't take into account the present biochemistry of life. You are grasping at straws. We are looking at de novo kidney appearance in the Cambrian, with no way of explaining it in natural reality. That is why I go to the supernatural.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Tuesday, September 24, 2013, 17:54 (4078 days ago) @ David Turell
David and I remain locked in battle over the feasibility of the intelligent, independently inventive cell, which David calls poppycock.-Thank you for your three posts in reply to BBella and to myself. As I said in my last post, I don't have a problem with your rejection of the idea. My problem is the certainty with which you ridicule it, backed up only by your own subjective interpretations. In these three posts you have adopted a more cautious tone, which is very welcome [my bold]:-1) "There is an enormous amount of information in cells which they use, roughly as automatons. There is no thought in these reactions [...] The consciousness, as I see it, is the provided information." 2) "The cells have to dig into their DNA instructions to try a new approach. And it is my theory that the instructions are there, placed pre-planned by God." 3) "If I sat down with Margulis and discussed this I feel she would agree with me."-I appreciate the acknowledgement of subjectivity here, and hope I'm not exhausting your patience by trying for some more concessions! -1) What do you mean by "roughly" automatic? Either the user is an automaton or it isn't. Most of our own activities are based on the enormous amount of information stored in all our cells (especially the brain), but how can consciousness "be" the information? Consciousness is the user of the information. BBella interprets the lecture as a clear indication that cells make decisions and exchange information (which you categorically said did not happen), and this is even clearer in the far more detailed article I quoted on bacillus subtilis, which adds cooperation, diversification and even anticipation and prediction to the list. Thought/consciousness/intelligence can be on different levels. Leaving aside the super-level of self-awareness, how many more attributes do you require for your definition of intelligence? -2) "The cells have to dig in...to try a new approach". What digs and what tries? Yes, it is your theory that the "Construction Planner" is an automaton preprogrammed to find God's instructions and produce his pre-planned goods when conditions are right (though it seems a strange sort of divine preprogramming that requires trying out). Another possibility is that the "Construction Planner" is the unpreprogrammed intelligence of the cell, which in coordination with billions of other unpreprogrammed intelligent CPs is able to find solutions to problems or to exploit new possibilities thrown up by changes to the environment (as organisms show us over and over again in Nature's Wonders). A theory is a theory is a theory.-3) You wrote: "This is information presented in the genome by a conscious intelligence and it makes it seem that the cells themselves are acting consciously." Margulis said, after studying the antics of her "conscious bacteria": "The idea that only people are conscious makes me laugh." This suggests that she would not agree with you, and the word "seem" is inappropriate.-You wrote: "We are conscious and can plan intelligently. Our dialysis machines are very poor substitutes for a naturally functioning kidney, and you want some sort of individual cells to plan one? That is why your theory is poppycock." This is a distortion. It is not a matter of a few individual cells saying "Let's make a kidney". We humans have, over just a few thousand years, devised increasingly complex constructions based on the invention of the wheel. One invention leads to another. I'm suggesting that from the original "invention" (the individual cell) have sprung all subsequent "inventions", as a result of zillions of generations of cell communities cooperating and sharing their accumulated knowledge over thousands of millions of years. From our point of view, the culmination of this complexity is probably the community of billions of cells that form the human brain, where the consciousness of cells has reached a level at which they are even conscious of their own consciousness. You might call that the evolution of cellular intelligence.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 24, 2013, 19:18 (4078 days ago) @ dhw
> 1) "There is an enormous amount of information in cells which they use, roughly as automatons. -> > dhw:I appreciate the acknowledgement of subjectivity here, and hope I'm not exhausting your patience by trying for some more concessions! > > 1) What do you mean by "roughly" automatic? Either the user is an automaton or it isn't. -If the user is automatic but is given a choice if several responses, in the epigenetic area of the genome, then 'roughly' applies. As I envision it, the controlling mechanisms allow for a,b, or c, depending upon the challenge to the organism.- > dhw: Most of our own activities are based on the enormous amount of information stored in all our cells (especially the brain), but how can consciousness "be" the information? Consciousness is the user of the information. -No, in my view, consciousness supplies the information embedded in the genome. The cell responses as in the lecture supplied by bbella shows tight controls over those responses, no thought by the cell invonved.- > dhw: BBella interprets the lecture as a clear indication that cells make decisions and exchange information (which you categorically said did not happen), and this is even clearer in the far more detailed article I quoted on bacillus subtilis, which adds cooperation, diversification and even anticipation and prediction to the list. Thought/consciousness/intelligence can be on different levels. Leaving aside the super-level of self-awareness, how many more attributes do you require for your definition of intelligence?-Look carefully at the lecture slides. Everything is very clearly, to my interpretation, tightly controlled. This is the way biochemistry has been since I went to medical school ,and the exhibited research is following the path I predicted in my first book of more and more complexity of these tight controls. The research does not show cell thought. A bacterium is attracted to food by automatic sensors in its membrane. What could be clearer. DNA is exchanged, but not by consciousness, but built-in mechanisms that allow that exchange.-> > dhw: 2) "The cells have to dig in...to try a new approach". What digs and what tries? Yes, it is your theory that the "Construction Planner" is an automaton preprogrammed to find God's instructions and produce his pre-planned goods when conditions are right (though it seems a strange sort of divine preprogramming that requires trying out). Another possibility is that the "Construction Planner" is the unpreprogrammed intelligence of the cell,-The cell does not have intelligence. It has information. "intelilgence inplies consciousness. I will not budge from this point. It has mechanisms that allow it to use this information, not consciousness.-> > dhw: 3) You wrote: "This is information presented in the genome by a conscious intelligence and it makes it seem that the cells themselves are acting consciously." > Margulis said, after studying the antics of her "conscious bacteria": "The idea that only people are conscious makes me laugh." This suggests that she would not agree with you, and the word "seem" is inappropriate.-Since I can't discuss my view with her directly, either I go to a Medium, or we are stuck at this disagreement. > > dhw: You wrote: "We are conscious and can plan intelligently. Our dialysis machines are very poor substitutes for a naturally functioning kidney, and you want some sort of individual cells to plan one? That is why your theory is poppycock." This is a distortion. It is not a matter of a few individual cells saying "Let's make a kidney". ..... I'm suggesting that from the original "invention" (the individual cell) have sprung all subsequent "inventions", as a result of zillions of generations of cell communities cooperating and sharing their accumulated knowledge over thousands of millions of years. - Cells do not accumulate knowledge. They work on implanted information. No matter how often you repeat this example, no matter how long you would like it to take, cells cooperate at a biochemical automatic response level as shown in bbella's lecture. These are clearly automatic responses. If you think the slides are complex now, wait another ten years and the research will make the slides even more stupifyingly complex. The research follows my reasoning by looking for all these automatic pathways and finding them. Only if you have followed this from 1951, my biochemistry course in med school, can you fully appreciate what I have seen develop. More and more explanation of how cells seem to acting on their own, but no, they are rigidly controlled responses. -To make a kidney or a liver, there has to be a pre-existing plan. The cells alone cannot conjure up the plans. And chance attempts can't do it. You are empowering cells with much more than they are capable of individually or in groups. I know of no biochemical research that could support your contentions.-You are working from a non-belief system, I am strictily working from what science shows me.:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-we-should-choose-science-over-beliefs&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20130924
Cambrian Explosion: Carl Zimmer\'s column
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 01:30 (4078 days ago) @ David Turell
A lot of sound and fury but nothing solid, except supposition and conjecture:-http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/science/new-approach-to-explaining-evolutions-big-bang.html?_r=0-Also an interview with one of the scientists quoted:-http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/09/18/341.6152.1409-b.DC1/SciencePodcast_130920.pdf-Again lots of conjecture.
Cambrian Explosion: Trilobite contortions
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 15:00 (4077 days ago) @ David Turell
Rolled up like today's pill bug:-http://phys.org/news/2013-09-evidence-earliest-trilobites-partially-bodies.html
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 14:12 (4077 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: You are working from a non-belief system, I am strictily working from what science shows me.:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-we-should-choose-science-over-beli...-Thank you for this timely reminder. The examples concern firearm possession and climate change scepticism, but the message is that beliefs should not override science. However, as you say, I'm working from a NON-belief system ... and I offer the intelligent cell hypothesis as a possible explanation of how evolution works. It allows for a theistic AND an atheistic system, because it does not seek to explain the origin of the intelligent cell. One problem in our discussions is that I can't always judge the extent to which your beliefs are based on science and vice versa, but I think the above website is more of a warning to you than to me! In the last few days you have made statements like the following:-1) "Bluntly cells do not exchange information, only chemical reactions." BBella's lecture (of which you approve) states: "To coordinate the behavior of populations of cells, cells in multicellular organisms must exchange data."-2) Margulis described cooperating cells as "conscious entities". You wrote: "This is her interpretation, which I do not accept." The following day you wrote: "I feel she would agree with me". You disagree with a renowned scientist, but you feel she would agree with you.-3) With regard to innovations such as the kidney, you wrote: "Preprogramming is the only conceivable way." Preprogramming could only be done by an outside intelligence, i.e. your God. You are right to challenge me on matters of science, and I have learnt an enormous amount from you, but what kind of reception do you think you'd get from the scientific community if you told them that divine preprogramming of the kidney was "the only conceivable way"? 4) "I have always supported the idea of pre-planning and pre-programming, which means the cells are automatic responders." If your belief in God's preplanning is correct, yes indeed, cells must be automata, but your support for the idea does not make it a scientific fact. I'm not going to say this is belief overriding science, because science has not cracked the problem of innovation and the Cambrian Explosion, but science itself should be neutral. The above statement might be seen as an example of belief influencing scientific judgment. Let me deal with some other points in your post:-1) "If the user is automatic but is given a choice if several responses, in the epigenetic area of the genome, then 'roughly' applies. As I envision it, the controlling mechanisms allow for a,b, or c, depending upon the challenge to the organism." In the context of innovations (creating a kidney de novo), I don't understand how the user can be given a choice. Did God give genomes a fruit machine, and x and y chose wrong, so natural selection eliminated them, whereas z got it right?-2) "Intelligence implies consciousness. I will not budge from this point." I agree, with the all-important rider that it does not imply self-awareness (I have emphasized this all through our discussion ... and Margulis did the same.) For me, intelligence implies consciousness of the environment, of other organisms, of accumulated information, of how to use that information, and the ability to take decisions. We see it most clearly in the behaviour of our fellow animals, but scientists who have studied other forms of life have observed the same attributes. 3) "Cells do not accumulate knowledge." BBella's lecture and the article on bacillus subtilis show clearly that cells both acquire and exchange data. How is it possible to do so without adding to the information already present?-4) "To make a kidney or a liver, there has to be a pre-existing plan. The cells alone cannot conjure up the plans. And chance attempts can't do it. You are empowering cells with much more than they are capable of individually or in groups. I know of no biochemical research that could support your contentions." Nobody knows how these innovations happened. Darwin thought they came about through an accumulation of chance mutations, and some scientists agree. You don't, and I am highly sceptical. You believe God preprogrammed innovations. I suspect many scientists would be highly sceptical. Margulis's research into cellular behaviour and her emphasis on cooperation between "conscious entities" has suggested to me that the intelligent cell might be the key to innovation in evolution. I can't believe I'm the first to have considered such a possibility, but since we know of other scientists who agree with Margulis that cells exchange data, make decisions etc., the concept of conscious/intelligent cells can hardly be called poppycock. Whether communities of intelligent cells merging, cooperating, exchanging data and making decisions over thousands of millions of years are capable of designing a kidney I really don't know. All I do know is that the idea sounds no less feasible than random mutations, or a single, eternal, unknowable intelligence providing the first tiny organisms with billions of multiple-choice programmes. As you say, "I know of no biochemical research that could support such contentions."
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 16:13 (4077 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 16:29
dhw: In the last few days you have made statements like the following: > > 1) "Bluntly cells do not exchange information, only chemical reactions- Part of the problem between our approaches is definition of words. Cells do exchange data. It is chemical reaction data and that chemical data is new information for the cell receiving it. And example: a sensing kidney cell recognizes that the sodium level in blood is too high. It will transmit that information to a secretory cell, which will dump more sodium into the urine. > > dhw: 2) Margulis described cooperating cells as "conscious entities". You disagree with a renowned scientist, but you feel she would agree with you.-If she and I agreed to definition of words, we would agree. > dhw: 3) With regard to innovations such as the kidney, you wrote: "Preprogramming is the only conceivable way[/i but what kind of reception do you think you'd get from the scientific community if you told them that divine preprogramming of the kidney was "the only conceivable way"?-[b]You are grasping at straws. 90% of physical scientists are atheists. But among medical doctors surveys range between 40-60% theist![/b] > dhw: 4) If your belief in God's preplanning is correct, yes indeed, cells must be automata, but your support for the idea does not make it a scientific fact.-Of course it is not fact. It is my conclusion based on my analysis to a best explanation-> dhw: The above statement might be seen as an example of belief influencing scientific judgment.-But my belief arose from agnosticism, by educating myself in an area I had not studied before, Darwin evolutionary theory, and cosmologic "Big Bang" theory. > > dhw: 1) " As I envision it, the controlling mechanisms allow for a,b, or c, depending upon the challenge to the organism."-> In the context of innovations (creating a kidney de novo), I don't understand how the user can be given a choice. - You have put statements of mine in juxtaposition to alter their meanings. "a,b,and c" are my theorizing the alternate epigentic rules that cells and whole organisms might be able to follow to respond to stresses in the environment. Your next statement does not follow the reasoning I presented. Kidney cells must follow a plan given to them. There can be little room for latitude in cell function. It must, as stated above, be very precise. > > dhw:2) "Intelligence implies consciousness. I will not budge from this point." I agree, with the all-important rider that it does not imply self-awareness.. For me, intelligence implies consciousness of the environment,- A matter of definition of words: a bacterial sensor on its outer membrane senses nutrient nearby. This is chemical sensing just as your nostril smells the chocolate. the flagellum flicks into action and the bacterium absorbs the chemical nutrient. The bacterium received information and automatically acted on it, by chemical reaction. bBella's lecture shows this. > > dhw: 3) "Cells do not accumulate knowledge." BBella's lecture and the article on bacillus subtilis show clearly that cells both acquire and exchange data. -As I have described it is all information exchanged by chemical reaction.The information is a transient phenomenon. I don't believe you can train an amoeba, but you can cut off the head of a planaria, which has been trained, and when it regrows a new head the memory uis still there, but at this level nerve cenns are present to retain hat memory. Unless a cell is a neuron, no memory, and memory takes a fleet of coordinated neurons. > > dhw; David 4) "To make a kidney or a liver, there has to be a pre-existing plan. -> dhw: Nobody knows how these innovations happened. Darwin thought they came about through an accumulation of chance mutations, and some scientists agree. .. You believe God preprogrammed innovations. I suspect many scientists would be highly sceptical.-I don't do concensus science. Look at the stupidity about global warming. Kuhn warned about scientific paradigms.-> dhw; the concept of conscious/intelligent cells can hardly be called poppycock. -I've explained why it is. Cells are not truly conscious, nor are they intelligent. They are filled with information to use, and they are given processes for using it. As shown above in the kidney one cell tells another what to do. That is information sharing automatically, not intelligence as we define the word. -> dhw: Whether communities of intelligent cells merging, cooperating, exchanging data and making decisions over thousands of millions of years are capable of designing a kidney I really don't know.-No, you don't know. It is your favored conjecture to protect your agnosticsm. But it is not grounded in accepted biochemistry of life.-> dhw: All I do know is that the idea sounds no less feasible than random mutations, or a single, eternal, unknowable intelligence providing the first tiny organisms with billions of multiple-choice programmes. -You have a perfect right not to choose, but the idea of the intelligent cell is not 'feasible' with current biochemical studies of complex interactions mediated by chemical relationships, demonstrating how bacteria do it. Notice how far I have weaned you away from strict Darwin. The more complex life is shown to be at the molecular level, the less likely that the Darwin theory of evolution is valid.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Friday, September 27, 2013, 02:18 (4076 days ago) @ David Turell
I found a group that tries to support your view:-http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/summary.htm-The only difference I have with them is I think all of these reactions are automatic. note the reference to bbella'ss light activity. I'm sure there is some of this also.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Friday, September 27, 2013, 12:41 (4075 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: I found a group that tries to support your view:-http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/summary.htm-The only difference I have with them is I think all of these reactions are automatic. note the reference to bbella'ss light activity. I'm sure there is some of this also.-First, let me say how touched I am by the mere fact that you have found and posted this reference. I'm tempted now to write a Tureulogy, because this post epitomizes the spirit of open, honest inquiry that was my purpose in setting up the website in the first place. But I will confine this paragraph to a simple thank you.-It's not a group ... it's a retired professor of cell biology who has spent 30+ years studying cells and who emphasizes that he does not subscribe to ID or to any other philosophical position. He does not "try" to support my view ... he is a scientist who can take you on in the field in which he is an expert (his credentials are impressive). The "only difference" you have with him is the subject of our whole discussion: you believe that cells behave automatically, and he believes they are intelligent. Of course the discussion remains open as regards evolutionary innovation and the Cambrian Explosion, since I doubt very much whether Guenter Albrecht-Buehler's experiments have produced any new organs, but his philosophical neutrality can only mean that HE considers the hypothesis feasible. Incidentally, I'm relieved to hear that it dates back nearly 100 years. I found it difficult to imagine that I was entirely alone! -I had drafted a very long reply to your last post, but I will try to condense it.-1) Three times you have rightly pointed out that our views depend on definition. The attributes that I consider essential to my own concept of "intelligence" include: perception of the environment, the ability to process, exchange, accumulate and use information,to communicate with other organisms, and to take decisions. We see all of these attributes in our fellow animals, and scientists have observed them in other forms of life, right down to bacteria. I do not include self-awareness as essential to intelligence. I don't recall you ever offering a definition, so perhaps you can tell me how your definition differs from mine.-2) 90% of physical scientists and approx. 50% of medical doctors disagree with you. How does this indicate that I am clutching at straws? (Please note yet again that I offer the hypothesis as a feasible alternative, not as a firm belief.)-3) You always give examples of cellular actions that are the equivalent to automatic human perceptions ("a bacterial sensor on its outer membrane senses nutrient nearby. This is chemical sensing just as your nostril smells the chocolate.") The intelligent cell hypothesis does not focus on the "senses" of the cell but on the "brain" of the cell, or the "Construction Planner", which coordinates all the work of the "senses".-4) "The more complex life is shown to be at the molecular level, the less likely that the Darwin theory of evolution is valid."-Which Darwinian theory? Common descent? Natural Selection? It is the validity of random mutations and gradualism that is in question here, i.e. not evolution itself but the way it works. The more complex life is shown to be at the molecular level, the more likely it is that we shall find cellular mechanisms of which scientists never dreamed. Who knows, they might even find the zillions of programmes your God inserted at the start to cover the next few billion years of evolutionary innovations. Or they might find that these mechanisms include an independent intelligence without preprogramming.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Friday, September 27, 2013, 19:25 (4075 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: since I doubt very much whether Guenter Albrecht-Buehler's experiments have produced any new organs, but his philosophical neutrality can only mean that HE considers the hypothesis feasible. Incidentally, I'm relieved to hear that it dates back nearly 100 years. I found it difficult to imagine that I was entirely alone! -> > dhw: 1) Three times you have rightly pointed out that our views depend on definition. The attributes that I consider essential to my own concept of "intelligence" include: perception of the environment, the ability to process, exchange, accumulate and use information,to communicate with other organisms, and to take decisions. I do not include self-awareness as essential to intelligence. I don't recall you ever offering a definition, -I agree with you about a general definition of intelligence. However at the cellular level it must be split into two parts. First is the intelligence as defined by M1 or CIA: incoming information in the form of data to be acted upon. Second is the response which involves planning and decision making. At the cellular level I am of a firm belief that this is automatically decided by information pre-existing in the genome. The individual cell or one-celled animal cannot think of responses or plan them.-> > dhw: 2) 90% of physical scientists and approx. 50% of medical doctors disagree with you. How does this indicate that I am clutching at straws? (Please note yet again that I offer the hypothesis as a feasible alternative, not as a firm belief.-Medical doctors are biologists at heart. They have studied biochemistry and understand cell and organ responsiveness. My feeling is that they will think like I do and reject your hypothesis as not feasible, based on a cell's ability to respond.- > > dhw; 3) The intelligent cell hypothesis does not focus on the "senses" of the cell but on the "brain" of the cell, or the "Construction Planner", which coordinates all the work of the "senses".-The brain of the cell is in the genome with sets up automatic responses, contains the informaation to react, but as I have indicated there is probably a gradation of response, based on the strength of the stress or signal. > > dhw:4) "The more complex life is shown to be at the molecular level, the less likely that the Darwin theory of evolution is valid." > > dhw: Which Darwinian theory? Common descent? Natural Selection? It is the validity of random mutations and gradualism that is in question here, i.e. not evolution itself but the way it works.-No argument-> dhw:The more complex life is shown to be at the molecular level, the more likely it is that we shall find cellular mechanisms of which scientists never dreamed. Who knows, they might even find the zillions of programmes your God inserted at the start to cover the next few billion years of evolutionary innovations. -No argument: " Conclusion. Six decades ago, Watson and Crick put forward a model of DNA double helix structure to elucidate how genetic information is faithfully copied and propagated during cell division (Watson and Crick, 1953). Several years later, Crick famously proposed the "central dogma" to describe how information in the DNA sequence is relayed to other biomolecules such as RNA and proteins to sustain a cell's biological activities (Crick, 1970). Now, with the human genome completely mapped, we face the daunting task to decipher the information contained in this genetic blueprint. Twelve years ago, when the human genome was first sequenced, only 1.5% of the genome could be annotated as protein coding, whereas the rest of the genome was thought to be mostly "junk" (Lander et al., 2001; Venter et al., 2001). Now, with the help of many epigenome maps, nearly half of the genome is predicted to carry specific biochemical activities and potential regulatory functions (ENCODE Project Consortium, et al., 2012). It is conceivable that in the near future the human genome will be completely annotated, with the catalog of transcription units and their transcriptional regulatory sequences fully mapped."-http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867413011483-> dhw: Or they might find that these mechanisms include an independent intelligence without preprogramming.-Not likely in my opinion. Unless you want to implant God into every cell. I think His plans are there. Or is your proposed intelligence something else and can you tell me of its origin?
Cambrian Explosion: panpsychism discussed
by David Turell , Friday, September 27, 2013, 22:14 (4075 days ago) @ David Turell
More help for dhw thought patterns:-http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-lede-t.html?_r=1&
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Saturday, September 28, 2013, 13:51 (4074 days ago) @ David Turell
Dhw: The attributes that I consider essential to my own concept of "intelligence" include: perception of the environment, the ability to process, exchange, accumulate and use information, to communicate with other organisms, and to take decisions. I do not include self-awareness as essential to intelligence. I don't recall you ever offering a definition... -DAVID: I agree with you about a general definition of intelligence. However at the cellular level it must be split into two parts. First is the intelligence as defined by M1 or CIA: incoming information in the form of data to be acted upon. Second is the response which involves planning and decision making. At the cellular level I am of a firm belief that this is automatically decided by information pre-existing in the genome. The individual cell or one-celled animal cannot think of responses or plan them.-In all forms of intelligence, including our own, one has to differentiate between incoming information and response. As for the individual cell, Guenter Albrecht-Buehler clearly disagrees with you, and the article about bacillus subtilis directly contradicts you, since it talks of prediction and anticipation. In any case, I've suggested that innovation started with the merging of cells. Every organ is a community of cooperating cells, and since cooperation entails all the attributes of intelligence that I have listed above, and you agree with my definition, I don't see how you can "firmly believe" that cells are not intelligent. dhw: 90% of physical scientists and approx. 50% of medical doctors disagree with you. How does this indicate that I am clutching at straws? (Please note yet again that I offer the hypothesis as a feasible alternative, not as a firm belief.)-DAVID: 2) Medical doctors are biologists at heart. They have studied biochemistry and understand cell and organ responsiveness. My feeling is that they will think like I do and reject your hypothesis as not feasible, based on a cell's ability to respond.-Your feeling that, although 50% of doctors disagree with you, the other 50% will agree with you doesn't explain why I am the one clutching at straws.-Dhw: 3) The intelligent cell hypothesis does not focus on the "senses" of the cell but on the "brain" of the cell, or the "Construction Planner", which coordinates all the work of the "senses".-DAVID: The brain of the cell is in the genome with sets up automatic responses, contains the informaation to react, but as I have indicated there is probably a gradation of response, based on the strength of the stress or signal.-Our brain also sets up automatic responses, and I'm sure there are gradations of response in us too. That does not mean that humans or cells are automata. Once again we come back to definitions, as above.-DAVID: "Conclusion. Six decades ago, Watson and Crick put forward a model of DNA double helix structure to elucidate how genetic information is faithfully copied and propagated during cell division (Watson and Crick, 1953). [...] It is conceivable that in the near future the human genome will be completely annotated, with the catalog of transcription units and their transcriptional regulatory sequences fully mapped."-Watson and Crick knew a thing or two about cells, and they were both atheists. How do you think they would have responded to your claim that divine preprogramming "is the only conceivable way"? -dhw: Or they might find that these mechanisms include an independent intelligence without preprogramming.-DAVID: Not likely in my opinion. Unless you want to implant God into every cell. I think His plans are there. Or is your proposed intelligence something else and can you tell me of its origin?-I'm much happier with "not likely in my opinion" than I was with "poppycock". I doubt whether the atheistic/agnostic 90% of physical scientists and the atheistic/agnostic 50% of doctors would argue that intelligence means God and his plans. Can I tell you the origin? No. No-one can. If we could, there would be no need for any of our hypotheses and we would not be having this discussion.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Sunday, September 29, 2013, 02:34 (4074 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I don't see how you can "firmly believe" that cells are not intelligent.-Cells operate from stimuli and responses using information given them by intelligence. They are not intelligent in the senses I have described.-> > dhw: Our brain also sets up automatic responses, and I'm sure there are gradations of response in us too. That does not mean that humans or cells are automata. Once again we come back to definitions, as above.-True that we have some automatic responses. We don't think to breathe. But we think to plan and respond. Cells do not think. > > dhw: Watson and Crick knew a thing or two about cells, and they were both atheists. How do you think they would have responded to your claim that divine preprogramming "is the only conceivable way"? -Watson and Crick from so long ago had no idea what we would find out currently about the complexity of DNA and transcription, and imagine how complex it will look in 10-20 years from now. I have no idea what they would think now. > > I'm much happier with "not likely in my opinion" than I was with "poppycock". I doubt whether the atheistic/agnostic 90% of physical scientists and the atheistic/agnostic 50% of doctors would argue that intelligence means God and his plans. Can I tell you the origin? No. No-one can. If we could, there would be no need for any of our hypotheses and we would not be having this discussion.-But the discussion is fun.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Sunday, September 29, 2013, 17:04 (4073 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Cells operate from stimuli and responses using information given them by intelligence. They are not intelligent in the senses I have described.-You have not described intelligence in any sense. You have agreed with my definition, and then simply reiterated your firm belief that in spite of cells possessing all the attributes I have listed, they are not intelligent!-dhw: Our brain also sets up automatic responses, and I'm sure there are gradations of response in us too. That does not mean that humans or cells are automata. Once again we come back to definitions, as above.-DAVID: True that we have some automatic responses. We don't think to breathe. But we think to plan and respond. Cells do not think.-There is two-way traffic between our brain cells and the rest. The brain cells send messages to other cells when they want to do something (run, jump, listen, look) and other cells send messages to the brain cells (go to the lavatory, go to sleep, you need food, you need drink). Which is the "thinking" transmitter and which the "thinking" receiver? We are told that there are similar two-way processes within all cells and cell communities, as they exchange information, take decisions, solve problems etc. I have defined intelligence as best I can, and I would define 'think' in a similar way, bearing in mind that there are different levels of thinking: to process and use information, to communicate with other cell communities, to solve problems, to take decisions. I do not include self-awareness as a prerequisite for thought. Please tell me what other attributes you require before you agree to a definition.-dhw: Watson and Crick knew a thing or two about cells, and they were both atheists. How do you think they would have responded to your claim that divine preprogramming "is the only conceivable way"? DAVID: Watson and Crick from so long ago had no idea what we would find out currently about the complexity of DNA and transcription, and imagine how complex it will look in 10-20 years from now. I have no idea what they would think now.-I mentioned them only because you quoted them. My point is that there are experts in the field of cell biology who do not agree that divine programming "is the only conceivable way". You have yourself quoted a figure of around 50% for your fellow physicians. And I still don't know why these and the 90% of atheist/agnostic physical scientists demonstrate that I'm the one clutching at straws!-Dhw Can I tell you the origin [of cellular intelligence]? No. No-one can. If we could, there would be no need for any of our hypotheses and we would not be having this discussion.-DAVID: But the discussion is fun.-As with all the best forms of education, we have fun while we learn.-*****-I have just seen your latest post on the subject, and will reply tomorrow.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Sunday, September 29, 2013, 21:43 (4073 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Cells operate from stimuli and responses using information given them by intelligence. They are not intelligent in the senses I have described. > > dhw; You have not described intelligence in any sense. You have agreed with my definition, and then simply reiterated your firm belief that in spite of cells possessing all the attributes I have listed, they are not intelligent!- > I must keep repeating. They are under controls to use information they are given in the genome. That is not intelligence. Intelligence requires thoughtfulness and a brain. > > dhw: There is two-way traffic between our brain cells and the rest. .... I do not include self-awareness as a prerequisite for thought. Please tell me what other attributes you require before you agree to a definition.-Am uneven two-way traffic. The brain controls by nerve signals. The brain gets chemical signalw from the cells.- > > Dhw Can I tell you the origin [of cellular intelligence]? No. No-one can. If we could, there would be no need for any of our hypotheses and we would not be having this discussion. > > DAVID: But the discussion is fun. > > As with all the best forms of education, we have fun while we learn.-You cannot seem to understand the use of information by cells and want to call it intelligence. We are not discussing M1 or CIA intelligence. That is only information.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Monday, September 30, 2013, 14:24 (4072 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Bluntly cells do not exchange information, only chemical reactions.-dhw: The Evolution of Cell-to-Cell Communication in... www.scoop.it/t/social-foraging/p/3867153222/the-evolution-of-cell...-QUOTE: "Traditionally microorganisms were considered to be autonomous organisms that could be studied in isolation. However, over the last decades cell-to-cell communication has been found to be ubiquitous. By secreting molecular signals in the extracellular environment microorganisms can indirectly assess the cell density and respond in accordance." (David's bold)-DAVID: There is certainly an exchange of information. My bolding shows it is biochemical reactions. b bella's lecture supports me, not dhw. 'nuff said.-It is certainly not "'nuff said". Your bold explains how information is collected (much as we collect information through our senses), but it does not explain the process of responding: for example, why a cell decides to sporulate at a particular moment; you ignore the fact that "cell-to-cell communication is a strategy to cope with environmental variation, by allowing cells to predict future environmental conditions," and to anticipate environmental stress (according to you, cells cannot plan). Perhaps for you communication and cooperation can only take place if cells speak English. Just like other animals, birds and insects, cells clearly have their own methods of communicating, and the fact that biochemical reactions are involved (as they are with us too) does not mean there is no intelligence ...the "Construction Planner"? ... to coordinate reactions, communication and decision-making. -BBella's lecture was entitled "How do cells talk to each other and what do they say?" and she quoted p. 31: "Cells make different decisions depending on the input". So do humans. Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, a retired professor of cell biology, writes: "The cell as a whole is capable of immensely complex migration patterns for which their genome cannot contain a detailed program as they are responses to unforeseeable encounters." He goes on to talk of a "very sophisticated signal processing system ('cell brain') that is linked to the movement control of the cell." (my bold) You always prefer to focus on the signals and not on the processing.-DAVID: You cannot seem to understand the use of information by cells and want to call it intelligence. We are not discussing M1 or CIA intelligence. That is only information.-That is precisely the point I am trying to get across: it is the USE of information that constitutes intelligence, and cells/cell communities USE information. Yet again ... since you continue to ignore this repeated request! ... let me ask you what attributes you require in addition to the gathering, processing and exchange of information, communicating, decision-making, problem-solving (without self-awareness) before you will acknowledge intelligence.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Monday, September 30, 2013, 15:53 (4072 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Monday, September 30, 2013, 16:18
DAVID: You cannot seem to understand the use of information by cells and want to call it intelligence. We are not discussing M1 or CIA intelligence. That is only information. > > dhw: That is precisely the point I am trying to get across: it is the USE of information that constitutes intelligence, and cells/cell communities USE information. Yet again ... since you continue to ignore this repeated request! ... let me ask you what attributes you require in addition to the gathering, processing and exchange of information, communicating, decision-making, problem-solving (without self-awareness) before you will acknowledge intelligence.-But you have just defined where we differ: Of course cells USE information they receive, but they use it following intelligent instructions already embedded in the genome. The choices are automatic. bBella's lecture is an exposition of that. My leaf analogy is to the point. The color change tells us Fall is coming. All the leaf knows is that it budded out, made energy all summer and with a slight chill in the air, chemical reactions are set up to change color. Nowhere in Shapiro's book about epigenetics do I find a discussion of cell thought, just of automatic behavior and a built-in ability to automatically vary responses. In your thinking you have to allow for the strength of stimuli that elicit a response. This is not automatism like you pull the switch and the light comes on.-Here is an example of a bacterial transport system. sounds magical and automatic to me:-"The outer membrane of bacteria contains many proteins that form tiny pores. They are important for absorbing nutrients and transmitting signals into the cell. The research group of Sebastian Hiller, Professor of Structural Biology at the Biozentrum, University of Basel, has now shown for the first time at atomic resolution, that these pore proteins are transported in an unstructured, constantly changing state to the outer bacterial membrane. This landmark study was recently published in the scientific journal Nature Structural and Molecular Biology.-"The current study by Hiller provides an exceptional and deep insight into this transport mechanism. The membrane protein is loosely embedded in the solid structure of Skp during transport and does not adopt on a defined spatial structure itself. "Amazingly, the unfolded protein changes its state constantly ... faster than thousand times per second and more than ten million times during the crossing," explained Hiller. ""- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-erratic-proteins-insights-mechanism.html#jCp
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Tuesday, October 01, 2013, 15:06 (4071 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: But you have just defined where we differ: Of course cells USE information they receive, but they use it following intelligent instructions already embedded in the genome. I know where we differ: I am suggesting that cells are intelligent, and you are insisting that they are not intelligent, because they are automata preprogrammed by your God. I have explained what I mean by "intelligent": namely, with the ability to gather, process and exchange information, communicate and cooperate with other organisms, take decisions, solve problems. That is my definition of intelligence, which does not require self-awareness, which may be applied to animals including ourselves, and which some scientists also apply to other organisms, including insects and cells/cell communities. Firstly, do you or do you not agree that cells/cell communities have these abilities? Secondly, please give me your own definition of intelligence.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 02, 2013, 02:10 (4071 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I know where we differ: I am suggesting that cells are intelligent, and you are insisting that they are not intelligent, because they are automata preprogrammed by your God. I have explained what I mean by "intelligent": namely, with the ability to gather, process and exchange information, communicate and cooperate with other organisms, take decisions, solve problems. That is my definition of intelligence, which does not require self-awareness, which may be applied to animals including ourselves, and which some scientists also apply to other organisms, including insects and cells/cell communities. Firstly, do you or do you not agree that cells/cell communities have these abilities? Secondly, please give me your own definition of intelligence.-Your first point is fine if you take it at an action/reaction biochemical process of exchanging information. Automata . My definition of intelligence is not just the use of information but being able to analyze concepts presented by that information, formuate new theories from those concepts. In other words what we humans do with our brains and our consciousness. Cells don't do this.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Wednesday, October 02, 2013, 18:03 (4070 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: I know where we differ: I am suggesting that cells are intelligent, and you are insisting that they are not intelligent, because they are automata preprogrammed by your God. I have explained what I mean by "intelligent": namely, with the ability to gather, process and exchange information, communicate and cooperate with other organisms, take decisions, solve problems. That is my definition of intelligence, which does not require self-awareness, which may be applied to animals including ourselves, and which some scientists also apply to other organisms, including insects and cells/cell communities. Firstly, do you or do you not agree that cells/cell communities have these abilities? Secondly, please give me your own definition of intelligence.-DAVID: Your first point is fine if you take it at an action/reaction biochemical process of exchanging information. Automata . My definition of intelligence is not just the use of information but being able to analyze concepts presented by that information, formuate new theories from those concepts. In other words what we humans do with our brains and our consciousness. Cells don't do this.-From the very beginning, I have emphasized that my concept of intelligence does not involve self-awareness. It's now clear that the additional attributes you insist on before you acknowledge intelligence are "what we humans do with our brains and consciousness" that cells, cell communities, insects, birds and animals can't do. In other words, your starting point is that only humans are intelligent. You did give crows and orang-utans a glimmer of a concession, but so far as we know even they don't analyse concepts or formulate theories or write novels and symphonies or ask questions about the universe. Since according to your definition, only humans are intelligent, we must conclude that your God has preprogrammed every other living organism to do whatever it does. Come to think of it, that may well include humans. You may believe you chose to be a cowboy-doctor-author, but how do you know your God didn't preprogramme all the decisions you thought you took with your own intelligence? After all, you may be nothing but a collection of unintelligent, robotic cell communities.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 02, 2013, 18:45 (4070 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: From the very beginning, I have emphasized that my concept of intelligence does not involve self-awareness. .....In other words, your starting point is that only humans are intelligent. You did give crows and orang-utans a glimmer of a concession, but so far as we know even they don't analyse concepts or formulate theories or write novels and symphonies or ask questions about the universe.-Of course whole multicellular organisms, as you describe, have some ability at decision-making. but you are confusing the issue. I've been arguing about single cells or one-celled organisms. They are automatons.-> > dhw:Since according to your definition, only humans are intelligent, we must conclude that your God has preprogrammed every other living organism to do whatever it does. Come to think of it, that may well include humans.... After all, you may be nothing but a collection of unintelligent, robotic cell communities.-As stated above, stop confusing two levels of biology. I am arguing at the cellular level for one-celled organisms. That was the lecture bBella presented.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Thursday, October 03, 2013, 12:20 (4069 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: My definition of intelligence is not just the use of information but being able to analyze concepts presented by that information, formuate new theories from those concepts. In other words what we humans do with our brains and our consciousness. Cells don't do this.-dhw: From the very beginning, I have emphasized that my concept of intelligence does not involve self-awareness.It's now clear that the additional attributes you insist on before you acknowledge intelligence are "what we humans do with our brains and consciousness" that cells, cell communities, insects, birds and animals can't do. In other words, your starting point is that only humans are intelligent. You did give crows and orang-utans a glimmer of a concession, but so far as we know even they don't analyse concepts or formulate theories or write novels and symphonies or ask questions about the universe.-DAVID: Of course whole multicellular organisms, as you describe, have some ability at decision-making. but you are confusing the issue. I've been arguing about single cells or one-celled organisms. They are automatons.-There is now multiple confusion. Firstly, I have always bracketed cells and cell communities together. I don't see how communities can form without communication and cooperation between individual cells. I suggested that the first innovation came when cells merged. So are you now saying that the single cell has no intelligence, but when two cells come together they become intelligent? No, because you have only mentioned decision-making (though presumably when individual cells merge, it isn't as a result of a decision!), and according to you decision-making is not enough to justify using the word intelligent. Organisms must be able to analyse concepts, formulate theories, and do all the things that humans do with their brains and consciousness. -dhw: Since according to your definition, only humans are intelligent, we must conclude that your God has preprogrammed every other living organism to do whatever it does. Come to think of it, that may well include humans.... After all, you may be nothing but a collection of unintelligent, robotic cell communities.-DAVID: As stated above, stop confusing two levels of biology. I am arguing at the cellular level for one-celled organisms. That was the lecture bBella presented.-You are confusing all levels of our discussion. Firstly, if you now accept that decision-making is a sign of intelligence, you will have to revise your human-based definition of intelligence and bring it in line with my own. Secondly, according to you, it's not only single-celled creatures that are automatons, but also multicellular creatures like ants, which I used as an analogy to the way cell communities function (remember the decapitated mantis?). So you will also have to revise your verdict on multicellular organisms.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Thursday, October 03, 2013, 16:13 (4069 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Thursday, October 03, 2013, 16:45
> dhw: There is now multiple confusion. Firstly, I have always bracketed cells and cell communities together. I don't see how communities can form without communication and cooperation between individual cells. I suggested that the first innovation came when cells merged. So are you now saying that the single cell has no intelligence, but when two cells come together they become intelligent? No, because you have only mentioned decision-making (though presumably when individual cells merge, it isn't as a result of a decision!), and according to you decision-making is not enough to justify using the word intelligent. Organisms must be able to analyse concepts, formulate theories, and do all the things that humans do with their brains and consciousness.-You have been confused all along. First of all, we have no theory of multicellularity origination. We don't know why or how it happened. A very recent conference admitted this.-http://www.multicellularity2013.com/resources/abstracts2013-09-28.pdf-Single-celled organisms have the automatic responses shown in bbella's lecture. Multicelled organisms like ants have nerve cells and brains and act through instincts, and we don't know how instincts are coded into their brains. Cooperation in organs is generated through differential expresion of DNA in the various cell types that make up a specific organ. Once again you are confused about intelligent information in DNA and 'intelligence'. > > dhw: You are confusing all levels of our discussion. ...... according to you, it's not only single-celled creatures that are automatons, but also multicellular creatures like ants, which I used as an analogy to the way cell communities function (remember the decapitated mantis?). So you will also have to revise your verdict on multicellular organisms.-I've covered this comment above. The intelligent genome is a factory-guidance automatic responder, working from intellgent information packed into it. DNA doesn't just make proteins, it organizes whole organs and organisms. It must have prior information available in order to do that. Every building has an architect. You claim that each cell works within a committee of cells, which is goal oriented originally in the dim past to struggle toward the goal of a functional kidney, without understanding the requirements of such an organ. Hunt and peck to a kidney really is poppycock. We are full circle.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Friday, October 04, 2013, 17:39 (4068 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: My definition of intelligence is not just the use of information but being able to analyze concepts presented by that information, formulate new theories from those concepts. In other words what we humans do with our brains and our consciousness. Cells don't do this. -I have pointed out to you that your definition restricts intelligence to humans, whereas my own excludes self-awareness and takes decision-making as one of its crucial factors. -DAVID: Of course whole multicellular organisms, as you describe, have some ability at decision-making, but you are confusing the issue. I've been arguing about single cells or one-celled organisms. They are automatons.-I have pointed out that single cells exchange information, communicate and cooperate (more manifestations of intelligence) to form communities. In any case, you have already told us that ants (multicellular) are automatons. According to your definition, all organisms are automatons except humans (though even our independent intelligence may be questionable, since we too comprise communities of cells ... one factor in the debate on free will).-DAVID: You have been confused all along. First of all, we have no theory of multicellularity origination. We don't know why or how it happened. A very recent conference admitted this.-http://www.multicellularity2013.com/resources/abstracts2013-09-28.pdf-Ah David, you are truly the Floyd Mayweather Jr of the debating ring. Every potential knock-out punch neatly sidestepped. We are not discussing the apparently oft repeated origin of multicellularity, but whether cells are "intelligent". As I've emphasized over and over again, this hypothesis is meant only to explain the course of evolution, and it leaves open the question of how the original cell acquired its intelligence. You are confusing the hypothesis of the intelligent cell with the hypothesis of panpsychism. The conference speakers repeatedly talk of cooperation, cell-cell communication, signalling. When you stated "bluntly" that cells do not exchange information, BBella drew your attention to a lecture entitled "How do cells talk to each other and what do they say?" It stated categorically that they did exchange information and also that "cells make different decisions depending on the input." You even drew our attention to a paper by a retired cell biologist who stated the same thing, but you make no reference to that, and when Margulis laughs at people who think bacteria do not have some form of (non-human) consciousness, you insist that she would agree with you if you both agreed on your definition (which of course is exactly what she laughs at). In your examples, you continually focus on the automatic means by which information is acquired (analogous to the manner in which we humans acquire information through the automatic mechanisms of our senses), and prefer to gloss over the communications, cooperation and decision-making that are the hallmark of intelligence as I define it. DAVID: You claim that each cell works within a committee of cells, which is goal oriented originally in the dim past to struggle toward the goal of a functional kidney, without understanding the requirements of such an organ. Hunt and peck to a kidney really is poppycock. We are full circle.-This is quite wrong. My hypothesis (not a claim) is based on the fact that all organs and organisms comprise communities of cells which at some time did not exist, and which therefore came together in a hitherto unknown combination. You have a theory: that some unknown, unknowable, indefinable power preprogrammed the first cells to produce every new combination, from eukaryotes to humans (apart from an occasional intervention). Neo-Darwinists also have a theory: that the new combinations came about through random mutations. Some scientists, however, inform us that cells communicate, cooperate, take decisions, combine etc., and I'm suggesting that the cell communities themselves invented new combinations as and when conditions either demanded or allowed them. No "goal", no "plan" of any kind, other than survival and continuation, leading to the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution, from one invention and historical phase to another, just like the course of human inventions and human history. Let me repeat, this leaves wide open the question of where the "intelligence" came from. It is an attempt to explain the course of evolution, and as more and more discoveries are made about the complex nature of the cell, I still don't see it as any more unbelievable than your divine preprogramming of all innovations, or Darwin's random mutations.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Friday, October 04, 2013, 20:11 (4068 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw; I have pointed out that single cells exchange information, communicate and cooperate (more manifestations of intelligence) to form communities.... all organisms are automatons except humans -You know full well that many animals communicate with a degree of intelligence. My dog often communicates with me and I understand what he wants and he understands me. Single cells, no way.-> > dhw; As I've emphasized over and over again, this hypothesis is meant only to explain the course of evolution, and it leaves open the question of how the original cell acquired its intelligence. You are confusing the hypothesis of the intelligent cell with the hypothesis of panpsychism. The conference speakers repeatedly talk of cooperation, cell-cell communication, signalling. When you stated "bluntly" that cells do not exchange information, BBella drew your attention to a lecture entitled "How do cells talk to each other and what do they say?" -Cells do communicate and I have agreed to that. It is the method of communication that you have shut your mind to. Look again at the famous lecture. The cells send each other biochemical moleculer signals in a series. The signals are responded to molecularly. The molecules do not think. All the actions and reactions are biochemically coded. There is a passage of information and appropriate reactions occur. No thought or intelligence is involved unless you invoke the meaning of 'information' as intelligence in an M1 or CIA context.-As for the cells acquiring intelligence, their guidance is in the information contained in DNA. Since we have no answer as to how life started, we have no proof of how that information got into DNA.- > dhw; In your examples, you continually focus on the automatic means by which information is acquired (analogous to the manner in which we humans acquire information through the automatic mechanisms of our senses), and prefer to gloss over the communications, cooperation and decision-making that are the hallmark of intelligence as I define it.-And you keep ignoring the diagrams in the lecture of molecular reactions imparting the necessary information in the form of molecular stimuli.- > dhw; Some scientists, however, inform us that cells communicate, cooperate, take decisions, combine etc., and I'm suggesting that the cell communities themselves invented new combinations as and when conditions either demanded or allowed them. No "goal", no "plan" of any kind, other than survival and continuation, leading to the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution, from one invention and historical phase to another, just like the course of human inventions and human history.-You have taken scientists' philosophizing out of context. Talk to any biochemist and you will find that I am correct in my descriptions of how it all works. Your proposition reminds me of my childhood tooth fairy fantasy. As I have described the requirements to create a liver or a kidney require specified complexity and detailed information. Since you have given up on chance you need to study the lecture in detail and recognize what I am defending.-> dhw: Let me repeat, this leaves wide open the question of where the "intelligence" came from. It is an attempt to explain the course of evolution, and as more and more discoveries are made about the complex nature of the cell, I still don't see it as any more unbelievable than your divine preprogramming of all innovations, or Darwin's random mutations.-I'm glad you picket fence is so comfortable. Things will become much more complex asd resaerch advances. The formula applies: more complexity =s less possibilty for chance. The unbelievable becomes possible.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Saturday, October 05, 2013, 14:27 (4067 days ago) @ David Turell
Dhw (as quoted by David): I have pointed out that single cells exchange information, communicate and cooperate (more manifestations of intelligence) to form communities.... all organisms are automatons except humans -DAVID: You know full well that many animals communicate with a degree of intelligence. My dog often communicates with me and I understand what he wants and he understands me. Single cells, no way.-A strange piece of editing! The bit you have left out is: "According to your definition all organisms are automatons except humans." Let me remind you that your definition involved the ability to analyse concepts, "formulate new theories from those concepts. In other words what we humans do with our brains and consciousness." Since your dog is unable to do these things, it is not intelligent according to your definition, which therefore does not even stand up to your own criteria. Do please revise it and let me know your new version. -We are not talking about single cells being able to do what multicellular organisms are able to do. That may well be why multicellularity evolved in the first place ... because cells found they could accomplish more by cooperating with one another and forming communities. There are degrees of intelligence, as you have acknowledged by introducing us to your dog, and my hypothesis suggests that intelligence evolved from the simple to the ever more complex as cells cooperated to form new communities.-DAVID: Cells do communicate and I have agreed to that. It is the method of communication that you have shut your mind to. Look again at the famous lecture. The cells send each other biochemical moleculer signals in a series. The signals are responded to molecularly. The molecules do not think. -All communication involves some kind of biochemical process. Scientists have succeeded in identifying which areas of the human brain are involved in absorbing and processing different kinds of information, and they can trace signals as they go from the brain cells through and to other cell communities ... but they cannot tell you what actually controls the assessing, selecting, decision-making process that precedes the sending of the signals: the phenomenon we call consciousness or intelligence. I am suggesting (as does Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Professor of Cell Biology) that even individual cells have an intelligent control centre: he calls it the centrosome. You keep focusing on the method of communication, and "you shut your mind to" what composes the particular message in the first place.-dhw: Some scientists, however, inform us that cells communicate, cooperate, take decisions, combine etc., and I'm suggesting that the cell communities themselves invented new combinations as and when conditions either demanded or allowed them. No "goal", no "plan" of any kind, other than survival and continuation, leading to the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution, from one invention and historical phase to another, just like the course of human inventions and human history.-DAVID: You have taken scientists' philosophizing out of context. Talk to any biochemist and you will find that I am correct in my descriptions of how it all works. Your proposition reminds me of my childhood tooth fairy fantasy.-The majority of scientists would say you are still indulging in your childhood tooth fairy fantasy. Your theory is that there is an unknown power (the tooth fairy) that preprogrammed the earliest forms of life to automatically produce every new organ that would lead from eukaryotes to humans, and humans were his ultimate goal. I have offered an alternative: that there is no ultimate goal, but only constant adaptation and invention to fit in with the demands and opportunities presented by changing environmental conditions. This is indeed "philosophizing", but no more so than your God hypothesis.-dhw: Let me repeat, this leaves wide open the question of where the "intelligence" came from. It is an attempt to explain the course of evolution, and as more and more discoveries are made about the complex nature of the cell, I still don't see it as any more unbelievable than your divine preprogramming of all innovations, or Darwin's random mutations.-DAVID: I'm glad you picket fence is so comfortable. Things will become much more complex asd resaerch advances. The formula applies: more complexity =s less possibilty for chance. The unbelievable becomes possible.-The "unbelievable", of course, must be the hypothesis that cells have an intelligent control centre. I doubt very much whether research into the cell will actually reveal your God. *****-I will have to leave the article on Biological Information till later.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Saturday, October 05, 2013, 15:53 (4067 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: A strange piece of editing! The bit you have left out is: "According to your definition all organisms are automatons except humans." -That is your misinterpretation of my definition, and why I deleted it. > dhw: We are not talking about single cells being able to do what multicellular organisms are able to do. That may well be why multicellularity evolved in the first place ... because cells found they could accomplish more by cooperating with one another and forming communities. There are degrees of intelligence, as you have acknowledged by introducing us to your dog, and my hypothesis suggests that intelligence evolved from the simple to the ever more complex as cells cooperated to form new communities.- I agree your theory implies that single cells invented multicellularity. You will need to read the recent entry on biological information to realize how unlikely that is. > dhw: All communication involves some kind of biochemical process....... I am suggesting (as does Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Professor of Cell Biology) that even individual cells have an intelligent control centre: he calls it the centrosome. You keep focusing on the method of communication, and "you shut your mind to" what composes the particular message in the first place.-I know about the centrosome. It is composed of very large protein molecules doing a job by the same series of inter-molecular signals I've been talking about. One molecule activating another to do its job. All automatic. The intelligence is in the instructions (information) in the genome. Even choices in the centrosome are automatic. Please don't throw professors who use metaphores at me.-> > dhw; The majority of scientists would say you are still indulging in your childhood tooth fairy fantasy. Your theory is that there is an unknown power (the tooth fairy) that preprogrammed the earliest forms of life to automatically produce every new organ that would lead from eukaryotes to humans, and humans were his ultimate goal. I have offered an alternative: that there is no ultimate goal, but only constant adaptation and invention to fit in with the demands and opportunities presented by changing environmental conditions. This is indeed "philosophizing", but no more so than your God hypothesis.-More unadulterated twists on Darwinism. Yes, we both philosophize. We have agreed that evolution occurred. Your proposal doesn't fit our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry. The evolution we see is a staccato series of species, all arriving full blown. You are reviving the itty bitty advance theory of Charles that is not seen in the fossil record. Cellular discussion and advances would perforce have to be itty bitty. > > dhw: I still don't see it as any more unbelievable than your divine preprogramming of all innovations, or Darwin's random mutations. > > DAVID: I'm glad you picket fence is so comfortable. Things will become much more complex asd resaerch advances. The formula applies: more complexity =s less possibilty for chance. The unbelievable becomes possible. > > dhw: The "unbelievable", of course, must be the hypothesis that cells have an intelligent control centre. I doubt very much whether research into the cell will actually reveal your God.-Cell complexity will overwhelm Darwin theory. The "possible unbelievable" is God running the show. > > ***** > > I will have to leave the article on Biological Information till later.-I know you will read carefully.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Sunday, October 06, 2013, 19:30 (4066 days ago) @ David Turell
David quoted me as saying that all organisms are automatons except humans.-dhw: The bit you have left out is: "According to your definition all organisms are automatons except humans." DAVID: That is your misinterpretation of my definition, and why I deleted it.-Your response was that your dog was intelligent. On 2 Oct. at 2.10 you wrote: "My definition of intelligence is not just the use of information but being able to analyze concepts presented by that information, formulate new theories from those concepts. In other words what we humans do with our brains and our consciousness." Unless your dog analyses concepts, formulates new theories, and does what we do with our brains, he is not intelligent according to your definition. Please explain what I have misinterpreted. dhw: We are not talking about single cells being able to do what multicellular organisms are able to do. That may well be why multicellularity evolved in the first place ... because cells found they could accomplish more by cooperating with one another and forming communities. -DAVID: I agree your theory implies that single cells invented multicellularity. You will need to read the recent entry on biological information to realize how unlikely that is.-I've read the article but its focus seems to be on proving the existence of Universal Information, via umpteen definitions and classifications. I'll read it again before commenting. However, I'm quite happy with "unlikely". I regard all three hypotheses (divine preprogramming, random mutations, intelligent cells) as unlikely but not impossible. I am an agnostic.-dhw: All communication involves some kind of biochemical process....... I am suggesting (as does Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Professor of Cell Biology) that even individual cells have an intelligent control centre: he calls it the centrosome. You keep focusing on the method of communication, and "you shut your mind to" what composes the particular message in the first place.-DAVID: I know about the centrosome. It is composed of very large protein molecules doing a job by the same series of inter-molecular signals I've been talking about. One molecule activating another to do its job. All automatic. The intelligence is in the instructions (information) in the genome. Even choices in the centrosome are automatic. Please don't throw professors who use metaphores at me.-Please don't make out that professors who do not share your belief in divinely preprogrammed automation are only using metaphors. There's nothing metaphorical about Margulis's claim that bacteria are "conscious" (though not in the human sense). Albrecht-Buehler's book is based on the concept of cell intelligence, and he even refutes the idea of detailed preprogramming: "The cell as a whole is capable of immensely complex migration patterns for which their genome cannot contain a detailed program as they are responses to unforeseeable encounters." This is not a metaphor. Quevli, who coined the term "cell intelligence" wrote: "the cell is a conscious intelligent being, and, by reason thereof, plans and builds all plants and animals in the same manner that man constructs houses, railroads and other structures." This is not a metaphor. dhw; The majority of scientists would say you are still indulging in your childhood tooth fairy fantasy. Your theory is that there is an unknown power (the tooth fairy) that preprogrammed the earliest forms of life to automatically produce every new organ that would lead from eukaryotes to humans, and humans were his ultimate goal. I have offered an alternative: that there is no ultimate goal, but only constant adaptation and invention to fit in with the demands and opportunities presented by changing environmental conditions. This is indeed "philosophizing", but no more so than your God hypothesis.-DAVID: More unadulterated twists on Darwinism. Yes, we both philosophize. We have agreed that evolution occurred. Your proposal doesn't fit our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry. -Our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry has no explanation for evolutionary innovation, and of course it cannot provide any evidence of a "tooth fairy" preprogramming the first cells with lungs, legs and livers.-DAVID: The evolution we see is a staccato series of species, all arriving full blown. You are reviving the itty bitty advance theory of Charles that is not seen in the fossil record. Cellular discussion and advances would perforce have to be itty bitty.-Another distortion of my argument. I've repeated ad nauseam that I do not accept gradualism, and that the "intelligent cell" explains the gaps in the fossil record on the grounds that there are no gaps. A new invention (organ) must work or it will not survive. How many non-moving cars, non-flying airplanes, non-firing guns are on the market? I have suggested that the Cambrian Explosion may have come about because a dramatic change in the environment allowed existing cell communities to produce innovations that would not have been possible under earlier conditions. We both propose a form of Intelligent Design, but my hypothesis only explains the "punctuated equilibrium" of evolution. Yours goes beyond evolution to a possible designer of the (cellular) designer.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Monday, October 07, 2013, 01:31 (4066 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:Unless your dog analyses concepts, formulates new theories, and does what we do with our brains, he is not intelligent according to your definition. Please explain what I have misinterpreted.-I was trying to define human intelligence in the material you cherry-picked. The dog has a small amount of intelligence. Even does a little deduction when I try to trick him.-> > dhw: I regard all three hypotheses (divine preprogramming, random mutations, intelligent cells) as unlikely but not impossible. I am an agnostic.-I know. > > dhw: Please don't make out that professors who do not share your belief in divinely preprogrammed automation are only using metaphors. There's nothing metaphorical about Margulis's claim that bacteria are "conscious" (though not in the human sense). Albrecht-Buehler's book is based on the concept of cell intelligence, and he even refutes the idea of detailed preprogramming: "The cell as a whole is capable of immensely complex migration patterns for which their genome cannot contain a detailed program as they are responses to unforeseeable encounters." This is not a metaphor. Quevli, who coined the term "cell intelligence" wrote: "the cell is a conscious intelligent being, and, by reason thereof, plans and builds all plants and animals in the same manner that man constructs houses, railroads and other structures." This is not a metaphor.-All I can do is disagree with you, Margulis, A-B, and Quevli. I still view these as metaphorical statements. Venter agrees with me. See the last post.-> > dhw: Our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry has no explanation for evolutionary innovation, and of course it cannot provide any evidence of a "tooth fairy" preprogramming the first cells with lungs, legs and livers.-Some of us can make intelligent guesses, but in general you are correct. No one knows how species and new organs appear. > > dhw: I've repeated ad nauseam that I do not accept gradualism, and that the "intelligent cell" explains the gaps in the fossil record on the grounds that there are no gaps. A new invention (organ) must work or it will not survive. ...I have suggested that the Cambrian Explosion may have come about because a dramatic change in the environment allowed existing cell communities to produce innovations that would not have been possible under earlier conditions.-Who showed the cells how to plan those complex specified organs so suddenly in rather shorrt geologic time terms?-> dhw: We both propose a form of Intelligent Design, but my hypothesis only explains the "punctuated equilibrium" of evolution. Yours goes beyond evolution to a possible designer of the (cellular) designer.-The problem is you want your intelligent cells to communicate at an intellectual level that does not exist. Cells communicate throught biochecical reactions as bbella's lecture shows. A appears, affects B, which initiates C, which starts up D, which reacts with the originator of A to complete the feedback loop. Intelligent planning for the loop, nothing invented by the cells
Cambrian Explosion: Nobel to the rescue
by David Turell , Monday, October 07, 2013, 15:16 (4065 days ago) @ David Turell
David: The problem is you want your intelligent cells to communicate at an intellectual level that does not exist. Cells communicate throught biochecical reactions as bbella's lecture shows. A appears, affects B, which initiates C, which starts up D, which reacts with the originator of A to complete the feedback loop. Intelligent planning for the loop, nothing invented by the cells-Please read the Nobel release carefully describing cellular activity as highly organized reactions under genetic control. No thought needed;-http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2013/press.html
Cambrian Explosion: molecular machinery
by David Turell , Monday, October 07, 2013, 17:48 (4065 days ago) @ David Turell
Another video about DNA:-http://on.ted.com/Berry
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Monday, October 07, 2013, 22:39 (4065 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: Unless your dog analyses concepts, formulates new theories, and does what we do with our brains, he is not intelligent according to your definition. Please explain what I have misinterpreted.-DAVID: I was trying to define human intelligence in the material you cherry-picked. The dog has a small amount of intelligence. Even does a little deduction when I try to trick him.-In which case I presume you now accept the definition of intelligence as "the ability to gather, process and exchange information, communicate and cooperate with other organisms, take decisions, solve problems." All of these abilities are present in cells and your dog, and therefore cells and your dog are intelligent. QED.-dhw: Please don't make out that professors who do not share your belief in divinely preprogrammed automation are only using metaphors. [...] Quevli, who coined the term "cell intelligence" wrote: "the cell is a conscious intelligent being, and, by reason thereof, plans and builds all plants and animals in the same manner that man constructs houses, railroads and other structures." This is not a metaphor.-DAVID: All I can do is disagree with you, Margulis, A-B, and Quevli. I still view these as metaphorical statements. Venter agrees with me. See the last post.-He agrees with you that cells are automatons, not that Margulis and Co are speaking metaphorically. Where is the metaphor in the statement: "the cell is a conscious intelligent being"? As an atheist, Venter thinks life consists ONLY of chemicals, which might not make him your ideal buddy. What we now have are some scientists agreeing that cells are automatons, and some not agreeing. dhw: Our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry has no explanation for evolutionary innovation, and of course it cannot provide any evidence of a "tooth fairy" preprogramming the first cells with lungs, legs and livers.-DAVID: Some of us can make intelligent guesses, but in general you are correct. No one knows how species and new organs appear.-So you can stop protesting that my proposal doesn't fit our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry. No proposal does, including your own, and one guess is as intelligent (or not) as any other. dhw: I have suggested that the Cambrian Explosion may have come about because a dramatic change in the environment allowed existing cell communities to produce innovations that would not have been possible under earlier conditions.-DAVID: Who showed the cells how to plan those complex specified organs so suddenly in rather shorrt geologic time terms?-Not for the first time, you have left out the fact that my hypothesis ONLY seeks to explain how evolution works, and leaves open the question of how the cells became intelligent in the first place. The hypothesis can be theistic (God designed the "cell brain" that did the designing) or atheistic (it evolved of its own accord). Again you are confusing it with the atheistic form of panpsychism.-dhw: We both propose a form of Intelligent Design, but my hypothesis only explains the "punctuated equilibrium" of evolution. Yours goes beyond evolution to a possible designer of the (cellular) designer.-DAVID: The problem is you want your intelligent cells to communicate at an intellectual level that does not exist. Cells communicate throught biochecical reactions as bbella's lecture shows. A appears, affects B, which initiates C, which starts up D, which reacts with the originator of A to complete the feedback loop. Intelligent planning for the loop, nothing invented by the cells.-We are not talking here of how cells communicate ... we are talking of what composes the messages that are to be communicated. A appears, and the human brain proceeds to decipher the meaning of A, to take decisions, to pass its decisions to B, C, D, all of which make their contribution before implementing the instructions issued by the human brain for dealing with A, thereby completing the feedback loop. You simply assume that your God preprogrammed the "cell brain" to do the same thing. Some scientists agree with you, and some don't.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 08, 2013, 02:08 (4065 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:In which case I presume you now accept the definition of intelligence as "the ability to gather, process and exchange information, communicate and cooperate with other organisms, take decisions, solve problems." All of these abilities are present in cells and your dog, and therefore cells and your dog are intelligent. QED.-Not QED. The cells automatically use intelligent information.-> > dhw; He agrees with you that cells are automatons, not that Margulis and Co are speaking metaphorically. Where is the metaphor in the statement: "the cell is a conscious intelligent being"? As an atheist, Venter thinks life consists ONLY of chemicals, which might not make him your ideal buddy. What we now have are some scientists agreeing that cells are automatons, and some not agreeing.-I would judge that since most folks like Venter are atheists they would be on the side of automatic cells. The only way I can accept Margulis is as a metaphor. Remember she also deep-ended on the Gaia hypothesis; there is a kook side to her. > > dhw: Our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry has no explanation for evolutionary innovation, and of course it cannot provide any evidence of a "tooth fairy" preprogramming the first cells with lungs, legs and livers. > > DAVID: Some of us can make intelligent guesses, but in general you are correct. No one knows how species and new organs appear. > > dhw: So you can stop protesting that my proposal doesn't fit our current knowledge of cellular biochemistry. -I'll still keep in protesting. Cells do not think, an that is what you are proposing. > dhw: Not for the first time, you have left out the fact that my hypothesis ONLY seeks to explain how evolution works, and leaves open the question of how the cells became intelligent in the first place. The hypothesis can be theistic (God designed the "cell brain" that did the designing) or atheistic (it evolved of its own accord). Again you are confusing it with the atheistic form of panpsychism.-I am not confused and I understand your stated position above is what you have constantly stated.-> > dhw: We are not talking here of how cells communicate ... we are talking of what composes the messages that are to be communicated. A appears, and the human brain proceeds to decipher the meaning of A, to take decisions, to pass its decisions to B, C, D, all of which make their contribution before implementing the instructions issued by the human brain for dealing with A, thereby completing the feedback loop. You simply assume that your God preprogrammed the "cell brain" to do the same thing. Some scientists agree with you, and some don't.-Yes, we are talking about how cells commmunicate. That is the point of bbella's lecture. Molecular signals are simply that, one molecule activating another which is the only way cells communicate. No planning or thinking here. Evolution did not advance by your theory. I admit we don't know how, but I belive your approach is an impossible way from my knowledge of biochemistry.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Tuesday, October 08, 2013, 15:54 (4064 days ago) @ David Turell
Dhw: In which case I presume you now accept the definition of intelligence as "the ability to gather, process and exchange information, communicate and cooperate with other organisms, take decisions, solve problems." All of these abilities are present in cells and your dog, and therefore cells and your dog are intelligent. QED.-DAVID: Not QED. The cells automatically use intelligent information.-The Mayweather sidestep. Please, once and for all, give us your definition of intelligence (not the MI5 form, but the doggy form).-dhw: Quevli, who coined the term "cell intelligence" wrote: "the cell is a conscious intelligent being, and, by reason thereof, plans and builds all plants and animals in the same manner that man constructs houses, railroads and other structures." This is not a metaphor.-DAVID: All I can do is disagree with you, Margulis, A-B, and Quevli. I still view these as metaphorical statements. Venter agrees with me. See the last post.-Dhw: [Venter] agrees with you that cells are automatons, not that Margulis and Co are speaking metaphorically. Where is the metaphor in the statement: "the cell is a conscious intelligent being"? As an atheist, Venter thinks life consists ONLY of chemicals, which might not make him your ideal buddy. What we now have are some scientists agreeing that cells are automatons, and some not agreeing.-DAVID: I would judge that since most folks like Venter are atheists they would be on the side of automatic cells. The only way I can accept Margulis is as a metaphor. Remember she also deep-ended on the Gaia hypothesis; there is a kook side to her.-You have not explained how the above statement, or Margulis's, can be called metaphorical. Yes, materialists are bound to believe that life is "just a complex of chemical reactions", but that does not explain how chemicals have produced innovations and self-awareness. Even Venter still has to choose between random mutations, your God, and cooperation between intelligent cells. Margulis was an agnostic and A-B does not base his findings on any philosophical position, so we have at least two experts in the field who are not out to proselytize. Do by all means side with the atheistic majority (as far as it suits you to do so), but don't dismiss the minority with terms like "kooks" or "poppycock". That puts you on a par with folk who dismiss God as a "delusion". Besides, as a man who rejects the views of 90% of physical scientists (plus 50% of medical scientists), since when did you put your trust in the scientific majority?-DAVID: Cells do not think, and that is what you are proposing.-I do not propose that cells think like humans (Margulis is very particular on that point), and I do not believe that intelligence is confined to human-type thinking, as you indicated in your first attempt at a definition. That is why it's essential for you to clarify what you mean by the word.-DAVID: Yes, we are talking about how cells communicate [...]Molecular signals are simply that, one molecule activating another which is the only way cells communicate.-There is no argument about this. It is also how our human cells communicate. But WHAT they communicate is a message created by the intelligence of the cellular community that forms the human brain. If I decide to perform an action, the message passes through the relevant molecules in my body in the manner you have described. But "I decide" is the non-automatic part of the process (unless humans are automatons too). What part of the cell or the cell community decides which message is to be passed on? According to some scientists, it is the intelligent 'cell brain', or centrosome, or Constructive Planner. According to you, it is God.-DAVID: Evolution did not advance by your theory. I admit we don't know how, but I believe your approach is an impossible way from my knowledge of biochemistry.-From your knowledge of biochemistry, how could the earliest cells have been preprogrammed to produce the billions of innovations leading to humans? You have told us repeatedly that we are far from solving all the mysteries of the cell. Since you admit to not knowing how evolution advanced, why not keep an open mind?
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 08, 2013, 16:46 (4064 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The Mayweather sidestep. Please, once and for all, give us your definition of intelligence (not the MI5 form, but the doggy form).-No sidestep. The meaning of the word intelligence is so obvious, I didn't think I had to do this. Intelligence is the ability to learn information, to recognize new situations, to reason out solutions to changes or challenges, to think abstractly as Higgs did when he thought of his particle. (this is a form of planning ahead). To understand complex information.-What can cells do. They are automatically instructed by complex information to perform molecular tasks. They receive information, to which they must respond, by molecular signals as a series of molecular reactions. They then respond by the production of molecules according to instructions in their genome. There is no thought here. Intelligence in my dog or me or you nestles in a consciousness which is an emergent property from the brain, which has plasticity and grows new neurons and connections as it learns. Cells don't reason, they are instructed to react. Cells can't plan like Higgs did. He integrated a large number of prior observations to make his proposal of a particle. Cells don't integrate, they react.-This is all so obvious I didn't think I had to spell it out. This is why I strongly believe in theistic evolution. -> dhw; You have not explained how the above statement, or Margulis's, can be called metaphorical.-I know that. I view her statement as a metaphor in a perverse way. It is the way I wish to interpret her thought. You don't know either exactly what she meant by it, since it is a tiny statement taken out of the totality of her work. And she believed in Gaia Earth, which reveals a tone of wackiness in her ruminations.-> dhw: Yes, materialists are bound to believe that life is "just a complex of chemical reactions", but that does not explain how chemicals have produced innovations and self-awareness. -Of course it doesn't. Consciousness and its intellect are emergent qualities out of the biochemistry.-> dhw: Even Venter still has to choose between random mutations, your God, and cooperation between intelligent cells. Margulis was an agnostic and A-B does not base his findings on any philosophical position, so we have at least two experts in the field who are not out to proselytize........since when did you put your trust in the scientific majority?-I am my own thought pattern. I reach my own conclusions and pick and choose between reasonable ideas, presented by others, that fit together for me, making my own Higgs particle as it relates to the process of evolution.- > DAVID: Yes, we are talking about how cells communicate [...]Molecular signals are simply that, one molecule activating another which is the only way cells communicate. > > dhw: There is no argument about this. It is also how our human cells communicate. But WHAT they communicate is a message created by the intelligence of the cellular community that forms the human brain. If I decide to perform an action, the message passes through the relevant molecules in my body in the manner you have described. But "I decide" is the non-automatic part of the process (unless humans are automatons too). What part of the cell or the cell community decides which message is to be passed on? According to some scientists, it is the intelligent 'cell brain', or centrosome, or Constructive Planner. According to you, it is God.-This is silly. You are attempting to give cells consciousness. It takes billions or neurons and trillions of connections for consciousness to emerge in teh brain. And of course, I have no idea how that happens. Tell me how do your cells do it? They look automatic to me. > > DAVID: Evolution did not advance by your theory. I admit we don't know how, but I believe your approach is an impossible way from my knowledge of biochemistry. > > dhw:From your knowledge of biochemistry, how could the earliest cells have been preprogrammed to produce the billions of innovations leading to humans? You have told us repeatedly that we are far from solving all the mysteries of the cell. Since you admit to not knowing how evolution advanced, why not keep an open mind?-I opened my mind to the answer that there must be a Higher Intelligence, religions call God. I see no other way out of the mystery.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by dhw, Wednesday, October 09, 2013, 16:07 (4063 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: The meaning of the word intelligence is so obvious, I didn't think I had to do this. Intelligence is the ability to learn information, to recognize new situations, to reason out solutions to changes or challenges, to think abstractly as Higgs did when he thought of his particle. (this is a form of planning ahead). To understand complex information.-The major difference between us is your insistence on abstract thinking, which again confines your definition to humans. (And please see below, when you say "This is silly.") Even your intelligent dog cannot think abstractly as Higgs did. You go on to argue that cells react "according to instructions in their genome", so did your God give them instructions to cope with every possible situation as well as produce every possible innovation? (Bacteria can adapt to virtually whatever you throw at them.) I wonder how they "know" which sets of instructions to obey. Is it not conceivable that he simply gave them the ability "to reason out solutions to changes or challenges" as they arose? It's worth quoting A-B again: "The cell as a whole is capable of immensely complex migration patterns for which their genome cannot contain a detailed program as they are responses to unforeseeable encounters." -DAVID: Consciousness and its intellect are emergent qualities out of the biochemistry.-This is such an important subject that I shall tackle it on a separate thread.-Dhw: If I decide to perform an action, the message passes through the relevant molecules in my body in the manner you have described. But "I decide" is the non-automatic part of the process (unless humans are automatons too). What part of the cell or the cell community decides which message is to be passed on? According to some scientists, it is the intelligent 'cell brain', or centrosome, or Constructive Planner. According to you, it is God.-DAVID: This is silly. You are attempting to give cells consciousness. It takes billions or neurons and trillions of connections for consciousness to emerge in teh brain. And of course, I have no idea how that happens. Tell me how do your cells do it? They look automatic to me.-It is silly because you insist on equating "intelligence" with human consciousness, as if human intelligence is the only possible kind. Cells and cell communities solve problems, and have come together to create innovations. None of us know how. Your theory is that they're machines preprogrammed by a god to change themselves all the way from eukaryotes to humans. Darwin's theory was that it happened through random mutations. Plenty of people would call both theories silly. But is it silly for an evolutionist to suggest that there must be a mechanism (which theists can claim was made by their God) within the basic unit of all organisms that deliberately cooperates with other units, progressively combining, adapting and inventing in accordance with whatever conditions arise? Cells may look automatic to you, but as with the rest of the universe, we still have a lot to learn about them. However, you are convinced that cells and cell communities (and ants) are preprogrammed automatons, and I am not. Perhaps we should leave it at that. As always, my thanks for your patient responses, and also for the revealing articles on the intelligence of corvids and various other species.
Cambrian Explosion: afterthought
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 09, 2013, 19:02 (4063 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The major difference between us is your insistence on abstract thinking, which again confines your definition to humans. ... Even your intelligent dog cannot think abstractly as Higgs did. You go on to argue that cells react "according to instructions in their genome", so did your God give them instructions to cope with every possible situation as well as produce every possible innovation? (Bacteria can adapt to virtually whatever you throw at them.)-Yes they can, and I believe the massive informtion in the genome lets them handle it well.--> dhw: I wonder how they "know" which sets of instructions to obey. Is it not conceivable that he simply gave them the ability "to reason out solutions to changes or challenges" as they arose? It's worth quoting A-B again: "The cell as a whole is capable of immensely complex migration patterns for which their genome cannot contain a detailed program as they are responses to unforeseeable encounters."-Won't buy it. They have a set of automatic reactions, and their lives are really not very complicated. Sense nutrients, eat them. Sense danger, avoid it, etc. - > > dhw: It is silly because you insist on equating "intelligence" with human consciousness, as if human intelligence is the only possible kind. Cells and cell communities solve problems, and have come together to create innovations. None of us know how. -We know that cells have been developed into complex organs and organisms. You are right, the 'how' is the issue. You are still confusing information supplied to the cells as intelligence. Intelligence supplied information to the cellular genome for the cells to use. This is a stepwise concept on my part. the cells are not intelligent. They automatically use intelligent information implanted within them..
Cambrian Explosion: bacillus subtilis
by David Turell , Sunday, September 29, 2013, 16:24 (4073 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Bluntly cells do not exchange information, only chemical reactions.-From bbella:-> http://www.sysbio.org/resources/tutorials/2003series/biolecture5.pdf- ... been unfair to dhw, because I have ignored up until now his constant reference to communication in a b.subtilis study about sporulation, which is about equivalent to why leaves turn colors in the Fall as anything else I can think of. b. subtilis is a famous character in bology studiees. I know it well.-> dhw:	The Evolution of Cell-to-Cell Communication in ...www.scoop.it/t/social-foraging/p/3867153222/the-evolution-of-cell... > > dhw: From www.ploscompbiol.org - December 27, 2012 2:53 AM > > "Traditionally microorganisms were considered to be autonomous organisms that could be studied in isolation. However, over the last decades cell-to-cell communication has been found to be ubiquitous. By secreting molecular signals in the extracellular environment microorganisms can indirectly assess the cell density and respond in accordance. (my bold)- There is certainly an exchange of information. My bolding shows it is biochemical reactions. b bella's lecture supports me, not dhw. 'nuff said.
Cambrian Explosion: punctuated trillobites
by David Turell , Friday, January 27, 2017, 04:43 (2858 days ago) @ David Turell
There are no precursors before the trilobites and the succeeding animals are very different. Come and go totally without Darwin grfadulaism. Punctuated equilibrium is a fancy term to describe what we do not know about speciation:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/01/irony_alert_mic103445.html
"How about those fossils that appear "as though they were planted there," as Richard Dawkins once admitted. One of those "planted" classes, the humble trilobites, had eyes that were perhaps the most complex ever produced by nature.1 One expert called them "an all-time feat of function optimization."
And even Shermer's go-to source, Wikipedia, admits ancestral forms, err, "do not seem to exist":
"Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) do not seem to exist.
"Likewise, even the evolutionist Niles Eldredge admitted2 they didn't make sense in light of standard evolutionary theory:
"If this theory were correct, then I should have found evidence of this smooth progression in the vast numbers of Bolivian fossil trilobites I studied. I should have found species gradually changing through time, with smoothly intermediate forms connecting descendant species to their ancestors.
"Instead I found most of the various kinds, including some unique and advanced ones, present in the earliest known fossil beds. Species persisted for long periods of time without change. When they were replaced by similar, related (presumably descendant) species, I saw no gradual change in the older species that would have allowed me to predict the anatomical features of its younger relative.
"And it just gets worse:
"The story of anatomical change through time that I read in the Devonian trilobites of Gondwana is similar to the picture emerging elsewhere in the fossil record: long periods of little or no change, followed by the appearance of anatomically modified descendants, usually with no smoothly intergradational forms in evidence."
Comment: Evolution is a staccato dance from on distinct species to another. There never is any gradualism. Darwin's only contribution is to show us that it seems we evolved from earlier simpler life which was a common singular source. Period.
Cambrian Explosion: punctuated trillobites
by dhw, Friday, January 27, 2017, 12:27 (2857 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: There are no precursors before the trilobites and the succeeding animals are very different. Come and go totally without Darwin gradulaism. Punctuated equilibrium is a fancy term to describe what we do not know about speciation:
No it’s not. It’s simply a term to describe the fact that evolution appears to be static for long periods and then to burst into sudden activity. It is a rejection of Darwin’s gradualism, but is not meant to explain speciation.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/01/irony_alert_mic103445.html
QUOTE: "The story of anatomical change through time that I read in the Devonian trilobites of Gondwana is similar to the picture emerging elsewhere in the fossil record: long periods of little or no change, followed by the appearance of anatomically modified descendants, usually with no smoothly intergradational forms in evidence."
David’s comment: Evolution is a staccato dance from on distinct species to another. There never is any gradualism. Darwin's only contribution is to show us that it seems we evolved from earlier simpler life which was a common singular source. Period.
The “staccato dance” is your fancy term for punctuated equilibrium. We have long, long, long ago agreed that we do not accept Darwin’s random mutations or his gradualism, and we learned recently that even his bulldog Huxley rejected gradualism. But if it hadn’t been for Darwin, we might not even have been having these discussions. I know you much prefer Wallace’s take on evolution, but it happens to have been Darwin’s work that revolutionized modern thought, whether you like it or not, and that’s not bad for an “only contribution”!
Cambrian Explosion: punctuated trillobites
by David Turell , Friday, January 27, 2017, 15:36 (2857 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The “staccato dance” is your fancy term for punctuated equilibrium. We have long, long, long ago agreed that we do not accept Darwin’s random mutations or his gradualism, and we learned recently that even his bulldog Huxley rejected gradualism. But if it hadn’t been for Darwin, we might not even have been having these discussions. I know you much prefer Wallace’s take on evolution, but it happens to have been Darwin’s work that revolutionized modern thought, whether you like it or not, and that’s not bad for an “only contribution”!
Yes Darwin made the world recognize chance evolution. Wallace and I prefer design, and I have made you recognize the huge holes in the the theory presented by Darwin.
Cambrian Explosion: punctuated trillobites
by David Turell , Monday, January 30, 2017, 21:26 (2854 days ago) @ David Turell
Very early multicellular organisms as being found at the beginning of the Cambrian explosion about 540 million years ago. Two new organisms:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130111008.htm
"Researchers have identified traces of what they believe is the earliest known prehistoric ancestor of humans -- a microscopic, bag-like sea creature, which lived about 540 million years ago.
"Named Saccorhytus, after the sack-like features created by its elliptical body and large mouth, the species is new to science and was identified from microfossils found in China. It is thought to be the most primitive example of a so-called "deuterostome" -- a broad biological category that encompasses a number of sub-groups, including the vertebrates.
"If the conclusions of the study, published in the journal Nature, are correct, then Saccorhytus was the common ancestor of a huge range of species, and the earliest step yet discovered on the evolutionary path that eventually led to humans, hundreds of millions of years later.
xxxxxx
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130133409.htm
"A new species of fossil has been discovered that will shed light on early animal ecosystems. Investigators discovered the new species while conducting a survey of microfossils in mudstones from western Canada. To their surprise, the samples yielded miniscule loriciferans: a type of animal so small it has been considered “unfossilizable.
"To their surprise, the samples yielded miniscule loriciferans: a type of animal so small it has been considered "unfossilizable."
"Moreover, the fossils date to the late Cambrian Period, meaning they lived around half a billion years ago. This suggests that soon after the origin of animals, some groups were adopting specialized "meiobenthic" lifestyles, living among grains of sediment on the seabed.
***
"Loriciferans are a group of miniscule animals, always less than a millimetre long, which live among grains of sediment on the seabed. They are easy to overlook: the first examples were described from modern environments as recently as the 1980s.
Dr Harvey added: "As well as being very small, loriciferans lack hard parts (they have no shell), so no-one expected them ever to be found as fossils -- but here they are! The fossils represent a new genus and species, which we name Eolorica deadwoodensis, loosely meaning the "ancient corset-animal from rocks of the Deadwood Formation."
"'It's remarkable that so early in their evolution, animals were already exploiting such specialized meiobenthic ecologies: shrinking their bodies down to the size of single-celled organisms, and living among grains of sediment on the seabed.'"
***
"The dramatic diversification of animals known as the Cambrian "explosion" is a source of fascination to many people. Working out why animals evolved when they did, and how they came to dominate almost all ecosystems on Earth, is a longstanding scientific question that affects how we think about our place in the universe."
"The scientists added that the new fossils also support a close relationship between loriciferans and another obscure group of animals (the priapulid worms), helping to piece together the tree of animal life."
Comment: These fossils are complex animals. There is still an enormous gap from the earliest fossils predating the Cambrian era.
Cambrian Explosion: another new weird animal
by David Turell , Thursday, August 03, 2017, 17:43 (2669 days ago) @ David Turell
The soft tissue fossils keep coming, no precursors:
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-scientists-id-tiny-prehistoric-sea.html
"Long before dinosaurs roamed the Earth, a bizarre creature with a Venus flytrap-like head swam the seas.
"Scientists have uncovered fossils of a tiny faceless prehistoric sea worm with 50 spines jutting out of its head. When some unsuspecting critter came too close, its jaw-like spines snapped together and dinner was served.
'The discovery reported in Thursday's journal Current Biology offers a glimpse into the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth about 541 million years ago.
"The new creature dubbed Capinatator praetermissus is so different that scientists said the fossils represent not only a new species, but a new genus—a larger grouping of life—as well.
"It was only 4 inches long and its spines were about one-third of an inch long. It feasted on smaller plankton and shrimp-like creatures.
"It is an ancestor of a group of marine arrow worms called chaetognatha that are abundant in the world's oceans. The prehistoric version was larger and with far more spines in its facial armory but without the specialized teeth of its descendants, said Derek Briggs of Yale University who led a team that discovered the trove of fossils in two national parks in British Columbia, Canada.
"'The spines are like miniature hooks, although more gently curved. They were stiff rather than flexible," Briggs said in an email. "It's hard to say why there are so many spines in the fossil example—but presumably thus armed it was a successful predator."
"Capinatator—whose name translates to grasping swimmer—lived 500 million years ago at a time when creatures started getting bigger and more diverse. It's difficult to find complete fossils belonging to the chaetognatha family because they decayed easily, said Briggs. This latest find, however, was so good that even soft tissue was saved, giving scientists a good idea about what Capinatator looked like.
"The discovery expands scientists' knowledge of a "pretty enigmatic" group of animals from the Cambrian era, said Smithsonian paleobiologist Doug Erwin, who had no role in the research."
Comment: Each find kills the supposed gradualism of Darwin theory.
Cambrian Explosion: another new weird animal
by dhw, Friday, August 04, 2017, 09:50 (2668 days ago) @ David Turell
QUOTE: "Capinatator—whose name translates to grasping swimmer—lived 500 million years ago at a time when creatures started getting bigger and more diverse. It's difficult to find complete fossils belonging to the chaetognatha family because they decayed easily, said Briggs. This latest find, however, was so good that even soft tissue was saved, giving scientists a good idea about what Capinatator looked like.
"The discovery expands scientists' knowledge of a "pretty enigmatic" group of animals from the Cambrian era, said Smithsonian paleobiologist Doug Erwin, who had no role in the research."
David’s comment: Each find kills the supposed gradualism of Darwin theory.
Agreed. And each find kills the supposed anthropocentrism of David Turell’s theory.
Cambrian Explosion: another new weird animal
by David Turell , Friday, August 04, 2017, 22:00 (2668 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "Capinatator—whose name translates to grasping swimmer—lived 500 million years ago at a time when creatures started getting bigger and more diverse. It's difficult to find complete fossils belonging to the chaetognatha family because they decayed easily, said Briggs. This latest find, however, was so good that even soft tissue was saved, giving scientists a good idea about what Capinatator looked like.
"The discovery expands scientists' knowledge of a "pretty enigmatic" group of animals from the Cambrian era, said Smithsonian paleobiologist Doug Erwin, who had no role in the research."David’s comment: Each find kills the supposed gradualism of Darwin theory.
dhw: Agreed. And each find kills the supposed anthropocentrism of David Turell’s theory.
This weird bird fits into his eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time.
Cambrian Explosion: another new weird animal
by dhw, Saturday, August 05, 2017, 08:41 (2668 days ago) @ David Turell
David’s comment: Each find kills the supposed gradualism of Darwin theory.
dhw: Agreed. And each find kills the supposed anthropocentrism of David Turell’s theory.
DAVID: This weird bird fits into his eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time.
Yes indeed, every single organism that ever existed “fits into its eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time”, and then in 99% of cases it dies out. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s sole purpose being the production of the human brain.
Cambrian Explosion: another new weird animal
by David Turell , Saturday, August 05, 2017, 15:05 (2667 days ago) @ dhw
i]
DAVID: This weird bird fits into his eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time.dhw: Yes indeed, every single organism that ever existed “fits into its eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time”, and then in 99% of cases it dies out. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s sole purpose being the production of the human brain.
The human brain appeared 300,000 years ago. Life started 3.6-8 billion years ago. Somethings had to fill in the in-between time.
Cambrian Explosion: another new weird animal
by dhw, Sunday, August 06, 2017, 08:41 (2667 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: This weird bird fits into his eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time.
dhw: Yes indeed, every single organism that ever existed “fits into its eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time”, and then in 99% of cases it dies out. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s sole purpose being the production of the human brain.
DAVID: The human brain appeared 300,000 years ago. Life started 3.6-8 billion years ago. Somethings had to fill in the in-between time.
“I’m in control,” said God to Man, “an’ all I wanted to do,
Right from the start – cross my heart – was manufacture you.
Why did I make all those other critters and let ‘em live and die?
‘Cos I needed to fill in several billi’n years. Ask David why.”
Cambrian Explosion: another new weird animal
by David Turell , Sunday, August 06, 2017, 15:15 (2666 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: This weird bird fits into his eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time.
dhw: Yes indeed, every single organism that ever existed “fits into its eco-niche of the balance of nature at that time”, and then in 99% of cases it dies out. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s sole purpose being the production of the human brain.
DAVID: The human brain appeared 300,000 years ago. Life started 3.6-8 billion years ago. Somethings had to fill in the in-between time.
dhw: “I’m in control,” said God to Man, “an’ all I wanted to do,
Right from the start – cross my heart – was manufacture you.
Why did I make all those other critters and let ‘em live and die?
‘Cos I needed to fill in several billi’n years. Ask David why.”
Loved it! 'Cause all of them had to eat.
Cambrian Explosion: punctuated trilobites
by David Turell , Thursday, June 09, 2022, 19:43 (898 days ago) @ David Turell
A male trilobite fossil is found:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-life-of-one-of-earth-rsquo-s-earliest-an...
"Yet despite their abundance, nobody has been able to figure out how trilobites reproduced—until now. In a very unusual fossil, scientists have found one of the first examples of sexual anatomy in the fossil record: a small pair of grasping appendages that let the male trilobite hold the female close during mating.
***
"Trilobites’ delicate bits, such as legs, antennae and reproductive structures, were made of soft tissues that rarely petrified. Paleontologists can infer the existence of legs based on sockets in some species’ outer shells and trace impressions. But reproductive organs were frustratingly elusive.
***
"The species, Olenoides serratus, is about as well-known as ancient arthropods get: it makes up many of the Burgess Shale’s fossils and the genus even lends its name to a Yu-Gi-Oh fantasy game card.
"Losso’s specimen was in an unusual position, however. It fossilized lying on its side rather than on its back or belly like most Olenoides fossils. What’s more, its appendages were stretched out and preserved in remarkable detail, down to the joints. Among them, researchers found two sets of short, grasping appendages that looked an awful lot like reproductive structures called claspers.
***
"The looks of claspers in horseshoe crabs helped Losso and her team verify that the Olenoides appendages were more than just malformed feet. Claspers suggest that, in some species, male and female trilobites had different looking bodies. “They have found that Rosetta stone fossil that allows us to really confirm these theories about sexual dimorphism,” Bicknell says. “This is just a really nice, fundamentally important addition.”
"Losso cautions that the feature might not be universal. “Finding claspers in Olenoides serratus doesn’t mean that all trilobites reproduced that way,” she says. Nevertheless, the study marks an important milestone in trilobite paleontology, one which will help inform future research. It hints the animals evolved a wider variety of specialized limbs than previously thought and did so early in their evolutionary history. “It speaks to a really cool underlying modularity,” Hegna says. “They’re an armored Swiss Army knife.”
Comment: our favorite Cambrians are yielding more secrets. It has alwasy bee presumed sex appeared in the Cambrian, but Edicraran 'frond-like animals could have had sex earlier.