https://www.quantamagazine.org/across-a-continent-trees-sync-their-fruiting-to-the-sun-...

"Each summer, like clockwork, millions of beech trees throughout Europe sync up, tuning their reproductive physiology to one another. Within a matter of days, the trees produce all the seeds they’ll make for the year, then release their fruit onto the forest floor to create a new generation and feed the surrounding ecosystem.

"It’s a reproductive spectacle known as masting that’s common to many tree species, but European beeches are unique in their ability to synchronize this behavior on a continental scale. From England to Sweden to Italy — across multiple seas, time zones and climates — somehow these trees “know” when to reproduce. But how?

A group of ecologists has now identified the distinctive cue — what they call the “celestial starting gun” — that, along with balmy weather, triggers the phenomenon. Their analysis of over 60 years’ worth of seeding data suggests that European beech trees time their masting to the summer solstice and peak daylight.

"It’s the first time scientists have linked masting to day length, though they still don’t know how the trees do it. “It is striking to find such a sharp change one day after the solstice. It doesn’t look random,” said Giorgio Vacchiano, a forest ecologist at the University of Milan who was not involved in the research.

***

"Ecologists have floated various theories to explain the mysteries of masting. One idea is that, for wind-pollinated plants like beech trees, synchronized flower production improves pollination efficiency — the high, spreading plumes of pollen during masting produce more offspring. It may also be beneficial because masting trees go through periods of boom and bust, with high-masting, fruitful summers followed by low-masting, barren ones. (Researchers mostly agree that trees use low-masting years to store up resources for high-masting years.) Because of that variation, synchronized masting is likely to have value as a defense mechanism: Lean seed production in low-masting years can starve predators, and prolific production in high-masting years can overwhelm them.

***

"Journé’s analysis suggested that European beech trees do mast in response to summer temperatures. But the twist is that they do not drop their seeds until they have sensed the longest day of the year. That combination of signals organizes the masting of the wide-flung beech trees into a compact period.

"It’s the first time that researchers have identified day length as a cue for masting. While Koenig cautioned that the result is only correlational, he added that “there’s very little out there speculating on how the trees are doing what they’re doing.”

"Bogdziewicz’s team took a novel approach by analyzing daily data: It’s rare for ecologists to track behavior at such a granular level, Vacchiano said. By recording incremental changes in response to daylight, the team showed that trees react to subtle external cues within an unexpectedly narrow window.

"It’s not surprising that trees synchronize their innate biological clocks with changes in light; most organisms do in some way. Species have evolved sensitivity to how much light is available in a 24-hour window, and that cue — the photoperiod — has been shown to influence a range of behaviors, from plant growth to hibernation, to migration, and to reproduction.

"The European beech is also not the first organism known to keep track of day length and the solstices. For example, long-distance migratory songbirds set their internal clocks to the photoperiod and use the summer solstice to time their nesting and migration, said Saeedeh Bani Assadi, a biologist at the University of Manitoba. Corals use day length to initiate spawning, but they prefer to reproduce under cover of darkness when the days are shortest, on the winter solstice.

Comment: with the seasonal changes caused by the Earth's tilt occurring regularly every year, it is not surprising to see the synchronization in nature, I assume by design.

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/library/item/25_november_2022/40...

A key to the impressive success of bacteria in nature is their ability to adapt to new environments. Owing to their short generation times, these adaptations often result from genetic evolution. For instance, bacteria can rapidly evolve to acquire drug resistance or to specialize in the consumption of a resource. Environmental fluctuations, however, can also happen at much shorter time scales that preclude adaptation by genetic mutation.

Bacteria have sophisticated programs of gene regulation that control decisions involving hundreds of genes and lead to major physiological changes (e.g., the ability to become a dormant spore in unfavorable conditions). Bacteria rely on their ability to sense the environment to make these decisions, yet the information that one individual bacterium can gather is often incomplete or noisy. I found that bacteria can solve this problem when they sense the environment as a collective by quorum sensing (QS)—a process in which they secrete and respond to small molecules in the extracellular environment known as autoinducers.

The established view of QS is that bacteria use autoinducers to measure population density to control the expression of traits that require coordination and are only beneficial when expressed by many cells (e.g., bioluminescence). However, we found that beyond coordination of group behavior, QS could be used by bacteria to collectively sense their environment. The seed of this idea came from studying Streptococcus pneumoniae, a species that inhabits the nasopharynx and is a leading cause of pneumonia. S. pneumoniae uses QS to control the entry into competence: a state in which it up-regulates the expression of stress response genes together with machinery to take up and integrate extracellular DNA into its own genetic material.

I [found] that although competence is regulated by population density, it simultaneously responds to various environmental factors including pH and antibiotics. This joint regulation occurs because bacteria do not secrete autoinducers at a constant rate but instead modulate this rate dependent on the environment they encounter. For instance, upon exposure to a DNA-damaging agent, S. pneumoniae strongly up-regulates the secretion of autoinducers, and competence develops even when the quorum is low. This process helps bacteria fight off DNA damage through the uptake of extracellular genetic material in the competent state.

***

I found that bacteria profit from QS because autoinducer secretion allows them to pool their imperfect estimates of the environment and average out individual noise. Then, as they monitor the extracellular concentration of autoinducers, bacteria improve their estimation accuracy and make betterinformed decisions about how to respond to the environment. In other words, bacteria exploit a well-known principle in decision theory: the wisdom of crowds.

***

Bacteria are often studied in the laboratory when they are actively growing, yet most bacteria in nature are in starved states where they eagerly await their next meal. To immediately resume growth when resources become available may seem like the best strategy for a bacterium because it maximizes its number of descendants. However, rapid resumption of growth makes bacteria vulnerable to several stressors that act primarily on dividing cells. Without any cues to anticipate whether stress is on the horizon, how can bacteria resolve this trade-off between growth and survival?

***

I developed a device to follow the behavior of populations of Escherichia coli as they resume growth from starvation. Microscopy was used to observe hundreds of cells while they undergo this transition, and I found that there is large variation in lag time between populations of genetically identical bacteria. Whereas some individuals resumed growth right away, others of their clonemates took over 20 generations more to start reproducing

This variation is not optimal for growth. Indeed, bacteria selected to resume rapid growth in stress-free conditions evolved shorter and less varied lag times than wildtype E. coli. However, this variation might be beneficial in times of stress...As a result, populations of mutants that evolved narrow lag time distributions—in which all bacteria began growing immediately—were fully eliminated by antibiotics, whereas wild-type populations with a mix of dormant and growing bacteria could survive.

***

With mathematical modeling, I showed that intermittent exposure to antibiotics during feast-to-famine cycles can lead to the evolution of genotypes that have wide lag time distributions.

***

Bacteria are one of the simplest forms of life on Earth. Despite their apparent simplicity, they deploy a variety of strategies to thrive in fluctuating environments. From relying on a hive mind, to hedging their bets like seasoned investors, or rapidly adapting by genetic mutation, bacteria seem to have figured out that the best way to cope with change is to play every possible trick in the book.

Comment: Bacteria, as single cell, must have these abilities to survive. As they were the first life, they must have had them when they first appeared. Obviously designed this way.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210315110259.htm

"Basic, acidic, basic again: for pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella, the human digestive tract is a sea change. So how do the bacteria manage to react to these changes? A team of researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology in Marburg led by Andreas Diepold has now provided a possible explanation: pathogenic bacteria can change components of their injection apparatus on the fly -- like changing the tires on a moving car -- to enable a rapid response.

"Some of the best-known human pathogens -- from the plague bacterium Yersinia pestis to the diarrhea pathogen Salmonella -- use a tiny hypodermic needle to inject disease-causing proteins into their host's cells, thereby manipulating them. This needle is part of the so-called type III secretion system (T3SS), without which most of these pathogens cannot replicate in the body.

"Only recently it was discovered that large parts of the T3SS are not firmly anchored to the main part of the system, but are constantly exchanging during function.

***

"In an acidic environment like the stomach, the mobile components do not bind to the rest of the apparatus (including the needle itself), so that the injection system remains inactive. As soon as the bacteria enter a pH-neutral environment -- as it is found in the intestine -, the dynamic proteins reassemble, so that the T3SS can quickly become active at these sites -- to the possible distress of the infected person.

"The researchers speculate that the newly discovered effect may allow the bacteria to prevent an energy-consuming "misfiring" of the secretion system in the wrong environment, which could even activate the host's immune response. On the other hand, the mobility and dynamics of the structure allows the system to be rapidly reassembled and activated under appropriate conditions.

"Protein mobility and exchange are increasingly being discovered in complexes and nanomachines across all domains of life; however, the utility of these dynamics is mostly not understood. The new results from Marburg show how protein exchange allows to respond flexibly to external circumstances -- an immense advantage, not only for bacteria."

Comment: Shapiro's research validated again. I still approach this as a God-given design.

DAVID: Another non-religious thought is God created a such a strong driving force to produce life on Earth with bacteria that viruses also appeared and in each group nasty ones popped up, that then had to be controlled. Raises the issue of whether God is under total control or just well-intended? I have no way of knowing.

DAVID: If God wanted a directed evolution, as I believe He did, then His release of any control would have been with guidelines, as I've suggested in the past.
dhw: The only guidelines you have come up with are precise instructions handed down by the first cells, or personal dabbles. No autonomy anywhere. So did he give the nasty bacteria and viruses guidelines, as above, or did he lose control, or maybe even willingly sacrifice control? Now apparently you have no way of knowing. We are making progress.

DAVID: Since it is obvious to me God used evolution to create living forms and He wanted the arrival of humans, He controlled the advance of evolution, but viruses may have been a side effect of the drive for life. They appear to have been present since the very beginning, which also suggests they are a purposeful addition. Evidence is not clear.

dhw: So your God may have purposefully added bad viruses and bacteria, or he may have lost control, or he may have deliberately sacrificed control to let evolution take its own course (you left out that alternative). Evidence is not clear. You are prepared to consider the possibility that he did not HAVE total control, and yet you are not prepared to consider the possibility that he did not WANT total control.

Since He had to be sure humans evolved, He maintained full guidance.

DAVID: If God wanted a directed evolution, as I believe He did, then His release of any control would have been with guidelines, as I've suggested in the past.
dhw: The only guidelines you have come up with are precise instructions handed down by the first cells, or personal dabbles. No autonomy anywhere. So did he give the nasty bacteria and viruses guidelines, as above, or did he lose control, or maybe even willingly sacrifice control? Now apparently you have no way of knowing. We are making progress.

DAVID: Since it is obvious to me God used evolution to create living forms and He wanted the arrival of humans, He controlled the advance of evolution, but viruses may have been a side effect of the drive for life. They appear to have been present since the very beginning, which also suggests they are a purposeful addition. Evidence is not clear.

So your God may have purposefully added bad viruses and bacteria, or he may have lost control, or he may have deliberately sacrificed control to let evolution take its own course (you left out that alternative). Evidence is not clear. You are prepared to consider the possibility that he did not HAVE total control, and yet you are not prepared to consider the possibility that he did not WANT total control.

DAVID's comment (under “Immunity"): These findings add to the complexity of the immune response. Since bacteria and viruses constantly or on the attack, these systems must have developed early in evolution in a complete defense. They must have been designed by God.

dhw: Your God must have had lots of fun designing these killer bacteria and viruses, and then working out ways in which some organisms might or might not be able to survive them. And apparently all for the sake of the human brain.

DAVID: Another non-religious thought is God created a such a strong driving force to produce life on Earth with bacteria that viruses also appeared and in each group nasty ones popped up, that then had to be controlled. Raises the issue of whether God is under total control or just well-intended? I have no way of knowing.

dhw: You have no way of knowing, and yet when I suggest that he might deliberately have sacrificed control (as opposed to actually losing control, which is the possibility you envisage here with nasty ones “popping up”) and allowed evolution to run its own course, you refuse to accept that possibility.

DAVID: God was obviously prepared when He gave humans the degree of consciousness we have. You can't extrapolate that willingness to anything before He achieved his goal.

dhw: Nor can you assume that he did not have that willingness before humans came on the scene. These are two different theistic hypothesis – God in complete control until evolution reached Homo sapiens, or God deliberately allowing evolution to run its own course (though of course he could dabble if he wanted to). The latter fits perfectly with the higgledy-piggledy bush of comings and goings, and you cannot claim you know that your God did not willingly relinquish control.

DAVID: If God wanted a directed evolution, as I believe He did, then His release of any control would have been with guidelines, as I've suggested in the past.

dhw: The only guidelines you have come up with are precise instructions handed down by the first cells, or personal dabbles. No autonomy anywhere. So did he give the nasty bacteria and viruses guidelines, as above, or did he lose control, or maybe even willingly sacrifice control? Now apparently you have no way of knowing. We are making progress.

Since it is obvious to me God used evolution to create living forms and He wanted the arrival of humans, He controlled the advance of evolution, but viruses may have been a side effect of the drive for life. They appear to have been present since the very beginning, which also suggests they are a purposeful addition. Evidence is not clear.

dhw: Your God must have had lots of fun designing these killer bacteria and viruses, and then working out ways in which some organisms might or might not be able to survive them. And apparently all for the sake of the human brain.

DAVID: Another non-religious thought is God created a such a strong driving force to produce life on Earth with bacteria that viruses also appeared and in each group nasty ones popped up, that then had to be controlled. Raises the issue of whether God is under total control or just well-intended? I have no way of knowing.

You have no way of knowing, and yet when I suggest that he might deliberately have sacrificed control (as opposed to actually losing control, which is the possibility you envisage here with nasty ones “popping up”) and allowed evolution to run its own course, you refuse to accept that possibility.

DAVID: God was obviously prepared when He gave humans the degree of consciousness we have. You can't extrapolate that willingness to anything before He achieved his goal.

dhw: Nor can you assume that he did not have that willingness before humans came on the scene. These are two different theistic hypothesis – God in complete control until evolution reached Homo sapiens, or God deliberately allowing evolution to run its own course (though of course he could dabble if he wanted to). The latter fits perfectly with the higgledy-piggledy bush of comings and goings, and you cannot claim you know that your God did not willingly relinquish control.

DAVID: If God wanted a directed evolution, as I believe He did, then His release of any control would have been with guidelines, as I've suggested in the past.

The only guidelines you have come up with are precise instructions handed down by the first cells, or personal dabbles. No autonomy anywhere. So did he give the nasty bacteria and viruses guidelines, as above, or did he lose control, or maybe even willingly sacrifice control? Now apparently you have no way of knowing. We are making progress.

DAVID: God was obviously prepared when He gave humans the degree of consciousness we have. You can't extrapolate that willingness to anything before He achieved his goal.

dhw: Nor can you assume that he did not have that willingness before humans came on the scene. These are two different theistic hypothesis – God in complete control until evolution reached Homo sapiens, or God deliberately allowing evolution to run its own course (though of course he could dabble if he wanted to). The latter fits perfectly with the higgledy-piggledy bush of comings and goings, and you cannot claim you know that your God did not willingly relinquish control.

If God wanted a directed evolution, as I believe He did, then His release of any control would have been with guidelines, as I've suggested in the past.

dhw: You complained that I wanted God to be only partially in charge. My point was that he CHOSE to be only partially in charge if he gave humans free will. I am not discussing the mechanisms of free will here, but the fact that your God is prepared NOT to be in full charge. An evolutionary free-for-all would also be in keeping with your own theory that he watches with interest.

DAVID: God was obviously prepared when He gave humans the degree of consciousness we have. You can't extrapolate that willingness to anything before He achieved his goal.

Nor can you assume that he did not have that willingness before humans came on the scene. These are two different theistic hypothesis – God in complete control until evolution reached Homo sapiens, or God deliberately allowing evolution to run its own course (though of course he could dabble if he wanted to). The latter fits perfectly with the higgledy-piggledy bush of comings and goings, and you cannot claim you know that your God did not willingly relinquish control.

dhw: If one believes in God, then of course the mechanism would have stemmed from him, and there is no reason to assume that the mechanism is not an autonomous form of cognition. I like the idea of bacterial electricity presaging neurons – it establishes a clear evolutionary progression. Whether your God directed that progression or watched it evolve through the mechanism he had invented (allowing for occasional dabbles) is as open to debate as the question of your God’s existence.

DAVID: It all follows my thought about using patterns of development.

The patterns of development are clear, and form the basis of Darwin’s theory of common descent. He even attributes the patterns to your God in later editions of Origin, though as an agnostic he would in fact have kept an open mind.

DAVID: I have stated that free will exists in humans who have brains. Don't try to stretch my point to single-celled animals; it won't work.

dhw: You complained that I wanted God to be only partially in charge. My point was that he CHOSE to be only partially in charge if he gave humans free will. I am not discussing the mechanisms of free will here, but the fact that your God is prepared NOT to be in full charge. An evolutionary free-for-all would also be in keeping with your own theory that he watches with interest.

God was obviously prepared when He gave humans the degree of consciousness we have. You can't extrapolate that willingness to anything before He achieved his goal.

DAVID: I suspect the ability for single-celled animals to cooperate is a mechanism given to them by God. The ability to use ionization electricity presages the appearance of neurons later in evolution, since one early stage set up advances in future stages, under God's control.

dhw: If one believes in God, then of course the mechanism would have stemmed from him, and there is no reason to assume that the mechanism is not an autonomous form of cognition. I like the idea of bacterial electricity presaging neurons – it establishes a clear evolutionary progression. Whether your God directed that progression or watched it evolve through the mechanism he had invented (allowing for occasional dabbles) is as open to debate as the question of your God’s existence.

It all follows my thought about using patterns of development.

dhw: Since you believe in human free will, clearly you acknowledge the possibility that your God is prepared to allow some organisms to make their own way – i.e. in our case he is only partially in charge. I am merely extending that principle to the evolutionary bush itself, i.e. that he set up the mechanism, and then let it make its own way. I don’t “want” anything. I am simply trying to find an explanation for why things are as they are. This particular post suggests to me that the communal intelligence of bacteria might throw light on the communal intelligence of all cell communities, from individual organs to ant society to human society. The three sentences that I highlighted illustrate the point:

And like humans, who have succeeded in large part by cooperating with each other, bacteria thrive in communities.
This electrical exchange has proved so powerful that biofilms even use it to recruit new bacteria from their surroundings, and to negotiate with neighboring biofilms for their mutual well-being.”
[Shapiro] has argued that bacterial colonies might be capable of a form of cognition.

DAVID: I have stated that free will exists in humans who have brains. Don't try to stretch my point to single-celled animals; it won't work.

You complained that I wanted God to be only partially in charge. My point was that he CHOSE to be only partially in charge if he gave humans free will. I am not discussing the mechanisms of free will here, but the fact that your God is prepared NOT to be in full charge. An evolutionary free-for-all would also be in keeping with your own theory that he watches with interest.

DAVID: I suspect the ability for single-celled animals to cooperate is a mechanism given to them by God. The ability to use ionization electricity presages the appearance of neurons later in evolution, since one early stage set up advances in future stages, under God's control.

If one believes in God, then of course the mechanism would have stemmed from him, and there is no reason to assume that the mechanism is not an autonomous form of cognition. I like the idea of bacterial electricity presaging neurons – it establishes a clear evolutionary progression. Whether your God directed that progression or watched it evolve through the mechanism he had invented (allowing for occasional dabbles) is as open to debate as the question of your God’s existence.

dhw: I’m also with Shapiro, who elsewhere is unequivocal in his support for the hypothesis that bacteria are (I don’t know why the article says “might be") cognitive, intelligent beings, which does not mean that their intelligence is anything like that of humans. That is why they don’t require the “sophisticated circuitry” of brains. The article focuses on the material means by which bacteria communicate (just as we humans communicate through materials). But cooperation, recruitment and negotiation are clear indications that the material means are guided by a form of cognition. If God exists, then of course he would have been the designer, and yes indeed, evolution shows clear patterns, which would still be the case if your God allowed the whole process to evolve through organisms’ autonomous use of the mechanisms he had designed.

DAVID: Those mechanisms would have followed God's guidelines. You want God to be only partially in charge.

dhw: Since you believe in human free will, clearly you acknowledge the possibility that your God is prepared to allow some organisms to make their own way – i.e. in our case he is only partially in charge. I am merely extending that principle to the evolutionary bush itself, i.e. that he set up the mechanism, and then let it make its own way. I don’t “want” anything. I am simply trying to find an explanation for why things are as they are. This particular post suggests to me that the communal intelligence of bacteria might throw light on the communal intelligence of all cell communities, from individual organs to ant society to human society. The three sentences that I highlighted illustrate the point:

And like humans, who have succeeded in large part by cooperating with each other, bacteria thrive in communities.

This electrical exchange has proved so powerful that biofilms even use it to recruit new bacteria from their surroundings, and to negotiate with neighboring biofilms for their mutual well-being.”

[Shapiro] has argued that bacterial colonies might be capable of a form of cognition.

I have stated that free will exists in humans who have brains. Don't try to stretch my point to single-celled animals; it won't work. I suspect the ability for single-celled animals to cooperate is a mechanism given to them by God. The ability to use ionization electricity presages the appearance of neurons later in evolution, since one early stage set up advances in future stages, under God's control.

DAVID: Those mechanisms would have followed God's guidelines. You want God to be only partially in charge.

Since you believe in human free will, clearly you acknowledge the possibility that your God is prepared to allow some organisms to make their own way – i.e. in our case he is only partially in charge. I am merely extending that principle to the evolutionary bush itself, i.e. that he set up the mechanism, and then let it make its own way. I don’t “want” anything. I am simply trying to find an explanation for why things are as they are. This particular post suggests to me that the communal intelligence of bacteria might throw light on the communal intelligence of all cell communities, from individual organs to ant society to human society. The three sentences that I highlighted illustrate the point:

And like humans, who have succeeded in large part by cooperating with each other, bacteria thrive in communities.

This electrical exchange has proved so powerful that biofilms even use it to recruit new bacteria from their surroundings, and to negotiate with neighboring biofilms for their mutual well-being.”

[Shapiro] has argued that bacterial colonies might be capable of a form of cognition.

Shown by recent research:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/bacteria-use-brainlike-bursts-of-electricity-to-communic...

QUOTE: "The preferred form of community for bacteria seems to be the biofilm. On teeth, on pipes, on rocks and in the ocean, microbes glom together by the billions and build sticky organic superstructures around themselves. In these films, bacteria can divide labor: Exterior cells may fend off threats, while interior cells produce food. And like humans, who have succeeded in large part by cooperating with each other, bacteria thrive in communities. (dhw’s bold)

QUOTE: "But Süel and other scientists are now finding that bacteria in biofilms can also talk to one another electrically. Biofilms appear to use electrically charged particles to organize and synchronize activities across large expanses. This electrical exchange has proved so powerful that biofilms even use it to recruit new bacteria from their surroundings, and to negotiate with neighboring biofilms for their mutual well-being.” (dhw’s bold)

QUOTE: The findings form “a very interesting piece of work,” said James Shapiro, a bacterial geneticist at the University of Chicago. Shapiro is not afraid of bold hypotheses: He has argued that bacterial colonies might be capable of a form of cognition. But he approaches analogies between neurons and bacteria with caution. The potassium-mediated behaviors Süel has demonstrated so far are simple enough that they don’t require the type of sophisticated circuitry brains have evolved, Shapiro said. “It’s not clear exactly how much information processing is going on.'” (dhw's bold)

DAVID’s comment: I'm with Shapiro. This activity is certainly managed in some layer of genome control. But it also fits my key point that God uses patterns to develop upon as He conducts the process of evolution. Note my bolded sentences above.

dhw: I’m also with Shapiro, who elsewhere is unequivocal in his support for the hypothesis that bacteria are (I don’t know why the article says “might be") cognitive, intelligent beings, which does not mean that their intelligence is anything like that of humans. That is why they don’t require the “sophisticated circuitry” of brains. The article focuses on the material means by which bacteria communicate (just as we humans communicate through materials). But cooperation, recruitment and negotiation are clear indications that the material means are guided by a form of cognition. If God exists, then of course he would have been the designer, and yes indeed, evolution shows clear patterns, which would still be the case if your God allowed the whole process to evolve through organisms’ autonomous use of the mechanisms he had designed.

Those mechanisms would have followed God's guidelines. You want God to be only partially in charge.

QUOTE: "The preferred form of community for bacteria seems to be the biofilm. On teeth, on pipes, on rocks and in the ocean, microbes glom together by the billions and build sticky organic superstructures around themselves. In these films, bacteria can divide labor: Exterior cells may fend off threats, while interior cells produce food. And like humans, who have succeeded in large part by cooperating with each other, bacteria thrive in communities. (dhw’s bold)

QUOTE: "But Süel and other scientists are now finding that bacteria in biofilms can also talk to one another electrically. Biofilms appear to use electrically charged particles to organize and synchronize activities across large expanses. This electrical exchange has proved so powerful that biofilms even use it to recruit new bacteria from their surroundings, and to negotiate with neighboring biofilms for their mutual well-being.” (dhw’s bold)

QUOTE: The findings form “a very interesting piece of work,” said James Shapiro, a bacterial geneticist at the University of Chicago. Shapiro is not afraid of bold hypotheses: He has argued that bacterial colonies might be capable of a form of cognition. But he approaches analogies between neurons and bacteria with caution. The potassium-mediated behaviors Süel has demonstrated so far are simple enough that they don’t require the type of sophisticated circuitry brains have evolved, Shapiro said. “It’s not clear exactly how much information processing is going on.'” (dhw's bold)

DAVID’s comment: I'm with Shapiro. This activity is certainly managed in some layer of genome control. But it also fits my key point that God uses patterns to develop upon as He conducts the process of evolution. Note my bolded sentences above.

I’m also with Shapiro, who elsewhere is unequivocal in his support for the hypothesis that bacteria are (I don’t know why the article says “might be") cognitive, intelligent beings, which does not mean that their intelligence is anything like that of humans. That is why they don’t require the “sophisticated circuitry” of brains. The article focuses on the material means by which bacteria communicate (just as we humans communicate through materials). But cooperation, recruitment and negotiation are clear indications that the material means are guided by a form of cognition. If God exists, then of course he would have been the designer, and yes indeed, evolution shows clear patterns, which would still be the case if your God allowed the whole process to evolve through organisms’ autonomous use of the mechanisms he had designed.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/bacteria-use-brainlike-bursts-of-electricity-to-communic...

"The preferred form of community for bacteria seems to be the biofilm. On teeth, on pipes, on rocks and in the ocean, microbes glom together by the billions and build sticky organic superstructures around themselves. In these films, bacteria can divide labor: Exterior cells may fend off threats, while interior cells produce food. And like humans, who have succeeded in large part by cooperating with each other, bacteria thrive in communities.

***

"But Süel and other scientists are now finding that bacteria in biofilms can also talk to one another electrically. Biofilms appear to use electrically charged particles to organize and synchronize activities across large expanses. This electrical exchange has proved so powerful that biofilms even use it to recruit new bacteria from their surroundings, and to negotiate with neighboring biofilms for their mutual well-being.

***

"Süel, who was trained in physics, suspected that something more than the diffusion of chemical messengers was at work in his Bacillus colonies. He focused on ion channels — specialized molecules that nestle into cells’ outer membranes and ferry electrically charged particles in and out. Ion channels are probably most famous for their role in nerve cells, or neurons.

***

"Despite the parallels to neural activity, Süel emphasizes that biofilms are not just like brains. Neural signals, which rely on fast-acting sodium channels in addition to the potassium channels, can zip along at more than 100 meters per second — a speed that is critical for enabling animals to engage in sophisticated, rapid-motion behaviors such as hunting. The potassium waves in Bacillus spread at the comparatively tortoise-like rate of a few millimeters per hour. “Basically, we’re observing a primitive form of action potential in these biofilms,”

***

"The first answer came earlier this year, in which they showed that Bacillus bacteria seem to use potassium ions to recruit free-swimming cells to the community. Amazingly, the bacteria attracted not only other Bacillus, but also unrelated species. Bacteria, it seems, may have evolved to live not just in monocultures but in diverse communities.

***

"For Gemma Reguera, a microbiologist at Michigan State University, the recent revelations bolster an argument she has long been making to her biologist peers: that physical signals such as light, sound and electricity are as important to bacteria as chemical signals.

***

“'I personally have found [positively charged ion channels] in every single-celled organism I’ve ever looked at,” said Steve Lockless, a biologist at Texas A&M University who was Süel’s lab mate in graduate school. Bacteria could thus use potassium to speak not just with one another but with other life-forms, including perhaps humans, (my bold)

***

"'The fact that microbes use potassium suggests that this is an ancient adaptation that developed before the eukaryotic cells that make up plants, animals and other life-forms diverged from bacteria, according to Jordi Garcia-Ojalvo, a professor of systems biology (my bold)

***

"The findings form “a very interesting piece of work,” said James Shapiro, a bacterial geneticist at the University of Chicago. Shapiro is not afraid of bold hypotheses: He has argued that bacterial colonies might be capable of a form of cognition. But he approaches analogies between neurons and bacteria with caution. The potassium-mediated behaviors Süel has demonstrated so far are simple enough that they don’t require the type of sophisticated circuitry brains have evolved, Shapiro said. “It’s not clear exactly how much information processing is going on.'”

Comment: I'm with Shapiro. This activity is certainly managed in some layer of genome control. But it also fits my key point that God uses patterns to develop upon as He conducts the process of evolution. Note my bolded sentences above.

DAVID: New information on bacterial protective mechanisms involving a group of enzymes to fight viruses, which do not indicate whether bacteria are intelligent:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/bacteria-find-united-they-stand-divided-they-fall

QUOTE: “The delay bought time for the bacteria, allowing the colony to grow. Beyond an optimum size, the virus-bacteria battle became a numbers game, with more bacteria able to integrate viral DNA than be killed by it.”
"The researchers found that small bacterial colonies were much more likely than large ones to suffer high casualty rates from viral infections..."

DAVID’s comment: This is not bacterial intelligence, but a complement of giant enzymes molecules that bacteria produce to fend off viruses. I believe it is an implant of intelligently supplied molecules. […]

You begin by saying the experiment does not show whether bacteria are intelligent, and you end by saying they are not. It does not occur to you that “bacteria find united they stand, divided they fall” suggests that they might know what they are doing.
xxxxx
QUOTE: (under “cell memories”) “Epithelial stem cells are the first non-immune cells found to have a memory, and the findings point to “a primitive basic response to jazz up the cells quickly and make them heal the wound,” says George Cotsarelis, a dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine who was not involved in the study. “It changes the way people think about the skin now.'”

DAVID’s comment: That DNA (chromatin) automatically remained open indicates a logical cellular automaticity for survival, developed in the course of evolution.

In addition to immune cells which work out solutions to new problems, we now have epithelial stem cells that have memory, which also enables them to learn from experience and solve the healing problem faster than they did originally. By parroting the word “automatic”, while admitting that one cannot tell the difference between autonomous intelligence and automaticity, you do not prove automaticity.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
DAVID (under “plant roots seek water”): A new study shows that root tips grow toward water. The exact cellular mechanism is not yet known:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-darkhow-roots-growth.html

QUOTES: "Without eyes, ears, or a central nervous system, plants can perceive the direction of environmental cues and respond to ensure their survival.”
"'We knew plants were doing this—branching toward water—but not the mechanism of how the plant was perceiving and reacting to this environmental signal," Dinneny explained.

"Using both fine-scale microdissection and mathematical modeling approaches, they found that the tip of the root where cell expansion drives growth is uniquely able to perceive and respond to moisture cues by shaping the direction in which the root branches out into the soil.”

DAVID’s comment: I am sure the cells at the tip of each root have automatic stimuli receptors which then set up growth director systems, and will be discovered.

Yes, you are always sure that some sort of automatic mechanism will be discovered, and you cannot abide the idea that all living organisms – whether they have brains or not - may have some form of autonomous intelligence. Now you have your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer preprogramme providing the first living cells with instructions to be passed on to tree root tips.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/bacteria-find-united-they-stand-divided-they-fall

"In a counter-intuitive result, researchers have found that viruses that infect and kill individual bacterial cells can end up benefitting the same bacterial species on a population level.

***

"Viruses that infect bacteria are known as bacteriophages. Some are lethal to the target microbe, while others end up in a more complex relationship, sometimes actually integrating some of their genetic material with their host. This kind of transfer has long been recognised as an important mechanism by which bacteria adapt and evolve.

"Viruses that can blend in rather than kill outright are called temperate, but their friendliness can’t be taken for granted. Whether the outcome for an individual bacterium is useful or lethal appears to be random – an observation that caused a team led by IST Austria’s Maros Pleska to wonder if there was some type of governing mechanism at work on either side of virus-bacteria divide that somehow determined the outcome.

"What they discovered surprised them.

"The key, they suspected, was a bit of bacterial kit known as a Restriction-Modification system (RMS), a collection of specialist enzymes that attack viral genetic material and cut it up into fragments. Bacteria deploy their RMS, sometimes successfully, to defeat lethal viral types. Pleska and colleagues wanted to know if the RMS behaved differently when confronted with a temperate virus that might be potentially beneficial to the individual bacterium.

"The answer, it turned out, was no: the RMS always attacked, but the virus usually won -- and usually killed the host.

"The team then scaled up their experiment to a population level, essentially introducing a large temperate virus horde to an even larger single-species bacterial colony. Based on the individual results, the researchers predicted that the bacteria would use its RMS to battle the infection but that in the end the size of the colony would be significantly reduced.
The actual result was confounding: in a much higher proportion than was predicted, the viruses integrated with the bacteria, passing on genetic material. On a population level, the bacteria benefitted, even though any given microbe, in isolation, was likely to die.

"The explanation, they discovered, lay in a misunderstanding regarding the role of the RMS. Rather than simply being there to kill, or try to kill, an invading virus, Pleska’s team discovered its function was more nuanced. Its job was not to defeat, but to delay infection.
The delay bought time for the bacteria, allowing the colony to grow. Beyond an optimum size, the virus-bacteria battle became a numbers game, with more bacteria able to integrate viral DNA than be killed by it.

"The researchers found that small bacterial colonies were much more likely than large ones to suffer high casualty rates from viral infections. Similarly, a growing colony was much more likely to fare badly if it was infected early in the growth."

Comment: This is not bacterial intelligence, but a complement of giant enzymes molecules that bacteria produce to fend off viruses. I believe it is an implant of intelligently supplied molecules. A random search by chance evolution is very unlikely to find a specialized group of huge enzyme molecules.

DAVID: As usual, those cells have an appearance of intelligence, because their internal mechanism is so complex and complete and so efficient. Once designed and developed, God had no need to dabble further.

dhw: Good. Out goes dabbling, and we skate over 3.8 billion years’ worth of computer programmes plus however many more billion years of new experiences are left. Frankly, I don’t think merely having the appearance of intelligence would suffice to cover billions of years of new experiences from which the cells must learn. But once your God had designed an internal mechanism which could autonomously take its own decisions based on the information it processed through billions of years, I agree there would have been no need for him to dabble. Dabbling would only be necessary if the cells did not have the autonomous intelligence to process all the information and take the appropriate decisions.

DAVID: Yes, the immune cells have the intelligent information to make new antibodies as needed and protect us.

dhw: A truly remarkable discovery. Cells do not have such hallmarks of intelligence as learning by experience, communicating with one another, taking decisions etc. It is information that learns by experience, communicates (presumably with other information) and takes the decisions that lead to new antibodies. And scientists should test information to see how intelligently it responds to new problems.

The cells have all the hallmarks of intelligence, because they contain intelligently designed mechanisms to react to pathogens and create precise antibodies. All life operates on information and with purpose.

dhw: Good. Out goes dabbling, and we skate over 3.8 billion years’ worth of computer programmes plus however many more billion years of new experiences are left. Frankly, I don’t think merely having the appearance of intelligence would suffice to cover billions of years of new experiences from which the cells must learn. But once your God had designed an internal mechanism which could autonomously take its own decisions based on the information it processed through billions of years, I agree there would have been no need for him to dabble. Dabbling would only be necessary if the cells did not have the autonomous intelligence to process all the information and take the appropriate decisions.

DAVID: Yes, the immune cells have the intelligent information to make new antibodies as needed and protect us.

A truly remarkable discovery. Cells do not have such hallmarks of intelligence as learning by experience, communicating with one another, taking decisions etc. It is information that learns by experience, communicates (presumably with other information) and takes the decisions that lead to new antibodies. And scientists should test information to see how intelligently it responds to new problems.