Shapiro on Dawkins and evolution (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 02, 2012, 10:27 (4566 days ago) @ xeno6696

SHAPIRO: 4. Experimental research has discovered numerous cell-mediated processes of genome restructuring in all realms of life. These cellular natural genetic engineering capabilities replace accidental events as the real sources of heritable genome change. Since natural genetic engineering is subject to cell regulatory circuits and can be targeted within the genome, random copying errors can no longer be considered a basic feature of evolutionary change.-Dhw: Could this possibly be the professional equivalent of my layman's "intelligent cell"?-MATT: David might be a better judge here, but in essence I'd say yes. But I stress: What's the yardstick for intelligence?-In this context, I generally put the word in inverted commas, precisely because I can't answer your question. The fact that in essence you and David ("to an extent") agree gives us a starting-point. I would suggest that cells might work in much the same way as, say, bees and ants. Each evolutionary innovation would have been the result of individual cells getting together and devising the new function. (Just as there must once upon a time have been a first nest and a first hill and a first division of labour.) What degree of consciousness is involved I have no idea, but since we know that other forms of life have the ability to reason ... even if this is a long way behind our own ... I would hesitate to say that all cells operate purely on "automatic pilot". There is no escaping the fact that innovation happens. Nor can we escape the fact that cells co-operate ... our organs are living proof of that. I still can't provide a yardstick, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that innovation involves deliberate engineering of some kind, as opposed to Darwin's sheer chance. That does not, of course, explain the origin of the engineering mechanism, which is perhaps David's trump card. But even when I put on my atheist hat, I still have difficulty accepting the random mutation theory, whereas a self-organizing and even inventive cellular mechanism that comes up with the senses, digestive systems, reproductive systems, flight etc., as and when the environment allows or even demands them...yes, that sounds far more feasible to me.-Thank you for the post on plants. It figures that there would be a similar process of "intelligent" cooperation, though I'd have expected a lesser degree of sentience. I guess it is all a matter of degree: plants at the bottom of the scale, humans at the top.