The Intelligent Cell (Origins)
A belated obituary of Lynn Margulis in yesterday’s Guardian links up with David’s post(s) on life’s biological complexities, and highlights some of her extraordinary insights.
One of these, frequently referred to by David et al, was that some 3.5 bn years ago single-celled organisms combined with others to increase their complexity. “[...] tiny membrane-bound organelles that inhabit in their hundreds each of the trillions of cells that make up every organ of our bodies, were once free-living creatures, before being incorporated into the symbiotic life forms which were our distant ancestors.†She also argued that organisms were “active self-organising constructors of their own destiny.†The insight that evolution owes just as much to co-operation as it does to competition is every bit as profound as Darwin’s, and certainly restores much needed balance to the view that life is a battlefield.
We’ve discussed the following before, but the fact that we’re a combination of trillions of trillions of “living creatures†is surely worth another few thoughts. Vast areas of our bodies operate without our being even aware that they’re there (till they go wrong). Every organ of every organism is a community which knows precisely what it has to do – like the members of an ant colony. There are built-in repair systems with spare parts, and whole armies of soldiers ready to do battle against unwelcome intruders. Even more mind-boggling is the fact that every single one of these organs at one time never existed. It took trillions of cells to get together in order to invent them and hone them into perfect functioning order.
Even if you don’t believe in God, you have to acknowledge some innate form of intelligence that enables these cells to get together, to invent new mechanisms, and to keep the mechanisms functioning. I can’t see any way round that conclusion. I’m not arguing that they make conscious decisions in the way humans do, but I am most definitely arguing that these vast assemblies of cells cannot have achieved their functioning complexities just by being swirled in the water or blown by the wind. There is method in their meetings.
No-one knows what lies behind it all. If theists could look beyond their various blinkered visions of a supreme being, and if atheists could look beyond their blinkered belief that there’s NOTHING behind it all except materials hitting on a lucky formula, they would all be able to see that the mechanisms of life and evolution reveal a form of intelligence as yet unknown to us. We shall probably never find out how it came about in the first place, but we should keep an open mind as we consider all its astonishing manifestations, in whatever form.
At least one website says that Lynn Margulis, though born Jewish, was an agnostic. That figures.
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 20:59 (4727 days ago) @ dhw
At least one website says that Lynn Margulis, though born Jewish, was an agnostic. That figures.
She was Jewish and married to Carl Sagan. Why do so many Jews become agnostic? I have no idea, but I think it is the result of Reform Judaism diluting the religion without adding anything meaningful.
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 05:32 (4726 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Even if you don’t believe in God, you have to acknowledge some innate form of intelligence that enables these cells to get together, to invent new mechanisms, and to keep the mechanisms functioning. I can’t see any way round that conclusion. I’m not arguing that they make conscious decisions in the way humans do, but I am most definitely arguing that these vast assemblies of cells cannot have achieved their functioning complexities just by being swirled in the water or blown by the wind. There is method in their meetings.
dhw: No-one knows what lies behind it all. If theists could look beyond their various blinkered visions of a supreme being, and if atheists could look beyond their blinkered belief that there’s NOTHING behind it all except materials hitting on a lucky formula, they would all be able to see that the mechanisms of life and evolution reveal a form of intelligence as yet unknown to us. We shall probably never find out how it came about in the first place, but we should keep an open mind as we consider all its astonishing manifestations, in whatever form.
DJT: You have arrived at my point of view, whether you realize it or not. My UI is what you are describing, 'as yet unknown to us'.
The Intelligent Cell
by BBella , Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 17:29 (4726 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: No-one knows what lies behind it all. If theists could look beyond their various blinkered visions of a supreme being, and if atheists could look beyond their blinkered belief that there’s NOTHING behind it all except materials hitting on a lucky formula, they would all be able to see that the mechanisms of life and evolution reveal a form of intelligence as yet unknown to us. We shall probably never find out how it came about in the first place, but we should keep an open mind as we consider all its astonishing manifestations, in whatever form.
DJT: You have arrived at my point of view, whether you realize it or not. My UI is what you are describing, 'as yet unknown to us'.
Sounds very similar to mine as well, David. Maybe we are developing a foundation here, even if the foundation is invisible or un-named, it's there!
The Intelligent Cell
Dhw: At least one website says that Lynn Margulis, though born Jewish, was an agnostic. That figures.
DAVID: She was Jewish and married to Carl Sagan. Why do so many Jews become agnostic? I have no idea, but I think it is the result of Reform Judaism diluting the religion without adding anything meaningful.
I was raised in a Liberal Jewish family, but although I hated every aspect of my formal religious education (not my parents’ fault), it had nothing to do with my subsequent atheism. This came when in my teens I began to question what I’d been taught. Not only did I find the OT God thoroughly off-putting, for reasons I’ve already recounted many times over, but I could see no evidence even for the existence of such a being. It was Darwin who alerted me to the unfathomable complexities of life, which made me question how it could all have come about, and the very fact that he expressly avoided dealing with the origin of life made me open my mind again. Nothing I’ve heard or read since has enabled me to close my mind one way or the other. Your own book and posts on this forum have provided me with much of the scientific background that confirms the impossibility of knowing what started this process off, along with the degree of faith required if one is to believe in chance.
DAVID: You have arrived at my point of view, whether you realize it or not. My UI is what you are describing, 'as yet unknown to us'.
When I talk of “a form of intelligence as yet unknown to usâ€, it is the vaguest possible concept. Your Universal Intelligence comes with all kinds of attributes, even though you often deny that it has any. You frequently use the name “Godâ€, you believe in a deliberate design with pre-planning, you see humans as the chosen species, the culmination of a divine project. I sometimes suspect that you think it has a personal interest in us, though you tend to play that down. And maybe you’re right, but that is way, way beyond my imaginings. The unknown intelligence for me is totally indefinable. I have no idea what form or qualities it might have. It’s so vague as to be meaningless – a something, a life force perhaps, to which an atheist might also subscribe. If cells can combine to invent new organs, to repair those that exist, to keep us breathing, moving, digesting, thinking, how can one even begin to conceive of THEIR intelligence, let alone something all-embracing? So although I’m hugely in debt to yourself, and to others who keep confronting me with new and fascinating insights into the complexities of the universe, life, the body, the mind, religion and science, there is NO concept that doesn’t call up a host of unanswerable questions. I therefore remain firmly seated on my picket fence of not knowing and not even believing. Sorry to disappoint you!
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell , Thursday, December 15, 2011, 01:53 (4726 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You have arrived at my point of view, whether you realize it or not. My UI is what you are describing, 'as yet unknown to us'.When I talk of “a form of intelligence as yet unknown to usâ€, it is the vaguest possible concept. Your Universal Intelligence comes with all kinds of attributes, even though you often deny that it has any. You frequently use the name “Godâ€, you believe in a deliberate design with pre-planning, you see humans as the chosen species, the culmination of a divine project.
Of course the concept is vague. It can't be otherwise. You have arrived at my point of view whether you like that or not. Yes, I use the word 'God' because that is the word most people think of when we are discussing the 'greatest power'. One has to start in familiar territory to approach people who have not done much research or thinking about this.
You question my attempted characterizations of the UI. The idea of design with pre-planning is an educated guess, because I don't know how evolution, if it is not guided, as a natural very random process can create organisms of such complexity at the biochemical level. Yes, it is an argument from incredulity, because the results of life as created within the process of evolution is so miraculous.
And as for humans as a chosen species, we started with the chimps and bonobos with the same common ancestor. Each species could have advanced. Only we did. I can't answer whny but I think we will find the reason on some new mechanism in the genome. In 6 million years we grew a giant brain, when the other primate species have survived, unchanged, just fine. There is no known or demonstrated 'drive' in nature to cause this. Just remember the human phenotype became smaller and weaker than the common ancestor, as judging by the chimp phenotype. And to make up for the weakness, the giant brain appeared. I see nothing in the challenges of nature to cause this, but it happened.
So, you can see I have made educated guesses, but I recognize that I could be totally wrong about my attempts at characterizations.
You and I are at the same point. You are simply not willing to dig into the next step as I have done. I think you still contaminated by childhood religious teaching. I've cleared my mind of it. I'm not trying to create a religion, or find a 'God' as they have previously described. They all lead in the wrong direction by making God so personal. I think the human attributes given to God are wishful thinking by self-centered humans. I don't know how personal He is. Adler didn't know either at the time he wrote his book trying to prove God, although he ended up Catholic and therefore must have changed his mind.
Despite this I feel personally close to God. My own weakness, or is it intuitive at a consciousness level? I admit it feels good, which is not a scientifically or philosophically correct answer.
The Intelligent Cell
DAVID: Of course the concept is vague. It can't be otherwise. You have arrived at my point of view whether you like that or not.
We shall see in a moment.
DAVID: You question my attempted characterizations of the UI. The idea of design with pre-planning is an educated guess, because I don't know how evolution, if it is not guided, as a natural very random process can create organisms of such complexity at the biochemical level.
Nobody knows. The roundabout history of evolution, with its huge range of extinctions, could indicate anything but pre-planning. Your God would have had to work out all the environmental and genetic changes that have led from the single cell to us. And the idea that the dodo and the dinosaurs were essential to the evolution of man seems to me as unlikely as the atheist faith in chance assembling the mechanisms of life and evolution. Experimental trial and error, and random hit and miss are also “educated†guesses.
DAVID: And as for humans as a chosen species, we started with the chimps and bonobos with the same common ancestor. Each species could have advanced. Only we did. I can't answer why but I think we will find the reason on some new mechanism in the genome. In 6 million years we grew a giant brain, when the other primate species have survived, unchanged, just fine. There is no known or demonstrated 'drive' in nature to cause this. Just remember the human phenotype became smaller and weaker than the common ancestor, as judging by the chimp phenotype. And to make up for the weakness, the giant brain appeared. I see nothing in the challenges of nature to cause this, but it happened.
There’s nothing in nature to explain ANY such advances. Bacteria survived OK, and scientists would be delighted to find the most primitive form of life on Mars even without evolved species. So what was the need for greater complexity? Not being able to answer is hardly grounds for belief.
DAVID: So, you can see I have made educated guesses, but I recognize that I could be totally wrong about my attempts at characterizations.
Fair enough. But you are convinced by your educated guesses which could be totally wrong, and such conviction demands a faith I do not have.
DAVID: You and I are at the same point. You are simply not willing to dig into the next step as I have done. I think you are still contaminated by childhood religious teaching. I've cleared my mind of it. I'm not trying to create a religion, or find a 'God' as they have previously described. They all lead in the wrong direction by making God so personal. I think the human attributes given to God are wishful thinking by self-centered humans. I don't know how personal He is.
Despite this I feel personally close to God. My own weakness, or is it intuitive at a consciousness level? I admit it feels good, which is not a scientifically or philosophically correct answer.
Then may I suggest that it is you who are “contaminated†by childhood religious teaching, though I don’t like the word “contaminatedâ€. You are happy with your decision, and I’m far from unhappy with my indecision. We both love life and are awestruck by its beauty and complexity. That’s not contamination. But feeling personally close to God, belief in his having a plan, and in humans as a chosen species...those are anthropocentric ideas which are inherited from conventional religion. If you agree that they arise out of no more than educated guesses and possible personal weakness, you will have come a little closer to my neutral, “uncontaminated†point of view, “whether you like it or not.â€
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell , Thursday, December 15, 2011, 14:47 (4725 days ago) @ dhw
(DHW)There’s nothing in nature to explain ANY such advances. Bacteria survived OK, and scientists would be delighted to find the most primitive form of life on Mars even without evolved species. So what was the need for greater complexity? Not being able to answer is hardly grounds for belief.
Time today for a brief response to only this statement: "There's nothing in nature to explain ANY such advances": exactly!!!!! In my book I comment that bacteria have started life and have survived all the way. Why did evolution bother with complexification without the NEED to? Threis obviously something that drives complexity in the genome, such as the newly-discovered epigenetics.
The Intelligent Cell
DAVID: And as for humans as a chosen species, we started with the chimps and bonobos with the same common ancestor. Each species could have advanced. Only we did. I can’t answer why [...]
Dhw: There’s nothing in nature to explain ANY such advances. Bacteria survived OK, and scientists would be delighted to find the most primitive form of life on Mars even without evolved species. So what was the need for greater complexity? Not being able to answer is hardly grounds for belief.
DAVID: Time today for a brief response to only this statement: "There's nothing in nature to explain ANY such advances": exactly!!!!! In my book I comment that bacteria have started life and have survived all the way. Why did evolution bother with complexification without the NEED to? There is obviously something that drives complexity in the genome, such as the newly-discovered epigenetics.
You’d used this as a reason for considering humans to be a “chosen speciesâ€, whereas I’m saying the fact that complexity was not needed is no reason for regarding humans as the original goal (pre-planning). It’s clear that something must drive complexity, simply because we have it, and epigenetics is an immensely promising development in our possible understanding of the mechanism. But the theory that a UI pre-planned the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of evolution’s history seems to me no more likely than the theory that chance assembled the mechanism. And once you get on to pre-planning, you can scarcely avoid motive (is it possible to plan something without having a purpose?) and that takes you not only into the nature of the planner but also the status of the targeted end product. Out goes the neutrality of agnosticism and, “whether you like it or notâ€, in come the influences of the established religions you think you’ve left behind you!
However, I’m not sure that this will lead us very far, and there’s another point that I’d like to have your views on. You wrote: “[...] the human phenotype became smaller and weaker than the common ancestor, as judging by the chimp phenotype. And to make up for the weakness, the giant brain appeared.†One theory is that somewhere or the other (in Africa?) the forests disappeared and the common ancestor had to come down from the trees and start a new life on the ground. This would have entailed developing new skills. Is it not possible, then, that the process was the reverse of what you’ve outlined, and the need for new skills entailed developing the brain (much as certain exercises may strengthen and expand our muscles), as well as necessitating certain changes in the anatomy. This in turn entailed less use of other parts of the body, and so in due course the body became smaller and weaker as physical power gave way to intellectual power.
This idea puts us solidly in the field of epigenetics and Lamarckism, not to mention the “intelligent cellâ€, but it seems to me more convincing than random mutation, and I wonder if it isn’t also more tightly interwoven as a process than your suggestion that weakness led to brain power. Over to you, the scientist…
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell , Saturday, December 17, 2011, 00:40 (4724 days ago) @ dhw
There is obviously something that drives complexity in the genome, such as the newly-discovered epigenetics[/i].
You’d used this as a reason for considering humans to be a “chosen speciesâ€, whereas I’m saying the fact that complexity was not needed is no reason for regarding humans as the original goal (pre-planning). It’s clear that something must drive complexity, simply because we have it, and epigenetics is an immensely promising development in our possible understanding of the mechanism.
Correct. Something must drive complexity, because in the facts we are discussing, humans and chimps diverged, and I don't see any driving force.
One theory is that somewhere or the other (in Africa?) the forests disappeared and the common ancestor had to come down from the trees and start a new life on the ground. This would have entailed developing new skills. Is it not possible, then, that the process was the reverse of what you’ve outlined, and the need for new skills entailed developing the brain (much as certain exercises may strengthen and expand our muscles), as well as necessitating certain changes in the anatomy. This in turn entailed less use of other parts of the body, and so in due course the body became smaller and weaker as physical power gave way to intellectual power.
Lets climb up into the trees 6 million years ago. We are two common ancestors looking at a growing savannah. One of us stays roughly the same and the other becomes US, the H. sapiens. Why did we climb down? What drove us? Nothing we know of. We cannot relive ancient history. We can only guess. But one of us did get down. That guy lost those heavy arm and shoulder muscles and as part of the changes grew a giant brain.
The savannah gave both of us the option to try a different lifestyle, but it did not require it. Natural selection requires some sort of challenge. The climate change doesn't seem to offer any. As a result, we really have idea why this happened. But it did, and we are here, in all our glory.
If an open option allows an advantage in complexity, but does not require it, why did it happen? Dumb luck or some push to complexity? I think there is a pushing mechanism and that it will be found in the near future. To be nice, I think your theory is possible, but not reasonable without some pushing somewhere.
The Intelligent Cell
DAVID: Lets climb up into the trees 6 million years ago. We are two common ancestors looking at a growing savannah. One of us stays roughly the same and the other becomes US, the H. sapiens. Why did we climb down? What drove us? Nothing we know of. We cannot relive ancient history. We can only guess. But one of us did get down. That guy lost those heavy arm and shoulder muscles and as part of the changes grew a giant brain.
The savannah gave both of us the option to try a different lifestyle, but it did not require it. Natural selection requires some sort of challenge. The climate change doesn't seem to offer any. As a result, we really have no idea why this happened. But it did, and we are here, in all our glory.
I’m not thinking of two common ancestors looking at the same savannah, with one changing and the other staying the same. I’m thinking of one particular area where the forest disappears. ALL our guys and dolls have to get used to savannah life, whereas elsewhere life can continue the same arboreal way. We know it takes two to tango, but with this scenario you have a whole tribe to tango. If epigenetics and Lamarckism can stand up to it, you have all the “ancestors†in this one area needing to develop new skills, from which evolve the anatomical and intellectual changes that ultimately lead to us.
DAVID: If an open option allows an advantage in complexity, but does not require it, why did it happen? Dumb luck or some push to complexity? I think there is a pushing mechanism and that it will be found in the near future. To be nice, I think your theory is possible, but not reasonable without some pushing somewhere.
The push would be environmental, with change required by natural deforestation. Africa is a vast continent – there is no reason why such an event should not be localized to a single region. It would only need one to start the process. Now perhaps you can be even nicer!
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell , Saturday, December 17, 2011, 15:57 (4723 days ago) @ dhw
I’m not thinking of two common ancestors looking at the same savannah, with one changing and the other staying the same. I’m thinking of one particular area where the forest disappears. ALL our guys and dolls have to get used to savannah life, whereas elsewhere life can continue the same arboreal way. We know it takes two to tango, but with this scenario you have a whole tribe to tango. If epigenetics and Lamarckism can stand up to it, you have all the “ancestors†in this one area needing to develop new skills, from which evolve the anatomical and intellectual changes that ultimately lead to us.
This opinion comes from Stephan, Niles, David H.. It is the punctuated isolation equilibrium theory that fits the huge jumps in Darwinism that don't fit the bearded one's proposal. All the guys have to do is follow the receding forest margins, and not bother to change. Animals usaly follow the path of least resistence.
DAVID: If an open option allows an advantage in complexity, but does not require it, why did it happen? Dumb luck or some push to complexity? I think there is a pushing mechanism and that it will be found in the near future. To be nice, I think your theory is possible, but not reasonable without some pushing somewhere.The push would be environmental, with change required by natural deforestation. Africa is a vast continent – there is no reason why such an event should not be localized to a single region. It would only need one to start the process. Now perhaps you can be even nicer!
I can be a little naughty at times, but generally I am very nice.You haven't disproved the need for genome guiding pushes!
The Intelligent Cell
I suggested that a “tribe†of our common ancestors may have been forced by natural deforestation in a particular region to adapt to savannah life, thereby having to develop new skills with all the concomitant anatomical and mental changes.
DAVID: This opinion comes from Stephan, Niles, David H.. It is the punctuated isolation equilibrium theory that fits the huge jumps in Darwinism that don't fit the bearded one's proposal. All the guys have to do is follow the receding forest margins, and not bother to change. Animals usually follow the path of least resistance.
I’m delighted to hear that I’m in the company of professionals, though I really didn’t imagine I was the first to hit on the idea! We needn’t dwell on Darwin’s gradualism. I’ve already said many times that (a) I don’t accept it, and (b) I don’t understand why he thought it was so crucial to his theory. It isn’t. Your objection to what I now know is called punctuated isolation equilibrium theory (I’m impressed!) assumes that our ancestors were in a position to follow the receding forests. Isolation can have many causes: mountains, lakes, seas, deserts; or there may be fierce competition as the habitat shrinks (assuming it isn’t wiped out suddenly), again requiring a change of lifestyle. What animals “usually†do doesn’t preclude exceptional circumstances producing exceptional consequences. No-one has explained how humans evolved, but we do know that isolated areas have produced unique species (think of Madagascar), so the isolation scenario has its precedents.
DAVID: To be nice, I think your theory is possible, but not reasonable without some pushing somewhere.
Dhw: The push would be environmental. […] Africa is a vast continent – there is no reason why such an event should not be localized to a single region. It would only need one to start the process. Now perhaps you can be even nicer!
DAVID: I can be a little naughty at times, but generally I am very nice. You haven't disproved the need for genome guiding pushes!
And you haven’t disproved the theory that environmental pressure may have provided the push. No-one has yet proved or disproved anything. But you and I have always been nice to each other, and when we are naughty, it’s fun! You are angling for “genome guiding pushes†because, I presume, they would fit in with your concept of pre-planning. I’m angling for environmental change as the trigger and epigenetics as the mechanism, not to pursue any agenda but because it seems to me to fit in better with the long history of evolutionary comings and goings. This doesn’t run counter to design theory (or to chance theory, but that’s another matter) – only to your view of its scale and implementation. Do you really believe that every single environmental change and every single species extinction was planned by God as an essential step to the creation of humans?
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell , Sunday, December 18, 2011, 15:32 (4722 days ago) @ dhw
Do you really believe that every single environmental change and every single species extinction was planned by God as an essential step to the creation of humans?
Not at all. The Earth is an evolved and evolving planet. It is in a hostile universe, and its solar system has asteroids that are still available for making trouble. Ask the recently departed dinosaurs. Then locally (in time and place) are tsunamis, tornados, earthquakes and other killers, all necessary for the evolution process of Earth.
With that as the physical evolutionary force set up in the beginning, I believe God arranged for the genome to have remarkable responsiveness for adaptation to physical disasters, and at the same time a diversity of life forms. Chixulub nailed the dinos, but the little mammals survived because of this pre-planning.
Does God intervene? Not much if at all.
The Intelligent Cell
Dhw: Do you really believe that every single environmental change and every single species extinction was planned by God as an essential step to the creation of humans?
DAVID: Not at all. The Earth is an evolved and evolving planet. It is in a hostile universe, and its solar system has asteroids that are still available for making trouble. Ask the recently departed dinosaurs. Then locally (in time and place) are tsunamis, tornados, earthquakes and other killers, all necessary for the evolution process of Earth.
With that as the physical evolutionary force set up in the beginning, I believe God arranged for the genome to have remarkable responsiveness for adaptation to physical disasters, and at the same time a diversity of life forms. Chixulub nailed the dinos, but the little mammals survived because of this pre-planning.
Ah, we’re moving closer. In this scenario, if I’ve understood you correctly, your God did not preplan the route to humans, but ensured that life would go on, and that species would diversify no matter what natural, unplanned disasters might strike. In other words, he planned randomness (the unpredictable environment) and created a mechanism that would enable some species to adapt and survive while others would perish. But since he did not plan each individual environmental change, he could hardly have planned which species did what, or when they did it.
DAVID: Does God intervene? Not much if at all.
If he did intervene, in what way do you think he might have done so? If it was Chicxulub that did for the dinosaurs (this still seems to be controversial), might that have been God’s way of removing “unnecessary†species, or did he perhaps see a likely looking bonobo and think: “I can do something different with this� My question is serious. Without intervention, it seems to me that God was leaving an awful lot to chance if you still cling to the anthropocentric theory you’ve inherited from some of the established religions. (I can be naughty too!) How much simpler it would be to attribute diversity to the responses of intelligent cells to different environmental challenges. I go back to my extremely respectable – because it has an official name – theory of punctuated isolation equilibrium. What we have is exactly the same process as with other developments: environmental change, need to adapt, possible innovations, continued refinement. In this case, the chimpobos lose their tree habitat, come down to earth, exercise their brains to work out a new way of life, and gradually lose their chimpiness (or boboness) as their brains develop and their bodies adapt. Then you don’t need intervention, you don’t need pre-planning (other than the original mechanism for diverse forms of adaptation), you don’t need to explain the history of extinctions, and you don’t need to bother about God’s special focus on, interest in, purpose for Man. Then, David, you can say you believe in a UI without attributes!
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell , Monday, December 19, 2011, 15:40 (4721 days ago) @ dhw
In other words, he planned randomness (the unpredictable environment) and created a mechanism that would enable some species to adapt and survive while others would perish. But since he did not plan each individual environmental change, he could hardly have planned which species did what, or when they did it.
My thoughts exactly. Have you entered my consciousness?
DAVID: Does God intervene? Not much if at all.
Without intervention, it seems to me that God was leaving an awful lot to chance if you still cling to the anthropocentric theory you’ve inherited from some of the established religions. (I can be naughty too!) How much simpler it would be to attribute diversity to the responses of intelligent cells to different environmental challenges.
You do not understand my theory. I'll repeat: I propose there is a mechanism in the genome to drive evolutionary compexity to the point that an organism will arrive like us or very much like us. This is the pre-planning. The UI wished to create a living being with consciousness. Not much is really left to chance, but a long time for the environment and epigenetics to work things out.
I go back to my extremely respectable – because it has an official name – theory of punctuated isolation equilibrium.
I amalgamated that name from Gould's theory; he proposed PE while species were in isolation.
What we have is exactly the same process as with other developments: environmental change, need to adapt, possible innovations, continued refinement. In this case, the chimpobos lose their tree habitat, come down to earth, exercise their brains to work out a new way of life, and gradually lose their chimpiness (or boboness) as their brains develop and their bodies adapt. Then you don’t need intervention, you don’t need pre-planning (other than the original mechanism for diverse forms of adaptation), you don’t need to explain the history of extinctions, and you don’t need to bother about God’s special focus on, interest in, purpose for Man. Then, David, you can say you believe in a UI without attributes!
Exactly!! As explained above. You have entered my consciousness. Don't rummage around too much. I have my secrets!
The Intelligent Cell; transport within
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 04, 2012, 17:12 (4705 days ago) @ David Turell
There are proteins (kinesins) in each cell that carry materials along microtubules. When they have nothing to carry, they stop and rest:
The Intelligent Cell; transport within
DAVID: There are proteins (kinesins) in each cell that carry materials along microtubules. When they have nothing to carry, they stop and rest.
http://the-scientist.com/2012/01/01/motor-lock/
This article and the one about parasites under Natures Wonders, on which you comment that “these guys are so cleverâ€, once again show “intelligence†within the cell itself as well as within creatures which have devised an immensely complex technique of survival. One must always bear in mind that at some time each of these techniques was new, and so some form of intelligence must have experimented with it before it got passed on.
The latest Workshop from the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies contains two brief reports from New Scientist which I find extremely revealing in this context. “Sulphur eating bacteria that live in sediments on the sea floor appear to be connected by ‘a network of microbial nanowires’. Electric current flowing along these protein filaments allows ‘communities of bacteria to act as one super-organism’. The process has been called ‘electrical symbiosis’.†This ties in with Lynn Margulis’s ‘symbiotic life forms’. Each of us is also a super-organism, and we contain a wide variety of ‘intelligent’ communities that are interconnected.
Along with this argument, I’m still intrigued by the idea of the intelligent cell (or community of cells) responding to outside conditions and working out ways to survive. Applying this idea, rather than that of random mutations, to the evolution of new organs, organisms, and species – including us humans – ties in with another tiny report summarized from New Scientist: “There were short-lived, rapid changes in climate between 2 and 3 million years ago, just at the time many early species of hominid arose, suggesting that the pressure was on for adaptability, a hallmark of our species.†If many early species of hominid coincided with environmental changes, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that the relationship may have been causal, and adaptability may therefore explain the origin of ALL species once life had begun. And so in place of random mutations and gradualism as keynotes of innovation (and hence of evolution), we would have communities of intelligent cells that adapt and innovate to create new techniques for survival. The more drastic the environmental change, the more rapid the response and the more radical the innovation. Natural Selection then eliminates those cell-communities that cannot adapt or whose innovations are inadequate. Evolution as sporadic revolution, or punctuated equilibrium.
The Intelligent Cell
An article by paleobiologist Professor Simon Conway Morris in CAM (Cambridge Alumni Magazine) discusses convergent evolution ... the process by which totally different organisms may evolve similar characteristics in response to environmental requirements. He believes that "evolution converges on the best possible solution, rather than on a best fit, random solution (leading many commentators to accuse him of being a creationist ... something he finds amusing, but says is rubbish.)"-It's interesting that he is "accused" of being a creationist. Since creationism does run counter to current scientific findings, one can well understand why it's regarded by scientists as a crime. However, one should surely distinguish between creationists (who believe in the literal truth of the Bible) and ID-ers like David who argue that life shows every sign of having been consciously designed. There is nothing in the intelligent design argument that contradicts whatever evolutionary scenario science comes up with. More of this in a moment.-The article goes on: "A good part of organic systems rely on self-organisation [...] yet there is no general theory to explain how that happens. [...] we don't actually know what life is at all. We're good at studying it and so forth, but we don't understand how it coheres, how it shows extraordinary homeostasis. Clearly it's a physical and chemical system, but it's one that works in a thermodynamic arrangement which would leave any engineer green with envy."-This is where you might think Professor Morris would bring in intelligence ... but on the contrary, "he is quick to point out that he is not suggesting anything deeply mysterious at work ("I'm not trying to say we should go back to vitalism or anything like that!") but simply that the manner in which life constructs itself must be dealing with some other principle which we've failed to identify."-We don't know what life is, and there is some principle which we've failed to identify, and yet there is nothing deeply mysterious at work! It seems that prominent scientists are running scared of even the slightest hint of intelligence. Why? I'd now like to return to the theme of The Intelligent Cell. If totally different species can come up with the same solution ... Morris's example is the octopus's camera eye, which is remarkably similar to our own ... while others, of course, come up with different solutions, can anyone doubt that this is NOT a matter of chance but of mysteriously intelligent mechanisms at work? This argument applies regardless of whether or not you believe in a creator. The question then is whether you can believe the intelligence of the cell(s) could have come about by chance. The distinction between the two phases (origin and evolution) is crucial. Atheist evolutionists will seize on the argument that evolution is nowhere near as dependent on chance as Darwin's theory had suggested (random mutations being his key to innovation). ID-ers will argue that it requires an absurd degree of faith to attribute to chance the formation of a mechanism that can create different functioning cell communities leading ultimately to ourselves and to consciousness. -Towards the end of the article, Professor Morris says: "I do sense that biology in particular is running into something of an impasse, especially when it comes to consciousness. We have a whole set of explanations, and I don't think any of them work at all. Which may mean that these things are beyond our comprehension ... we simply won't know."-And yet he's not suggesting anything deeply mysterious at work! Of course, as I have repeated ad nauseam, you don't solve one mystery by creating another (the provenance and nature of a creator). Just like "convergence", "first cause" is a convenient expression that explains absolutely nothing. The origin of the mechanisms for life, evolution and consciousness are indeed beyond our comprehension. I'm not sure that "we won't know", but I am sure that we don't know. Could there be a clearer argument for agnosticism?-(Professor Morris is apparently a Christian, but he dissociates himself from Intelligent Design. See if you can make sense of this on:-www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/conwaymorris.html)
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell , Monday, March 26, 2012, 15:19 (4623 days ago) @ dhw
An article by paleobiologist Professor Simon Conway Morris in CAM (Cambridge Alumni Magazine) discusses convergent evolution ... the process by which totally different organisms may evolve similar characteristics in response to environmental requirements. He believes that "evolution converges on the best possible solution, rather than on a best fit, random solution (leading many commentators to accuse him of being a creationist ... something he finds amusing, but says is rubbish.)" > > It's interesting that he is "accused" of being a creationist. Since creationism does run counter to current scientific findings, one can well understand why it's regarded by scientists as a crime. However, one should surely distinguish between creationists (who believe in the literal truth of the Bible) and ID-ers like David who argue that life shows every sign of having been consciously designed. There is nothing in the intelligent design argument that contradicts whatever evolutionary scenario science comes up with. More of this in a moment. > And yet he's not suggesting anything deeply mysterious at work! Of course, as I have repeated ad nauseam, you don't solve one mystery by creating another (the provenance and nature of a creator). Just like "convergence", "first cause" is a convenient expression that explains absolutely nothing. The origin of the mechanisms for life, evolution and consciousness are indeed beyond our comprehension. I'm not sure that "we won't know", but I am sure that we don't know. Could there be a clearer argument for agnosticism? > > (Professor Morris is apparently a Christian, but he dissociates himself from Intelligent Design. See if you can make sense of this on: > > www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/conwaymorris.html)-Is this the segment you are referring to?
rof Simon Conway Morris, a renowned palaeontologist at the University of Cambridge, is not entirely convinced by these arguments, however.-"I would tend to raise one cautious eyebrow to such arguments," he said. After all, there is a horrible gulf between elementary chemical systems and the creation of fully functioning cells. It is a gap that we have been remarkably unable to bridge experimentally."-Prof Conway Morris concluded: "One important jigsaw piece that is rarely mentioned in these discussions is Fermi's Paradox." This is the concept of the Great Silence; in other words, if life is common in the Universe, why have we not managed to contact it?-And that surely is the key. For in the absence of verifiable alien contact, scientific opinion will forever remain split as to whether the Universe teems with life or we are alone in the inky blackness".-I discuss Conway Morris at length in my book. His ideas are on my side even if he doesn't recognize it. I believe he is a Christian, but must continue to wear his science hat. I've read the Cambridge Alumni article completely prior to seeing dhw's entry. And I've read Morris' book 'Convergence". His thoughts are the best evidence for an intelligent universe I know. -And the import of the concept, convergence, is not the same as the concept of first cause. Convergence exists. First cause is a philosophic conjecture, taken finally on faith. To me convergence is one of the proofs of first cause, i.e., intelligence. The universe is filled with intelligence. That is why Morris at the end of his interview mentioned consciousness. A clever Christian sneaking in his faith. I know Simon well and he is not Cowell.
The Intelligent Cell
I quoted from an article by Professor Simon Conway Morris, which discusses convergent evolution. Elsewhere, in an interview, he says he is a Christian but dissociates himself from ID. David is unsure what segment of the interview I'm referring to. It's this:-Q: Do you believe in 'intelligent design'?-Conway Morris: Absolutely not. No, no, no. No, abs...no - how, how could I put it more strongly? Er int...intelligent design is a cop out. Er intelligent design I think is non-existent science, because you can't test anything. Its argument of course is that there are such complex biological structures, that you simply can't take them apart, or you simply couldn't assemble them unless the finger of God was involved.-Q: And you don't believe that?-Conway Morris: No! It's an...well frankly, it's rubbish because we see how complex things can evolve. What you want to ask is effectively 'What is [sic] the necessary preconditions for those complex things to evolve in the first place?'-What I want to ask is effectively how the mechanisms that enable complex things to evolve can have arisen in the first place. Once they are there (i.e. once "intelligent", self-organizing cells have come into being), I have no problem believing that they form different and increasingly complex cell communities ... we are here to prove it. Conway Morris's focus is on what CAUSES complexity, as if the mechanisms can be taken for granted. For me it's the mechanisms that are the prime argument for the design theory, though of course it isn't science. Nor is the chance theory. DAVID: I discuss Conway Morris at length in my book. His ideas are on my side even if he doesn't recognize it. I believe he is a Christian, but must continue to wear his science hat. [...] His thoughts are the best evidence for an intelligent universe I know. And the import of the concept, convergence, is not the same as the concept of first cause. Convergence exists. First cause is a philosophic conjecture, taken finally on faith. Perhaps I didn't make this part of my post clear. I too find the argument for intelligence extremely convincing, which is why I'm surprised that a theist should narrow his focus to the preconditions for complexity instead of considering the origin of the mechanisms that enable complexity. However, I tried to sound a note of caution. While I cannot believe that chance is capable of assembling such mechanisms, nor can I believe in a universal intelligence that came from nowhere. And so just as the term "convergence" tells us nothing about HOW different organisms come up with similar solutions, the term "First Cause" tells us nothing about HOW an intelligent designer could simply be there. Such expressions merely provide a linguistic cloak for the unsolved mysteries ... which, again paradoxically, the Christian professor actually says are not mysteries! You say he is "a clever Christian sneaking in his faith." I can't help feeling that the vehement denial of design has a touch of St Peter about it ... but what do we agnostics know about such things?
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 14:43 (4622 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: While I cannot believe that chance is capable of assembling such mechanisms, nor can I believe in a universal intelligence that came from nowhere. And so just as the term "convergence" tells us nothing about HOW different organisms come up with similar solutions, the term "First Cause" tells us nothing about HOW an intelligent designer could simply be there. Such expressions merely provide a linguistic cloak for the unsolved mysteries ... -Some things are meant to be mysterious. We humans are not meant to know everyting, much as we might desire. Leaps of faith are required, especially to get down from a fence. Why is there something rather than nothing? The most profound question in philosophy. Raised hundreds of years ago, and I haven't seen a reasonable answer yet.
The Intelligent Cell
DAVID: Why is there something rather than nothing? The most profound question in philosophy. Raised hundreds of years ago, and I haven't seen a reasonable answer yet.-I suggest: Because that's how things are.
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 28, 2012, 00:28 (4622 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Why is there something rather than nothing? The most profound question in philosophy. Raised hundreds of years ago, and I haven't seen a reasonable answer yet. > > dhw: I suggest: Because that's how things are.-I think we have to accept that is the way it is supposed to be.
The Intelligent Cell
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, March 28, 2012, 01:56 (4622 days ago) @ David Turell
"Supposed to be" implies purpose. It also implies something to suppose that purpose. Maybe that's why no one wants to answer the question. If they answer it honestly, there is only one answer that can be arrived at.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
The Intelligent Cell
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 28, 2012, 14:34 (4621 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Wednesday, March 28, 2012, 14:47
Tony: "Supposed to be" implies purpose. It also implies something to suppose that purpose. Maybe that's why no one wants to answer the question. If they answer it honestly, there is only one answer that can be arrived at.-Thank you. Exactly my point. At the Reason Rally purpose was never mentioned, only the usual Dawkins' straw men. -http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/03/25/all-dawkinss-straw-men/-I love how he reduces natural selection to expose the true weakness of the concept. For example, our ancestors left the trees: Darwinist says, had to learn to be upright to move faster, travel more, be safer. NS to the rescue, and makes us upright. How about, vertebrae change allowing upright posture, then we leave trees. Old passive NS appreciates the change as we move on of our own power.