Cellular intelligence (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 11:58 (232 days ago)

I am reopening this thread because despite David’s insistence that the subject belongs to the past, he is reproducing more and more evidence from new research. I have to thank him for this, as he could easily have passed over such articles without informing us. I’ll begin, though, with relevant sections of Shapiro’s brilliant summary, which David himself quoted in his book “The Atheist Delusion”, as we need to see all subsequent articles in the light of Shapiro’s proposals:

Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation, They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.
• Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly through well-described natural genetic engineering and epigenetic processes as well as my cell-mergers.
• Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

I have adapted my reply to this: Rolls opts for a driver who makes decisions. If, as you say, "the brain keeps track, modulates...", the brain is presumably the “driver” that controls and takes decisions. And the brain consists of various communities of cells working together. Decision-making is not an automatic action.

DAVID: It is if each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

According to the above, the response to each stimulus requires a decision and a decision-maker. That is the opposite of an “automatic response”.

Control of differentiation

QUOTES: Stem cells are true multi-talents. They can develop into any cell type of an organism -- in humans there are over 200 -- and thus perform all vital tasks. Once the stem cells have decided on a task they can no longer be deterred from their goal. The final product, tissues and organs, almost always look the same and consist of defined proportions of different specialised cell types. But how do the cells actually know what they want to become and how many of them are actually allowed to do so?

"Using stem cells in a test tube, the researchers were able to show that decision-making does not take place purely randomly at the level of individual cells, as previously assumed, but is communicated within the cell community.” (David’s bold)

Communication in cell development is like working in a team. If the members choose tasks without consulting each other, some things are done twice and others not at all. A team that communicates well, on the other hand, can solve problems that arise and complete even complex projects reliably and efficiently," Christian Schröter says. "So it's not just the state of the individual cell that decides on its faith [dhw: Misprint for fate?], but the functioning communication with the other cells.'"

You could hardly have a clearer indication that cells/cell communities cooperate intelligently. These observations are confined to existing systems, but in our discussions on evolution, we are concerned with how speciation occurs – i.e. how cell communities change their form. The ability of stem cells to take on any form seems to me to provide a possible key to the whole problem. When conditions change, these cells can change – always communicating and cooperating with other cells before making and implementing their decisions. See the quote you bolded. Thank you for yet again offering us powerful evidence of cellular intelligence.

NB I am not saying that these articles explicitly support Shapiro to the extent that cells are capable of designing their own evolution – neither of them is written with that context in mind. The point is the confirmation of the first of Shapiro’s statements quoted above. My contention is that the rest of Shapiro’s conclusions are totally feasible once we accept the first point and reject the assumption that every response, decision and innovation is the result of “mindless” cells automatically obeying instructions issued by a God (though it is also feasible that a God may have designed the mechanism in the first place).

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 14:28 (231 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am reopening this thread because despite David’s insistence that the subject belongs to the past, he is reproducing more and more evidence from new research. I have to thank him for this, as he could easily have passed over such articles without informing us. I’ll begin, though, with relevant sections of Shapiro’s brilliant summary, which David himself quoted in his book “The Atheist Delusion”, as we need to see all subsequent articles in the light of Shapiro’s proposals:

Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation, They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.
• Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly through well-described natural genetic engineering and epigenetic processes as well as my cell-mergers.
• Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

I have adapted my reply to this: Rolls opts for a driver who makes decisions. If, as you say, "the brain keeps track, modulates...", the brain is presumably the “driver” that controls and takes decisions. And the brain consists of various communities of cells working together. Decision-making is not an automatic action.

But it can be. See new entry on automatic algorithms in simple brained-animals.


DAVID: It is if each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: According to the above, the response to each stimulus requires a decision and a decision-maker. That is the opposite of an “automatic response”.

Stimuli are in limited number, which means all responses can well be automatic as limited in number also.


Control of differentiation

QUOTES: Stem cells are true multi-talents. They can develop into any cell type of an organism -- in humans there are over 200 -- and thus perform all vital tasks. Once the stem cells have decided on a task they can no longer be deterred from their goal. The final product, tissues and organs, almost always look the same and consist of defined proportions of different specialised cell types. But how do the cells actually know what they want to become and how many of them are actually allowed to do so?

"Using stem cells in a test tube, the researchers were able to show that decision-making does not take place purely randomly at the level of individual cells, as previously assumed, but is communicated within the cell community.” (David’s bold)

Communication in cell development is like working in a team. If the members choose tasks without consulting each other, some things are done twice and others not at all. A team that communicates well, on the other hand, can solve problems that arise and complete even complex projects reliably and efficiently," Christian Schröter says. "So it's not just the state of the individual cell that decides on its faith [dhw: Misprint for fate?], but the functioning communication with the other cells.'"

dhw: You could hardly have a clearer indication that cells/cell communities cooperate intelligently. These observations are confined to existing systems, but in our discussions on evolution, we are concerned with how speciation occurs – i.e. how cell communities change their form. The ability of stem cells to take on any form seems to me to provide a possible key to the whole problem. When conditions change, these cells can change – always communicating and cooperating with other cells before making and implementing their decisions. See the quote you bolded. Thank you for yet again offering us powerful evidence of cellular intelligence.

Or simply intelligent design by God.


dhw: NB I am not saying that these articles explicitly support Shapiro to the extent that cells are capable of designing their own evolution – neither of them is written with that context in mind. The point is the confirmation of the first of Shapiro’s statements quoted above. My contention is that the rest of Shapiro’s conclusions are totally feasible once we accept the first point and reject the assumption that every response, decision and innovation is the result of “mindless” cells automatically obeying instructions issued by a God (though it is also feasible that a God may have designed the mechanism in the first place).

Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms. See new entry.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 15:01 (231 days ago) @ David Turell

A new book review which presents automatic activity in small animals:

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/11/the-innate-navigation-intelligence-of-the-birds-and-the-...

"A bird born near Wales (UK) knows how to fly over 6,200 miles (10,000 km) south in the winter, following the west coastlines of Europe and Africa, then crossing the Atlantic Ocean to land in Argentina. The same bird knows how to return to its original home a few months later. She flies north along the east coasts of South and North America, then crosses the Atlantic back to her birth location. No education or training, no YouTube teaching video, not even a mentor shows the bird, a Manx shearwater, how to accomplish this navigational feat. How does she know the way and what tools does she use?

"The Manx shearwater’s extraordinary story of innate intelligence is just one that Eric Cassell, an engineer of aircraft navigation systems, explores in his book, Animal Algorithms (2021). The book concentrates upon the questions arising from observing behaviors that could only be wired-in or pre-programmed, so it focuses upon animals not usually regarded as “intelligent.” It describes features and behaviors seen in ants, termites, sea turtles, migrating birds and homing pigeons, wasps, fruit flies, terns, lobsters, and even dung beetles.

"Typically, we think of these animals as instinctually skillful but not smart. They aren’t even mammals with large brains; the ant’s brain is about 1/4 the size of a pin head, for example, and bird brains range from less than a gram to 20 grams of mass. These animals exhibit behaviors but lack minds, we say.

"But what are behaviors if not the products of animals’ minds? Author Cassell applies his engineering education and career experience to show that such animal behaviors must be algorithms running on specialized hardware. Simply stated, using evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayer’s definition quoted in Animal Instincts, a biological algorithm is a:

"...coded or prearranged information that controls a process (or behavior) leading it toward a given end.

"ERIC CASSELL, ANIMAL ALGORITHMS, P. 29

"Indeed, artificial intelligence systems (AI) are the same: algorithms running on specialized hardware. AI systems and Complex Programmed Behaviors (CPBs) are conceptually similar as they both involve functions and capabilities in perception, communication, information processing, learning, and decision-making. Cassell observes that both AI and CPB systems require:

"a lot of interdependencies, and therefore the design requirements must take this into account to ensure the components and operation function coherently. If all of the functions are not integrated correctly, system performance is significantly degraded.

"ERIC CASSELL, ANIMAL ALGORITHMS, P. 86

***

"Navigation system software cannot arise by means other than an intelligence that possesses the data, writes the software, and supplies the hardware to run the software and direct the traveler’s next moves in real time.

"We say honey bees and ants are not very intelligent, yet their navigation expertise is entirely non-trivial. Likewise are the many insects’ nest construction powers. Cassell observes it would take deep thought and sophisticated design techniques to build a robot to accomplish what the bees, ants and termites can do shortly after birth:

"If human engineers and software programmers were called on to replicate [such] ability in robots controlled by artificial intelligence, they would find themselves forced to extend well beyond basic programming techniques in order to deliver the goods. The same is true of the complex programmed behaviors that appear to underlie sophisticated nest construction among bees, termites, and other architecturally proficient insects.

" ERIC CASSELL, ANIMAL ALGORITHMS, P. 153

"From the engineering mindset, Cassell explains algorithms must be designed because their sources – information – cannot arise by undirected processes:

"Blind processes have never been observed to produce truly novel complex and specified information, nor has any such process been properly modeled doing so in a computer environment.

"ERIC CASSELL, ANIMAL ALGORITHMS, P. 202

"Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered. We do know from logic and experience, however, that goal-directed action supported by hardware and software systems must originate from the design efforts of intelligent agents, that is, from conscious minds."

Comment: Carrell applies his knowledge of AI in this analysis. These instinctual behaviors cannot develop by stepwise evolution, but require design planning.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 15:24 (231 days ago) @ David Turell

Eric Cassell:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/genius-in-lilliput/

"Eric Cassell is an expert in navigation systems, including GPS, and has had a long-time interest in animal navigation. He has more than four decades of experience in systems engineering related to aircraft navigation and safety. He has served as an engineering consultant for NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); has developed computer algorithms for safety systems; and has published numerous technical papers. His academic training includes bachelor’s degrees in biology (George Mason University) and electrical engineering (Villanova University), and a master’s in science and religion from Biola University, which included the history and philosophy of science.

***

From his essay:

"Research has confirmed that the recognition of prey is innate, and that the stinging behavior, which must be done with precise accuracy to work, is controlled by a motor program — that is, a series of sub-routines ordered in a particular sequence to perform a given movement or task. And no simple one. To grasp this, imagine the software program that would be required to enable an advanced micro-drone to deliver a neurotoxin to the precise location in the honey bee to immobilize it. In assessing the complexity and evolution of this wasp behavior, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini conclude that “such complex, sequential, rigidly pre-programmed behaviour could have gone wrong in many ways, at any one of the steps… Such cases of elaborate innate behavioural programs cannot be accounted for by means of optimizing physio-chemical or geometric factors.”

"The above examples of innate or programmed behaviors are just a handful of numerous such instances in the animal kingdom. Surprisingly, in many instances the behaviors of what we normally think of as primitive animals can be just as complex as those of more advanced animals, including mammals. Indeed, there is little correlation between the cognitive capacity of animals and their ability to produce sophisticated, apparently innate behaviors. The reason may be that such behaviors really are programmed and therefore innate, so the animals do not require significant cognitive capacity to perform them. What they do require is the specific neural “circuitry” that controls the behavior — circuitry that is quite sophisticated but apparently does not require large brains.

"Effusive descriptions of these behaviors can be found in everything from National Geographic television programs to science books and articles. Jennifer Ackerman’s The Genius of Birds and Martin Giurfa’s “The Amazing Mini-Brain: Lessons from a Honey Bee” are two examples among many. The world of science is astounded by some of the complex innate behaviors found in the animal kingdom.

***

"Complex programmed behaviors are evident throughout the animal kingdom, but in these pages the focus will primarily be on less advanced animals. The reason is that more advanced animals, such as primates, have significant cognitive ability, so they exhibit much more of a combination of programmed and learned behaviors, and in such cases the two are not always easily disentangled. It is easier to discriminate between programmed and learned behaviors in less advanced animals, such as bees and butterflies.

"Explaining the origin of these programmed animal behaviors in evolutionary terms is challenging because the behaviors themselves are, in many cases, quite complex and likely undergirded by an extraordinarily sophisticated neurological substrate. Animal behaviors are also strikingly diverse, arguably just as diverse as the breathtaking diversity of physical characteristics we find in the animal kingdom. Those factors alone do not mean the explanatory task is impossible. But it does mean that something more than breezy just-so stories are required to provide a causally adequate explanation for their evolution.

Comment: An essay by Cassell touting his book. I've left out all of his illustrative examples of instinctual behavior. Read them, fascinating. A special quote from Cassell about Darwin:

"In On the Origin of Species the 19th-century naturalist Charles Darwin laid out his revolutionary case for common descent by gradual evolution. Darwin could not be faulted for timidity. He pressed his case at nearly every turn. But even he conceded at one point in the book that many instincts are “so wonderful” that their development “will probably have occurred to many readers, as a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.'”

It is sufficient

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Thursday, November 11, 2021, 12:03 (231 days ago) @ David Turell

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

dhw: Rolls opts for a driver who makes decisions. If, as you say, "the brain keeps track, modulates...", the brain is presumably the “driver” that controls and takes decisions. And the brain consists of various communities of cells working together. Decision-making is not an automatic action.

DAVID: But it can be. See new entry on automatic algorithms in simple brained-animals.

See below for my reply to that post

DAVID: It is if each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: According to the above, the response to each stimulus requires a decision and a decision-maker. That is the opposite of an “automatic response”.

DAVID: Stimuli are in limited number, which means all responses can well be automatic as limited in number also.

In the course of evolution, there is virtually no limit to stimuli, and different organisms have learned to cope with every kind of environment.

Control of differentiation
I shan’t reproduce all the quotes here.

dhw: You could hardly have a clearer indication that cells/cell communities cooperate intelligently. These observations are confined to existing systems, but in our discussions on evolution, we are concerned with how speciation occurs – i.e. how cell communities change their form. The ability of stem cells to take on any form seems to me to provide a possible key to the whole problem. When conditions change, these cells can change – always communicating and cooperating with other cells before making and implementing their decisions. See the quote you bolded. Thank you for yet again offering us powerful evidence of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Or simply intelligent design by God.

God may have designed the ability to communicate, cooperate and make decisions.

dhw: NB I am not saying that these articles explicitly support Shapiro to the extent that cells are capable of designing their own evolution – neither of them is written with that context in mind. The point is the confirmation of the first of Shapiro’s statements quoted above. My contention is that the rest of Shapiro’s conclusions are totally feasible once we accept the first point and reject the assumption that every response, decision and innovation is the result of “mindless” cells automatically obeying instructions issued by a God (though it is also feasible that a God may have designed the mechanism in the first place).

DAVID: Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms. See new entry.

Of course it does. Conscious intelligence only comes into play with the invention of new processes and/or when things go wrong.

Animal algorithms
QUOTE: "We say honey bees and ants are not very intelligent, yet their navigation expertise is entirely non-trivial. Likewise are the many insects’ nest construction powers. Cassell observes it would take deep thought and sophisticated design techniques to build a robot to accomplish what the bees, ants and termites can do shortly after birth:”

Precisely. The crucial question, then, is how did these skills arise in the first place? Once created, they can be passed on, just as humans have passed on their skills and inventions. You say God preprogrammed them or popped in to give bees and ants a quick course in navigation/nest-building. I propose that the bees and ants worked it all out for themselves.

QUOTE: "If human engineers and software programmers were called on to replicate [such] ability in robots controlled by artificial intelligence, they would find themselves forced to extend well beyond basic programming techniques in order to deliver the goods. The same is true of the complex programmed behaviors that appear to underlie sophisticated nest construction among bees, termites, and other architecturally proficient insects.

QUOTE: "Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered.”

Again, “precisely”. You say an outright no, and I suggest yes.

DAVID: Cassell applies his knowledge of AI in this analysis. These instinctual behaviors cannot develop by stepwise evolution, but require design planning.

I would suggest that natural behaviours most likely did develop stepwise, and yes, they did require design. I doubt if the very first ants built the amazingly complex nests we see today. Subsequent generations would probably have added new features. Bee navigation may well have seen variations in the rate of success, and natural selection will have ensured that ultimately, the successful ones would have passed on their superior knowledge and skills.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 11, 2021, 18:55 (230 days ago) @ dhw

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

dhw: Rolls opts for a driver who makes decisions. If, as you say, "the brain keeps track, modulates...", the brain is presumably the “driver” that controls and takes decisions. And the brain consists of various communities of cells working together. Decision-making is not an automatic action.

DAVID: But it can be. See new entry on automatic algorithms in simple brained-animals.

dhw: See below for my reply to that post

DAVID: It is if each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: According to the above, the response to each stimulus requires a decision and a decision-maker. That is the opposite of an “automatic response”.

DAVID: Stimuli are in limited number, which means all responses can well be automatic as limited in number also.

dhw: In the course of evolution, there is virtually no limit to stimuli, and different organisms have learned to cope with every kind of environment.

If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.


Control of differentiation
dhw: I shan’t reproduce all the quotes here.

dhw: See the quote you bolded. Thank you for yet again offering us powerful evidence of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Or simply intelligent design by God.

dhw: God may have designed the ability to communicate, cooperate and make decisions.

dhw: NB I am not saying that these articles explicitly support Shapiro to the extent that cells are capable of designing their own evolution – neither of them is written with that context in mind. The point is the confirmation of the first of Shapiro’s statements quoted above. My contention is that the rest of Shapiro’s conclusions are totally feasible once we accept the first point and reject the assumption that every response, decision and innovation is the result of “mindless” cells automatically obeying instructions issued by a God (though it is also feasible that a God may have designed the mechanism in the first place).

DAVID: Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms. See new entry.

dhw: Of course it does. Conscious intelligence only comes into play with the invention of new processes and/or when things go wrong.

Animal algorithms
QUOTE: "We say honey bees and ants are not very intelligent, yet their navigation expertise is entirely non-trivial. Likewise are the many insects’ nest construction powers. Cassell observes it would take deep thought and sophisticated design techniques to build a robot to accomplish what the bees, ants and termites can do shortly after birth:”

dhw: Precisely...The crucial question, then, is how did these skills arise in the first place? I propose that the bees and ants worked it all out for themselves.

QUOTE: "If human engineers and software programmers were called on to replicate [such] ability in robots controlled by artificial intelligence, they would find themselves forced to extend well beyond basic programming techniques in order to deliver the goods. The same is true of the complex programmed behaviors that appear to underlie sophisticated nest construction among bees, termites, and other architecturally proficient insects.

QUOTE: "Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered.”

dhw:Again, “precisely”. You say an outright no, and I suggest yes.

DAVID: Cassell applies his knowledge of AI in this analysis. These instinctual behaviors cannot develop by stepwise evolution, but require design planning.

dhw: I would suggest that natural behaviours most likely did develop stepwise, and yes, they did require design. I doubt if the very first ants built the amazingly complex nests we see today. Subsequent generations would probably have added new features. Bee navigation may well have seen variations in the rate of success, and natural selection will have ensured that ultimately, the successful ones would have passed on their superior knowledge and skills.

You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it. 'Complexity' in living biochemistry and in neural circuits can only be fully appreciated if educated in the subjects. The opinions cannot be sluffed off. Believe me the complexity requires a designing mind.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Friday, November 12, 2021, 08:24 (230 days ago) @ David Turell

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.

DAVID: […] each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: According to the above, the response to each stimulus requires a decision and a decision-maker. That is the opposite of an “automatic response”.

DAVID: Stimuli are in limited number, which means all responses can well be automatic as limited in number also.

dhw: In the course of evolution, there is virtually no limit to stimuli, and different organisms have learned to cope with every kind of environment.

DAVID: If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.

Well, OK, I’ll let you compile the list, starting on Monday, 1st January, 3.8 thousand million years ago…

Control of differentiation
DAVID: Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms.

dhw: Of course it does. Conscious intelligence only comes into play with the invention of new processes and/or when things go wrong.

No reply.

Animal algorithms
QUOTE: "We say honey bees and ants are not very intelligent, yet their navigation expertise is entirely non-trivial. Likewise are the many insects’ nest construction powers. Cassell observes it would take deep thought and sophisticated design techniques to build a robot to accomplish what the bees, ants and termites can do shortly after birth:”

dhw: Precisely...The crucial question, then, is how did these skills arise in the first place? I propose that the bees and ants worked it all out for themselves.

QUOTE: "Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered.” [dhw’’s bold]

dhw: Again, “precisely”. You say an outright no, and I suggest yes.

DAVID: Cassell applies his knowledge of AI in this analysis. These instinctual behaviors cannot develop by stepwise evolution, but require design planning.

dhw: I would suggest that natural behaviours most likely did develop stepwise, and yes, they did require design. I doubt if the very first ants built the amazingly complex nests we see today. Subsequent generations would probably have added new features. Bee navigation may well have seen variations in the rate of success, and natural selection will have ensured that ultimately, the successful ones would have passed on their superior knowledge and skills.

DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered! (See bold above)

DAVID: 'Complexity' in living biochemistry and in neural circuits can only be fully appreciated if educated in the subjects. The opinions cannot be sluffed off. Believe me the complexity requires a designing mind.

I believe you. And I believe Cassell when he says that the question whether animals have minds is unanswered.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Friday, November 12, 2021, 16:04 (229 days ago) @ dhw

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.

DAVID: […] each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: In the course of evolution, there is virtually no limit to stimuli, and different organisms have learned to cope with every kind of environment.

DAVID: If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.

dhw: Well, OK, I’ll let you compile the list, starting on Monday, 1st January, 3.8 thousand million years ago…

In immediate time external stimuli are limited: environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc.


Control of differentiation
DAVID: Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms.

dhw: Of course it does. Conscious intelligence only comes into play with the invention of new processes and/or when things go wrong.

No reply.

Where are you placing conscious intelligence?


Animal algorithms

DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered! (See bold above)

The complete quote:

Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered. We do know from logic and experience, however, that goal-directed action supported by hardware and software systems must originate from the design efforts of intelligent agents, that is, from conscious minds. Jonathan Bartlett’s June 15, 2021, article here concisely summarized this conclusion:

Intelligent Design … says that agency is a distinct causal category in the world. That is, when I code a computer program, write a book, invent a formula, write a poem, etc., I am doing something that is distinctively beyond the operation of pure physics. There is something distinct about the way that causation works for beings with minds compared to how it works for beings without minds.

JONATHAN BARTLETT, “INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK IT IS” AT MIND MATTERS NEWS

Picking a minor point of a quote of context is what you do.


DAVID: 'Complexity' in living biochemistry and in neural circuits can only be fully appreciated if educated in the subjects. The opinions cannot be sluffed off. Believe me the complexity requires a designing mind.

dhw:I believe you. And I believe Cassell when he says that the question whether animals have minds is unanswered.

Repeating an honest observation out of context of the whole book.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Saturday, November 13, 2021, 07:44 (229 days ago) @ David Turell

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

DAVID: […] each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

dhw: In the course of evolution, there is virtually no limit to stimuli, and different organisms have learned to cope with every kind of environment.

DAVID: If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.

dhw: Well, OK, I’ll let you compile the list, starting on Monday, 1st January, 3.8 thousand million years ago…

DAVID: In immediate time external stimuli are limited: environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc.

I suggest that throughout the last 3.8 thousand million years, there have been countless examples of environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc., and these in turn have led to countless changes in life forms as well as lifestyles and natural wonders. Hence the history of evolution.

Control of differentiation
DAVID: Lots of mindless activity occurs with living organisms.

dhw: Of course it does. Conscious intelligence only comes into play with the invention of new processes and/or when things go wrong.

DAVID: Where are you placing conscious intelligence?

Nobody knows the source of conscious intelligence. We only know that it must be there, since we and other life forms respond intelligently to conditions that require the observation, thought-processing, communication, decision-making etc. which are the hallmarks of conscious intelligence.

Animal algorithms
DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered!

DAVID: The complete quote:
Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered. We do know from logic and experience, however, that goal-directed action supported by hardware and software systems must originate from the design efforts of intelligent agents, that is, from conscious minds. Jonathan Bartlett’s June 15, 2021, article here concisely summarized this conclusion:
Intelligent Design … says that agency is a distinct causal category in the world. That is, when I code a computer program, write a book, invent a formula, write a poem, etc., I am doing something that is distinctively beyond the operation of pure physics. There is something distinct about the way that causation works for beings with minds compared to how it works for beings without minds.

Just as it takes human intelligence to code programmes, write books, invent formulas, it takes cellular intelligence (an intelligent mind) to perform such “goal-directed actions” as creating new antibodies to counter new threats, restructuring cell communities in order to meet new requirements (adaptation), and creating what Shapiro calls “evolutionary novelty” (the equivalent of human inventions). All of these actions are “distinctively beyond the operation of pure physics”. But the only intelligent minds you can think of are ours and your God’s. You can’t imagine your God giving ALL life forms intelligent “minds in some sense”.

DAVID: Picking a minor point of a quote of context is what you do.

Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

DAVID: 'Complexity' in living biochemistry and in neural circuits can only be fully appreciated if educated in the subjects. The opinions cannot be sluffed off. Believe me the complexity requires a designing mind.

dhw:I believe you. And I believe Cassell when he says that the question whether animals have minds is unanswered.

DAVID: Repeating an honest observation out of context of the whole book.

The words you have quoted leave open the case for cellular intelligence. I’m in no position to comment on the whole book. If you choose a quote that can be used to support my case, please don’t blame me.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 13, 2021, 14:21 (228 days ago) @ dhw

Sensing autonomic activity

DAVID: If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.

dhw: Well, OK, I’ll let you compile the list, starting on Monday, 1st January, 3.8 thousand million years ago…

DAVID: In immediate time external stimuli are limited: environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc.

dhw: I suggest that throughout the last 3.8 thousand million years, there have been countless examples of environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc., and these in turn have led to countless changes in life forms as well as lifestyles and natural wonders. Hence the history of evolution.

I'll stick to my view survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage


Control of differentiation

DAVID: Where are you placing conscious intelligence?

dhw: Nobody knows the source of conscious intelligence. We only know that it must be there, since we and other life forms respond intelligently to conditions that require the observation, thought-processing, communication, decision-making etc. which are the hallmarks of conscious intelligence.

The appearance of conscious intelligence can be the result of intelligent design. From the outside of cells we can see the intelligent activity but not its cause. I'm still point to either/or 50/50.


Animal algorithms
DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered!

DAVID: The complete quote:
Do animals exhibiting CPBs have themselves “minds” in some sense? That question is unanswered. We do know from logic and experience, however, that goal-directed action supported by hardware and software systems must originate from the design efforts of intelligent agents, that is, from conscious minds. Jonathan Bartlett’s June 15, 2021, article here concisely summarized this conclusion:
Intelligent Design … says that agency is a distinct causal category in the world. That is, when I code a computer program, write a book, invent a formula, write a poem, etc., I am doing something that is distinctively beyond the operation of pure physics. There is something distinct about the way that causation works for beings with minds compared to how it works for beings without minds.
[/b]

dhw: Just as it takes human intelligence to code programmes, write books, invent formulas, it takes cellular intelligence (an intelligent mind) to perform such “goal-directed actions” as creating new antibodies to counter new threats, restructuring cell communities in order to meet new requirements (adaptation), and creating what Shapiro calls “evolutionary novelty” (the equivalent of human inventions). All of these actions are “distinctively beyond the operation of pure physics”. But the only intelligent minds you can think of are ours and your God’s. You can’t imagine your God giving ALL life forms intelligent “minds in some sense”.

The bold I created is the point. Cells are distinctively different than our minds. I view God as creating entire cellular processes

DAVID: Picking a minor point of a quote of context is what you do.

dhw: Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

The 'case' is pure opinion as we all are outside the action.


DAVID: 'Complexity' in living biochemistry and in neural circuits can only be fully appreciated if educated in the subjects. The opinions cannot be sluffed off. Believe me the complexity requires a designing mind.

dhw:I believe you. And I believe Cassell when he says that the question whether animals have minds is unanswered.

DAVID: Repeating an honest observation out of context of the whole book.

dhw: The words you have quoted leave open the case for cellular intelligence. I’m in no position to comment on the whole book. If you choose a quote that can be used to support my case, please don’t blame me.

We each have opposite opinions

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Sunday, November 14, 2021, 11:06 (228 days ago) @ David Turell

Sensing autonomic activity
DAVID: If you list possible stimuli they are limited in number.[…]

dhw: I suggest that throughout the last 3.8 thousand million years, there have been countless examples of environmental changes, dangerous events, in water or on land, etc., and these in turn have led to countless changes in life forms as well as lifestyles and natural wonders. Hence the history of evolution.

DAVID: I'll stick to my view survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage.

You said stimuli were limited, and I pointed out that there must have been millions of different stimuli in the last 3.8 thousand million years. As for survival, do you or do you not agree that the development of flippers from legs was an aid to survival and a factor in changing pre-whales into whales (= speciation)?

Control of differentiation
DAVID: The appearance of conscious intelligence can be the result of intelligent design.

I keep agreeing that cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. The argument is over its existence, not its possible source.

DAVID: From the outside of cells we can see the intelligent activity but not its cause. I'm still point to either/or 50/50.

What are you pointing to now? Its existence being 50/50 (then don’t dismiss it), or your God being its cause (I’ll settle for 50/50 on that)?

Animal algorithms
DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered!

I shan’t repeat the quotes, as you only have one point to make:

DAVID: Cells are distinctively different than our minds. I view God as creating entire cellular processes.

If cells have minds, then of course they are different from ours. That is why the writer put the word in inverted commas. But no matter how different a mind may be, its attribute of conscious intelligence (the ability to think) has to be present. You think the chances are 50/50, which for you means 100% no.

dhw: Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

DAVID: The 'case' is pure opinion as we all are outside the action.

You accused me of distorting the meaning of the above quotes. I have shown you that they can be used to support the case for cellular intelligence. That is a matter of text interpretation, not of our different opinions on the subject.

DAVID: Repeating an honest observation out of context of the whole book.

dhw: The words you have quoted leave open the case for cellular intelligence. I’m in no position to comment on the whole book. If you choose a quote that can be used to support my case, please don’t blame me.
DAVID: We each have opposite opinions.

And you have offered us quotes which support the possibility of cellular intelligence (we don’t know if they have minds), whereas you think the text is saying they do not have minds.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 14, 2021, 15:29 (227 days ago) @ dhw

Sensing autonomic activity

DAVID: I'll stick to my view survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage.

dhw: You said stimuli were limited, and I pointed out that there must have been millions of different stimuli in the last 3.8 thousand million years. As for survival, do you or do you not agree that the development of flippers from legs was an aid to survival and a factor in changing pre-whales into whales (= speciation)?

Flippers are a requirement for survival in a watery environment. So God designed them helping mammals become aquatic.


Control of differentiation
DAVID: The appearance of conscious intelligence can be the result of intelligent design.

dhw: I keep agreeing that cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. The argument is over its existence, not its possible source.

Agreed, as below:


DAVID: From the outside of cells we can see the intelligent activity but not its cause. I'm still point to either/or 50/50.

dhw: What are you pointing to now? Its existence being 50/50 (then don’t dismiss it), or your God being its cause (I’ll settle for 50/50 on that)?

Possibility is 50/50 and pick your side if you wish. I have my side.


Animal algorithms
DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered!

I shan’t repeat the quotes, as you only have one point to make:

DAVID: Cells are distinctively different than our minds. I view God as creating entire cellular processes.

dhw: If cells have minds, then of course they are different from ours. That is why the writer put the word in inverted commas. But no matter how different a mind may be, its attribute of conscious intelligence (the ability to think) has to be present. You think the chances are 50/50, which for you means 100% no.

If there are two possibilities, I am allowed to pick one side as more logical based on my knowledge of living biochemistry.


dhw: Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

DAVID: The 'case' is pure opinion as we all are outside the action.

dhw: You accused me of distorting the meaning of the above quotes. I have shown you that they can be used to support the case for cellular intelligence. That is a matter of text interpretation, not of our different opinions on the subject.

You will always support cellular innate intelligence as your rigid theory.


DAVID: Repeating an honest observation out of context of the whole book.

dhw: The words you have quoted leave open the case for cellular intelligence. I’m in no position to comment on the whole book. If you choose a quote that can be used to support my case, please don’t blame me.
DAVID: We each have opposite opinions.

dhw: And you have offered us quotes which support the possibility of cellular intelligence (we don’t know if they have minds), whereas you think the text is saying they do not have minds.

Coming from an ID source what else should I think. You distort textual meanings to fit your rigid wish for innate cellular intelligence, although when pressed you allow God to give it to cells to use without God's guidance. It that an agnostic balancing act of a fair neutral view of God. I think it is unbalanced.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Monday, November 15, 2021, 12:07 (227 days ago) @ David Turell

Control of differentiation
DAVID: The appearance of conscious intelligence can be the result of intelligent design.

dhw: I keep agreeing that cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God. The argument is over its existence, not its possible source.

DAVID: Agreed, as below:

DAVID: from the outside of cells we can see the intelligent activity but not its cause. I'm still point to either/or 50/50.

dhw: What are you pointing to now? Its existence being 50/50 (then don’t dismiss it), or your God being its cause (I’ll settle for 50/50 on that)?

DAVID: Possibility is 50/50 and pick your side if you wish. I have my side.

I'll settle for that!

Animal algorithms
DAVID: You completely miss the point of the neural complexity that this AI expert denies that natural evolution could have designed it.

dhw: No he doesn’t. He asks if animals have minds, and says the question is unanswered!
I shan’t repeat the quotes, as you only have one point to make:

DAVID: Cells are distinctively different than our minds. I view God as creating entire cellular processes.

dhw: If cells have minds, then of course they are different from ours. That is why the writer put the word in inverted commas. But no matter how different a mind may be, its attribute of conscious intelligence (the ability to think) has to be present. You think the chances are 50/50, which for you means 100% no.

DAVID: If there are two possibilities, I am allowed to pick one side as more logical based on my knowledge of living biochemistry.

Yes of course, and Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Bühler and others are allowed to pick their side, based on their knowledge of living biochemistry.

dhw: Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

DAVID: The 'case' is pure opinion as we all are outside the action.

dhw: You accused me of distorting the meaning of the above quotes. I have shown you that they can be used to support the case for cellular intelligence. That is a matter of text interpretation, not of our different opinions on the subject.

DAVID: You will always support cellular innate intelligence as your rigid theory.

It's not rigid, but see below for my view of it.

dhw: And you have offered us quotes which support the possibility of cellular intelligence (we don’t know if they have minds), whereas you think the text is saying they do not have minds.

DAVID: Coming from an ID source what else should I think. You distort textual meanings to fit your rigid wish for innate cellular intelligence, although when pressed you allow God to give it to cells to use without God's guidance. It that an agnostic balancing act of a fair neutral view of God. I think it is unbalanced.

You should examine the quote and recognize that it fits in perfectly well with your God giving cells the ability to think. I have not been “pressed” into “allowing” God anything. I am an agnostic, and if the theory of cellular intelligence is true, I acknowledge a 50/50 chance of your God being its designer. What is unbalanced? I also acknowledge that the theory is not proven, and the mystery of life and evolution remains unsolved, but in all honesty I must confess that I find the theory more convincing than the idea of your God preprogramming the whole history of life 3.8 billion years ago, or of him popping in to turn legs into flippers, or to give courses to weaverbirds in nest-building.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Monday, November 15, 2021, 15:18 (226 days ago) @ dhw

Animal algorithms

dhw: Even if Mr Bartlett is like you, and can’t imagine animals and cells having “minds”, what he has written does not in any way weaken the case for cellular intelligence.

DAVID: The 'case' is pure opinion as we all are outside the action.

dhw: You accused me of distorting the meaning of the above quotes. I have shown you that they can be used to support the case for cellular intelligence. That is a matter of text interpretation, not of our different opinions on the subject.

DAVID: You will always support cellular innate intelligence as your rigid theory.

dhw: It's not rigid, but see below for my view of it.

If research shows cellular activities are not automatic, I'll change my view accordingly.


dhw: And you have offered us quotes which support the possibility of cellular intelligence (we don’t know if they have minds), whereas you think the text is saying they do not have minds.

DAVID: Coming from an ID source what else should I think. You distort textual meanings to fit your rigid wish for innate cellular intelligence, although when pressed you allow God to give it to cells to use without God's guidance. It that an agnostic balancing act of a fair neutral view of God. I think it is unbalanced.

dhw: You should examine the quote and recognize that it fits in perfectly well with your God giving cells the ability to think. I have not been “pressed” into “allowing” God anything. I am an agnostic, and if the theory of cellular intelligence is true, I acknowledge a 50/50 chance of your God being its designer. What is unbalanced? I also acknowledge that the theory is not proven, and the mystery of life and evolution remains unsolved, but in all honesty I must confess that I find the theory more convincing than the idea of your God preprogramming the whole history of life 3.8 billion years ago, or of him popping in to turn legs into flippers, or to give courses to weaverbirds in nest-building.

God, the designer can do all of it. And I'll continue asking without God where does cell intelligence come from?

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Tuesday, November 16, 2021, 11:22 (226 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You will always support cellular innate intelligence as your rigid theory.

dhw: It's not rigid, but see below for my view of it.
DAVID: If research shows cellular activities are not automatic, I'll change my view accordingly.

It’s difficult to see how such a concept can be proven either way. We can only observe their behaviour, which you agree is intelligent. But then the same difficulty applies to the existence of God. Unless we get definitive proof, we can only weigh up the pros and cons.

dhw: […] in all honesty I must confess that I find the theory more convincing than the idea of your God preprogramming the whole history of life 3.8 billion years ago, or of him popping in to turn legs into flippers, or to give courses to weaverbirds in nest-building.

DAVID: God, the designer can do all of it. And I'll continue asking without God where does cell intelligence come from?

As before, we are discussing whether cells are or are not intelligent. I accept the argument that if God exists, he must have designed it, but then we have to move to the question of where did God come from – and that takes us back to first cause, which may be God or may be an impersonal universe….but we have discussed this over and over again.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 16, 2021, 15:23 (225 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You will always support cellular innate intelligence as your rigid theory.

dhw: It's not rigid, but see below for my view of it.
DAVID: If research shows cellular activities are not automatic, I'll change my view accordingly.

It’s difficult to see how such a concept can be proven either way. We can only observe their behaviour, which you agree is intelligent. But then the same difficulty applies to the existence of God. Unless we get definitive proof, we can only weigh up the pros and cons.

dhw: […] in all honesty I must confess that I find the theory more convincing than the idea of your God preprogramming the whole history of life 3.8 billion years ago, or of him popping in to turn legs into flippers, or to give courses to weaverbirds in nest-building.

DAVID: God, the designer can do all of it. And I'll continue asking without God where does cell intelligence come from?

dhw: As before, we are discussing whether cells are or are not intelligent. I accept the argument that if God exists, he must have designed it, but then we have to move to the question of where did God come from – and that takes us back to first cause, which may be God or may be an impersonal universe….but we have discussed this over and over again.

Note today's entry about cell complexity precluding labs making life

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Wednesday, November 17, 2021, 10:49 (225 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] in all honesty I must confess that I find the theory more convincing than the idea of your God preprogramming the whole history of life 3.8 billion years ago, or of him popping in to turn legs into flippers, or to give courses to weaverbirds in nest-building.

DAVID: God, the designer can do all of it. And I'll continue asking without God where does cell intelligence come from?

hw: As before, we are discussing whether cells are or are not intelligent. I accept the argument that if God exists, he must have designed it, but then we have to move to the question of where did God come from – and that takes us back to first cause, which may be God or may be an impersonal universe….but we have discussed this over and over again.

DAVID: Note today's entry about cell complexity precluding labs making life.

It tells us absolutely nothing about the possible intelligence of cells:

Theoretical origin of life: made in a lab, impossible
DAVID: in our reality only life begets life. This exposition of the complexity of cells should show dhw how the automaticity of life is necessary.

I have never denied that automaticity is necessary. How else would species and systems remain stable? Once again you are ignoring my constant reminder that cellular intelligence will only be manifested through the ORIGIN of species and systems and through responses to new requirements. Even you admit that these actions are intelligent, but you insist that they were all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or your God pops in to give instructions whenever a new problem arises. Point repeated from “Miscellany”:

DAVID: I think all cell decisions are automatic. No autonomous intelligence.

dhw: You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

DAVID: Yes, God's intelligence at work.

As above, then, all problems solved by direct divine dabbling or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all problems, life forms etc. to cover the rest of life’s history. In all honesty I must confess....back to the first entry of this post.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 17, 2021, 15:04 (224 days ago) @ dhw

Theoretical origin of life: made in a lab, impossible
DAVID: in our reality only life begets life. This exposition of the complexity of cells should show dhw how the automaticity of life is necessary.

dhw: I have never denied that automaticity is necessary. How else would species and systems remain stable? Once again you are ignoring my constant reminder that cellular intelligence will only be manifested through the ORIGIN of species and systems and through responses to new requirements. Even you admit that these actions are intelligent, but you insist that they were all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or your God pops in to give instructions whenever a new problem arises. Point repeated from “Miscellany”:

DAVID: I think all cell decisions are automatic. No autonomous intelligence.

dhw: You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

DAVID: Yes, God's intelligence at work.

dhw: As above, then, all problems solved by direct divine dabbling or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all problems, life forms etc. to cover the rest of life’s history. In all honesty I must confess....back to the first entry of this post.

The information required to run the new processes of new forms or originating life itself has a source. Mine is God

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Thursday, November 18, 2021, 11:28 (224 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

DAVID: Yes, God's intelligence at work.

dhw: As above, then, all problems solved by direct divine dabbling or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all problems, life forms etc. to cover the rest of life’s history. […].

DAVID: The information required to run the new processes of new forms or originating life itself has a source. Mine is God.

The question whether cells are intelligent or not has nothing to do with the source of life, and whatever may be the information required to design new forms or to solve problems, it has to be processed, passed on to the rest of the body (= communication), and ultimately used in the formation of a decision. Processing information, communication, decision-making are all characteristics of what we call intelligence. When machines do such work, we call it artificial intelligence. When cells and organisms do it, we could call it natural intelligence. We don’t/can’t know the source of that intelligence, but I would certainly regard your God as being just as feasible as a lucky combination of materials.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 18, 2021, 15:07 (223 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

DAVID: Yes, God's intelligence at work.

dhw: As above, then, all problems solved by direct divine dabbling or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all problems, life forms etc. to cover the rest of life’s history. […].

DAVID: The information required to run the new processes of new forms or originating life itself has a source. Mine is God.

dhw: The question whether cells are intelligent or not has nothing to do with the source of life, and whatever may be the information required to design new forms or to solve problems, it has to be processed, passed on to the rest of the body (= communication), and ultimately used in the formation of a decision. Processing information, communication, decision-making are all characteristics of what we call intelligence. When machines do such work, we call it artificial intelligence. When cells and organisms do it, we could call it natural intelligence. We don’t/can’t know the source of that intelligence, but I would certainly regard your God as being just as feasible as a lucky combination of materials.

The issue is really not intelligence, but the source of new information to create new species. Where did the information for the Cambrian explosion come from?

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Friday, November 19, 2021, 08:34 (223 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

DAVID: Yes, God's intelligence at work.

dhw: As above, then, all problems solved by direct divine dabbling or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all problems, life forms etc. to cover the rest of life’s history. […].

DAVID: The information required to run the new processes of new forms or originating life itself has a source. Mine is God.

dhw: The question whether cells are intelligent or not has nothing to do with the source of life, and whatever may be the information required to design new forms or to solve problems, it has to be processed, passed on to the rest of the body (= communication), and ultimately used in the formation of a decision. Processing information, communication, decision-making are all characteristics of what we call intelligence. When machines do such work, we call it artificial intelligence. When cells and organisms do it, we could call it natural intelligence. We don’t/can’t know the source of that intelligence, but I would certainly regard your God as being just as feasible as a lucky combination of materials.

DAVID: The issue is really not intelligence, but the source of new information to create new species. Where did the information for the Cambrian explosion come from?

Of course the issue is intelligence. I don’t know why you have to muddy the waters with the vague word “information”. Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian Explosion, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some kind of major change in conditions (perhaps an increase in oxygen). We know for a fact that some life forms are able to adapt to new conditions by making minor changes to themselves. This means their cell communities are capable of engineering their own mutations. The theory of cellular intelligence proposes that these same cell communities are also able to make major changes to themselves, resulting in what we call innovations – and hence the origin of new species. You know all this, and the issue is whether cells are intelligent or not.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Friday, November 19, 2021, 16:12 (222 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The information required to run the new processes of new forms or originating life itself has a source. Mine is God.

dhw: The question whether cells are intelligent or not has nothing to do with the source of life, and whatever may be the information required to design new forms or to solve problems, it has to be processed, passed on to the rest of the body (= communication), and ultimately used in the formation of a decision. Processing information, communication, decision-making are all characteristics of what we call intelligence. When machines do such work, we call it artificial intelligence. When cells and organisms do it, we could call it natural intelligence. We don’t/can’t know the source of that intelligence, but I would certainly regard your God as being just as feasible as a lucky combination of materials.

DAVID: The issue is really not intelligence, but the source of new information to create new species. Where did the information for the Cambrian explosion come from?

dhw: Of course the issue is intelligence. I don’t know why you have to muddy the waters with the vague word “information”. Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian Explosion, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some kind of major change in conditions (perhaps an increase in oxygen). We know for a fact that some life forms are able to adapt to new conditions by making minor changes to themselves. This means their cell communities are capable of engineering their own mutations. The theory of cellular intelligence proposes that these same cell communities are also able to make major changes to themselves, resulting in what we call innovations – and hence the origin of new species. You know all this, and the issue is whether cells are intelligent or not.

The issue is simple. Do living cells have the ability to create the new information needed to design a newly formed species from a previous form? Major innovations contain major new information. Information is not a vague subject, but over the last 50 years the subject of massive development of understanding which has been required for internet transmission as one example. And it has been applied to studies of evolution, especially by ID folks.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Saturday, November 20, 2021, 12:52 (221 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The issue is really not intelligence, but the source of new information to create new species. Where did the information for the Cambrian explosion come from?

dhw: Of course the issue is intelligence. I don’t know why you have to muddy the waters with the vague word “information”. Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian Explosion, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some kind of major change in conditions (perhaps an increase in oxygen). We know for a fact that some life forms are able to adapt to new conditions by making minor changes to themselves. This means their cell communities are capable of engineering their own mutations. The theory of cellular intelligence proposes that these same cell communities are also able to make major changes to themselves, resulting in what we call innovations – and hence the origin of new species. You know all this, and the issue is whether cells are intelligent or not.

DAVID: The issue is simple. Do living cells have the ability to create the new information needed to design a newly formed species from a previous form? Major innovations contain major new information. Information is not a vague subject, but over the last 50 years the subject of massive development of understanding which has been required for internet transmission as one example. And it has been applied to studies of evolution, especially by ID folks.

In your terms, the “ability to create the new information” is what I call intelligence. The issue is whether cells/cell communities do or do not have that ability. (See your bolded statement above). There's no need to faff around discussing the importance of “information” over the last 50 years, or the sources of “information” for the Cambrian, or the different uses of “information” in all sorts of fields. You say innovations are caused by God's dabbling or 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc., and you refuse to accept the (theistic) possibility that he might have given cells the autonomous ability (intelligence) to design their own innovations, and bees and weaverbirds the ability (intelligence) to design their own dances and nests. That IS the issue! I doubt if we can take the discussion any further, other than by discussing new examples of intelligence. And I must thank you for so frequently providing such examples!;-)

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 20, 2021, 19:45 (221 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The issue is really not intelligence, but the source of new information to create new species. Where did the information for the Cambrian explosion come from?

dhw: Of course the issue is intelligence. I don’t know why you have to muddy the waters with the vague word “information”. Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian Explosion, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some kind of major change in conditions (perhaps an increase in oxygen). We know for a fact that some life forms are able to adapt to new conditions by making minor changes to themselves. This means their cell communities are capable of engineering their own mutations. The theory of cellular intelligence proposes that these same cell communities are also able to make major changes to themselves, resulting in what we call innovations – and hence the origin of new species. You know all this, and the issue is whether cells are intelligent or not.

DAVID: The issue is simple. Do living cells have the ability to create the new information needed to design a newly formed species from a previous form? Major innovations contain major new information. Information is not a vague subject, but over the last 50 years the subject of massive development of understanding which has been required for internet transmission as one example. And it has been applied to studies of evolution, especially by ID folks.

dhw: In your terms, the “ability to create the new information” is what I call intelligence. The issue is whether cells/cell communities do or do not have that ability. (See your bolded statement above). There's no need to faff around discussing the importance of “information” over the last 50 years, or the sources of “information” for the Cambrian, or the different uses of “information” in all sorts of fields. You say innovations are caused by God's dabbling or 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc., and you refuse to accept the (theistic) possibility that he might have given cells the autonomous ability (intelligence) to design their own innovations, and bees and weaverbirds the ability (intelligence) to design their own dances and nests. That IS the issue! I doubt if we can take the discussion any further, other than by discussing new examples of intelligence. And I must thank you for so frequently providing such examples!;-)

Yes, something mental must produce information for design. I don't see how simple automatic cells do it. The information must appear in stem cells, and I'll stick with god supplying it.
Note today's entry on transcriptome construction and action and the need for precise design with many specific protein molecules.

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by dhw, Sunday, November 21, 2021, 10:55 (221 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The issue is simple. Do living cells have the ability to create the new information needed to design a newly formed species from a previous form? Major innovations contain major new information. Information is not a vague subject, but over the last 50 years the subject of massive development of understanding which has been required for internet transmission as one example. And it has been applied to studies of evolution, especially by ID folks.

dhw: In your terms, the “ability to create the new information” is what I call intelligence. The issue is whether cells/cell communities do or do not have that ability. (See your bolded statement above). There's no need to faff around discussing the importance of “information” over the last 50 years, or the sources of “information” for the Cambrian, or the different uses of “information” in all sorts of fields. You say innovations are caused by God's dabbling or 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc., and you refuse to accept the (theistic) possibility that he might have given cells the autonomous ability (intelligence) to design their own innovations, and bees and weaverbirds the ability (intelligence) to design their own dances and nests. That IS the issue! I doubt if we can take the discussion any further, other than by discussing new examples of intelligence. And I must thank you for so frequently providing such examples!

DAVID: Yes, something mental must produce information for design. I don't see how simple automatic cells do it.

Nor do I. That is why I propose that cells are not simple and automatic, but have a mental capacity capable of design.

DAVID: The information must appear in stem cells, and I'll stick with god supplying it.

We are talking about the ability of cells to change their form in response to new requirements or new problems. Since we know that stem cells can change their form, they may well be the key to the whole process – but alas I’m in no position to win the Nobel Prize for cracking all the mysteries of evolution!;-)

Cellular intelligence: Animal Algorithms reviewed

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 21, 2021, 16:35 (220 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The issue is simple. Do living cells have the ability to create the new information needed to design a newly formed species from a previous form? Major innovations contain major new information. Information is not a vague subject, but over the last 50 years the subject of massive development of understanding which has been required for internet transmission as one example. And it has been applied to studies of evolution, especially by ID folks.

dhw: In your terms, the “ability to create the new information” is what I call intelligence. The issue is whether cells/cell communities do or do not have that ability. (See your bolded statement above). There's no need to faff around discussing the importance of “information” over the last 50 years, or the sources of “information” for the Cambrian, or the different uses of “information” in all sorts of fields. You say innovations are caused by God's dabbling or 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc., and you refuse to accept the (theistic) possibility that he might have given cells the autonomous ability (intelligence) to design their own innovations, and bees and weaverbirds the ability (intelligence) to design their own dances and nests. That IS the issue! I doubt if we can take the discussion any further, other than by discussing new examples of intelligence. And I must thank you for so frequently providing such examples!

DAVID: Yes, something mental must produce information for design. I don't see how simple automatic cells do it.

dhw: Nor do I. That is why I propose that cells are not simple and automatic, but have a mental capacity capable of design.

Or have a designer at work.


DAVID: The information must appear in stem cells, and I'll stick with god supplying it.

dhw: We are talking about the ability of cells to change their form in response to new requirements or new problems. Since we know that stem cells can change their form, they may well be the key to the whole process – but alas I’m in no position to win the Nobel Prize for cracking all the mysteries of evolution!;-)

The Nobel Committee will follow your efforts on this website. Who knows??? ;-)

Cellular intelligence: pure automaticity

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 11, 2021, 00:48 (201 days ago) @ David Turell

Tight controls of nuclear transcriptions:

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.abi5751?et_rid=17445044&utm_campaig...

"Abstract
The TFIID component, TAF7, has been extensively characterized as essential for transcription and is critical for cell proliferation and differentiation. Here, we report that TAF7 is a previously unknown RNA chaperone that contributes to the regulation of protein synthesis. Mechanistically, TAF7 binds RNAs in the nucleus and delivers them to cytoplasmic polysomes. A broad spectrum of target RNA species, including the HIV-1 transactivation response element, binds TAF7 through consensus CUG motifs within the 3′ untranslated region. Export to the cytoplasm depends on a TAF7 nuclear export signal and occurs by an exportin 1–dependent pathway. Notably, disrupting either TAF7’s RNA binding or its export from the nucleus results in retention of target messenger RNAs in the nucleus and reduced levels of the protein products of TAF7-target RNAs. Thus, TAF7, an essential transcription factor, plays a key role in the regulation of RNA translation, thereby potentially connecting these processes."

***

"Translation depends on RNA export by TAF7
In the cytoplasm, TAF7 contributes to translation. Thus, TAF7 is associated with a large 440-kDa complex that consists of ribosomal proteins; no other TFIID components are found within the complex. TAF7 is associated with polysomes through its interaction with RNA. Furthermore, retention of TAF7 in the nucleus, by mutation of its NES, results in a global decrease in translation and a decrease in the levels of proteins whose RNAs are bound by TAF7. Mutation of the TAF7 RBD similarly results in decreased global translation. Thus, a novel function of TAF7 is to deliver its RNA cargo to polysomes for translation. Consistent with TAF7 regulating transcription of and binding to a broad spectrum of RNA species, this seems to be a general function not restricted to a specific functional subset of transcripts."

"TAF7 coordinates transcription and translation
The present studies provide evidence for the coordination of transcription and translation by the TFIID component, TAF7. We have shown that TAF7, which regulates each step in transcription initiation, also regulates translation. The mechanism by which TAF7 regulates translation is through its binding to and chaperoning of a broad spectrum of RNA species from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, delivering them to polysomes to promote global protein synthesis. On the basis of our findings, we propose a model in which TAF7 integrates transcription and translation machineries that operate in distinct cellular compartments (Fig. 7). In the nucleus, TAF7 regulates transcription through its regulation of the enzymatic activities of TAF1/TFIID, TFIIH, BRD4, and P-TEFb, traveling with the elongation complex. It then functions as an RNA chaperone, binding RNA and transporting it to the cytoplasm. In the cytoplasm, TAF7 delivers its RNA cargo to polysomes, thereby contributing to translation. Of note, the TAF7 NLS overlaps with its RBD: Deletion of the NLS abrogates RNA binding. In the cytoplasm, RNA bound to TAF7 would mask the NLS, preventing cytoplasmic TAF7-RNA complexes from being imported back into the nucleus. After delivering RNA to polysomes, TAF7 is released from the RNA, thereby exposing the NLS and enabling shuttling of TAF7 back to the nucleus. In conclusion, TAF7 is a multifunctional regulator of gene expression, which coordinates many of the complex steps of gene expression."

Comment: Controlling protein must be precise to produce the right products. There is no other interpretation but that these processes are totally automatic under very tight controls, by design. No cellular decisions required.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Saturday, December 11, 2021, 13:24 (200 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID (under “upright posture”): Giant fossil gaps are not explained by brilliant cell committees, a fantasy of your making, based upon observers opinion that cells act with such exact purpose, they must be intelligent, when it is clear to me from biochemical research they act with rigid automaticity and, therefore look intelligent, as all ID folks agree with me. You have your old 'experts', and I have my experts in present time. They are also highly trained Ph.D.'s like your were.

My experts in the field are not all old. I alerted you to several current websites, and you proceeded to misinterpret one or two quotes and then couldn’t be bothered to look at the rest. Giant fossil gaps are not explained by cellular intelligence but by the fact that we cannot expect fossils for every stage of every life form for the last 3.X thousand million years. However, the theory of cellular intelligence certainly solves the problems raised by the theory of random mutations, since intelligent design (by cells) would take far less time than sheer chance to come up with new methods of survival in ever changing conditions.

T cells:
DAVID: the key to the importance of these cells is that they develop at birth and quickly learn to recognize and neutralize foreign proteins. Obviously, continuing to live without dangerous infections is a requirement for life and this system is designed for just that protection. The cells arrive at birth with this built-in ability.

The article is too technical for me to follow, but my ears always prick up when I hear that cells learn, and arrive with a built-in ability to do so. Some of us would say that this is a hallmark of autonomous intelligence. If behaviour is already programmed and proceeds automatically, no ability is required because there is nothing to learn.

Baby immunity
DAVID: newborns arrive unprotected but with a robust system that is designed to be fiercely protective immediately. Automaticity is required by design.

Alternatively, newborns arrive with cells that have the ability to interpret, process, communicate with one another, and respond to new information. The baby does not control them. They control themselves. This ability – in the form of cellular intelligence – may have been designed by your God.

Pure automaticity
QUOTE: “In conclusion, TAF7 is a multifunctional regulator of gene expression, which coordinates many of the complex steps of gene expression."

DAVID: Controlling protein must be precise to produce the right products. There is no other interpretation but that these processes are totally automatic under very tight controls, by design. No cellular decisions required.

You keep playing the same game, which is to present the complex actions of cells which HAVE to behave automatically if an existing system is to survive. This applies to virtually all our bodily functions. And I keep pointing out that intelligence is only required and applied in two contexts: 1) the origin of the system, and 2) when conditions change. I think the two contexts are linked. Intelligence (you try to disguise it as “the ability to interpret”) comes into play when there are internal problems (the system itself breaks down) or external problems (changing environments, foreign invaders). In all such cases, the automatic repetition of behaviour is disrupted, and cells must...here we go again...perceive new information, process it, communicate with one another, and take decisions as to how to cope with it (forms of "repair" or adaptation) or – going one step further – exploit it. The latter would result in what Shapiro calls “evolutionary novelty”. Not proven, of course, any more than your theory of divinely programmed “algorithms” is proven, along with its astonishing combination of “the ability to interpret” and a full list of instructions which require no such ability because the recipients are mindlessa automatons.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 11, 2021, 16:33 (200 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, December 11, 2021, 16:39

DAVID (under “upright posture”): Giant fossil gaps are not explained by brilliant cell committees, a fantasy of your making, based upon observers opinion that cells act with such exact purpose, they must be intelligent, when it is clear to me from biochemical research they act with rigid automaticity and, therefore look intelligent, as all ID folks agree with me. You have your old 'experts', and I have my experts in present time. They are also highly trained Ph.D.'s like your were.

dhw: My experts in the field are not all old. I alerted you to several current websites, and you proceeded to misinterpret one or two quotes and then couldn’t be bothered to look at the rest. Giant fossil gaps are not explained by cellular intelligence but by the fact that we cannot expect fossils for every stage of every life form for the last 3.X thousand million years. However, the theory of cellular intelligence certainly solves the problems raised by the theory of random mutations, since intelligent design (by cells) would take far less time than sheer chance to come up with new methods of survival in ever changing conditions.

So does an active designer.


T cells:
DAVID: the key to the importance of these cells is that they develop at birth and quickly learn to recognize and neutralize foreign proteins. Obviously, continuing to live without dangerous infections is a requirement for life and this system is designed for just that protection. The cells arrive at birth with this built-in ability.

dhw: The article is too technical for me to follow, but my ears always prick up when I hear that cells learn, and arrive with a built-in ability to do so. Some of us would say that this is a hallmark of autonomous intelligence. If behaviour is already programmed and proceeds automatically, no ability is required because there is nothing to learn.

There is much to learn with each new challenge. but 'learn' means automatically creating a new response.


Baby immunity
DAVID: newborns arrive unprotected but with a robust system that is designed to be fiercely protective immediately. Automaticity is required by design.

dhw: Alternatively, newborns arrive with cells that have the ability to interpret, process, communicate with one another, and respond to new information. The baby does not control them. They control themselves. This ability – in the form of cellular intelligence – may have been designed by your God.

You haven't negated it is all automaticity designed by God.


Pure automaticity
QUOTE: “In conclusion, TAF7 is a multifunctional regulator of gene expression, which coordinates many of the complex steps of gene expression."

DAVID: Controlling protein must be precise to produce the right products. There is no other interpretation but that these processes are totally automatic under very tight controls, by design. No cellular decisions required.

dhw: You keep playing the same game, which is to present the complex actions of cells which HAVE to behave automatically if an existing system is to survive. This applies to virtually all our bodily functions. And I keep pointing out that intelligence is only required and applied in two contexts: 1) the origin of the system, and 2) when conditions change. I think the two contexts are linked. Intelligence (you try to disguise it as “the ability to interpret”) comes into play when there are internal problems (the system itself breaks down) or external problems (changing environments, foreign invaders). In all such cases, the automatic repetition of behaviour is disrupted, and cells must...here we go again...perceive new information, process it, communicate with one another, and take decisions as to how to cope with it (forms of "repair" or adaptation) or – going one step further – exploit it. The latter would result in what Shapiro calls “evolutionary novelty”. Not proven, of course, any more than your theory of divinely programmed “algorithms” is proven, along with its astonishing combination of “the ability to interpret” and a full list of instructions which require no such ability because the recipients are mindlessa automatons.

Cells are mindless automatons. Again you are straining to show that evolutionary advances are due to a hypothetical innate cellular intelligence that can design. We see it in current species adaptations that are epigenetic, but the species remain the same species. I'll stick with a required designer with a brilliant mind. His cells react automatically with exceptional facility in all systems as you note. Only He can make new complex designs to handle the requirement 'when conditions change' introducing future requirements. Change always introduces the future and understanding the new challenges for new designs.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Sunday, December 12, 2021, 11:04 (200 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have your old 'experts', and I have my experts in present time. They are also highly trained Ph.D.'s like your were.

dhw: My experts in the field are not all old. I alerted you to several current websites, and you proceeded to misinterpret one or two quotes and then couldn’t be bothered to look at the rest.

I hope you will now drop your silly assertion that the theory of cellular intelligence belongs to the past.

dhw: […} the theory of cellular intelligence certainly solves the problems raised by the theory of random mutations, since intelligent design (by cells) would take far less time than sheer chance to come up with new methods of survival in ever changing conditions.

DAVID: So does an active designer.

Agreed. So now we have two options.

T cells:
DAVID: the key to the importance of these cells is that they develop at birth and quickly learn to recognize and neutralize foreign proteins. Obviously, continuing to live without dangerous infections is a requirement for life and this system is designed for just that protection. The cells arrive at birth with this built-in ability.

dhw: The article is too technical for me to follow, but my ears always prick up when I hear that cells learn, and arrive with a built-in ability to do so. Some of us would say that this is a hallmark of autonomous intelligence. If behaviour is already programmed and proceeds automatically, no ability is required because there is nothing to learn.

DAVID: There is much to learn with each new challenge. but 'learn' means automatically creating a new response.

I know we speak a different language, but I have never in all my life come across your definition of “learn”. Over here, it means “to gain knowledge of a subject or skill by experience, by studying it, or by being taught”. (Longman) What we and our fellow creatures then do with that knowledge will of course depend on circumstances. An automaton, on the other hand, learns nothing. It simply obeys instructions. If cells arrive with the “built-in ability” to “learn to recognize and neutralize foreign proteins”, by definition they cannot be automatons.

Baby immunity
DAVID: newborns arrive unprotected but with a robust system that is designed to be fiercely protective immediately. Automaticity is required by design.

dhw: Alternatively, newborns arrive with cells that have the ability to interpret, process, communicate with one another, and respond to new information. The baby does not control them. They control themselves. This ability – in the form of cellular intelligence – may have been designed by your God.

DAVID: You haven't negated it is all automaticity designed by God.

The ability to interpret, process information etc. (now bolded) is the opposite of automaticity. Automatons merely obey instructions.
I went on to point out that intelligence is only required when systems originate or existing systems are confronted by change. We know that cells can make small changes to themselves (adaptation), but Shapiro suggests that they are also capable of creating “evolutionary novelty”.

dhw: Not proven, of course, any more than your theory of divinely programmed “algorithms” is proven, along with its astonishing combination of “the ability to interpret” and a full list of instructions which require no such ability because the recipients are mindless automatons.

DAVID: Cells are mindless automatons.

Your usual rigid, authoritative reply.

DAVID: Again you are straining to show that evolutionary advances are due to a hypothetical innate cellular intelligence that can design. We see it in current species adaptations that are epigenetic, but the species remain the same species.

I am not “straining”, and you don’t need to repeat what I have already said about adaptations, but I’d appreciate it if you would explain how a mindless automaton can have the ability to interpret, with all the mental activities that interpretation requires.

DAVID: I'll stick with a required designer with a brilliant mind. His cells react automatically with exceptional facility in all systems as you note.

Or his cells react autonomously with exceptional facility, as I note.

DAVID: Only He can make new complex designs to handle the requirement 'when conditions change' introducing future requirements. Change always introduces the future and understanding the new challenges for new designs.

What do you mean by “change always introduces the future”? The new challenges are present, and meeting the challenge is essential in the present if the organism is to have a future! Why do you insist that innovations require gazing into a crystal ball? You know that adaptations are a RESPONSE to new conditions, so why shouldn’t innovations be the same, conducted by the same cells that produce adaptations?

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 12, 2021, 16:12 (199 days ago) @ dhw

T cells:

DAVID: There is much to learn with each new challenge. but 'learn' means automatically creating a new response.

dhw: I know we speak a different language, but I have never in all my life come across your definition of “learn”. Over here, it means “to gain knowledge of a subject or skill by experience, by studying it, or by being taught”. (Longman) What we and our fellow creatures then do with that knowledge will of course depend on circumstances. An automaton, on the other hand, learns nothing. It simply obeys instructions. If cells arrive with the “built-in ability” to “learn to recognize and neutralize foreign proteins”, by definition they cannot be automatons.

You cannot use human 'learning' to fit the language in biochemistry. When the T cell recognizes non-self and thereby discovers a foreign protein is present, it automatically invents an answer which identifies the invader, by attaching a protein marker, which allows it to be destroyed or neutralized. That is learning in biochemical speak!!


Baby immunity
DAVID: newborns arrive unprotected but with a robust system that is designed to be fiercely protective immediately. Automaticity is required by design.

dhw: Alternatively, newborns arrive with cells that have the ability to interpret, process, communicate with one another, and respond to new information. The baby does not control them. They control themselves. This ability – in the form of cellular intelligence – may have been designed by your God.

DAVID: You haven't negated it is all automaticity designed by God.

dhw: The ability to interpret, process information etc. (now bolded) is the opposite of automaticity. Automatons merely obey instructions.
I went on to point out that intelligence is only required when systems originate or existing systems are confronted by change. We know that cells can make small changes to themselves (adaptation), but Shapiro suggests that they are also capable of creating “evolutionary novelty”.

dhw: Not proven, of course, any more than your theory of divinely programmed “algorithms” is proven, along with its astonishing combination of “the ability to interpret” and a full list of instructions which require no such ability because the recipients are mindless automatons.

DAVID: Cells are mindless automatons.

Your usual rigid, authoritative reply.

DAVID: Again you are straining to show that evolutionary advances are due to a hypothetical innate cellular intelligence that can design. We see it in current species adaptations that are epigenetic, but the species remain the same species.

dhw: I am not “straining”, and you don’t need to repeat what I have already said about adaptations, but I’d appreciate it if you would explain how a mindless automaton can have the ability to interpret, with all the mental activities that interpretation requires.

See above to not be repetitious


DAVID: I'll stick with a required designer with a brilliant mind. His cells react automatically with exceptional facility in all systems as you note.

dhw:m Or his cells react autonomously with exceptional facility, as I note.

DAVID: Only He can make new complex designs to handle the requirement 'when conditions change' introducing future requirements. Change always introduces the future and understanding the new challenges for new designs.

dhw: What do you mean by “change always introduces the future”? The new challenges are present, and meeting the challenge is essential in the present if the organism is to have a future! Why do you insist that innovations require gazing into a crystal ball? You know that adaptations are a RESPONSE to new conditions, so why shouldn’t innovations be the same, conducted by the same cells that produce adaptations?

'Adaptations' imply tiny steps, not the way to speciation which are giant steps into the future requiring major design.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Monday, December 13, 2021, 18:19 (198 days ago) @ David Turell

T cells:
DAVID: There is much to learn with each new challenge. but 'learn' means automatically creating a new response.

dhw: I know we speak a different language, but I have never in all my life come across your definition of “learn”. Over here, it means “to gain knowledge of a subject or skill by experience, by studying it, or by being taught”. (Longman) What we and our fellow creatures then do with that knowledge will of course depend on circumstances. An automaton, on the other hand, learns nothing. It simply obeys instructions. If cells arrive with the “built-in ability” to “learn to recognize and neutralize foreign proteins”, by definition they cannot be automatons.

DAVID: You cannot use human 'learning' to fit the language in biochemistry. When the T cell recognizes non-self and thereby discovers a foreign protein is present, it automatically invents an answer which identifies the invader, by attaching a protein marker, which allows it to be destroyed or neutralized. That is learning in biochemical speak!!

So if cells already have God-given “algorithms” to correct errors and to kill foreign invaders, how do you account for the fact that vast numbers of victims (from bacteria to humans) can die before a solution to each new problem is found?

Baby immunity
DAVID: newborns arrive unprotected but with a robust system that is designed to be fiercely protective immediately. Automaticity is required by design.

dhw: Alternatively, newborns arrive with cells that have the ability to bbbinterpret, process, communicate with one another, and respond to new informationbbb. The baby does not control them. They control themselves. This ability – in the form of cellular intelligence – may have been designed by your God.
I went on to point out that intelligence is only required when systems originate or existing systems are confronted by change. We know that cells can make small changes to themselves (adaptation), but Shapiro suggests that they are also capable of creating “evolutionary novelty”.

dhw: Not proven, of course, any more than your theory of divinely programmed “algorithms” is proven, along with its astonishing combination of “the ability to interpret” and a full list of instructions which require no such ability because the recipients are mindless automatons.

DAVID: Cells are mindless automatons.

Your usual rigid, authoritative reply.

DAVID: Again you are straining to show that evolutionary advances are due to a hypothetical innate cellular intelligence that can design. We see it in current species adaptations that are epigenetic, but the species remain the same species.

dhw: I am not “straining”, and you don’t need to repeat what I have already said about adaptations, but I’d appreciate it if you would explain how a mindless automaton can have the ability to interpret, with all the mental activities that interpretation requires.

DAVID: See above to not be repetitious.

Above is nothing but your repetition of your belief that cells are mindless automatons!

DAVID: I'll stick with a required designer with a brilliant mind. His cells react automatically with exceptional facility in all systems as you note.

dhw: Or his cells react autonomously with exceptional facility, as I note.

DAVID: Only He can make new complex designs to handle the requirement 'when conditions change' introducing future requirements. Change always introduces the future and understanding the new challenges for new designs.

dhw: What do you mean by “change always introduces the future”? The new challenges are present, and meeting the challenge is essential in the present if the organism is to have a future! Why do you insist that innovations require gazing into a crystal ball? You know that adaptations are a RESPONSE to new conditions, so why shouldn’t innovations be the same, conducted by the same cells that produce adaptations?

DAVID: 'Adaptations' imply tiny steps, not the way to speciation which are giant steps into the future requiring major design.

It’s sometimes difficult to draw a borderline between adaptations and innovations (leg turning into flipper might be one example) but as usual you are missing or avoiding the point. We KNOW that small changes are a RESPONSE to new conditions. Why do you insist that large changes can only be made by anticipation of new conditions? Is it not far more logical to assume that all changes, large and small, will be a response rather than an act of clairvoyance? Why change something that is working perfectly well in the present?

*******

To add to family woes, my computer is now playing extremely frustrating games. It has taken me all day to get onto the Internet! But my computer is now old, and there are no silicantibodies to counter the effects of silicold age. I shall have to get a new one!

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Monday, December 13, 2021, 22:39 (198 days ago) @ dhw

T cells:

DAVID: You cannot use human 'learning' to fit the language in biochemistry. When the T cell recognizes non-self and thereby discovers a foreign protein is present, it automatically invents an answer which identifies the invader, by attaching a protein marker, which allows it to be destroyed or neutralized. That is learning in biochemical speak!!

dhw: So if cells already have God-given “algorithms” to correct errors and to kill foreign invaders, how do you account for the fact that vast numbers of victims (from bacteria to humans) can die before a solution to each new problem is found?

Errors are still present, re theodicy.


Baby immunity
[/i]

DAVID: Only He can make new complex designs to handle the requirement 'when conditions change' introducing future requirements. Change always introduces the future and understanding the new challenges for new designs.

dhw: What do you mean by “change always introduces the future”? The new challenges are present, and meeting the challenge is essential in the present if the organism is to have a future! Why do you insist that innovations require gazing into a crystal ball? You know that adaptations are a RESPONSE to new conditions, so why shouldn’t innovations be the same, conducted by the same cells that produce adaptations?

DAVID: 'Adaptations' imply tiny steps, not the way to speciation which are giant steps into the future requiring major design.

dhw: It’s sometimes difficult to draw a borderline between adaptations and innovations (leg turning into flipper might be one example) but as usual you are missing or avoiding the point. We KNOW that small changes are a RESPONSE to new conditions. Why do you insist that large changes can only be made by anticipation of new conditions? Is it not far more logical to assume that all changes, large and small, will be a response rather than an act of clairvoyance? Why change something that is working perfectly well in the present?

We are discussing God, aren't we? How did evolution work, but by introducing new forms into their new future which I pose as designed by God.


*******

dhw: To add to family woes, my computer is now playing extremely frustrating games. It has taken me all day to get onto the Internet! But my computer is now old, and there are no silicantibodies to counter the effects of silicold age. I shall have to get a new one!

Thankfully, competition brought us new cheap desktop computers.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:10 (197 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: (under more miscellany”): 50/50 is an appraisal of possibility, nothing more. Pick your side from what you see as proof. You have none, but I show cell automaticity on many days, no thought involved.

dhw: I keep pointing out that most cellular actions ARE automatic, and have to be if a system is to remain the same. It’s only origins and changing conditions that require intelligence (i.e. changes to what existed before).

Perhaps you could comment on this observation?

T cells:
DAVID: You cannot use human 'learning' to fit the language in biochemistry. When the T cell recognizes non-self and thereby discovers a foreign protein is present, it automatically invents an answer which identifies the invader, by attaching a protein marker, which allows it to be destroyed or neutralized. That is learning in biochemical speak!!

dhw: So if cells already have God-given “algorithms” to correct errors and to kill foreign invaders, how do you account for the fact that vast numbers of victims (from bacteria to humans) can die before a solution to each new problem is found?

DAVID: Errors are still present, re theodicy.

But if all life forms have an algorithm to correct the errors, why doesn’t it work until thousands/millions have died?

The rest of this post is discussed under "Return to David’s Theory of Evolution".

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:49 (197 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: (under more miscellany”): 50/50 is an appraisal of possibility, nothing more. Pick your side from what you see as proof. You have none, but I show cell automaticity on many days, no thought involved.

dhw: I keep pointing out that most cellular actions ARE automatic, and have to be if a system is to remain the same. It’s only origins and changing conditions that require intelligence (i.e. changes to what existed before).

dhw: Perhaps you could comment on this observation?

Origin of life or of new species requires intelligent design, my constant position. Using the Cambrian gap, no major environmental changes have been found, but I have carefully documented here the few papers that discussed possible factors of change. Go look back.


T cells:
DAVID: You cannot use human 'learning' to fit the language in biochemistry. When the T cell recognizes non-self and thereby discovers a foreign protein is present, it automatically invents an answer which identifies the invader, by attaching a protein marker, which allows it to be destroyed or neutralized. That is learning in biochemical speak!!

dhw: So if cells already have God-given “algorithms” to correct errors and to kill foreign invaders, how do you account for the fact that vast numbers of victims (from bacteria to humans) can die before a solution to each new problem is found?

DAVID: Errors are still present, re theodicy.

dhw: But if all life forms have an algorithm to correct the errors, why doesn’t it work until thousands/millions have died?

Death is a built-in necessary part of God's living system. Also re view cell proptosis.


dhw: The rest of this post is discussed under "Return to David’s Theory of Evolution".

Cellular intelligence: by bootstrapping???

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 20:01 (197 days ago) @ David Turell

A really strained approach:

https://www.realclearscience.com/2021/12/14/new_clues_to_the_origins_of_biological_inte...

"While scientists are still working out the details of how the eye evolved, we are also still stuck on the question of how intelligence emerges in biology. How can a biological system ever generate coherent and goal-oriented behavior from the bottom up when there is no external designer? (my bold)

"In fact, intelligence—a purposeful response to available information, often anticipating the future—is not restricted to the minds of some privileged species. It is distributed throughout biology, at many different spatial and temporal scales. There are not just intelligent people, mammals, birds and cephalopods. Intelligent, purposeful problem-solving behavior can be found in parts of all living things: single cells and tissues, individual neurons and networks of neurons, viruses, ribosomes and RNA fragments, down to motor proteins and molecular networks. Arguably, understanding the origin of intelligence is the central problem in biology—one that is still wide open. In this piece, we argue that progress in developmental biology and neuroscience is now providing a promising path to show how the architecture of modular systems underlies evolutionary and organismal intelligence. (my bold)

***

"Modern biology faces a fundamental knowledge gap when trying to explain meaningful, intelligent behavior. How can a system composed of cells and electrical signals generate a well-adapted body with behavior and mental states? If cells are not intelligent, how can intelligent behavior emerge from a distributed system composed of them? This fundamental mystery permeates biology. All biological phenomena are, in a sense, “group decisions” because organisms are made of individual parts—organs, tissues, cells, organelles, molecules. What properties of living systems enable components to work together toward higher-level goals?

***

"The argument proceeds in three steps. The first rests on one of natural selection’s first and best design ideas: modularity. Modules are self-contained functional units like apartments in a building. Modules implement local goals that are, to some degree, self-maintaining and self-controlled. Modules have a basal problem-solving intelligence,

***

"The second step in the argument is that modules can be assembled in a hierarchy: lower-level modules combine to form increasingly sophisticated higher-levels modules, which then become new building blocks for even higher-level modules, and so on.

***

"...hierarchical modularity still does not explain how evolution, changing solely one element at a time at a lower level, can ever manipulate the upper levels. Given that the upper levels are built with lower levers, wouldn’t you still need to modify a slew of things at the same time to change an upper-level module? A third step in our argument addresses this problem: each module has a few key elements that serve as control knobs or trigger points that activate the module. This is known as pattern completion, where the activation of a part of the system turns on the entire system.

***

"The idea of hierarchical modularity to explain biological intelligence has been explored before by economist Herbert Simon, neuroscientist Valentino Braitenberg, computer scientist Marvin Minsky, evolutionary biologists Leo Buss, Richard Dawkins and David Haig, and philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, among many others. (known pure atheists)

***

"Like a ratchet, evolution can thus effectively climb the intelligence ladder, stretching all the way from simple molecules to cognition. Hierarchical modularity and pattern completion can help understand the decision-making of cells and neurons during morphogenesis and brain processes, generating well adaptive animals and behavior. Studying how collective intelligence emerges in biology not only can help us better understand the process and products of evolution and design but could also be pertinent for the design of artificial intelligence systems and, more generally for engineering and even the social sciences."

Comment: pure sophistry of thought. Skipped over is the question of how the first 'modules became intelligent The rest builds upon that enormous gap. Even dhw grants God might have given them intelligent actions. Accepting a designer is a more logical conclusion. Also dhw, please note the bold in the second paragraph!! Nercessary anticipation of the future by biological organisms is recognized even by these guys!

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 17:12 (196 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 50/50 is an appraisal of possibility, nothing more. Pick your side from what you see as proof. You have none, but I show cell automaticity on many days, no thought involved.

dhw: I keep pointing out that most cellular actions ARE automatic, and have to be if a system is to remain the same. It’s only origins and changing conditions that require intelligence (i.e. changes to what existed before).

dhw: Perhaps you could comment on this observation?

DAVID: Origin of life or of new species requires intelligent design, my constant position.

I don’t have a problem with that position, but intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) could be the source of intelligent design in evolution. In future, when you give examples of automatic cellular behaviour, please remember that generally I agree, because intelligence is only needed in the context of origins and responses to changing conditions. Otherwise, we'll keep repeating this discussion ad nauseam.

DAVID: Using the Cambrian gap, no major environmental changes have been found, but I have carefully documented here the few papers that discussed possible factors of change. Go look back.

I don’t know what papers you’re referring to. I know that one theory is an increase in oxygen as a major environmental change posited as the cause of the “explosion”.

T cells
DAVID: You cannot use human 'learning' to fit the language in biochemistry. When the T cell recognizes non-self and thereby discovers a foreign protein is present, it automatically invents an answer which identifies the invader, by attaching a protein marker, which allows it to be destroyed or neutralized. That is learning in biochemical speak!!

dhw: So if cells already have God-given “algorithms” to correct errors and to kill foreign invaders, how do you account for the fact that vast numbers of victims (from bacteria to humans) can die before a solution to each new problem is found?

DAVID: Errors are still present, re theodicy.

dhw: But if all life forms have an algorithm to correct the errors, why doesn’t it work until thousands/millions have died?

DAVID: Death is a built-in necessary part of God's living system. Also re view cell proptosis.

So your God built in every imaginable correction (algorithm) for every imaginable error, but he also built in the failure of the correction, and so sometimes the algorithm works and sometimes it doesn’t. Do you think, then, that when humans design a medication to kill bacteria, your God has already selected which ones will or won’t have the efficient algorithm? I find it very difficult to understand how this algorithm automatically works/ doesn't work on all the individuals that are supposed to have it. And I have no idea why you have suddenly told me to “re view cell proptosis”. I’ve never heard of it. The definition I’ve found: “Proptosis (rare plural: proptoses) refers to forward protrusion of the globe with respect to the orbit.” Please stick to the general principles we are discussing.

Cellular intelligence
QUOTE: "While scientists are still working out the details of how the eye evolved, we are also still stuck on the question of how intelligence emerges in biology. How can a biological system ever generate coherent and goal-oriented behavior from the bottom up when there is no external designer? (David’s bold)

"In fact, intelligence—a purposeful response to available information, often anticipating the future—is not restricted to the minds of some privileged species. It is distributed throughout biology, at many different spatial and temporal scales. (David’s bold) There are not just intelligent people, mammals, birds and cephalopods. Intelligent, purposeful problem-solving behavior can be found in parts of all living things: single cells and tissues, individual neurons and networks of neurons, viruses, ribosomes and RNA fragments, down to motor proteins and molecular networks. (dhw’s bold) Arguably, understanding the origin of intelligence is the central problem in biology—one that is still wide open.

Wow! Once again, I can only thank you for your integrity. After claiming that the theory of cellular intelligence belongs to the past, you have suddenly offered us a theory which takes the intelligence of ALL life forms for granted. The only problem is its origin. And of course I agree, that problem remains wide open.

DAVID: [...] pure sophistry of thought. Skipped over is the question of how the first 'modules became intelligent The rest builds upon that enormous gap. Even dhw grants God might have given them intelligent actions. Accepting a designer is a more logical conclusion. Also dhw, please note the bold in the second paragraph!! Necessary anticipation of the future by biological organisms is recognized even by these guys!

He hasn’t “skipped” the question! He says the origin of intelligence is wide open! And yes of course intelligence involves anticipation of the future! Birds migrate, life forms of all kinds provide themselves with protection against predators and the climate, store food, prepare for winter. That is a far cry from your theory that your God looks into his crystal ball, and sees water on the way, and so pops in to operate on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers and then leaves them lying there waiting for the water to arrive.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 18:25 (196 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Origin of life or of new species requires intelligent design, my constant position.

dhw: I don’t have a problem with that position, but intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) could be the source of intelligent design in evolution. In future, when you give examples of automatic cellular behaviour, please remember that generally I agree, because intelligence is only needed in the context of origins and responses to changing conditions. Otherwise, we'll keep repeating this discussion ad nauseam.

DAVID: Using the Cambrian gap, no major environmental changes have been found, but I have carefully documented here the few papers that discussed possible factors of change. Go look back.

dhw: I don’t know what papers you’re referring to. I know that one theory is an increase in oxygen as a major environmental change posited as the cause of the “explosion”.

Oxygen which appeared in large quantities 2.5 bya may have allowed the Cambrian at 540 bya, but cannot be called cause.


T cells

dhw: But if all life forms have an algorithm to correct the errors, why doesn’t it work until thousands/millions have died?

DAVID: Death is a built-in necessary part of God's living system. Also re view cell proptosis.

dhw: The definition I’ve found: “Proptosis (rare plural: proptoses) refers to forward protrusion of the globe with respect to the orbit.” Please stick to the general principles we are discussing.

Sorry for misspelling: correct is apoptosis, "programmed cell death".


Cellular intelligence
QUOTE: "While scientists are still working out the details of how the eye evolved, we are also still stuck on the question of how intelligence emerges in biology. How can a biological system ever generate coherent and goal-oriented behavior from the bottom up when there is no external designer? (David’s bold)

"In fact, intelligence—a purposeful response to available information, often anticipating the future—is not restricted to the minds of some privileged species. It is distributed throughout biology, at many different spatial and temporal scales. (David’s bold) There are not just intelligent people, mammals, birds and cephalopods. Intelligent, purposeful problem-solving behavior can be found in parts of all living things: single cells and tissues, individual neurons and networks of neurons, viruses, ribosomes and RNA fragments, down to motor proteins and molecular networks. (dhw’s bold) Arguably, understanding the origin of intelligence is the central problem in biology—one that is still wide open.

dhw: Wow! Once again, I can only thank you for your integrity. After claiming that the theory of cellular intelligence belongs to the past, you have suddenly offered us a theory which takes the intelligence of ALL life forms for granted. The only problem is its origin. And of course I agree, that problem remains wide open.

DAVID: [...] pure sophistry of thought. Skipped over is the question of how the first 'modules became intelligent The rest builds upon that enormous gap. Even dhw grants God might have given them intelligent actions. Accepting a designer is a more logical conclusion. Also dhw, please note the bold in the second paragraph!! Necessary anticipation of the future by biological organisms is recognized even by these guys!

dhw: He hasn’t “skipped” the question! He says the origin of intelligence is wide open! And yes of course intelligence involves anticipation of the future! Birds migrate, life forms of all kinds provide themselves with protection against predators and the climate, store food, prepare for winter. That is a far cry from your theory that your God looks into his crystal ball, and sees water on the way, and so pops in to operate on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers and then leaves them lying there waiting for the water to arrive.

The implication you skipped is that since intelligence anticipates the future, and that has to apply to process of speciation, which you keep denying, and simply call for immediate adaptation to current conditions changing. Adaptation for the future is obvious in fossils after a large fossil gap, which is the actual fossil record.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 10:57 (196 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Origin of life or of new species requires intelligent design, my constant position.

dhw: I don’t have a problem with that position, but intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) could be the source of intelligent design in evolution. In future, when you give examples of automatic cellular behaviour, please remember that generally I agree, because intelligence is only needed in the context of origins and responses to changing conditions. […]

DAVID: Using the Cambrian gap, no major environmental changes have been found […]

dhw: […] one theory is an increase in oxygen as a major environmental change posited as the cause of the “explosion”.

DAVID: Oxygen which appeared in large quantities 2.5 bya may have allowed the Cambrian at 540 bya, but cannot be called cause.

The theory is that changes in conditions either compel or allow life forms (cell communities) to change their structure. In that sense, they are the cause, but it goes without saying that new conditions would not change anything if (a) there were no life forms to change, or (b) life forms did not have the ability to change themselves.

T cells
dhw: But if all life forms have an algorithm to correct the errors, why doesn’t it work until thousands/millions have died?

DAVID: Death is a built-in necessary part of God's living system. […]

dhw: […]So your God built in every imaginable correction (algorithm) for every imaginable error, but he also built in the failure of the correction, and so sometimes the algorithm works and sometimes it doesn’t. Do you think, then, that when humans design a medication to kill bacteria, your God has already selected which ones will or won’t have the efficient algorithm? I find it very difficult to understand how this algorithm automatically works/ doesn't work on all the individuals that are supposed to have it.

Not explained.

Cellular intelligence
QUOTE: "While scientists are still working out the details of how the eye evolved, we are also still stuck on the question of how intelligence emerges in biology. How can a biological system ever generate coherent and goal-oriented behavior from the bottom up when there is no external designer? (David’s bold)
"In fact, intelligence—a purposeful response to available information, often anticipating the future—is not restricted to the minds of some privileged species. It is distributed throughout biology, at many different spatial and temporal scales. (David’s bold) There are not just intelligent people, mammals, birds and cephalopods. Intelligent, purposeful problem-solving behavior can be found in parts of all living things: single cells and tissues, individual neurons and networks of neurons, viruses, ribosomes and RNA fragments, down to motor proteins and molecular networks. (dhw’s bold) Arguably, understanding the origin of intelligence is the central problem in biology—one that is still wide open.

dhw: Wow! Once again, I can only thank you for your integrity. After claiming that the theory of cellular intelligence belongs to the past, you have suddenly offered us a theory which takes the intelligence of ALL life forms for granted. The only problem is its origin. And of course I agree, that problem remains wide open.

DAVID: [...] pure sophistry of thought. Skipped over is the question of how the first 'modules became intelligent The rest builds upon that enormous gap. Even dhw grants God might have given them intelligent actions. Accepting a designer is a more logical conclusion. Also dhw, please note the bold in the second paragraph!! Necessary anticipation of the future by biological organisms is recognized even by these guys!

dhw: He hasn’t “skipped” the question! He says the origin of intelligence is wide open! And yes of course intelligence involves anticipation of the future! Birds migrate, life forms of all kinds provide themselves with protection against predators and the climate, store food, prepare for winter. That is a far cry from your theory that your God looks into his crystal ball, and sees water on the way, and so pops in to operate on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers and then leaves them lying there waiting for the water to arrive.

DAVID: The implication you skipped is that since intelligence anticipates the future, and that has to apply to process of speciation, which you keep denying, and simply call for immediate adaptation to current conditions changing. Adaptation for the future is obvious in fossils after a large fossil gap, which is the actual fossil record.

First you say he skipped origin, whch he didn’t, and now you say I’m skipping the implication that intelligence anticipates the future. I have given examples of how it does so. However, I absolutely reject the idea that adaptation happens before there is anything to adapt to. You have your God operating on pre-whale legs and then leaving the poor things lying around with their flippers until the water arrives. The fossil record gives us species that appear to have no predecessors. So what caused them to come into existence? You say God anticipated future changes in conditions, but even if your theory was true and he specially designed them de novo, how would they survive if they were “adapted” to live in conditions that did not yet exist?

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 15:30 (195 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Oxygen which appeared in large quantities 2.5 bya may have allowed the Cambrian at 540 bya, but cannot be called cause.

dhw: The theory is that changes in conditions either compel or allow life forms (cell communities) to change their structure. In that sense, they are the cause, but it goes without saying that new conditions would not change anything if (a) there were no life forms to change, or (b) life forms did not have the ability to change themselves.

Obvious. Thank you.


T cells

DAVID: Death is a built-in necessary part of God's living system. […]

dhw: […]So your God built in every imaginable correction (algorithm) for every imaginable error, but he also built in the failure of the correction, and so sometimes the algorithm works and sometimes it doesn’t. Do you think, then, that when humans design a medication to kill bacteria, your God has already selected which ones will or won’t have the efficient algorithm? I find it very difficult to understand how this algorithm automatically works/ doesn't work on all the individuals that are supposed to have it.

dhw: Not explained.

Yes it is. In any biological system mistakes happen.


Cellular intelligence

dhw: Wow! Once again, I can only thank you for your integrity. After claiming that the theory of cellular intelligence belongs to the past, you have suddenly offered us a theory which takes the intelligence of ALL life forms for granted. The only problem is its origin. And of course I agree, that problem remains wide open.

DAVID: [...] pure sophistry of thought. Skipped over is the question of how the first 'modules became intelligent The rest builds upon that enormous gap. Even dhw grants God might have given them intelligent actions. Accepting a designer is a more logical conclusion. Also dhw, please note the bold in the second paragraph!! Necessary anticipation of the future by biological organisms is recognized even by these guys!

dhw: He hasn’t “skipped” the question! He says the origin of intelligence is wide open! And yes of course intelligence involves anticipation of the future! Birds migrate, life forms of all kinds provide themselves with protection against predators and the climate, store food, prepare for winter. That is a far cry from your theory that your God looks into his crystal ball, and sees water on the way, and so pops in to operate on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers and then leaves them lying there waiting for the water to arrive.

DAVID: The implication you skipped is that since intelligence anticipates the future, and that has to apply to process of speciation, which you keep denying, and simply call for immediate adaptation to current conditions changing. Adaptation for the future is obvious in fossils after a large fossil gap, which is the actual fossil record.

dhw: First you say he skipped origin, which he didn’t, and now you say I’m skipping the implication that intelligence anticipates the future. I have given examples of how it does so. However, I absolutely reject the idea that adaptation happens before there is anything to adapt to. You have your God operating on pre-whale legs and then leaving the poor things lying around with their flippers until the water arrives. The fossil record gives us species that appear to have no predecessors. So what caused them to come into existence? You say God anticipated future changes in conditions, but even if your theory was true and he specially designed them de novo, how would they survive if they were “adapted” to live in conditions that did not yet exist?

You've finally admitted looking into the future is important in understanding why new species are so changed. "Conditions that did not exist" don't apply when we consider the whale series or climbing out of trees, as simple examples of change. As for God designing or ME designing, it is done for future use in new ways, not necessarily for your beloved environmental changes, which ask only for minor adaptations most usually. Major ones result in extinctions like Chixculub.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Friday, December 17, 2021, 14:53 (194 days ago) @ David Turell

First of all, it’s a pity our attention has been diverted away from an article which expressly supports the concept of cellular intelligence (indeed, takes it for granted) in order to focus on your already done-to-death theory that your God designs new species in anticipation of conditions that have not yet arisen. However, I feel obliged to reply.

DAVID: Oxygen which appeared in large quantities 2.5 bya may have allowed the Cambrian at 540 bya, but cannot be called cause.

dhw: The theory is that changes in conditions either compel or allow life forms (cell communities) to change their structure. In that sense, they are the cause, but it goes without saying that new conditions would not change anything if (a) there were no life forms to change, or (b) life forms did not have the ability to change themselves.

DAVID: Obvious. Thank you.

So there we have it: conditions changed, and existing life forms responded to the change.

T cells
DAVID: Death is a built-in necessary part of God's living system. […]

dhw: […]So your God built in every imaginable correction (algorithm) for every imaginable error, but he also built in the failure of the correction, and so sometimes the algorithm works and sometimes it doesn’t. Do you think, then, that when humans design a medication to kill bacteria, your God has already selected which ones will or won’t have the efficient algorithm? I find it very difficult to understand how this algorithm automatically works/ doesn't work on all the individuals that are supposed to have it.

dhw: Not explained.

DAVID: Yes it is. In any biological system mistakes happen.

They certainly do in any human use of “algorithms”, like the fiasco of last year, when an “algorithm” resulted in chaotic examination results over here. Who is responsible? The algorithm or the maker of the algorithm? However, let us not forget the possibility that your God may have WANTED a system that would result in death or the variations that account for all the “good” and “bad” that underlie the problem of theodicy.

dhw: You say God anticipated future changes in conditions, but even if your theory was true and he specially designed them de novo, how would they survive if they were “adapted” to live in conditions that did not yet exist?

DAVID: You've finally admitted looking into the future is important in understanding why new species are so changed. "Conditions that did not exist" don't apply when we consider the whale series or climbing out of trees, as simple examples of change.

Of course conditions would have changed. We just don’t know in what way! Possibilities: pre-whales in a particular region were running short of food, and so they took to the water. Pre-humans in a particular region were confronted by a shortage of food, or a tree disease, and found better living conditions at ground level. Nobody knows what causes speciation, but we know for a fact that organisms adapt in response to change and not in anticipation of it, and nobody knows the extent to which adaptation may turn into speciation. I would regard flippers as a good example. And I would still ask, for instance, whether you think pre-whales with flippers would be better equipped for survival on land than leggy pre-whales if they had to wait until water arrived for them to dive into (God innovating in advance).

DAVID: As for God designing or ME designing, it is done for future use in new ways, not necessarily for your beloved environmental changes, which ask only for minor adaptations most usually. Major ones result in extinctions like Chixculub.

“Most usually” is a nice term. I am considering what is not “most usual”, namely innovation as opposed to adaptation. If it is true that the increase in oxygen enabled organisms to diversify to a greater extent than before, then you have an example of a major change in conditions that did NOT result in extinction! You seem to think that all environmental changes must be universal to require or allow organisms to make changes. I suggest that most changes would have been localized, i.e. humans did not suddenly spring into existence all over the world, but started because of localized changes. As for your own designs, please tell us what innovations you introduced that prepared you for conditions you did not already know existed.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Friday, December 17, 2021, 15:29 (194 days ago) @ dhw

So there we have it: conditions changed, and existing life forms responded to the change.

Yes, all species can adapt, but are still the same species.


T cells

DAVID: Yes it is. In any biological system mistakes happen.

dhw: They certainly do in any human use of “algorithms”, like the fiasco of last year, when an “algorithm” resulted in chaotic examination results over here. Who is responsible? The algorithm or the maker of the algorithm? However, let us not forget the possibility that your God may have WANTED a system that would result in death or the variations that account for all the “good” and “bad” that underlie the problem of theodicy.

Who is responsible for metabolic mistakes, the algorithm or the maker in theodicy?

DAVID: You've finally admitted looking into the future is important in understanding why new species are so changed. "Conditions that did not exist" don't apply when we consider the whale series or climbing out of trees, as simple examples of change.

dhw: Of course conditions would have changed. We just don’t know in what way! Possibilities: pre-whales in a particular region were running short of food, and so they took to the water. Pre-humans in a particular region were confronted by a shortage of food, or a tree disease, and found better living conditions at ground level. Nobody knows what causes speciation, but we know for a fact that organisms adapt in response to change and not in anticipation of it, and nobody knows the extent to which adaptation may turn into speciation. I would regard flippers as a good example. And I would still ask, for instance, whether you think pre-whales with flippers would be better equipped for survival on land than leggy pre-whales if they had to wait until water arrived for them to dive into (God innovating in advance).

Pre-whales with flippers would never be on land. They have transitional legs in the water. Look at the fossils in the series.


DAVID: As for God designing or ME designing, it is done for future use in new ways, not necessarily for your beloved environmental changes, which ask only for minor adaptations most usually. Major ones result in extinctions like Chixculub.

dhw: “Most usually” is a nice term. I am considering what is not “most usual”, namely innovation as opposed to adaptation. If it is true that the increase in oxygen enabled organisms to diversify to a greater extent than before, then you have an example of a major change in conditions that did NOT result in extinction! You seem to think that all environmental changes must be universal to require or allow organisms to make changes. I suggest that most changes would have been localized, i.e. humans did not suddenly spring into existence all over the world, but started because of localized changes. As for your own designs, please tell us what innovations you introduced that prepared you for conditions you did not already know existed.

Sorry. I agree minor adaptations are local. Considered future use for dialysis units had predictable problems I could design around. Just like God preparing creatures for the future. Example, the whale blow hole on top of their heads, no nostrils, which would be under water.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 07:44 (194 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Oxygen which appeared in large quantities 2.5 bya may have allowed the Cambrian at 540 bya, but cannot be called cause.

dhw: The theory is that changes in conditions either compel or allow life forms (cell communities) to change their structure. In that sense, they are the cause, but it goes without saying that new conditions would not change anything if (a) there were no life forms to change, or (b) life forms did not have the ability to change themselves.

DAVID: Obvious. Thank you.

dhw:So there we have it: conditions changed, and existing life forms responded to the change.

DAVID: Yes, all species can adapt, but are still the same species.

We are trying to explain speciation. Do you think it was sheer coincidence that oxygen appeared in large quantities and new species appeared at the same time? Or do you think the new species appeared BEFORE the increase in oxygen?

T cells
DAVID: In any biological system mistakes happen.

dhw: They certainly do in any human use of “algorithms”, like the fiasco of last year, when an “algorithm” resulted in chaotic examination results over here. Who is responsible? The algorithm or the maker of the algorithm? However, let us not forget the possibility that your God may have WANTED a system that would result in death or the variations that account for all the “good” and “bad” that underlie the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: Who is responsible for metabolic mistakes, the algorithm or the maker in theodicy?

Algorithms don’t make themselves! It’s you who insist that your God provided life forms with instructions (algorithms) to solve every problem for the rest of life’s history. If his instructions have led to mistakes, then who else is responsible? But maybe he did not issue such instructions. Maybe he just provided all organisms (cell communities) with the ability (intelligence) to find their own “good” or “bad” means of survival.

DAVID: You've finally admitted looking into the future is important in understanding why new species are so changed. "Conditions that did not exist" don't apply when we consider the whale series or climbing out of trees, as simple examples of change.

dhw: Of course conditions would have changed. We just don’t know in what way! Possibilities: pre-whales in a particular region were running short of food, and so they took to the water. Pre-humans in a particular region were confronted by a shortage of food, or a tree disease, and found better living conditions at ground level. […] we know for a fact that organisms adapt in response to change and not in anticipation of it, and nobody knows the extent to which adaptation may turn into speciation. I would regard flippers as a good example. And I would still ask, for instance, whether you think pre-whales with flippers would be better equipped for survival on land than leggy pre-whales if they had to wait until water arrived for them to dive into (God innovating in advance).

DAVID: Pre-whales with flippers would never be on land. They have transitional legs in the water. Look at the fossils in the series.

Thank you for confirming that your God did not after all operate on pre-whales before there was any need for them to enter the water, and for agreeing that flippers developed in response to the new conditions. That is why I chose this example to illustrate the absurdity of your theory that changes take place BEFORE they are required.

DAVID: As for God designing or ME designing, it is done for future use in new ways, not necessarily for your beloved environmental changes, which ask only for minor adaptations most usually. Major ones result in extinctions like Chixculub.

dhw: […] I am considering what is not “most usual”, namely innovation as opposed to adaptation. If it is true that the increase in oxygen enabled organisms to diversify to a greater extent than before, then you have an example of a major change in conditions that did NOT result in extinction! You seem to think that all environmental changes must be universal to require or allow organisms to make changes. I suggest that most changes would have been localized, i.e. humans did not suddenly spring into existence all over the world, but started because of localized changes. As for your own designs, please tell us what innovations you introduced that prepared you for conditions you did not already know existed.

DAVID: Sorry. I agree minor adaptations are local.

There is no reason why major adaptations and/or novelties should not also be local, and when the novelties prove useful, the species will not only survive but will also expand.

DAVID: Considered future use for dialysis units had predictable problems I could design around. Just like God preparing creatures for the future. Example, the whale blow hole on top of their heads, no nostrils, which would be under water.

Now what are you saying? Your God kept fiddling with transitional leggy-flippers until they became flippers, but before the same animals had entered the water, he had repositioned their noses to the top of their heads? May I suggest that it makes more sense if the blow hole – just like the flippers – developed as the cell communities worked out better ways for the ex-land animal to adapt itself to life in the water?

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 15:35 (193 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Yes, all species can adapt, but are still the same species.

dhw: We are trying to explain speciation. Do you think it was sheer coincidence that oxygen appeared in large quantities and new species appeared at the same time? Or do you think the new species appeared BEFORE the increase in oxygen?

Coincidence doesn't speciate. Oxy gen was around in large amounts long before the Cambrian


T cells
DAVID: In any biological system mistakes happen.

dhw: They certainly do in any human use of “algorithms”, like the fiasco of last year, when an “algorithm” resulted in chaotic examination results over here. Who is responsible? The algorithm or the maker of the algorithm? However, let us not forget the possibility that your God may have WANTED a system that would result in death or the variations that account for all the “good” and “bad” that underlie the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: Who is responsible for metabolic mistakes, the algorithm or the maker in theodicy?

dhw: Algorithms don’t make themselves! It’s you who insist that your God provided life forms with instructions (algorithms) to solve every problem for the rest of life’s history. If his instructions have led to mistakes, then who else is responsible? But maybe he did not issue such instructions. Maybe he just provided all organisms (cell communities) with the ability (intelligence) to find their own “good” or “bad” means of survival.

What God did is in our imaginations, and depends upon the type of God in your mind when you suggest His actions, which I still see as very human, as in the decisions just stated..


DAVID: You've finally admitted looking into the future is important in understanding why new species are so changed. "Conditions that did not exist" don't apply when we consider the whale series or climbing out of trees, as simple examples of change.

DAVID: Pre-whales with flippers would never be on land. They have transitional legs in the water. Look at the fossils in the series.

dhw: Thank you for confirming that your God did not after all operate on pre-whales before there was any need for them to enter the water, and for agreeing that flippers developed in response to the new conditions. That is why I chose this example to illustrate the absurdity of your theory that changes take place BEFORE they are required.

Please look at the series before you declare absurdity. It is lots more changes than just flippers!!!

https://genesisapologetics.com/whales/

"When it comes to the number of changes to go from a land mammal to a whale, biologist Richard Sternberg remarked, “Just think of all the parameters that would have to be modified and then multiply that by a thousand fold or more than that—that’s the scale of the problem that you’re dealing with in the context of Darwinian evolution.”[viii] One of these complex changes would be moving the reproductive organs to inside the body and somehow cooling them when they’re right next to the swimming muscles that generate heat. Dr. Sternberg remarks that this system:

"Has a remarkable solution to that problem—it’s a miraculous web of arteries and veins, but can you explain it by some smooth gradualist textbook scenario, little change little change fixation? No—it doesn’t fit the Darwinian model in my opinion. You’re looking at just a suite of characteristics that had to have been integrated from the get-go. I mean it’s a non-gradualistic type of change. So the cooling system makes sense because you have internalized reproductive glands. The internalized reproductive glands, however, are a no-go unless you’ve got the cooling system. You can’t explain the emergence of one without the other."


DAVID: Sorry. I agree minor adaptations are local.

dhw: There is no reason why major adaptations and/or novelties should not also be local, and when the novelties prove useful, the species will not only survive but will also expand.

DAVID: Considered future use for dialysis units had predictable problems I could design around. Just like God preparing creatures for the future. Example, the whale blow hole on top of their heads, no nostrils, which would be under water.

dhw: Now what are you saying? Your God kept fiddling with transitional leggy-flippers until they became flippers, but before the same animals had entered the water, he had repositioned their noses to the top of their heads? May I suggest that it makes more sense if the blow hole – just like the flippers – developed as the cell communities worked out better ways for the ex-land animal to adapt itself to life in the water?

See quote above. Please study the whole story of whale development before commenting. I used the blowhole to represent the enormous number of required changes.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Sunday, December 19, 2021, 12:46 (192 days ago) @ David Turell

T cells
dhw: Algorithms don’t make themselves! It’s you who insist that your God provided life forms with instructions (algorithms) to solve every problem for the rest of life’s history. If his instructions have led to mistakes, then who else is responsible? But maybe he did not issue such instructions. Maybe he just provided all organisms (cell communities) with the ability (intelligence) to find their own “good” or “bad” means of survival.

DAVID: What God did is in our imaginations, and depends upon the type of God in your mind when you suggest His actions, which I still see as very human, as in the decisions just stated.

Yes indeed. If we assume that God exists, you imagine him designing a system containing solutions to every problem, except that his instructions led to mistakes which even he could not correct. I imagine a God who designed a system that allowed organisms to solve or not solve problems by themselves. I have no idea why you consider your imagined God to be less human than my imagined God.

DAVID: (taken from your "Theory of evolution, Part Two"): Your so-called God chooses errors (chance mutations) to advance evolution. Who knows what monsters might be created.

It is you who unwittingly present chance mutations in the form of “errors” which your God cannot control even though he designed the system himself! I am proposing deliberate decisions as an alternative. Intelligent Design as the product of intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) is NOT random.

DAVID: Pre-whales with flippers would never be on land. They have transitional legs in the water. Look at the fossils in the series.

dhw: Thank you for confirming that your God did not after all operate on pre-whales' legs before there was any need for them to enter the water, and for agreeing that flippers developed in response to the new conditions. That is why I chose this example to illustrate the absurdity of your theory that changes take place BEFORE they are required.

DAVID: Please look at the series before you declare absurdity. It is lots more changes than just flippers!!!

Of course it is. The flippers merely illustrate the absurdity of your theory.

https://genesisapologetics.com/whales/
QUOTE: "When it comes to the number of changes to go from a land mammal to a whale, biologist Richard Sternberg remarked, “Just think of all the parameters that would have to be modified and then multiply that by a thousand fold or more than that—that’s the scale of the problem that you’re dealing with in the context of Darwinian evolution.”[viii] One of these complex changes would be moving the reproductive organs to inside the body and somehow cooling them when they’re right next to the swimming muscles that generate heat.[…] You can’t explain the emergence of one without the other."

It all makes perfect sense. Each body is a community of cells, and each change in each cell community requires cooperation with the rest of the body. We are lucky to have fossils that show series of changes resulting in “transitional legs in the water”. (Exit your theory that your God changes bodies overnight BEFORE they have to cope with new conditions.) Just how long other changes took, and in what order they occurred, is impossible to tell without a complete step-by-step fossil record, but no one will disagree that at all stages, the cell communities must have worked together to reorganize the reproductive system. Possible explanations? Do you believe that although your God kept dabbling with transitional legs in the water, he did a total replacement operation on the reproductive systems and noses BEFORE they entered the water? Or did he make these replacements overnight after they had entered the water – because although apparently he knows everything in advance, he now realized that the original reproductive systems and noses could be improved on? I’m not suggesting that I “know” what happened. I’m simply emulating you and presumably Dr Sternberg: I see the problem and look for a feasible explanation. Given the choice between what I assume will be your explanation, as above, and the proposal that the cell communities themselves use what may be their God-given intelligence to design their own RESPONSES to the requirements of their new environment, I would see the latter as more convincing.

A cell repair design
DAVID: This system shows the designer recognized damage could happen and provided a repair system. Design requires understanding the future problems that mistakes will cause. We know this biochemistry of life creates life. We do not know if another system can work. Stating that possibility second-guesses the designer, who probably stuck with this working design as the only one available.

I agree that we do not know if another system can work. I disagree that if your God exists, he “probably” stuck with this one as the only one available. I would suggest that if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he is “probably” capable of designing a different system, but chose this one because he WANTED the variety created by the potential for change – not in the form of “errors” which he couldn’t correct, but in the form of choices available to the components of the system. Hence the evolution of what we regard as “good” and “bad”.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 19, 2021, 15:56 (192 days ago) @ dhw

T cells

DAVID: What God did is in our imaginations, and depends upon the type of God in your mind when you suggest His actions, which I still see as very human, as in the decisions just stated.

dhw: Yes indeed. If we assume that God exists, you imagine him designing a system containing solutions to every problem, except that his instructions led to mistakes which even he could not correct. I imagine a God who designed a system that allowed organisms to solve or not solve problems by themselves. I have no idea why you consider your imagined God to be less human than my imagined God.

The difference is obvious to anyone who actually believes in God, instead of pretend.


DAVID: (taken from your "Theory of evolution, Part Two"): Your so-called God chooses errors (chance mutations) to advance evolution. Who knows what monsters might be created.

dhw: It is you who unwittingly present chance mutations in the form of “errors” which your God cannot control even though he designed the system himself! I am proposing deliberate decisions as an alternative. Intelligent Design as the product of intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) is NOT random.

Again in your imagination, a weak God who allows secondhand design


https://genesisapologetics.com/whales/
QUOTE: "When it comes to the number of changes to go from a land mammal to a whale, biologist Richard Sternberg remarked, “Just think of all the parameters that would have to be modified and then multiply that by a thousand fold or more than that—that’s the scale of the problem that you’re dealing with in the context of Darwinian evolution.”[viii] One of these complex changes would be moving the reproductive organs to inside the body and somehow cooling them when they’re right next to the swimming muscles that generate heat.[…] You can’t explain the emergence of one without the other."

dhw: It all makes perfect sense. Each body is a community of cells, and each change in each cell community requires cooperation with the rest of the body. We are lucky to have fossils that show series of changes resulting in “transitional legs in the water”. (Exit your theory that your God changes bodies overnight BEFORE they have to cope with new conditions.) Just how long other changes took, and in what order they occurred, is impossible to tell without a complete step-by-step fossil record, but no one will disagree that at all stages, the cell communities must have worked together to reorganize the reproductive system.

Or God redesigned them.

dhw: Possible explanations? Do you believe that although your God kept dabbling with transitional legs in the water, he did a total replacement operation on the reproductive systems and noses BEFORE they entered the water? Or did he make these replacements overnight after they had entered the water – because although apparently he knows everything in advance, he now realized that the original reproductive systems and noses could be improved on?

The problem is the fossil series gaps. If accepted, we must deal with de novo appearance, which supports design and a designer.

dhw: I’m not suggesting that I “know” what happened. I’m simply emulating you and presumably Dr Sternberg: I see the problem and look for a feasible explanation. Given the choice between what I assume will be your explanation, as above, and the proposal that the cell communities themselves use what may be their God-given intelligence to design their own RESPONSES to the requirements of their new environment, I would see the latter as more convincing.

And I don't


A cell repair design
DAVID: This system shows the designer recognized damage could happen and provided a repair system. Design requires understanding the future problems that mistakes will cause. We know this biochemistry of life creates life. We do not know if another system can work. Stating that possibility second-guesses the designer, who probably stuck with this working design as the only one available.

dhw: I agree that we do not know if another system can work. I disagree that if your God exists, he “probably” stuck with this one as the only one available. I would suggest that if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he is “probably” capable of designing a different system, but chose this one because he WANTED the variety created by the potential for change – not in the form of “errors” which he couldn’t correct, but in the form of choices available to the components of the system. Hence the evolution of what we regard as “good” and “bad”.

"Choices available to components' takes us back to your unproven intelligent cells inventing complex designs.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Monday, December 20, 2021, 06:54 (192 days ago) @ David Turell

T cells

DAVID: What God did is in our imaginations, and depends upon the type of God in your mind when you suggest His actions, which I still see as very human, as in the decisions just stated.

dhw: Yes indeed. If we assume that God exists, you imagine him designing a system containing solutions to every problem, except that his instructions led to mistakes which even he could not correct. I imagine a God who designed a system that allowed organisms to solve or not solve problems by themselves. I have no idea why you consider your imagined God to be less human than my imagined God.

DAVID: The difference is obvious to anyone who actually believes in God, instead of pretend.

Please explain why a God who designs a system that leads to mistakes which he cannot correct is “obviously” less human than a God who designs a system that allows for individual decision-making.

DAVID: (taken from your "Theory of evolution, Part Two"): Your so-called God chooses errors (chance mutations) to advance evolution. Who knows what monsters might be created.

dhw: It is you who unwittingly present chance mutations in the form of “errors” which your God cannot control even though he designed the system himself! I am proposing deliberate decisions as an alternative. Intelligent Design as the product of intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) is NOT random.

DAVID: Again in your imagination, a weak God who allows secondhand design.

Please explain why a God who cannot control the “errors” committed by the system he designed, is stronger than a God who deliberately gives organisms the intelligence to do their own designing.

https://genesisapologetics.com/whales/
QUOTE: "When it comes to the number of changes to go from a land mammal to a whale, biologist Richard Sternberg remarked, “Just think of all the parameters that would have to be modified and then multiply that by a thousand fold or more than that—that’s the scale of the problem that you’re dealing with in the context of Darwinian evolution.”[viii] One of these complex changes would be moving the reproductive organs to inside the body and somehow cooling them when they’re right next to the swimming muscles that generate heat.[…] You can’t explain the emergence of one without the other."

dhw: It all makes perfect sense. Each body is a community of cells, and each change in each cell community requires cooperation with the rest of the body. We are lucky to have fossils that show series of changes resulting in “transitional legs in the water”. (Exit your theory that your God changes bodies overnight BEFORE they have to cope with new conditions.) Just how long other changes took, and in what order they occurred, is impossible to tell without a complete step-by-step fossil record, but no one will disagree that at all stages, the cell communities must have worked together to reorganize the reproductive system.

DAVID: Or God redesigned them.

Yes, but he would also have had to ensure that they all worked together.

dhw: Possible explanations? Do you believe that although your God kept dabbling with transitional legs in the water, he did a total replacement operation on the reproductive systems and noses BEFORE they entered the water? Or did he make these replacements overnight after they had entered the water – because although apparently he knows everything in advance, he now realized that the original reproductive systems and noses could be improved on?

DAVID: The problem is the fossil series gaps. If accepted, we must deal with de novo appearance, which supports design and a designer.

So do you think he operated on pre-whales’ reproductive systems and noses before they entered the water, or do you think he realized once they were in the water that he needed to perform more operations, because transitional flippers were only the start of the problem? I am trying to understand how you visualize your God’s procedures as he designs and then redesigns every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design sapiens plus food.

A cell repair design
DAVID: This system shows the designer recognized damage could happen and provided a repair system. Design requires understanding the future problems that mistakes will cause. We know this biochemistry of life creates life. We do not know if another system can work. Stating that possibility second-guesses the designer, who probably stuck with this working design as the only one available.

dhw: I agree that we do not know if another system can work. I disagree that if your God exists, he “probably” stuck with this one as the only one available. I would suggest that if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he is “probably” capable of designing a different system, but chose this one because he WANTED the variety created by the potential for change – not in the form of “errors” which he couldn’t correct, but in the form of choices available to the components of the system. Hence the evolution of what we regard as “good” and “bad”.

DAVID: "Choices available to components' takes us back to your unproven intelligent cells inventing complex designs.

Of course it does, and it takes us away from your unproven God and his unproven limitations and his unproven errors and his unproven attempts to correct them.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Monday, December 20, 2021, 16:26 (191 days ago) @ dhw

T cells

DAVID: The difference is obvious to anyone who actually believes in God, instead of pretend.

dhw: Please explain why a God who designs a system that leads to mistakes which he cannot correct is “obviously” less human than a God who designs a system that allows for individual decision-making.

I am discussing God's personality as related to purpose, compared to yours. Your question does not apply.


dhw: It is you who unwittingly present chance mutations in the form of “errors” which your God cannot control even though he designed the system himself! I am proposing deliberate decisions as an alternative. Intelligent Design as the product of intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) is NOT random.

DAVID: Again in your imagination, a weak God who allows secondhand design.

dhw: Please explain why a God who cannot control the “errors” committed by the system he designed, is stronger than a God who deliberately gives organisms the intelligence to do their own designing.

Another weird approach to discussing the underlying philosophy and personality of God. Totally off the point. You obviously have no answer to my criticism of your imagined God.


https://genesisapologetics.com/whales/

dhw: It all makes perfect sense. Each body is a community of cells, and each change in each cell community requires cooperation with the rest of the body. We are lucky to have fossils that show series of changes resulting in “transitional legs in the water”. (Exit your theory that your God changes bodies overnight BEFORE they have to cope with new conditions.) Just how long other changes took, and in what order they occurred, is impossible to tell without a complete step-by-step fossil record, but no one will disagree that at all stages, the cell communities must have worked together to reorganize the reproductive system.

DAVID: Or God redesigned them.

dhw: Yes, but he would also have had to ensure that they all worked together.

Obviously.


DAVID: The problem is the fossil series gaps. If accepted, we must deal with de novo appearance, which supports design and a designer.

dhw: So do you think he operated on pre-whales’ reproductive systems and noses before they entered the water, or do you think he realized once they were in the water that he needed to perform more operations, because transitional flippers were only the start of the problem? I am trying to understand how you visualize your God’s procedures as he designs and then redesigns every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design sapiens plus food.

I don't visualize God's timing, since we only have finished models to view. obviously designed for the conditions at hand.


A cell repair design

DAVID: "Choices available to components' takes us back to your unproven intelligent cells inventing complex designs.

dhw: Of course it does, and it takes us away from your unproven God and his unproven limitations and his unproven errors and his unproven attempts to correct them.

Not everything we learn offers your required rigid proofs. Where is your proof of brilliant designing cells creating new species?

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Wednesday, December 22, 2021, 21:51 (189 days ago) @ David Turell

Many apologies. I thought I had posted these responses yesterday, and have only just realized that I hadn't! When I logged on this morning, I wondered why there was only one reply from you!It's not just my computer that keeps going wrong! I'll try to catch up with your latest posts tomorrow, but there will then be a break as I have the family coming for Christmas. I'm delighted to say that Chris is well enough to travel, and is getting stronger every day.

T cells

dhw: Please explain why a God who designs a system that leads to mistakes which he cannot correct is “obviously” less human than a God who designs a system that allows for individual decision-making.

DAVID: I am discussing God's personality as related to purpose, compared to yours. Your question does not apply. And later:
DAVID: Another weird approach to discussing the underlying philosophy and personality of God. Totally off the point. You obviously have no answer to my criticism of your imagined God.

Your criticism of my imagined God in comparison to your imagined God is that a God who designs the system he wants is “weak” compared to a God who designs a system which contains errors he does not want and tries – often in vain – to correct. Please explain why the former is “weaker” than the latter.

DAVID: The problem is the fossil series gaps. If accepted, we must deal with de novo appearance, which supports design and a designer.

dhw: So do you think he operated on pre-whales’ reproductive systems and noses before they entered the water, or do you think he realized once they were in the water that he needed to perform more operations, because transitional flippers were only the start of the problem? I am trying to understand how you visualize your God’s procedures as he designs and then redesigns every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design sapiens plus food.

DAVID: I don't visualize God's timing, since we only have finished models to view. obviously designed for the conditions at hand.

But until this moment you did visualize his timing, since you insisted that he designed all innovations etc. IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements. However,I’m relieved that at last you have agreed that “finished models” are “obviously designed for the conditions at hand”. Except that you don't:


dhw (under "Oxygen and the Cambrian"):The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use. [The brain example you gave has been dealt with elsewhere.]

"At hand" or in the future?


A cell repair design
DAVID: "Choices available to components' takes us back to your unproven intelligent cells inventing complex designs.

dhw: Of course it does, and it takes us away from your unproven God and his unproven limitations and his unproven errors and his unproven attempts to correct them.

DAVID: Not everything we learn offers your required rigid proofs. Where is your proof of brilliant designing cells creating new species?

You emphasize that my theory is unproven. I emphasize that ALL the theories are unproven. So what is your point? That your unproven theory doesn’t require proof but mine does?

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 00:18 (189 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Many apologies. I thought I had posted these responses yesterday, and have only just realized that I hadn't! When I logged on this morning, I wondered why there was only one reply from you!It's not just my computer that keeps going wrong! I'll try to catch up with your latest posts tomorrow, but there will then be a break as I have the family coming for Christmas. I'm delighted to say that Chris is well enough to travel, and is getting stronger every day.

No apologies. I worry about you if not turning up. Great Chris news


dhw: Your criticism of my imagined God in comparison to your imagined God is that a God who designs the system he wants is “weak” compared to a God who designs a system which contains errors he does not want and tries – often in vain – to correct. Please explain why the former is “weaker” than the latter.

I've listed your God' weaknesses: uncontrolled free-for-all, giving design control away, and others, etc.


DAVID: The problem is the fossil series gaps. If accepted, we must deal with de novo appearance, which supports design and a designer.

dhw: So do you think he operated on pre-whales’ reproductive systems and noses before they entered the water, or do you think he realized once they were in the water that he needed to perform more operations, because transitional flippers were only the start of the problem? I am trying to understand how you visualize your God’s procedures as he designs and then redesigns every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design sapiens plus food.

DAVID: I don't visualize God's timing, since we only have finished models to view. obviously designed for the conditions at hand.

dhw: But until this moment you did visualize his timing, since you insisted that he designed all innovations etc. IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements. However,I’m relieved that at last you have agreed that “finished models” are “obviously designed for the conditions at hand”. Except that you don't:

dhw (under "Oxygen and the Cambrian"):The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use. [The brain example you gave has been dealt with elsewhere.]

"At hand" or in the future?

Again the 300,000 year old sapiens brain waited 250,000 years to be used properly.

A cell repair design
DAVID: "Choices available to components' takes us back to your unproven intelligent cells inventing complex designs.

dhw: Of course it does, and it takes us away from your unproven God and his unproven limitations and his unproven errors and his unproven attempts to correct them.

DAVID: Not everything we learn offers your required rigid proofs. Where is your proof of brilliant designing cells creating new species?

dhw: You emphasize that my theory is unproven. I emphasize that ALL the theories are unproven. So what is your point? That your unproven theory doesn’t require proof but mine does?

I have proven a designer is erquired

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 09:09 (189 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your criticism of my imagined God in comparison to your imagined God is that a God who designs the system he wants is “weak” compared to a God who designs a system which contains errors he does not want and tries – often in vain – to correct. Please explain why the former is “weaker” than the latter.

DAVID: I've listed your God' weaknesses: uncontrolled free-for-all, giving design control away, and others, etc.

If God wanted a free-for-all and designed what he wanted, I’m sorry but for the life of me I cannot see that this makes him weaker than a God who wanted control but “had to” design a system containing errors he could not control.

dhw: […] do you think he operated on pre-whales’ reproductive systems and noses before they entered the water, or do you think he realized once they were in the water that he needed to perform more operations, because transitional flippers were only the start of the problem? I am trying to understand how you visualize your God’s procedures as he designs and then redesigns every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design sapiens plus food.

DAVID: I don't visualize God's timing, since we only have finished models to view. obviously designed for the conditions at hand.

dhw: But until this moment you did visualize his timing, since you insisted that he designed all innovations etc. IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements. However,I’m relieved that at last you have agreed that “finished models” are “obviously designed for the conditions at hand”. Except that you don't:

dhw (under "Oxygen and the Cambrian"):The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use. [The brain example you gave has been dealt with elsewhere.]

dhw: "At hand" or in the future?

DAVID: Again the 300,000 year old sapiens brain waited 250,000 years to be used properly.

This seems to be the only example you can think of. See your theory PART ONE for my detailed reply.

A cell repair design
DAVID: "Choices available to components' takes us back to your unproven intelligent cells inventing complex designs.

dhw: Of course it does, and it takes us away from your unproven God and his unproven limitations and his unproven errors and his unproven attempts to correct them.

DAVID: Not everything we learn offers your required rigid proofs. Where is your proof of brilliant designing cells creating new species?

dhw: You emphasize that my theory is unproven. I emphasize that ALL the theories are unproven. So what is your point? That your unproven theory doesn’t require proof but mine does?

AVID: I have proven a designer is required

You have provided a logical case for the existence of a designer. The only proof would be if your God showed himself to us. There is a logical case for materialism, but the only proof would be if we could demonstrate HOW matter transformed itself into living organisms with consciousness.

T cells
DAVID: this back up system recognizes the need for T cell preservation, and therefore must be designed from the beginning or we would have not survived infections. This shows foresight of the future is required in creating new designs

You talk as if T cells were there “from the beginning”. As far as I know, they only arrived when our fellow vertebrates came into existence. Every form of animal consists of cell communities, and I would suggest that T cells were a RESPONSE to new infections that attacked our fellow vertebrates. As with all processes relating to immunity, there would have been – just as there are now – vast numbers of victims until the survivors found a solution to the problem. I was quite taken with the quote: “Like human beings, every cell in our body tries to ward off death as long as it can.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 15:10 (188 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've listed your God' weaknesses: uncontrolled free-for-all, giving design control away, and others, etc.

dhw: If God wanted a free-for-all and designed what he wanted, I’m sorry but for the life of me I cannot see that this makes him weaker than a God who wanted control but “had to” design a system containing errors he could not control.

I'll remind you as before, we individually imagine God. I see your God as much weaker than mine. Our living system in my view is the only one available. You know I'm wrong?


A cell repair design

DAVID: I have proven a designer is required

dhw: You have provided a logical case for the existence of a designer. The only proof would be if your God showed himself to us. There is a logical case for materialism, but the only proof would be if we could demonstrate HOW matter transformed itself into living organisms with consciousness.

See today's entry on quantum immaginary numbers: materialism is dead.


T cells
DAVID: this back up system recognizes the need for T cell preservation, and therefore must be designed from the beginning or we would have not survived infections. This shows foresight of the future is required in creating new designs

dhw: You talk as if T cells were there “from the beginning”. As far as I know, they only arrived when our fellow vertebrates came into existence. Every form of animal consists of cell communities, and I would suggest that T cells were a RESPONSE to new infections that attacked our fellow vertebrates. As with all processes relating to immunity, there would have been – just as there are now – vast numbers of victims until the survivors found a solution to the problem. I was quite taken with the quote: “Like human beings, every cell in our body tries to ward off death as long as it can.

The quote refers to cellular apoptosis. All organisms prior to vertebrates had immune systems and vertebrate immune system came from them. Your point is is off base.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Monday, December 27, 2021, 08:35 (185 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've listed your God' weaknesses: uncontrolled free-for-all, giving design control away, and others, etc.

dhw: If God wanted a free-for-all and designed what he wanted, I’m sorry but for the life of me I cannot see that this makes him weaker than a God who wanted control but “had to” design a system containing errors he could not control.

DAVID: I'll remind you as before, we individually imagine God. I see your God as much weaker than mine. Our living system in my view is the only one available. You know I'm wrong?

Of course I don’t know, and nor do you. I just have a feeling that a God who designs and gets what he wants must be stronger than a God who knows what he wants but can’t get it. Your God, according to you, tried but sometimes failed to correct the errors, which suggests to me that he didn’t want them.

A cell repair design
DAVID: I have proven a designer is required

dhw: You have provided a logical case for the existence of a designer. The only proof would be if your God showed himself to us. There is a logical case for materialism, but the only proof would be if we could demonstrate HOW matter transformed itself into living organisms with consciousness.

DAVID: See today's entry on quantum imaginary numbers: materialism is dead.

I shan’t pretend to understand what this is all about, but please note the quote: “The researchers stressed, however, that their experiment only rules out theories that forgo imaginary numbers if the reigning conventions of quantum mechanics are correct. Most scientists are very confident that this is the case, but this is an important caveat nonetheless.” Have you conducted a poll among scientists and discovered that they all think materialism is dead?

DAVID: If we use imaginary numbers that mathematicians make up to describe the quantum basis of reality, then any form of materialism is dead.

If we use imaginary properties that atheist scientists make up from combinations of matter and energy, then God is dead.

T cell
DAVID: this back up system recognizes the need for T cell preservation, and therefore must be designed from the beginning or we would have not survived infections. This shows foresight of the future is required in creating new designs

dhw: You talk as if T cells were there “from the beginning”. As far as I know, they only arrived when our fellow vertebrates came into existence. Every form of animal consists of cell communities, and I would suggest that T cells were a RESPONSE to new infections that attacked our fellow vertebrates. As with all processes relating to immunity, there would have been – just as there are now – vast numbers of victims until the survivors found a solution to the problem. I was quite taken with the quote: “Like human beings, every cell in our body tries to ward off death as long as it can.”

DAVID: The quote refers to cellular apoptosis. All organisms prior to vertebrates had immune systems and vertebrate immune system came from them. Your point is is off base.

Of course it’s not off base. Clearly if T cells only exist in vertebrates, they were not part of the immune system of earlier life forms, and therefore you cannot say they were there from the beginning. They would have evolved, just as vertebrate structures evolved from invertebrates in what you constantly tell us has been a development from the simple to the complex.

Zebrafish inner ear

dhw: I am always struck by the fact that so many researchers emphasize the manner in which cells cooperate to create new structures. Thank you for two more quotes for the collection:

“The inner ear is a model for how cells work together to make complex structures that are needed for organisms to function."

“Our work shows a new way of doing things," Megason said, adding that he hopes it will encourage people to consider additional mechanisms that may be involved in shaping tissues. Cells have to use many different forces in order to accomplish what they need to.”

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Monday, December 27, 2021, 14:53 (184 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'll remind you as before, we individually imagine God. I see your God as much weaker than mine. Our living system in my view is the only one available. You know I'm wrong?

dhw: Of course I don’t know, and nor do you. I just have a feeling that a God who designs and gets what he wants must be stronger than a God who knows what he wants but can’t get it. Your God, according to you, tried but sometimes failed to correct the errors, which suggests to me that he didn’t want them.

All we can assume, since this living system works for the enormous majority of us, either designed by chance or by God, it is the only one available that works! There is no theodicy discussion for chance.


A cell repair design

DAVID: See today's entry on quantum imaginary numbers: materialism is dead.

dhw: I shan’t pretend to understand what this is all about, but please note the quote: “The researchers stressed, however, that their experiment only rules out theories that forgo imaginary numbers if the reigning conventions of quantum mechanics are correct. Most scientists are very confident that this is the case, but this is an important caveat nonetheless.” Have you conducted a poll among scientists and discovered that they all think materialism is dead?

DAVID: If we use imaginary numbers that mathematicians make up to describe the quantum basis of reality, then any form of materialism is dead.

dhw: If we use imaginary properties that atheist scientists make up from combinations of matter and energy, then God is dead.

Not comparable. The made-up numbers work, which means reality requires mind.


T cell

DAVID: The quote refers to cellular apoptosis. All organisms prior to vertebrates had immune systems and vertebrate immune system came from them. Your point is is off base.

dhw: Of course it’s not off base. Clearly if T cells only exist in vertebrates, they were not part of the immune system of earlier life forms, and therefore you cannot say they were there from the beginning. They would have evolved, just as vertebrate structures evolved from invertebrates in what you constantly tell us has been a development from the simple to the complex.

We cannot know fossil blood! I agree blood evolved, so you are off point. First early vertebrates are late Cambrian and must have had the precursors of current T cells, from teh beginning of vertebrates.


Zebrafish inner ear

dhw: I am always struck by the fact that so many researchers emphasize the manner in which cells cooperate to create new structures. Thank you for two more quotes for the collection:

“The inner ear is a model for how cells work together to make complex structures that are needed for organisms to function."

“Our work shows a new way of doing things," Megason said, adding that he hopes it will encourage people to consider additional mechanisms that may be involved in shaping tissues. Cells have to use many different forces in order to accomplish what they need to.”

Of course they do automatically as controlled by DNA instructions

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 14:03 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'll remind you as before, we individually imagine God. I see your God as much weaker than mine. Our living system in my view is the only one available. You know I'm wrong?

dhw: Of course I don’t know, and nor do you. I just have a feeling that a God who designs and gets what he wants must be stronger than a God who knows what he wants but can’t get it. Your God, according to you, tried but sometimes failed to correct the errors, which suggests to me that he didn’t want them.

DAVID: All we can assume, since this living system works for the enormous majority of us, either designed by chance or by God, it is the only one available that works! There is no theodicy discussion for chance.

If your God exists, how can you possibly make assumptions about what he is and is not capable of? You assume that he is all-powerful, and then you assume that he can’t correct some of the mistakes that result from the system he designed! I don’t know why you mention theodicy, which concerns the problem of how an all-good God can create evil. Of course there is no theodicy discussion if the creator is chance!

A cell repair design
DAVID: See today's entry on quantum imaginary numbers: materialism is dead.

dhw: I shan’t pretend to understand what this is all about, but please note the quote: “The researchers stressed, however, that their experiment only rules out theories that forgo imaginary numbers if the reigning conventions of quantum mechanics are correct. Most scientists are very confident that this is the case, but this is an important caveat nonetheless.” Have you conducted a poll among scientists and discovered that they all think materialism is dead?

DAVID: If we use imaginary numbers that mathematicians make up to describe the quantum basis of reality, then any form of materialism is dead.

dhw: If we use imaginary properties that atheist scientists make up from combinations of matter and energy, then God is dead.

DAVID: Not comparable. The made-up numbers work, which means reality requires mind.

The authors and you have both used conditional “if” clauses. But you also stated earlier “materialism is dead” without an “if” clause. I asked if you had conducted a a poll among scientists to see if they agree.

T cell
DAVID: The quote refers to cellular apoptosis. All organisms prior to vertebrates had immune systems and vertebrate immune system came from them. Your point is is off base.

dhw: Of course it’s not off base. Clearly if T cells only exist in vertebrates, they were not part of the immune system of earlier life forms, and therefore you cannot say they were there from the beginning. They would have evolved, just as vertebrate structures evolved from invertebrates in what you constantly tell us has been a development from the simple to the complex.

DAVID: We cannot know fossil blood! I agree blood evolved, so you are off point. First early vertebrates are late Cambrian and must have had the precursors of current T cells, from teh beginning of vertebrates.

How can it be off point? Your original statement was that T cells must have been designed from the beginning or we would not have survived infections. I pointed out that they only arrived when vertebrates came into existence, and so now you are telling me that they must have arrived from the beginning of vertebrates. In other words, they were not designed from the beginning, but evolved just as blood and vertebrae evolved!

Zebrafish inner ear
dhw: I am always struck by the fact that so many researchers emphasize the manner in which cells cooperate to create new structures. Thank you for two more quotes for the collection:
“The inner ear is a model for how cells work together to make complex structures that are needed for organisms to function."
“Our work shows a new way of doing things," Megason said, adding that he hopes it will encourage people to consider additional mechanisms that may be involved in shaping tissues. Cells have to use many different forces in order to accomplish what they need to.”

DAVID: Of course they do automatically as controlled by DNA instructions.

I don’t have a problem if you think that, in accordance with the theory of cellular intelligence, the autonomous guiding intelligence of cells is situated within the DNA.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 15:11 (183 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If your God exists, how can you possibly make assumptions about what he is and is not capable of? You assume that he is all-powerful, and then you assume that he can’t correct some of the mistakes that result from the system he designed! I don’t know why you mention theodicy, which concerns the problem of how an all-good God can create evil. Of course there is no theodicy discussion if the creator is chance!

All reasoning about God is circular: we look our reality, assume a creator mind which must be extremely powerful and then decide upon the personality of that mind again based on the good and bad we see.


A cell repair design
DAVID: See today's entry on quantum imaginary numbers: materialism is dead.

DAVID: If we use imaginary numbers that mathematicians make up to describe the quantum basis of reality, then any form of materialism is dead.

dhw: If we use imaginary properties that atheist scientists make up from combinations of matter and energy, then God is dead.

DAVID: Not comparable. The made-up numbers work, which means reality requires mind.

dhw: The authors and you have both used conditional “if” clauses. But you also stated earlier “materialism is dead” without an “if” clause. I asked if you had conducted a a poll among scientists to see if they agree.

ID folks agree with me. We use our minds to find the imaginary numbers that MUST exist for quantum theory to work, which it does. magnificently


T cell
DAVID: The quote refers to cellular apoptosis. All organisms prior to vertebrates had immune systems and vertebrate immune system came from them. Your point is is off base.

dhw: Of course it’s not off base. Clearly if T cells only exist in vertebrates, they were not part of the immune system of earlier life forms, and therefore you cannot say they were there from the beginning. They would have evolved, just as vertebrate structures evolved from invertebrates in what you constantly tell us has been a development from the simple to the complex.

DAVID: We cannot know fossil blood! I agree blood evolved, so you are off point. First early vertebrates are late Cambrian and must have had the precursors of current T cells, from the beginning of vertebrates.

dhw: How can it be off point? Your original statement was that T cells must have been designed from the beginning or we would not have survived infections. I pointed out that they only arrived when vertebrates came into existence, and so now you are telling me that they must have arrived from the beginning of vertebrates. In other words, they were not designed from the beginning, but evolved just as blood and vertebrae evolved!

We actually agree. All steps are designed in my view, remember?


Zebrafish inner ear
dhw: I am always struck by the fact that so many researchers emphasize the manner in which cells cooperate to create new structures. Thank you for two more quotes for the collection:
“The inner ear is a model for how cells work together to make complex structures that are needed for organisms to function."
“Our work shows a new way of doing things," Megason said, adding that he hopes it will encourage people to consider additional mechanisms that may be involved in shaping tissues. Cells have to use many different forces in order to accomplish what they need to.”

DAVID: Of course they do automatically as controlled by DNA instructions.

dhw: I don’t have a problem if you think that, in accordance with the theory of cellular intelligence, the autonomous guiding intelligence of cells is situated within the DNA.

Yes, designed into the DNA

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 11:54 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If your God exists, how can you possibly make assumptions about what he is and is not capable of? You assume that he is all-powerful, and then you assume that he can’t correct some of the mistakes that result from the system he designed! I don’t know why you mention theodicy, which concerns the problem of how an all-good God can create evil. Of course there is no theodicy discussion if the creator is chance!

DAVID: All reasoning about God is circular: we look our reality, assume a creator mind which must be extremely powerful and then decide upon the personality of that mind again based on the good and bad we see.

I proposed a God who designed precisely what he wanted (a free-for-all), and you dismissed such a God as “weak” compared to your version, who tries to correct some of the unwanted errors resulting from his design, but sometimes fails. I suggest that a God who gets precisely what he wanted is STRONGER than a God who doesn’t. Theodicy is irrelevant to this discussion.

A cell repair design
DAVID: See today's entry on quantum imaginary numbers: materialism is dead.
And:
DAVID: If we use imaginary numbers that mathematicians make up to describe the quantum basis of reality, then any form of materialism is dead.

dhw: If we use imaginary properties that atheist scientists make up from combinations of matter and energy, then God is dead.

DAVID: Not comparable. The made-up numbers work, which means reality requires mind.

dhw: The authors and you have both used conditional “if” clauses. But you also stated earlier “materialism is dead” without an “if” clause. I asked if you had conducted a a poll among scientists to see if they agree.

DAVID: ID folks agree with me. We use our minds to find the imaginary numbers that MUST exist for quantum theory to work, which it does. Magnificently

You stated that materialism was dead. Are you now saying that all scientists are now ID-ers?

T cell
DAVID: The quote refers to cellular apoptosis. All organisms prior to vertebrates had immune systems and vertebrate immune system came from them. Your point is is off base.

dhw: Of course it’s not off base. Clearly if T cells only exist in vertebrates, they were not part of the immune system of earlier life forms, and therefore you cannot say they were there from the beginning. They would have evolved, just as vertebrate structures evolved from invertebrates in what you constantly tell us has been a development from the simple to the complex. […]

DAVID: We actually agree. All steps are designed in my view, remember?

I remember you telling us that all steps are designed in advance of their being required, and that therefore T cells must have been there from the beginning. I propose that all steps take place as and when they are required by new conditions. I therefore suggest that T cells would have originated when new life forms (vertebrates) were confronted by new invaders.

Zebrafish inner ear
dhw: I am always struck by the fact that so many researchers emphasize the manner in which cells cooperate to create new structures. Thank you for two more quotes for the collection:
“The inner ear is a model for how cells work together to make complex structures that are needed for organisms to function."
“Our work shows a new way of doing things," Megason said, adding that he hopes it will encourage people to consider additional mechanisms that may be involved in shaping tissues. Cells have to use many different forces in order to accomplish what they need to.”

DAVID: Of course they do automatically as controlled by DNA instructions.

dhw: I don’t have a problem if you think that, in accordance with the theory of cellular intelligence, the autonomous guiding intelligence of cells is situated within the DNA.

DAVID: Yes, designed into the DNA

If I didn’t know you better, I would take this as your agreement that cells are possessed of an autonomous guiding intelligence which is situated within the DNA, with the additional caveat that it was designed by your God. However, no doubt you will withdraw your agreement.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 14:29 (182 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All reasoning about God is circular: we look our reality, assume a creator mind which must be extremely powerful and then decide upon the personality of that mind again based on the good and bad we see.

dhw: I proposed a God who designed precisely what he wanted (a free-for-all), and you dismissed such a God as “weak” compared to your version, who tries to correct some of the unwanted errors resulting from his design, but sometimes fails. I suggest that a God who gets precisely what he wanted is STRONGER than a God who doesn’t. Theodicy is irrelevant to this discussion.


Your answer is to look at results without considering personality which leads to God's desires. No wonder we differ.


A cell repair design

DAVID: ID folks agree with me. We use our minds to find the imaginary numbers that MUST exist for quantum theory to work, which it does. Magnificently

dhw: You stated that materialism was dead. Are you now saying that all scientists are now ID-ers?

Of course not. The point is still imaginary (mental) numbers are required. Pure materiAL ism is dead.


T cell
DAVID: The quote refers to cellular apoptosis. All organisms prior to vertebrates had immune systems and vertebrate immune system came from them. Your point is is off base.

dhw: Of course it’s not off base. Clearly if T cells only exist in vertebrates, they were not part of the immune system of earlier life forms, and therefore you cannot say they were there from the beginning. They would have evolved, just as vertebrate structures evolved from invertebrates in what you constantly tell us has been a development from the simple to the complex. […]

DAVID: We actually agree. All steps are designed in my view, remember?

dhw: I remember you telling us that all steps are designed in advance of their being required, and that therefore T cells must have been there from the beginning. I propose that all steps take place as and when they are required by new conditions. I therefore suggest that T cells would have originated when new life forms (vertebrates) were confronted by new invaders.

And my point is T cells probably existed before vertebrates arrived, and designed to prevent infection


Zebrafish inner ear

DAVID: Of course they do automatically as controlled by DNA instructions.

dhw: I don’t have a problem if you think that, in accordance with the theory of cellular intelligence, the autonomous guiding intelligence of cells is situated within the DNA.

DAVID: Yes, designed into the DNA

dhw: If I didn’t know you better, I would take this as your agreement that cells are possessed of an autonomous guiding intelligence which is situated within the DNA, with the additional caveat that it was designed by your God. However, no doubt you will withdraw your agreement.

Why withdraw? The intelligence cells exhibit is from God's instructions in the genome.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Thursday, December 30, 2021, 12:59 (181 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All reasoning about God is circular: we look our reality, assume a creator mind which must be extremely powerful and then decide upon the personality of that mind again based on the good and bad we see.

dhw: I proposed a God who designed precisely what he wanted (a free-for-all), and you dismissed such a God as “weak” compared to your version, who tries to correct some of the unwanted errors resulting from his design, but sometimes fails. I suggest that a God who gets precisely what he wanted is STRONGER than a God who doesn’t. Theodicy is irrelevant to this discussion.

DAVID: Your answer is to look at results without considering personality which leads to God's desires. No wonder we differ.

One moment you moan that my interpretation of your God’s actions “humanizes” him, and the next moment you’re telling me that I don’t consider his personality! How do you consider personality without “humanizing”? In any case, the ONLY way we can extrapolate a notion of your God’s personality is through the “results”, i.e. the history of life. So now will you please explain why a God who designs precisely the system that he wants to design is weaker than a God who designs a system containing errors which he doesn’t want and which he tries – sometimes in vain – to correct.

A cell repair design
DAVID: ID folks agree with me. We use our minds to find the imaginary numbers that MUST exist for quantum theory to work, which it does. Magnificently

dhw: You stated that materialism was dead. Are you now saying that all scientists are now ID-ers?

DAVID: Of course not. The point is still imaginary (mental) numbers are required. Pure materiALism is dead.

Please explain the difference between materialism and pure materialism, and why some scientists don’t believe in God in spite of imaginary numbers.

T cell
DAVID: […] All organisms prior to vertebrates had immune systems and vertebrate immune system came from them. Your point is is off base.

dhw: Of course it’s not off base. Clearly if T cells only exist in vertebrates, they were not part of the immune system of earlier life forms, and therefore you cannot say they were there from the beginning. They would have evolved, just as vertebrate structures evolved from invertebrates in what you constantly tell us has been a development from the simple to the complex. […]

DAVID: We actually agree. All steps are designed in my view, remember?

dhw: I remember you telling us that all steps are designed in advance of their being required, and that therefore T cells must have been there from the beginning. I propose that all steps take place as and when they are required by new conditions. I therefore suggest that T cells would have originated when new life forms (vertebrates) were confronted by new invaders.

DAVID: And my point is T cells probably existed before vertebrates arrived, and designed to prevent infection.

We know the purpose of the immune system. Your point was that T cells must have been there “from the beginning”. I proposed that they evolved, along with vertebrae, when they were needed to combat new infections. All part of evolution’s development from comparatively simple to extremely complex. All the websites I have looked at tell us that T cells originate in the bone marrow. How, then, could they have originated in organisms without bones?

Zebrafish inner ear

On the subject of cells cooperating and using different forces:
DAVID: Of course they do automatically as controlled by DNA instructions.

dhw: I don’t have a problem if you think that, in accordance with the theory of cellular intelligence, the autonomous guiding intelligence of cells is situated within the DNA.

DAVID: Yes, designed into the DNA

dhw: If I didn’t know you better, I would take this as your agreement that cells are possessed of an autonomous guiding intelligence which is situated within the DNA, with the additional caveat that it was designed by your God. However, no doubt you will withdraw your agreement.

DAVID: Why withdraw? The intelligence cells exhibit is from God's instructions in the genome.

Do you mean that God tells all cells what to do at all times, or do you mean that his “instructions” have created the autonomous (i.e. information-processing, communicative, decision-making) intelligence I referred to in the passage you agreed with?

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 30, 2021, 14:49 (181 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your answer is to look at results without considering personality which leads to God's desires. No wonder we differ.

dhw: One moment you moan that my interpretation of your God’s actions “humanizes” him, and the next moment you’re telling me that I don’t consider his personality! How do you consider personality without “humanizing”? In any case, the ONLY way we can extrapolate a notion of your God’s personality is through the “results”, i.e. the history of life. So now will you please explain why a God who designs precisely the system that he wants to design is weaker than a God who designs a system containing errors which he doesn’t want and which he tries – sometimes in vain – to correct.

You are avoiding my contention that God created the only working system that could be created, strength or weakness not involved. The God I believe in knows exactly what He wants to create and controls all creation. A strongly purposeful God.


A cell repair design

DAVID: Of course not. The point is still imaginary (mental) numbers are required. Pure materialism is dead.

dhw: Please explain the difference between materialism and pure materialism,

no difference.

dhw: and why some scientists don’t believe in God in spite of imaginary numbers.

The same as you are agnostic.


T cell
DAVID: […] All organisms prior to vertebrates had immune systems and vertebrate immune system came from them. Your point is is off base.

dhw: Of course it’s not off base. Clearly if T cells only exist in vertebrates, they were not part of the immune system of earlier life forms, and therefore you cannot say they were there from the beginning. They would have evolved, just as vertebrate structures evolved from invertebrates in what you constantly tell us has been a development from the simple to the complex. […]

DAVID: We actually agree. All steps are designed in my view, remember?

dhw: I remember you telling us that all steps are designed in advance of their being required, and that therefore T cells must have been there from the beginning. I propose that all steps take place as and when they are required by new conditions. I therefore suggest that T cells would have originated when new life forms (vertebrates) were confronted by new invaders.

DAVID: And my point is T cells probably existed before vertebrates arrived, and designed to prevent infection.

dhw: We know the purpose of the immune system. Your point was that T cells must have been there “from the beginning”. I proposed that they evolved, along with vertebrae, when they were needed to combat new infections. All part of evolution’s development from comparatively simple to extremely complex. All the websites I have looked at tell us that T cells originate in the bone marrow. How, then, could they have originated in organisms without bones?

Even lobsters (no bones) must have had some form of immunity. Being alive requires it.


Zebrafish inner ear

On the subject of cells cooperating and using different forces:
DAVID: Of course they do automatically as controlled by DNA instructions.

dhw: I don’t have a problem if you think that, in accordance with the theory of cellular intelligence, the autonomous guiding intelligence of cells is situated within the DNA.

DAVID: Yes, designed into the DNA

dhw: If I didn’t know you better, I would take this as your agreement that cells are possessed of an autonomous guiding intelligence which is situated within the DNA, with the additional caveat that it was designed by your God. However, no doubt you will withdraw your agreement.

DAVID: Why withdraw? The intelligence cells exhibit is from God's instructions in the genome.

dhw: Do you mean that God tells all cells what to do at all times, or do you mean that his “instructions” have created the autonomous (i.e. information-processing, communicative, decision-making) intelligence I referred to in the passage you agreed with?

Yes, the genome instructions do all of that with automatic decision-making.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Friday, December 31, 2021, 13:46 (180 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your answer is to look at results without considering personality which leads to God's desires. No wonder we differ.

dhw: One moment you moan that my interpretation of your God’s actions “humanizes” him, and the next moment you’re telling me that I don’t consider his personality! How do you consider personality without “humanizing”? In any case, the ONLY way we can extrapolate a notion of your God’s personality is through the “results”, i.e. the history of life. So now will you please explain why a God who designs precisely the system that he wants to design is weaker than a God who designs a system containing errors which he doesn’t want and which he tries – sometimes in vain – to correct.

DAVID: You are avoiding my contention that God created the only working system that could be created, strength or weakness not involved. The God I believe in knows exactly what He wants to create and controls all creation. A strongly purposeful God.

I am not avoiding your contention – I am challenging it! I am suggesting that an all-powerful God may have WANTED what you call “errors” which he was unable to control! If he exists, then of course he knows what he wants. In this particular context (remember, I offer alternatives), my strongly purposeful God intentionally designs what you call “errors” and what I call a free-for-all. Why is a God who can’t control “errors” stronger than a God who deliberately designs a free-for-all?

A cell repair design
DAVID: The point is still imaginary (mental) numbers are required. Pure materialism is dead.
dhw: Please explain the difference between materialism and pure materialism...

DAVID: no difference.

dhw: ...and why some scientists don’t believe in God in spite of imaginary numbers.

DAVID: The same as you are agnostic.

So materialism is not dead. End of discussion, I trust.

T cell
dhw: I remember you telling us that all steps are designed in advance of their being required, and that therefore T cells must have been there from the beginning. I propose that all steps take place as and when they are required by new conditions. I therefore suggest that T cells would have originated when new life forms (vertebrates) were confronted by new invaders.

DAVID: And my point is T cells probably existed before vertebrates arrived, and designed to prevent infection.

dhw: We know the purpose of the immune system. Your point was that T cells must have been there “from the beginning”. I proposed that they evolved, along with vertebrae, when they were needed to combat new infections. All part of evolution’s development from comparatively simple to extremely complex. All the websites I have looked at tell us that T cells originate in the bone marrow. How, then, could they have originated in organisms without bones?

DAVID: Even lobsters (no bones) must have had some form of immunity. Being alive requires it.

Of course all life forms must have had some form of immunity. But the article was about T cells. In your obsession with your theory that your God has in advance provided a programme for every undabbled step in evolution, you claimed that T cells must have been there from the beginning. They obviously weren’t.

Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: The intelligence cells exhibit is from God's instructions in the genome.

dhw: Do you mean that God tells all cells what to do at all times, or do you mean that his “instructions” have created the autonomous (i.e. information-processing, communicative, decision-making) intelligence I referred to in the passage you agreed with?

DAVID: Yes, the genome instructions do all of that with automatic decision-making.

So we are back to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single undabbled phase of evolution, life style, natural wonder, solution of all problems created by all environmental changes and all “errors” arising from the system which your God designed, apart from those he couldn’t solve and left to us to work out.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Friday, December 31, 2021, 20:22 (180 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are avoiding my contention that God created the only working system that could be created, strength or weakness not involved. The God I believe in knows exactly what He wants to create and controls all creation. A strongly purposeful God.

dhw: I am not avoiding your contention – I am challenging it! I am suggesting that an all-powerful God may have WANTED what you call “errors” which he was unable to control! If he exists, then of course he knows what he wants. In this particular context (remember, I offer alternatives), my strongly purposeful God intentionally designs what you call “errors” and what I call a free-for-all. Why is a God who can’t control “errors” stronger than a God who deliberately designs a free-for-all?

As before it shows we think of two different kinds of God. I believe in my kind and believe your is very humanized.


T cell

dhw: We know the purpose of the immune system. Your point was that T cells must have been there “from the beginning”. I proposed that they evolved, along with vertebrae, when they were needed to combat new infections. All part of evolution’s development from comparatively simple to extremely complex. All the websites I have looked at tell us that T cells originate in the bone marrow. How, then, could they have originated in organisms without bones?

DAVID: Even lobsters (no bones) must have had some form of immunity. Being alive requires it.

Of course all life forms must have had some form of immunity. But the article was about T cells. In your obsession with your theory that your God has in advance provided a programme for every undabbled step in evolution, you claimed that T cells must have been there from the beginning. They obviously weren’t.

As I noted they were designed from previous editions.


Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: The intelligence cells exhibit is from God's instructions in the genome.

dhw: Do you mean that God tells all cells what to do at all times, or do you mean that his “instructions” have created the autonomous (i.e. information-processing, communicative, decision-making) intelligence I referred to in the passage you agreed with?

DAVID: Yes, the genome instructions do all of that with automatic decision-making.

dhw: So we are back to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single undabbled phase of evolution, life style, natural wonder, solution of all problems created by all environmental changes and all “errors” arising from the system which your God designed, apart from those he couldn’t solve and left to us to work out.

I won't leave the position of a designer did the work

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 11:45 (180 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are avoiding my contention that God created the only working system that could be created, strength or weakness not involved. The God I believe in knows exactly what He wants to create and controls all creation. A strongly purposeful God.

dhw: I am not avoiding your contention – I am challenging it! I am suggesting that an all-powerful God may have WANTED what you call “errors” which he was unable to control! If he exists, then of course he knows what he wants. In this particular context (remember, I offer alternatives), my strongly purposeful God intentionally designs what you call “errors” and what I call a free-for-all. Why is a God who can’t control “errors” stronger than a God who deliberately designs a free-for-all?

DAVID: As before it shows we think of two different kinds of God. I believe in my kind and believe your is very humanized.

And still you haven’t explained why a God who designs what he wants to design is “weaker” than a God who can’t control errors resulting from the system he designed. I would even go so far as to suggest that a God who can’t control errors is more “humanized” than a God who always gets exactly what he wants.

T cell
dhw: We know the purpose of the immune system. Your point was that T cells must have been there “from the beginning”. I proposed that they evolved, along with vertebrae, when they were needed to combat new infections. All part of evolution’s development from comparatively simple to extremely complex. All the websites I have looked at tell us that T cells originate in the bone marrow. How, then, could they have originated in organisms without bones?

DAVID: Even lobsters (no bones) must have had some form of immunity. Being alive requires it.

dhw: Of course all life forms must have had some form of immunity. But the article was about T cells. In your obsession with your theory that your God has in advance provided a programme for every undabbled step in evolution, you claimed that T cells must have been there from the beginning. They obviously weren’t.

DAVID: As I noted they were designed from previous editions.

It is the nature of evolution that all forms develop from preceding forms. That applies to different types of cell as it does to different species of animal. How many brain cells does a bacterium have??? The whale and homo sapiens also developed from “previous editions”, but that doesn’t mean they were there “from the beginning”!

Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: The intelligence cells exhibit is from God's instructions in the genome.

dhw: Do you mean that God tells all cells what to do at all times, or do you mean that his “instructions” have created the autonomous (i.e. information-processing, communicative, decision-making) intelligence I referred to in the passage you agreed with?

DAVID: Yes, the genome instructions do all of that with automatic decision-making.

dhw: So we are back to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single undabbled phase of evolution, life style, natural wonder, solution of all problems created by all environmental changes and all “errors” arising from the system which your God designed, apart from those he couldn’t solve and left to us to work out.

DAVID: I won't leave the position of a designer did the work.

I am not asking you to. The two questions under discussion are how and why he “did the work”. According to you, he issued instructions as above (through a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or through personal dabbling). The proposal that he gave life forms autonomous intelligence to do their own designing does not in any way require you to abandon your belief in a designer. But it would relieve you of the need to dodge awkward questions about the how and the why!

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 15:42 (179 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As before it shows we think of two different kinds of God. I believe in my kind and believe yours is very humanized.

dhw: And still you haven’t explained why a God who designs what he wants to design is “weaker” than a God who can’t control errors resulting from the system he designed. I would even go so far as to suggest that a God who can’t control errors is more “humanized” than a God who always gets exactly what he wants.

My point, you avoid, is God developed the only system that would work recognizing warts and all. The very complex editing systems He provided show that. Deigning a universe that can contain life. providing a planet that can support life shows very precise purpose, while you version of life weakly gives up control.


T cell

dhw: Of course all life forms must have had some form of immunity. But the article was about T cells. In your obsession with your theory that your God has in advance provided a programme for every undabbled step in evolution, you claimed that T cells must have been there from the beginning. They obviously weren’t.

DAVID: As I noted they were designed from previous editions.

dhw: It is the nature of evolution that all forms develop from preceding forms. That applies to different types of cell as it does to different species of animal. How many brain cells does a bacterium have??? The whale and homo sapiens also developed from “previous editions”, but that doesn’t mean they were there “from the beginning”!

This whole discussion is a tempest in a tea pot. Evolution by God's design is stepwise from simple to complex. All required for that stage is complete from the beginning.


Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: The intelligence cells exhibit is from God's instructions in the genome.

dhw: Do you mean that God tells all cells what to do at all times, or do you mean that his “instructions” have created the autonomous (i.e. information-processing, communicative, decision-making) intelligence I referred to in the passage you agreed with?

DAVID: Yes, the genome instructions do all of that with automatic decision-making.

dhw: So we are back to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single undabbled phase of evolution, life style, natural wonder, solution of all problems created by all environmental changes and all “errors” arising from the system which your God designed, apart from those he couldn’t solve and left to us to work out.

DAVID: I won't leave the position of a designer did the work.

dhw: I am not asking you to. The two questions under discussion are how and why he “did the work”. According to you, he issued instructions as above (through a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or through personal dabbling). The proposal that he gave life forms autonomous intelligence to do their own designing does not in any way require you to abandon your belief in a designer. But it would relieve you of the need to dodge awkward questions about the how and the why!

I've admitted I do not know how much design was pre-planned and how much intervention was required along the way. If a designer God is accepted it doesn't matter. Your secondhand form of God letting organ isms do their own thing has no purposeful direction, and resultant humans would be a very surprising outcome, which is Adler's point. Darwin's chance appearance of us is a preposterous assumption.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Sunday, January 02, 2022, 11:13 (179 days ago) @ David Turell

Once more we've digressed from the actual subject of this thread, but no doubt we shall return to it!

dhw: […] still you haven’t explained why a God who designs what he wants to design is “weaker” than a God who can’t control errors resulting from the system he designed. I would even go so far as to suggest that a God who can’t control errors is more “humanized” than a God who always gets exactly what he wants.

DAVID: My point, you avoid, is God developed the only system that would work recognizing warts and all. The very complex editing systems He provided show that. Deigning a universe that can contain life. providing a planet that can support life shows very precise purpose, while you version of life weakly gives up control.

And you still haven’t explained why a God who gets what he wants is weaker than a God who gets things he doesn’t want. I do not avoid your point. I challenge it! I do not believe that your all-powerful God was incapable of designing a system without errors, and was incapable of correcting some of those errors but left it to us to do so. Of course if God exists, he would have had a purpose for designing the universe and life! So please tell us his purpose, not only for designing humans plus their food, but also for designing every extinct life form that had no connection with humans plus their food.

T cell
DAVID: This whole discussion is a tempest in a tea pot. Evolution by God's design is stepwise from simple to complex. All required for that stage is complete from the beginning.

This discussion centres on your contention that your God designed the whole of evolution in advance “from the beginning”, with every solution and innovation created in advance of the problems and changing conditions that necessitated or allowed for change. How can the immune system of humans, including their T cells, have been “complete from the beginning” when the only life forms were single-celled bacteria?

Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: I won't leave the position of a designer did the work.

dhw: I am not asking you to. The two questions under discussion are how and why he “did the work”. According to you, he issued instructions […] (through a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or through personal dabbling). The proposal that he gave life forms autonomous intelligence to do their own designing does not in any way require you to abandon your belief in a designer. But it would relieve you of the need to dodge awkward questions about the how and the why!

DAVID: I've admitted I do not know how much design was pre-planned and how much intervention was required along the way. If a designer God is accepted it doesn't matter.

Agreed, except that if intervention was “required”, it suggests that your God had to respond to new conditions, which suggests that he had not got everything planned “from the beginning”.

DAVID: Your secondhand form of God letting organisms do their own thing has no purposeful direction, and resultant humans would be a very surprising outcome, which is Adler's point. Darwin's chance appearance of us is a preposterous assumption.

We have both dismissed the concept of random mutations as the cause of all the complexities of life. I’ve asked you above to explain the “purposeful direction” of humans plus food, as well as ALL other forms of life that had no connection with humans. Isn’t the brontosaurus, for example, a very surprising outcome from the merging of the original cells with which life began? Every single “natural wonder” that you have recorded for us is a surprising outcome. Yes, humans with our extraordinary levels of conscious are extra surprising, but so is the whole of life. However, perhaps you will finally inform us of your purposeful God’s purpose in creating not only humans, but ALL forms of life, plus all the econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders that had no connection with humans.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 02, 2022, 15:54 (178 days ago) @ dhw

Once more we've digressed from the actual subject of this thread, but no doubt we shall return to it!

DAVID: My point, you avoid, is God developed the only system that would work recognizing warts and all. The very complex editing systems He provided show that. Deigning a universe that can contain life. providing a planet that can support life shows very precise purpose, while you version of life weakly gives up control.

dhw: And you still haven’t explained why a God who gets what he wants is weaker than a God who gets things he doesn’t want. I do not avoid your point. I challenge it! I do not believe that your all-powerful God was incapable of designing a system without errors, and was incapable of correcting some of those errors but left it to us to do so. Of course if God exists, he would have had a purpose for designing the universe and life! So please tell us his purpose, not only for designing humans plus their food, but also for designing every extinct life form that had no connection with humans plus their food.

The bold is your invention of a concept of God that assumes He can do anything. My approach is exactly the same but my theory also notes that He presented the only working system available. And that concept is strongly supported by all the editing systems built in by God who knew of the problem! As for humans, He obviously wanted to create an organism with consciousness.


T cell
DAVID: This whole discussion is a tempest in a tea pot. Evolution by God's design is stepwise from simple to complex. All required for that stage is complete from the beginning.

dhw: This discussion centres on your contention that your God designed the whole of evolution in advance “from the beginning”, with every solution and innovation created in advance of the problems and changing conditions that necessitated or allowed for change. How can the immune system of humans, including their T cells, have been “complete from the beginning” when the only life forms were single-celled bacteria?

Strange comment. Remember I think species were designed prepared for their existence. All forms after bacteria are more complex in stages, but bacteria had much of the necessary cellular biochemistry needed to go forward with more complex designs.


Zebrafish inner ear

DAVID: I've admitted I do not know how much design was pre-planned and how much intervention was required along the way. If a designer God is accepted it doesn't matter.

dhw: Agreed, except that if intervention was “required”, it suggests that your God had to respond to new conditions, which suggests that he had not got everything planned “from the beginning”.

God may have changed the conditions Himself. Schroeder wondered if God threw Chixculub


DAVID: Your secondhand form of God letting organisms do their own thing has no purposeful direction, and resultant humans would be a very surprising outcome, which is Adler's point. Darwin's chance appearance of us is a preposterous assumption.

dhw: We have both dismissed the concept of random mutations as the cause of all the complexities of life. I’ve asked you above to explain the “purposeful direction” of humans plus food, as well as ALL other forms of life that had no connection with humans. Isn’t the brontosaurus, for example, a very surprising outcome from the merging of the original cells with which life began? Every single “natural wonder” that you have recorded for us is a surprising outcome. Yes, humans with our extraordinary levels of conscious are extra surprising, but so is the whole of life. However, perhaps you will finally inform us of your purposeful God’s purpose in creating not only humans, but ALL forms of life, plus all the econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders that had no connection with humans.

I don't know God's mind and thinking for purposes, so I look at the results and reach the obvious conclusion, all that is here is what He wanted. I know you can't tell me His underlying thoughts either, but I'll ask the same of you. Posing as a sort-of theist what were God's purposes?

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Monday, January 03, 2022, 13:26 (177 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not believe that your all-powerful God was incapable of designing a system without errors, and was incapable of correcting some of those errors but left it to us to do so.

Under “How cells eat and poop”:
QUOTE: "The way cells consume and expel vesicles plays a key role for living organisms. The process helps clear bad cholesterol from blood; it also transmits neural signals. The process is known to break down in several diseases, including cancer and Alzheimer's disease."

These, I take it, are some of the “errors” your God was unable to avoid and also unable to correct.

DAVID: The bold is your invention of a concept of God that assumes He can do anything. My approach is exactly the same but my theory also notes that He presented the only working system available. And that concept is strongly supported by all the editing systems built in by God who knew of the problem!

So your approach is that he is all-powerful, can do anything, but is incapable of designing a system without errors and is incapable of correcting some of the errors his design has produced. And this apparently makes him stronger than my proposed God, who deliberately created the system in such a way that cells would be flexible enough to vary their nature in pursuit of their own survival.

T cells
dhw: How can the immune system of humans, including their T cells, have been “complete from the beginning” when the only life forms were single-celled bacteria?

DAVID: Strange comment. Remember I think species were designed prepared for their existence. All forms after bacteria are more complex in stages, but bacteria had much of the necessary cellular biochemistry needed to go forward with more complex designs.

I propose that the first cells had the mechanism needed to produce all the innovations that led from them to worms, dinosaurs, humans and the duck-billed platypus: namely the flexibility and intelligence to change their structure in cooperation with other cells and in response to changing conditions. Once more: single-celled bacteria did not have T cells. I propose that these evolved when vertebrates first came on the scene, and new solutions were required by the arrival of new problems, thus mirroring the whole course of evolution.

Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: I've admitted I do not know how much design was pre-planned and how much intervention was required along the way. If a designer God is accepted it doesn't matter.

dhw: Agreed, except that if intervention was “required”, it suggests that your God had to respond to new conditions, which suggests that he had not got everything planned “from the beginning”.

DAVID: God may have changed the conditions Himself. Schroeder wondered if God threw Chixculub.

Agreed. I offered the same example. Did Schroeder and do you believe God planned Chixculub “from the beginning”, or could it be that as evolution progressed, God decided to change its course…sort of learning as he went along, or losing interest in what then existed and looking to create something different?

dhw: Yes, humans with our extraordinary levels of conscious are extra surprising, but so is the whole of life. However, perhaps you will finally inform us of your purposeful God’s purpose in creating not only humans, but ALL forms of life, plus all the econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: I don't know God's mind and thinking for purposes, so I look at the results and reach the obvious conclusion, all that is here is what He wanted.

Except of course for the errors in his system, which he didn’t want because he tried and sometimes failed to correct them. And let us not forget all that WAS here, which would also have been what he wanted, and which had no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: I know you can't tell me His underlying thoughts either, but I'll ask the same of you. Posing as a sort-of theist what were God's purposes?

Why won’t you tell us your own thoughts? You were not so coy in the past: as regards humans, you suggested that he may have wanted us to recognize his work and to form a relationship with him, and you were certain that he enjoyed creating things and watched his creations with interest. But then you realized that all this rather knocked on the head your silly objections to my own proposals as “humanizing” him. However, I agree with you. If he watches his creations with interest, I suggest his purpose may have been to provide himself with something interesting to watch, added to the enjoyment of creation. And I would further suggest that it is far more interesting to watch events that are unpredictable than to know in advance exactly what is going to happen. Hence the free-for-all, with the vast variety of wonders, as all the different life forms work out their own ways of survival. But maybe an occasional dabble (Chixculub, or the Cambrian) when the spectacle could do with a bit of new life. It all fits in perfectly with the history of life, don’t you think? But so too does experimentation, to try and create a life form with consciousness more like his own, or experimentation to find out what will happen if…

Your turn now.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Monday, January 03, 2022, 20:39 (177 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I do not believe that your all-powerful God was incapable of designing a system without errors, and was incapable of correcting some of those errors but left it to us to do so.

DAVID: The bold is your invention of a concept of God that assumes He can do anything. My approach is exactly the same but my theory also notes that He presented the only working system available. And that concept is strongly supported by all the editing systems built in by God who knew of the problem!

dhw: So your approach is that he is all-powerful, can do anything, but is incapable of designing a system without errors and is incapable of correcting some of the errors his design has produced. And this apparently makes him stronger than my proposed God, who deliberately created the system in such a way that cells would be flexible enough to vary their nature in pursuit of their own survival.

My purposeful God is way stronger than your humanized one as previously explained. Why can't you accept my theory that this is the only form of life system to an all-powerful God. If God can do anything He wants, and this is what He produced to create life, this must be the only way possible. Defy that logic!


T cells
dhw: How can the immune system of humans, including their T cells, have been “complete from the beginning” when the only life forms were single-celled bacteria?

DAVID: Strange comment. Remember I think species were designed prepared for their existence. All forms after bacteria are more complex in stages, but bacteria had much of the necessary cellular biochemistry needed to go forward with more complex designs.

dhw: I propose that the first cells had the mechanism needed to produce all the innovations that led from them to worms, dinosaurs, humans and the duck-billed platypus: namely the flexibility and intelligence to change their structure in cooperation with other cells and in response to changing conditions. Once more: single-celled bacteria did not have T cells. I propose that these evolved when vertebrates first came on the scene, and new solutions were required by the arrival of new problems, thus mirroring the whole course of evolution.

Crazy idea. Before vertebrates evolved earlier forms must have had precursor forms of T cells or an equivalent. All earlier forms had immune systems.


Zebrafish inner ear

dhw: Agreed, except that if intervention was “required”, it suggests that your God had to respond to new conditions, which suggests that he had not got everything planned “from the beginning”.

DAVID: God may have changed the conditions Himself. Schroeder wondered if God threw Chixculub.

Agreed. I offered the same example. Did Schroeder and do you believe God planned Chixculub “from the beginning”, or could it be that as evolution progressed, God decided to change its course…sort of learning as he went along, or losing interest in what then existed and looking to create something different?

If God used Chixculub He had it as part of His plan.


DAVID: I know you can't tell me His underlying thoughts either, but I'll ask the same of you. Posing as a sort-of theist what were God's purposes?

dhw: I agree with you. If he watches his creations with interest, I suggest his purpose may have been to provide himself with something interesting to watch, added to the enjoyment of creation. And I would further suggest that it is far more interesting to watch events that are unpredictable than to know in advance exactly what is going to happen.

All humanizing approaches to an imagined God. God is above needing enjoyments, tantalizing events for entertainment. God knows what He wants and does it with purpose.

dhw: Hence the free-for-all, with the vast variety of wonders, as all the different life forms work out their own ways of survival. But maybe an occasional dabble (Chixculub, or the Cambrian) when the spectacle could do with a bit of new life. It all fits in perfectly with the history of life, don’t you think? But so too does experimentation, to try and create a life form with consciousness more like his own, or experimentation to find out what will happen if…

Your turn now.

God knows exactly what He wants and does it without requiring any human needs for His enjoyment or entertainment. He creates by using a stepwise form of evolution as we interpret it. All goals are known in advance to Him. All goals are shown in historical endpoints. Usual note. I don't know why He picked the goals He picked, but you constantly demand guesswork, which makes it your problem.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 12:40 (175 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not believe that your all-powerful God was incapable of designing a system without errors, and was incapable of correcting some of those errors but left it to us to do so.

dhw: Under “How cells eat and poop”:
QUOTE: " The process is known to break down in several diseases, including cancer and Alzheimer's disease."

dhw: These, I take it, are some of the “errors” your God was unable to avoid and also unable to correct.

No comment from you.

DAVID: My purposeful God is way stronger than your humanized one as previously explained. Why can't you accept my theory that this is the only form of life system to an all-powerful God. If God can do anything He wants, and this is what He produced to create life, this must be the only way possible. Defy that logic!

What logic? If God can do anything he wants, then if he wanted an error-free system, he would have created it!!! The logic here is that if he could do anything he wanted, this must have been the system he wanted. So maybe the “errors” you say he didn’t want and couldn’t correct were not “errors” and he didn’t want to fix them. Maybe he wanted cells to be free, and what you call the “editing systems” are simply the responses of what we call good cells as they fight for survival against what we call bad cells.

How cells save proteins
QUOTE: […] "This shift can "clear up" the toxic proteins before their toxicity levels get too high.

DAVID: more proof of God's error editing processes showing He recognized errors could happen. dhw's complaints are not logical.

Or more proof that if God exists, he gave “good” cells the wherewithal to design their own defences against “bad” invaders. See above for your strange concept of logic.

T cells
dhw: I propose that these evolved when vertebrates first came on the scene, and new solutions were required by the arrival of new problems, thus mirroring the whole course of evolution.

DAVID: Crazy idea. Before vertebrates evolved earlier forms must have had precursor forms of T cells or an equivalent. All earlier forms had immune systems.

Of course they did. And evolution is the history of how comparatively simple forms, including immune systems, developed into comparatively complex forms, as cells developed new responses to new challenges. Bones, brains, penises and T cells were not “complete from the beginning”. I suggest that what was there “at the beginning” was the (perhaps God-given) mechanism that would produce them all.

Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: If God used Chixculub He had it as part of His plan.

So do you believe he planned every change in environmental conditions, global and local, and every response, species, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder, and problem plus solution right at the very beginning? Never dabbled because he had a new idea? Or because new conditions required his intervention?

DAVID: I know you can't tell me His underlying thoughts either, but I'll ask the same of you. Posing as a sort-of theist what were God's purposes?

dhw: If he watches his creations with interest, I suggest his purpose may have been to provide himself with something interesting to watch, added to the enjoyment of creation. And I would further suggest that it is far more interesting to watch events that are unpredictable than to know in advance exactly what is going to happen.

DAVID: All humanizing approaches to an imagined God. God is above needing enjoyments, tantalizing events for entertainment. God knows what He wants and does it with purpose.

Why have you ignored your own past “humanizing” answers? That he perhaps wanted us humans to recognize his work and form a relationship with him, that he enjoys creating, that he watches his creations with interest? Of course if he exists, he knows what he wants and does it with purpose. So once more, if you wish to ignore your own past statements, please tell us now what you think was his purpose in creating humans, and in the light of your later talk of plural “goals”, what these might have been.

dhw: Hence the free-for-all, with the vast variety of wonders, as all the different life forms work out their own ways of survival. But maybe an occasional dabble (Chixculub, or the Cambrian) when the spectacle could do with a bit of new life. It all fits in perfectly with the history of life, don’t you think? But so too does experimentation, to try and create a life form with consciousness more like his own, or experimentation to find out what will happen if…

DAVID: God knows exactly what He wants and does it without requiring any human needs for His enjoyment or entertainment.

How do you know?

DAVID: All goals are shown in historical endpoints.

What plural “goals”? Every single extinction was an endpoint.

DAVID: Usual note. I don't know why He picked the goals He picked, but you constantly demand guesswork, which makes it your problem.

Please tell us what these goals were! If you can’t tell us what the goals were, or why he chose them, or how they fit in with life’s history, then I suggest that the theory might just possibly be wrong. I don’t see that as my problem!

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 19:44 (175 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My purposeful God is way stronger than your humanized one as previously explained. Why can't you accept my theory that this is the only form of life system to an all-powerful God. If God can do anything He wants, and this is what He produced to create life, this must be the only way possible. Defy that logic!

dhw: What logic? If God can do anything he wants, then if he wanted an error-free system, he would have created it!!! The logic here is that if he could do anything he wanted, this must have been the system he wanted.

The logic follows. An all-powerful God must produce the system according to His analysis that will work. This follows since He is all knowing!!!

dhw: what you call the “editing systems” are simply the responses of what we call good cells as they fight for survival against what we call bad cells.

Remember in my view God designed those cells to be editors to solve error problems. In your quasi-theist approach you recognize all-powerful so you must also recognize all-knowing


T cells
dhw: I propose that these evolved when vertebrates first came on the scene, and new solutions were required by the arrival of new problems, thus mirroring the whole course of evolution.

DAVID: Crazy idea. Before vertebrates evolved earlier forms must have had precursor forms of T cells or an equivalent. All earlier forms had immune systems.

dhw: Of course they did. And evolution is the history of how comparatively simple forms, including immune systems, developed into comparatively complex forms, as cells developed new responses to new challenges. Bones, brains, penises and T cells were not “complete from the beginning”. I suggest that what was there “at the beginning” was the (perhaps God-given) mechanism that would produce them all.

Back to a weak form of God. God designs cells with purposeful duties, but design for future forms is God's role.


Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: If God used Chixculub He had it as part of His plan.

dhw: So do you believe he planned every change in environmental conditions, global and local, and every response, species, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder, and problem plus solution right at the very beginning? Never dabbled because he had a new idea? Or because new conditions required his intervention?

I said if. My position is still an initial program in genome and steps in along the way as necessary. Percentage of either action is unknown.


DAVID: All humanizing approaches to an imagined God. God is above needing enjoyments, tantalizing events for entertainment. God knows what He wants and does it with purpose.

dhw: Why have you ignored your own past “humanizing” answers? That he perhaps wanted us humans to recognize his work and form a relationship with him, that he enjoys creating, that he watches his creations with interest? Of course if he exists, he knows what he wants and does it with purpose. So once more, if you wish to ignore your own past statements, please tell us now what you think was his purpose in creating humans, and in the light of your later talk of plural “goals”, what these might have been.

Back to resurrecting's my guesses. An all-powerful, all-knowing God does not need free-for-alls, entertainment, etc. He creates whatever He wishes for His own reasons and likely watches humans who can do all sorts of surprising things with the God-given free will since they are now unpredictable compared to all previous organisms He designed


DAVID: Usual note. I don't know why He picked the goals He picked, but you constantly demand guesswork, which makes it your problem.

dhw: Please tell us what these goals were! If you can’t tell us what the goals were, or why he chose them, or how they fit in with life’s history, then I suggest that the theory might just possibly be wrong. I don’t see that as my problem!

It is your problem. I accept God's production without question. You want to know His reasoning behind what He created. A guess as above. Humans are unpredictable and they can recognize God exists. Does God need humans? I don't know but He obviously wanted them to exist. I leave it at that

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 11:45 (175 days ago) @ David Turell

We're still mainly on David's theory of evolution rather than cellular intelligence, but I can't telescope the threads yet.

DAVID: My purposeful God is way stronger than your humanized one as previously explained. Why can't you accept my theory that this is the only form of life system to an all-powerful God. If God can do anything He wants, and this is what He produced to create life, this must be the only way possible. Defy that logic!

dhw: What logic? If God can do anything he wants, then if he wanted an error-free system, he would have created it!!! The logic here is that if he could do anything he wanted, this must have been the system he wanted.

DAVID: The logic follows. An all-powerful God must produce the system according to His analysis that will work. This follows since He is all knowing!!!

An all-powerful God will produce the system he wants, and of course it will work. It will work the way he wants it to. He is not forced against his will to use a system that will contain errors which he doesn’t want and which he can’t correct! Ergo, this system with what you call “errors” is what he wanted, and so I suggest they are not “errors” but reflect a built-in freedom to allow for infinite variations, including what we call “good” and “bad” cells.

dhw: ...what you call the “editing systems” are simply the responses of what we call good cells as they fight for survival against what we call bad cells.

DAVID: Remember in my view God designed those cells to be editors to solve error problems. In your quasi-theist approach you recognize all-powerful so you must also recognize all-knowing.

Of course I remember your illogical view that an all-powerful, all-knowing God had no choice but to produce an error-strewn system which he could not control.

T cells
dhw: I propose that these evolved when vertebrates first came on the scene, and new solutions were required by the arrival of new problems, thus mirroring the whole course of evolution.

DAVID: Crazy idea. Before vertebrates evolved earlier forms must have had precursor forms of T cells or an equivalent. All earlier forms had immune systems.

dhw: Of course they did. And evolution is the history of how comparatively simple forms, including immune systems, developed into comparatively complex forms, as cells developed new responses to new challenges. Bones, brains, penises and T cells were not “complete from the beginning”. I suggest that what was there “at the beginning” was the (perhaps God-given) mechanism [cellular flexibility and intelligence] that would produce them all.

DAVID: Back to a weak form of God. God designs cells with purposeful duties, but design for future forms is God's role.

There is nothing “weak” about a God who purposefully provides cells with a mechanism which can produce the vast, increasingly complex bush of life that constitutes evolution’s history. Stop dodging. T cells were not present “at the beginning”.

Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: If God used Chixculub He had it as part of His plan.

dhw: So do you believe he planned every change in environmental conditions, global and local, and every response, species, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder, and problem plus solution right at the very beginning? Never dabbled because he had a new idea? Or because new conditions required his intervention?

DAVID: I said if. My position is still an initial program in genome and steps in along the way as necessary. Percentage of either action is unknown.

So you now leave open the possibility that your God did NOT plan everything in advance, but “stepped in as necessary”. Why would he find it “necessary” to step in if he’d planned us humans right from the beginning and then designed every step himself? With him designing all those life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans plus food, it sounds to me as if he was experimenting or getting new ideas as he went along. He might even have allowed a free-for-all, and then “stepped in” because he didn’t like the direction in which it was heading.

DAVID: All humanizing approaches to an imagined God. God is above needing enjoyments, tantalizing events for entertainment. God knows what He wants and does it with purpose.

dhw: Why have you ignored your own past “humanizing” answers? That he perhaps wanted us humans to recognize his work and form a relationship with him, that he enjoys creating, that he watches his creations with interest? Of course if he exists, he knows what he wants and does it with purpose.

DAVID: Back to resurrecting my guesses. An all-powerful, all-knowing God does not need free-for-alls, entertainment, etc. He creates whatever He wishes for His own reasons and likely watches humans who can do all sorts of surprising things with the God-given free will since they are now unpredictable compared to all previous organisms He designed.

You are gradually beginning to cotton on. An all-powerful God does what he wants. Being all-powerful does not mean not wanting something! Maybe forget the word “need”. You can want something without needing it. So maybe he created surprising, unpredictable humans and “likely watches” them, because he wanted to create something surprising and unpredictable to watch. Ditto the rest of evolution. Welcome to one of my theories.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 15:26 (174 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The logic follows. An all-powerful God must produce the system according to His analysis that will work. This follows since He is all knowing!!!

dhw: An all-powerful God will produce the system he wants, and of course it will work. It will work the way he wants it to. He is not forced against his will to use a system that will contain errors which he doesn’t want and which he can’t correct!

How do you know that! My point is the current system is the only one that will work

dhw: Ergo, this system with what you call “errors” is what he wanted, and so I suggest they are not “errors” but reflect a built-in freedom to allow for infinite variations, including what we call “good” and “bad” cells.

The freedom is the free-floating molecules have the freedom to make mistakes. Not desired by God who designs evolution and added editing systems that work properly at many trillions to one odds.


dhw: Of course I remember your illogical view that an all-powerful, all-knowing God had no choice but to produce an error-strewn system which he could not control.

An all-knowing God knows which system will work and designed it.


T cells

DAVID: Back to a weak form of God. God designs cells with purposeful duties, but design for future forms is God's role.

dhw: There is nothing “weak” about a God who purposefully provides cells with a mechanism which can produce the vast, increasingly complex bush of life that constitutes evolution’s history. Stop dodging. T cells were not present “at the beginning”.

So your God gives up control over advancing evolutions direction. And a repeat: T c ells evolved from previous forms.


Zebrafish inner ear

DAVID: I said if. My position is still an initial program in genome and steps in along the way as necessary. Percentage of either action is unknown.

dhw: So you now leave open the possibility that your God did NOT plan everything in advance, but “stepped in as necessary”. Why would he find it “necessary” to step in if he’d planned us humans right from the beginning and then designed every step himself? With him designing all those life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans plus food, it sounds to me as if he was experimenting or getting new ideas as he went along. He might even have allowed a free-for-all, and then “stepped in” because he didn’t like the direction in which it was heading.

An experimenting God is a weak humanized form. My God sets His goals and designs them step by step.


DAVID: All humanizing approaches to an imagined God. God is above needing enjoyments, tantalizing events for entertainment. God knows what He wants and does it with purpose.

dhw: Why have you ignored your own past “humanizing” answers? That he perhaps wanted us humans to recognize his work and form a relationship with him, that he enjoys creating, that he watches his creations with interest? Of course if he exists, he knows what he wants and does it with purpose.

DAVID: Back to resurrecting my guesses. An all-powerful, all-knowing God does not need free-for-alls, entertainment, etc. He creates whatever He wishes for His own reasons and likely watches humans who can do all sorts of surprising things with the God-given free will since they are now unpredictable compared to all previous organisms He designed.

dhw: You are gradually beginning to cotton on. An all-powerful God does what he wants. Being all-powerful does not mean not wanting something! Maybe forget the word “need”. You can want something without needing it. So maybe he created surprising, unpredictable humans and “likely watches” them, because he wanted to create something surprising and unpredictable to watch. Ditto the rest of evolution. Welcome to one of my theories.

I can't disagree to this form. A God who wanted to design humans is my God, who obviously designed them in stages we call evolution. All 'evolution' is a God plan from its beginning.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Friday, January 07, 2022, 07:36 (174 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The logic follows. An all-powerful God must produce the system according to His analysis that will work. This follows since He is all knowing!!!

dhw: An all-powerful God will produce the system he wants, and of course it will work. It will work the way he wants it to. He is not forced against his will to use a system that will contain errors which he doesn’t want and which he can’t correct!

DAVID: How do you know that! My point is the current system is the only one that will work.

And how do you know that? Neither of us “knows” anything. We can only theorize. But it is absurd to argue that an all-powerful God is incapable of producing a system without errors, let alone errors which he cannot rectify. That means he is not all-powerful. Why won’t you consider the possibility that he IS all-powerful, and designed the system precisely as he WANTED it?

dhw: […] I suggest they are not “errors” but reflect a built-in freedom to allow for infinite variations, including what we call “good” and “bad” cells.

DAVID: The freedom is the free-floating molecules have the freedom to make mistakes. Not desired by God who designs evolution and added editing systems that work properly at many trillions to one odds.

They don’t all work (think of all the diseases), and please tell us how your God can be all-powerful if he has to make a system with errors which he does not desire and can’t correct?

T cells
dhw: There is nothing “weak” about a God who purposefully provides cells with a mechanism which can produce the vast, increasingly complex bush of life that constitutes evolution’s history. Stop dodging. T cells were not present “at the beginning”.

DAVID: So your God gives up control over advancing evolutions direction.

That is the nature of a free-for-all (though he could always dabble if he wanted to.)

DAVID: And a repeat: T cells evolved from previous forms.

Thank you for at last agreeing that T cells were NOT there “at the beginning”, but just like every other organism that was not there at the beginning, they evolved from previous forms.

Biofilms
QUOTES: "[…] Süel proposes that the patterning could be the biofilm diversifying its resilient cells to try to increase its chances of survival.
"While biofilms have been shown to be more complicated in recent years, being capable of forms of memory and long-distance communication, the discovery of complex structures could challenge the assumed divide between simple, unicellular organisms and complex, multicellular ones.

DAVID: As usual I have to reinterpret this in ID terms. The designer preplans for the next stage in complexity and a giant step was multicellularity with sexual reproduction.

Reinterpret it in any terms you like, the fact remains that we have cells combining and communicating for the purpose of survival, which I propose is the pattern that continues throughout evolution. Memory and long-distance communication are essential for such cooperation, and are characteristics of intelligence, no matter how simple it may be by comparison with ours.

Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: An experimenting God is a weak humanized form. My God sets His goals and designs them step by step.

You only allow him ONE goal (all life forms etc. are/were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food), and you have him step by step designing every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. that had no connection with humans plus food. I will never understand why you regard a God who experiments as “weak”, or why you complain if I attribute “human” characteristics to a God who you have said probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, whom we mimic, who loves creating and watches his creations with interest, and perhaps wants us to recognize his work and form a relationship with him.

DAVID: [..] He creates whatever He wishes for His own reasons and likely watches humans who can do all sorts of surprising things with the God-given free will since they are now unpredictable compared to all previous organisms He designed.

dhw: You are gradually beginning to cotton on. An all-powerful God does what he wants. […] So maybe he created surprising, unpredictable humans and “likely watches” them, because he wanted to create something surprising and unpredictable to watch. Ditto the rest of evolution. Welcome to one of my theories.

DAVID: I can't disagree to this form.

I’m delighted to hear it. So please stop this silly “weak”, “humanized” nonsense.

DAVID: A God who wanted to design humans is my God, who obviously designed them in stages we call evolution. All 'evolution' is a God plan from its beginning.

Yes, ALL evolution is what God (if he exists) must have wanted from the beginning. I’m so pleased that you can now accept the possibility that he wanted the whole bush and not just humans plus food, and yes, humans would certainly be the most surprising and unpredictable participants in the 3.8-billion-year-old history.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Friday, January 07, 2022, 14:27 (173 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How do you know that! My point is the current system is the only one that will work.

dhw: And how do you know that? Neither of us “knows” anything. We can only theorize. But it is absurd to argue that an all-powerful God is incapable of producing a system without errors, let alone errors which he cannot rectify. That means he is not all-powerful. Why won’t you consider the possibility that he IS all-powerful, and designed the system precisely as he WANTED it?

I'll be blunt. You do not understand the nuances of the biochemistry that makes us live. It works and does so because trillions of reactions occur every second correctly. Unfortunately the molecules 'know' how to fold and/or join but for speeds sake do it freely, not under tight control. You've again left out all-knowing. Why? God knows what will work and what won't. It certainly works.


Biofilms
QUOTES: "[…] Süel proposes that the patterning could be the biofilm diversifying its resilient cells to try to increase its chances of survival.
"While biofilms have been shown to be more complicated in recent years, being capable of forms of memory and long-distance communication, the discovery of complex structures could challenge the assumed divide between simple, unicellular organisms and complex, multicellular ones.

DAVID: As usual I have to reinterpret this in ID terms. The designer preplans for the next stage in complexity and a giant step was multicellularity with sexual reproduction.

dhw: Reinterpret it in any terms you like, the fact remains that we have cells combining and communicating for the purpose of survival, which I propose is the pattern that continues throughout evolution. Memory and long-distance communication are essential for such cooperation, and are characteristics of intelligence, no matter how simple it may be by comparison with ours.

Yes, cells designed by God to act automatically in just those says.


Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: An experimenting God is a weak humanized form. My God sets His goals and designs them step by step.

dhw: You only allow him ONE goal (all life forms etc. are/were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food), and you have him step by step designing every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. that had no connection with humans plus food. I will never understand why you regard a God who experiments as “weak”, or why you complain if I attribute “human” characteristics to a God who you have said probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, whom we mimic, who loves creating and watches his creations with interest, and perhaps wants us to recognize his work and form a relationship with him.

Same distortion of my guesses about God.


DAVID: [..] He creates whatever He wishes for His own reasons and likely watches humans who can do all sorts of surprising things with the God-given free will since they are now unpredictable compared to all previous organisms He designed.

dhw: You are gradually beginning to cotton on. An all-powerful God does what he wants. […] So maybe he created surprising, unpredictable humans and “likely watches” them, because he wanted to create something surprising and unpredictable to watch. Ditto the rest of evolution. Welcome to one of my theories.

DAVID: I can't disagree to this form.

I’m delighted to hear it. So please stop this silly “weak”, “humanized” nonsense.

DAVID: A God who wanted to design humans is my God, who obviously designed them in stages we call evolution. All 'evolution' is a God plan from its beginning.

dhw: Yes, ALL evolution is what God (if he exists) must have wanted from the beginning. I’m so pleased that you can now accept the possibility that he wanted the whole bush and not just humans plus food, and yes, humans would certainly be the most surprising and unpredictable participants in the 3.8-billion-year-old history.

I've always said God wanted a necessarily large bush with humans as an endpoint.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 12:55 (172 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: How do you know that! My point is the current system is the only one that will work.

dhw: And how do you know that? Neither of us “knows” anything. We can only theorize. But it is absurd to argue that an all-powerful God is incapable of producing a system without errors, let alone errors which he cannot rectify. That means he is not all-powerful. Why won’t you consider the possibility that he IS all-powerful, and designed the system precisely as he WANTED it?

DAVID: I'll be blunt. You do not understand the nuances of the biochemistry that makes us live. It works and does so because trillions of reactions occur every second correctly. Unfortunately the molecules 'know' how to fold and/or join but for speeds sake do it freely, not under tight control. You've again left out all-knowing. Why? God knows what will work and what won't. It certainly works.

I’ll be equally blunt. I am not disputing the way it works! I’m disputing your insistence than an all-powerful, all-knowing God is incapable of designing a system free from what you call “errors” which he doesn’t want and can’t control. I’m suggesting that instead of him being forced by conditions of his own making, he has deliberately designed a system in which components are free to diverge from what you might call the norm. That is to say, he did not WANT every single organism to remain exactly the same, and what you call the errors are in fact the result of a far broader freedom which enables cells to diversify not only into diseases but also into new organs and organisms. I am going to give you a quote referring to DNA, which you may or may not recognize: “Those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own…” Maybe they do.

Biofilms
dhw: […] the fact remains that we have cells combining and communicating for the purpose of survival, which I propose is the pattern that continues throughout evolution. Memory and long-distance communication are essential for such cooperation, and are characteristics of intelligence, no matter how simple it may be by comparison with ours.

DAVID: Yes, cells designed by God to act automatically in just those says.

The ability to absorb information, remember it, pass it on to other cells and cooperate with them, and reach decisions relating to countless different situations, may have been designed by God. It would be interesting to know what other attributes you consider necessary before you accept that the possessor is autonomously intelligent.

Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: An experimenting God is a weak humanized form. My God sets His goals and designs them step by step.

dhw: You only allow him ONE goal (all life forms etc. are/were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food), and you have him step by step designing every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. that had no connection with humans plus food. I will never understand why you regard a God who experiments as “weak”, or why you complain if I attribute “human” characteristics to a God who you have said probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, whom we mimic, who loves creating and watches his creations with interest, and perhaps wants us to recognize his work and form a relationship with him.

DAVID: Same distortion of my guesses about God.

I have quoted your own words. Please explain what has been distorted.

DAVID: [..] He creates whatever He wishes for His own reasons and likely watches humans who can do all sorts of surprising things with the God-given free will since they are now unpredictable compared to all previous organisms He designed.

dhw: You are gradually beginning to cotton on. An all-powerful God does what he wants. […] So maybe he created surprising, unpredictable humans and “likely watches” them, because he wanted to create something surprising and unpredictable to watch. Ditto the rest of evolution. Welcome to one of my theories.

DAVID: I can't disagree to this form.

I’m delighted to hear it. So please stop this silly “weak”, “humanized” nonsense.

DAVID: I've always said God wanted a necessarily large bush with humans as an endpoint.

“Necessary” for what, since the majority of the branches had no connection with humans? You keep switching from “goal” and “purpose” to the word “endpoint”. If all you mean is that humans are the latest and possibly the last species your God designed, that is very different from saying that all other life forms and foods were “part of the GOAL of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our food. In any case, this is totally separate from the suggestion that your God might have wanted the whole bush, and especially humans, because “he wanted something surprising and unpredictable to watch”. Once again, I’m delighted that you agree to this “form”.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 14:55 (172 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'll be blunt. You do not understand the nuances of the biochemistry that makes us live. It works and does so because trillions of reactions occur every second correctly. Unfortunately the molecules 'know' how to fold and/or join but for speeds sake do it freely, not under tight control. You've again left out all-knowing. Why? God knows what will work and what won't. It certainly works.

dhw: I’ll be equally blunt. I am not disputing the way it works! I’m disputing your insistence than an all-powerful, all-knowing God is incapable of designing a system free from what you call “errors” which he doesn’t want and can’t control. I’m suggesting that instead of him being forced by conditions of his own making, he has deliberately designed a system in which components are free to diverge from what you might call the norm. That is to say, he did not WANT every single organism to remain exactly the same, and what you call the errors are in fact the result of a far broader freedom which enables cells to diversify not only into diseases but also into new organs and organisms. I am going to give you a quote referring to DNA, which you may or may not recognize: “Those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own…” Maybe they do.

A God who deliberately designs a system that allows mistakes and diseases is not a kindly God as we have discussed in theodicy. In your desire to escape a designing God who deliberately heads for His exact goals, you have create a God who invites chaos. I don't want Him, and do not accept that distortion of a concept of God.


Biofilms
dhw: […] the fact remains that we have cells combining and communicating for the purpose of survival, which I propose is the pattern that continues throughout evolution. Memory and long-distance communication are essential for such cooperation, and are characteristics of intelligence, no matter how simple it may be by comparison with ours.

DAVID: Yes, cells designed by God to act automatically in just those ways.

dhw: The ability to absorb information, remember it, pass it on to other cells and cooperate with them, and reach decisions relating to countless different situations, may have been designed by God. It would be interesting to know what other attributes you consider necessary before you accept that the possessor is autonomously intelligent.

Proof that cells initiate their own thoughts/ideas.


Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: An experimenting God is a weak humanized form. My God sets His goals and designs them step by step.

dhw: You only allow him ONE goal (all life forms etc. are/were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food), and you have him step by step designing every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. that had no connection with humans plus food. I will never understand why you regard a God who experiments as “weak”, or why you complain if I attribute “human” characteristics to a God who you have said probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, whom we mimic, who loves creating and watches his creations with interest, and perhaps wants us to recognize his work and form a relationship with him.

DAVID: Same distortion of my guesses about God.

dhw: I have quoted your own words. Please explain what has been distorted.

Evolution is totally connected in stepwise development. Humans are fully connected to God's process of designed evolution which you deny in a distortion. My guesses about God are necessarily couched in human terms, but that does make my view of Him humanized as you weakly attempt to do.


DAVID: I've always said God wanted a necessarily large bush with humans as an endpoint.

dhw: “Necessary” for what, since the majority of the branches had no connection with humans? You keep switching from “goal” and “purpose” to the word “endpoint”. If all you mean is that humans are the latest and possibly the last species your God designed, that is very different from saying that all other life forms and foods were “part of the GOAL of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our food. In any case, this is totally separate from the suggestion that your God might have wanted the whole bush, and especially humans, because “he wanted something surprising and unpredictable to watch”. Once again, I’m delighted that you agree to this “form”.

The large bush is necessary to provide enough food. And again, a distortion, God does not need entertainment. but free-willed humans will/are certainly interesting.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 13:34 (171 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A God who deliberately designs a system that allows mistakes and diseases is not a kindly God as we have discussed in theodicy.

And there’s you blaming me whenever I “humanize” God, and yet dismissing a logical theory on the grounds that it makes God seem “unkindly”.You and Adler agreed the other day that the chances of him loving us are 50/50! This is what we call “double standards”.

DAVID: In your desire to escape a designing God who deliberately heads for His exact goals…..

According to you his “exact goal” was to design humans plus their food, and so he deliberately designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans and their food. One of my alternative theories (you ignore the others) is that his exact goal was to create a vast variety of life forms which, you have agreed, would provide “something surprising and unpredictable” for him to watch.

DAVID:… you have create a God who invites chaos. I don't want Him, and do not accept that distortion of a concept of God.

I don’t know your criteria for what constitutes “chaos”. It seems to me, though, that there is solid logic behind a view of the history of life in which intelligent organisms search autonomously for different means of survival in ever changing conditions. For them to survive, there has to be order of some kind. Every econiche has its natural balance, but when conditions change, the balance changes, and some forms perish, some forms adapt, and new forms emerge. Hence the ever changing, ever surprising and unpredictable history of life. Your all-knowing God would have known that his invention of autonomous intelligences would NOT lead to chaos. What is your problem?

DAVID (later:)The large bush is necessary to provide enough food. And again, a distortion, God does not need entertainment. but free-willed humans will/are certainly interesting.

I do not believe that every econiche for the last 3.X billion years was “necessary” to provide food for humans. Stop dodging. Why do you use the word”need”? An all–powerful God would create what he WANTED to create, and so you have agreed that he WANTED to create something surprising and unpredictable to watch. You wrote: “I can’t disagree to this form.” So don’t change this form from “want” to “need”.

Antibiotic resistance
DAVID: In an eat or be eaten world it is only logical that all organisms have defense systems as this article shows, in case the wrong folks mix together. In dhw's imagined God's free-for-all world this outcome is ordained to happen.

Yes, I’d say your God would have known that freedom would result in conflict as well as cooperation, and in defence as well as attack. What’s wrong with that?

DAVID: In the real God's reality, it is required by necessary diversification to form sustaining ecosystems for the food supply. So I view bad infectious diseases as unescapable bad luck, not my God's doing.

Do you know the “real” God? Of course defence systems are required if organisms are to survive. Any intelligent organism will know that it has to defend itself! I don’t know why your all-powerful God would design a system in which he is powerless to stop “bad luck”! It makes more sense to me that an all-powerful God would simply design the system he wanted to design.

Biofilms
dhw: The ability to absorb information, remember it, pass it on to other cells and cooperate with them, and reach decisions relating to countless different situations, may have been designed by God. It would be interesting to know what other attributes you consider necessary before you accept that the possessor is autonomously intelligent.

DAVID: Proof that cells initiate their own thoughts/ideas.

Proof is not an attribute. Please tell us what attributes convince you that humans are autonomously intelligent.

Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: Same distortion of my guesses about God.

dhw: I have quoted your own words. Please explain what has been distorted.

DAVID: Evolution is totally connected in stepwise development. Humans are fully connected to God's process of designed evolution which you deny in a distortion.

I have never denied common descent, which = ALL life forms descend from earlier forms (= stages), and I have never denied that humans are part of that process. You have left out your theory that ALL forms, including those that had no connection with God, were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food, and your dismissal of experimentation as “weak”. No distortion there, then.

DAVID: My guesses about God are necessarily couched in human terms, but that does make my view of Him humanized as you weakly attempt to do.

So your “human terms” like “kindly” and “interested” and “enjoy” are not human, and mine – like “interested” and “enjoy” – are.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 15:34 (171 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: A God who deliberately designs a system that allows mistakes and diseases is not a kindly God as we have discussed in theodicy.

dhw: And there’s you blaming me whenever I “humanize” God, and yet dismissing a logical theory on the grounds that it makes God seem “unkindly”. You and Adler agreed the other day that the chances of him loving us are 50/50! This is what we call “double standards”.

I don't think a God who produced us would wish us evil, or create what we humans regard as evil.


DAVID: In your desire to escape a designing God who deliberately heads for His exact goals…..

dhw: According to you his “exact goal” was to design humans plus their food, and so he deliberately designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans and their food. One of my alternative theories (you ignore the others) is that his exact goal was to create a vast variety of life forms which, you have agreed, would provide “something surprising and unpredictable” for him to watch.

A purposeful God does not need self entertaining, again twisting my guesses about God. The vast diversity forms ecosystems for food, a point you purposely minimize.


DAVID:… you have created a God who invites chaos. I don't want Him, and do not accept that distortion of a concept of God.

I don’t know your criteria for what constitutes “chaos”. It seems to me, though, that there is solid logic behind a view of the history of life in which intelligent organisms search autonomously for different means of survival in ever changing conditions. For them to survive, there has to be order of some kind....Your all-knowing God would have known that his invention of autonomous intelligences would NOT lead to chaos. What is your problem?

Free-for-all leads to chaos. Your intelligent organisms are your sole saving unproven theory, in which you turn to God to save your theories.


DAVID (later:)The large bush is necessary to provide enough food. And again, a distortion, God does not need entertainment. but free-willed humans will/are certainly interesting.

dhw: I do not believe that every econiche for the last 3.X billion years was “necessary” to provide food for humans.

Past food for past organisms. Dodging again by slicing and dicing evolution


Antibiotic resistance

DAVID: In the real God's reality, it is required by necessary diversification to form sustaining ecosystems for the food supply. So I view bad infectious diseases as unescapable bad luck, not my God's doing.

dhw: Do you know the “real” God? Of course defence systems are required if organisms are to survive. Any intelligent organism will know that it has to defend itself! I don’t know why your all-powerful God would design a system in which he is powerless to stop “bad luck”! It makes more sense to me that an all-powerful God would simply design the system he wanted to design.

Finally!! Yes, God designed the system He wanted that He knew would work.


Biofilms
dhw: The ability to absorb information, remember it, pass it on to other cells and cooperate with them, and reach decisions relating to countless different situations, may have been designed by God. It would be interesting to know what other attributes you consider necessary before you accept that the possessor is autonomously intelligent.

DAVID: Proof that cells initiate their own thoughts/ideas.

dhw: Proof is not an attribute. Please tell us what attributes convince you that humans are autonomously intelligent.

Observed attributes from outside the organisms are comparisons, not proof of origin.


Zebrafish inner ear

DAVID: My guesses about God are necessarily couched in human terms, but that does make my view of Him humanized as you weakly attempt to do.

dhw:So your “human terms” like “kindly” and “interested” and “enjoy” are not human, and mine – like “interested” and “enjoy” – are.

Silly. All the terms we both use are human. There are no specific 'God' terms

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Monday, January 10, 2022, 15:19 (170 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A God who deliberately designs a system that allows mistakes and diseases is not a kindly God as we have discussed in theodicy.

dhw: And there’s you blaming me whenever I “humanize” God, and yet dismissing a logical theory on the grounds that it makes God seem “unkindly”. You and Adler agreed the other day that the chances of him loving us are 50/50! This is what we call “double standards”.

DAVID: I don't think a God who produced us would wish us evil, or create what we humans regard as evil.

I have never said he wished us evil! You dismiss my alternative theories because they “humanize” God, and because your God is “kindly” – as if that did not “humanize" him!

DAVID: In your desire to escape a designing God who deliberately heads for His exact goals…..

dhw: One of my alternative theories (you ignore the others) is that his exact goal was to create a vast variety of life forms which, you have agreed, would provide “something surprising and unpredictable” for him to watch.

DAVID: A purposeful God does not need self entertaining, again twisting my guesses about God. The vast diversity forms ecosystems for food, a point you purposely minimize.

dhw: […] I asked you to drop the word “need”, which makes him humanly “needy”. I use the word “want”. You thought God “wanted” to produce humans, maybe to admire his work or have a relationship with him. Why is “wanting” something interesting to watch not a purpose? The vast diversity does not mean that every diverse life form etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our food – a point you purposely leave out when discussing ecosystems and food.

DAVID:… you have created a God who invites chaos.

dhw: […] Your all-knowing God would have known that his invention of autonomous intelligences would NOT lead to chaos. What is your problem?

DAVID: Free-for-all leads to chaos. Your intelligent organisms are your sole saving unproven theory, in which you turn to God to save your theories.

All theories are “unproven”, including the very existence of God. Intelligent organisms would explain why there isn’t chaos, and I do not “turn to God” but I include God as a possible first cause. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

DAVID (later:)The large bush is necessary to provide enough food.

dhw: I do not believe that every econiche for the last 3.X billion years was “necessary” to provide food for humans.

DAVID: Past food for past organisms. Dodging again by slicing and dicing evolution.

What does “slicing and dicing” mean? You keep agreeing that past food was not for present humans, and so how can it and all the past organisms that also had no connection with humans have been part of God’s one and only goal of designing humans plus food? Over and over again you have told me to ask God to explain your theory because you can’t. So why do you keep defending it?

Antibiotic resistance
DAVID: In the real God's reality, it is required by necessary diversification to form sustaining ecosystems for the food supply. So I view bad infectious diseases as unescapable bad luck, not my God's doing.

dhw: Do you know the “real” God? Of course defence systems are required if organisms are to survive. Any intelligent organism will know that it has to defend itself! I don’t know why your all-powerful God would design a system in which he is powerless to stop “bad luck”! It makes more sense to me that an all-powerful God would simply design the system he wanted to design.

DAVID: Finally!! Yes, God designed the system He wanted that He knew would work.

Finally!! We agree. He didn’t “have to” design it with errors that he didn’t want and couldn’t correct, and the diseases were not “bad luck”. He got exactly what he wanted, and it works the way he wanted it to work. Perfectly in keeping with your belief that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. And you don’t need to draw any “humanized” conclusions about whether his nature is “kindly” or not. Finally!!

Biofilms
dhw: Please tell us what attributes convince you that humans are autonomously intelligent.

DAVID: Observed attributes from outside the organisms are comparisons, not proof of origin.

We are not talking about “proof of origin”. I asked you what human attributes convince you that humans are autonomously intelligent. Why can’t you give a straight answer?

Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: My guesses about God are necessarily couched in human terms, but that does make my view of Him humanized as you weakly attempt to do.

dhw:So your “human terms” like “kindly” and “interested” and “enjoy” are not human, and mine – like “interested” and “enjoy” – are.

DAVID: Silly. All the terms we both use are human. There are no specific 'God' terms.

So please stop dismissing my alternative theories on the grounds that I use the same human terms as you do – though I have never suggested that he is “kindly”.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Monday, January 10, 2022, 18:20 (170 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have never said he wished us evil! You dismiss my alternative theories because they “humanize” God, and because your God is “kindly” – as if that did not “humanize" him!

It is not characterizing words that humanize. It is the way you propose actions God might take or want as free-for-all and experimenting into the future.

DAVID:… you have created a God who invites chaos.

dhw: All theories are “unproven”, including the very existence of God. Intelligent organisms would explain why there isn’t chaos, and I do not “turn to God” but I include God as a possible first cause. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

Intelligent organisms can't plan for future speciation, which is the only way to explain the gaps in fossils as Cambrian or flowering plant bloom


DAVID: Past food for past organisms. Dodging again by slicing and dicing evolution.

dhw: What does “slicing and dicing” mean? You keep agreeing that past food was not for present humans, and so how can it and all the past organisms that also had no connection with humans have been part of God’s one and only goal of designing humans plus food? Over and over again you have told me to ask God to explain your theory because you can’t. So why do you keep defending it?

You keep ignoring my point God chose to evolve us from bacteria. All of evolution connected.
Your constant illogical complaint slices it into disparate parts.


Antibiotic resistance
DAVID: In the real God's reality, it is required by necessary diversification to form sustaining ecosystems for the food supply. So I view bad infectious diseases as unescapable bad luck, not my God's doing.

dhw: Do you know the “real” God? Of course defence systems are required if organisms are to survive. Any intelligent organism will know that it has to defend itself! I don’t know why your all-powerful God would design a system in which he is powerless to stop “bad luck”! It makes more sense to me that an all-powerful God would simply design the system he wanted to design.

DAVID: Finally!! Yes, God designed the system He wanted that He knew would work.

Finally!! We agree. He didn’t “have to” design it with errors that he didn’t want and couldn’t correct, and the diseases were not “bad luck”. He got exactly what he wanted, and it works the way he wanted it to work. Perfectly in keeping with your belief that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. And you don’t need to draw any “humanized” conclusions about whether his nature is “kindly” or not. Finally!!

Wrong 'finally'. An all-knowing God knew which system for life would work and used it recognizing errors were probable. The edit systems He added work at nano-second speed so over trillions of reactions per second are correct, and errors rare.


Biofilms
dhw: Please tell us what attributes convince you that humans are autonomously intelligent.

DAVID: Observed attributes from outside the organisms are comparisons, not proof of origin.

dhw: We are not talking about “proof of origin”. I asked you what human attributes convince you that humans are autonomously intelligent. Why can’t you give a straight answer?

The straight answer, you know, is we can only observe outward appearances of cells actions which I believe are automatic. We have free will using huge, highly complex brains.


Zebrafish inner ear
DAVID: My guesses about God are necessarily couched in human terms, but that does make my view of Him humanized as you weakly attempt to do.

dhw:So your “human terms” like “kindly” and “interested” and “enjoy” are not human, and mine – like “interested” and “enjoy” – are.

DAVID: Silly. All the terms we both use are human. There are no specific 'God' terms.

dhw: So please stop dismissing my alternative theories on the grounds that I use the same human terms as you do – though I have never suggested that he is “kindly”.

As above: "It is not characterizing words that humanize. It is the way you propose actions God might take or want as free-for-all and experimenting into the future.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 07:52 (170 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have never said he wished us evil! You dismiss my alternative theories because they “humanize” God, and because your God is “kindly” – as if that did not “humanize" him!

DAVID: It is not characterizing words that humanize. It is the way you propose actions God might take or want as free-for-all and experimenting into the future.

So when you tell us you are certain that your “kindly” God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you are not “humanizing” him, but when I suggest that his purpose in creating life might have been to enjoy creating something that will interest him, that is “humanizing”. And an all-powerful God who is unable to design a system without errors which he does not want and cannot correct is more powerful than a God who created exactly the system that he wanted. I find your thinking hard to follow.

DAVID:…. Free-for-all leads to chaos. Your intelligent organisms are your sole saving unproven theory, in which you turn to God to save your theories.

dhw: All theories are “unproven”, including the very existence of God. Intelligent organisms would explain why there isn’t chaos, and I do not “turn to God” but I include God as a possible first cause. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

DAVID: Intelligent organisms can't plan for future speciation, which is the only way to explain the gaps in fossils as Cambrian or flowering plant bloom.

There is no planning for future speciation!You have agreed that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to changing conditions and not in anticipation of them (see the thread on your theory of evolution). The gaps may be explained by the inevitable lack of fossils and/or by the ability of cells to make major changes when conditions require or allow them.

DAVID: Past food for past organisms. Dodging again by slicing and dicing evolution.

dhw: You keep agreeing that past food was not for present humans, and so how can it and all the past organisms that also had no connection with humans have been part of God’s one and only goal of designing humans plus food?

DAVID: You keep ignoring my point God chose to evolve us from bacteria. All of evolution connected.Your constant illogical complaint slices it into disparate parts.

If God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms from bacteria, and the bush of life evolved into countless separate branches or “disparate parts”, most of which had no connection with humans. So please answer the bolded question.

Antibiotic resistance:
DAVID: I'm not sure I've seen a reasonable response to this comment:

Answered on this thread on Sunday 9 January and also dealt with here:

Antibiotic resistance
DAVID: In the real God's reality, it is required by necessary diversification to form sustaining ecosystems for the food supply. So I view bad infectious diseases as unescapable bad luck, not my God's doing.

dhw: Do you know the “real” God? Of course defence systems are required if organisms are to survive. Any intelligent organism will know that it has to defend itself! I don’t know why your all-powerful God would design a system in which he is powerless to stop “bad luck”! It makes more sense to me that an all-powerful God would simply design the system he wanted to design.

DAVID: Finally!! Yes, God designed the system He wanted that He knew would work.

dhw: Finally!! We agree. He didn’t “have to” design it with errors that he didn’t want and couldn’t correct, and the diseases were not “bad luck”. He got exactly what he wanted, and it works the way he wanted it to work. Perfectly in keeping with your belief that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. And you don’t need to draw any “humanized” conclusions about whether his nature is “kindly” or not. Finally!!

DAVID: Wrong 'finally'. An all-knowing God knew which system for life would work and used it recognizing errors were probable.

That is not what you wrote, which was that he “designed the system He wanted that He knew would work”. This can only mean that he did not want "errors" he could not control, so they were not errors, and he did not try in vain to correct them. They are the consequence of freedom of choice, and what you and I consider to be a “bad” bacterium or a cell "going wrong" would, if it could talk our language, tell us that it’s simply finding its own way to survive - just like the "good" bacteria and cells which try to fight off the invaders.

Biofilms
dhw: Please tell us what attributes convince you that humans are autonomously intelligent.[…]

DAVID: The straight answer, you know, is we can only observe outward appearances of cells actions which I believe are automatic. We have free will using huge, highly complex brains.

Your beliefs and the fact that we have big brains are not attributes that denote intelligence! These, I suggest, would include the ability to absorb and process information, remember it, pass it on to fellow members of the community, cooperate with them, reach decisions, implement those decisions. Please tell us what other attributes have convinced you that your fellow humans are intelligent and are not mere automatons.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 15:27 (169 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have never said he wished us evil! You dismiss my alternative theories because they “humanize” God, and because your God is “kindly” – as if that did not “humanize" him!

DAVID: It is not characterizing words that humanize. It is the way you propose actions God might take or want as free-for-all and experimenting into the future.

dhw: So when you tell us you are certain that your “kindly” God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you are not “humanizing” him, but when I suggest that his purpose in creating life might have been to enjoy creating something that will interest him, that is “humanizing”.

Again you use describing words like 'kindly' which do not judge God's proposed actions. Stay on point, please, if you have an answer. I am looking at purpose in creation with God's enjoyment reaction as a side issue to guess at.


DAVID: Intelligent organisms can't plan for future speciation, which is the only way to explain the gaps in fossils as Cambrian or flowering plant bloom.

dhw: There is no planning for future speciation! You have agreed that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to changing conditions and not in anticipation of them (see the thread on your theory of evolution).

I have only agreed that species modify to new changes as the same species.


DAVID: You keep ignoring my point God chose to evolve us from bacteria. All of evolution connected. Your constant illogical complaint slices it into disparate parts.

dhw: If God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms from bacteria, and the bush of life evolved into countless separate branches or “disparate parts”, most of which had no connection with humans.

Antibiotic resistance

DAVID: Finally!! Yes, God designed the system He wanted that He knew would work.

dhw: Finally!! We agree. He didn’t “have to” design it with errors that he didn’t want and couldn’t correct, and the diseases were not “bad luck”. He got exactly what he wanted, and it works the way he wanted it to work. Perfectly in keeping with your belief that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. And you don’t need to draw any “humanized” conclusions about whether his nature is “kindly” or not. Finally!!

DAVID: Wrong 'finally'. An all-knowing God knew which system for life would work and used it recognizing errors were probable.

dhw: That is not what you wrote, which was that he “designed the system He wanted that He knew would work”. This can only mean that he did not want "errors" he could not control, so they were not errors, and he did not try in vain to correct them. They are the consequence of freedom of choice, and what you and I consider to be a “bad” bacterium or a cell "going wrong" would, if it could talk our language, tell us that it’s simply finding its own way to survive - just like the "good" bacteria and cells which try to fight off the invaders.

Of course it means he did not want the accompanying error potential, and provided editing. I repeat, an all-knowing God knew which system would work and which wouldn't. We live in the only one available.


Biofilms
dhw: Please tell us what attributes convince you that humans are autonomously intelligent.[…]

DAVID: The straight answer, you know, is we can only observe outward appearances of cells actions which I believe are automatic. We have free will using huge, highly complex brains.

dhw: Your beliefs and the fact that we have big brains are not attributes that denote intelligence! These, I suggest, would include the ability to absorb and process information, remember it, pass it on to fellow members of the community, cooperate with them, reach decisions, implement those decisions. Please tell us what other attributes have convinced you that your fellow humans are intelligent and are not mere automatons.

Our free will discussions established that. And we live inside ourselves, while observing cells from their outside.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 09:16 (169 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have never said he wished us evil! You dismiss my alternative theories because they “humanize” God, and because your God is “kindly” – as if that did not “humanize" him!

DAVID: It is not characterizing words that humanize. It is the way you propose actions God might take or want as free-for-all and experimenting into the future.

dhw: So when you tell us you are certain that your “kindly” God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you are not “humanizing” him, but when I suggest that his purpose in creating life might have been to enjoy creating something that will interest him, that is “humanizing”.

DAVID: Again you use describing words like 'kindly' which do not judge God's proposed actions. Stay on point, please, if you have an answer. I am looking at purpose in creation with God's enjoyment reaction as a side issue to guess at.

Enjoyment can be a purpose! But we are not “judging” your God’s proposed actions! We are debating (a) the nature of those actions (e.g. did he design every single life form, or allow freedom of choice, or experiment?) and their purpose (e.g. to produce nothing but humans and their food, or to produce an interesting free-for-all). You complain that all my alternatives to your one illogical theory “humanize” your God. But you use the same humanizing terms as I do, and even go so far as to add your belief that your God is too “kindly” to wish us any harm. “Stay on point, please.”

DAVID: Intelligent organisms can't plan for future speciation, which is the only way to explain the gaps in fossils as Cambrian or flowering plant bloom.

dhw: There is no planning for future speciation! You have agreed that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to changing conditions and not in anticipation of them (see the thread on your theory of evolution).

DAVID: I have only agreed that species modify to new changes as the same species.

Your usual volte face when challenged. Under “Oxygen” you wrote: “It is obvious more complex life forms were allowed to appear as more oxygen became available. […] You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn’t present.”

DAVID: You keep ignoring my point God chose to evolve us from bacteria. All of evolution connected. Your constant illogical complaint slices it into disparate parts.

dhw: If God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms from bacteria, and the bush of life evolved into countless separate branches or “disparate parts”, most of which had no connection with humans.

No response from you.

Antibiotic resistance
DAVID: Finally!! Yes, God designed the system He wanted that He knew would work.

dhw: Finally!! We agree. He didn't "have to" design it with errors that he didn't want and
couldn’t correct, and the diseases were not “bad luck”. He got exactly what he wanted, and it works the way he wanted it to work.
[…]

DAVID: Wrong 'finally'. An all-knowing God knew which system for life would work and used it recognizing errors were probable.

dhw: That is not what you wrote, which was that he “designed the system He wanted that He knew would work”. This can only mean that he did not want "errors" he could not control, so they were not errors, and he did not try in vain to correct them. They are the consequence of freedom of choice, and what you and I consider to be a “bad” bacterium or a cell "going wrong" would, if it could talk our language, tell us that it’s simply finding its own way to survive - just like the "good" bacteria and cells which try to fight off the invaders.

DAVID: Of course it means he did not want the accompanying error potential…..

So you agree that he designed the system he wanted, but the system he wanted included things he didn’t want!

DAVID: ….and provided editing. I repeat, an all-knowing God knew which system would work and which wouldn't. We live in the only one available.

His “editing” didn’t always work. Of course he knew which system would work, and we live in a system which works, so we should assume that the system works in precisely the way he wanted! Not with “errors” which he didn’t want and couldn’t correct!

Biofilms
dhw: Your beliefs and the fact that we have big brains are not attributes that denote intelligence! These, I suggest, would include the ability to absorb and process information, remember it, pass it on to fellow members of the community, cooperate with them, reach decisions, implement those decisions. Please tell us what other attributes have convinced you that your fellow humans are intelligent and are not mere automatons.

DAVID: Our free will discussions established that. And we live inside ourselves, while observing cells from their outside.

Free will is a debatable issue. Meanwhile, you and I do not live inside each other. I hope you regard me as intelligent. Please tell me what attributes, other than those listed, convince you that I am autonomously intelligent and am not an automaton.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 15:37 (168 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again you use describing words like 'kindly' which do not judge God's proposed actions. Stay on point, please, if you have an answer. I am looking at purpose in creation with God's enjoyment reaction as a side issue to guess at.

dhw: Enjoyment can be a purpose! But we are not “judging” your God’s proposed actions! We are debating (a) the nature of those actions (e.g. did he design every single life form, or allow freedom of choice, or experiment?) and their purpose (e.g. to produce nothing but humans and their food, or to produce an interesting free-for-all). You complain that all my alternatives to your one illogical theory “humanize” your God. But you use the same humanizing terms as I do, and even go so far as to add your belief that your God is too “kindly” to wish us any harm. “Stay on point, please.”

You have never understood how humanized your God appears to be: He needs entertainment, He experiments as if not knowing where He is headed from the beginning of His creations, or He throws in free-for-all to let the process find its own ending even if not His!!! Your God has no sense of purpose, but your God wants entertainment as purpose.

DAVID: I have only agreed that species modify to new changes as the same species.

Your usual volte face when challenged. Under “Oxygen” you wrote: “It is obvious more complex life forms were allowed to appear as more oxygen became available. […] You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn’t present.”

DAVID: You keep ignoring my point God chose to evolve us from bacteria. All of evolution connected. Your constant illogical complaint slices it into disparate parts.

dhw: If God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms from bacteria, and the bush of life evolved into countless separate branches or “disparate parts”, most of which had no connection with humans.

dhw: No response from you.

Same complaint, so my worthless answer in your eyes given again: He chose to evolve us from bacteria by designing all stages and the vast bush is food for all. From Jan. 10:

"The Earth is a giant restaurant. All life must have continuous energy supply to live. From the theodicy viewpoint it is impossible to create life not needing energy supplies. All organisms live in their own organized ecosystem, the complexities of which have been shown here. They have developed since the start of life and its diversification."


Antibiotic resistance


DAVID: An all-knowing God knew which system for life would work and used it recognizing errors were probable.

dhw: That is not what you wrote, which was that he “designed the system He wanted that He knew would work”. This can only mean that he did not want "errors" he could not control, so they were not errors, and he did not try in vain to correct them. They are the consequence of freedom of choice, and what you and I consider to be a “bad” bacterium or a cell "going wrong" would, if it could talk our language, tell us that it’s simply finding its own way to survive - just like the "good" bacteria and cells which try to fight off the invaders.

DAVID: Of course it means he did not want the accompanying error potential…..

dhw: So you agree that he designed the system he wanted, but the system he wanted included things he didn’t want!

He was willing to accept the errors since it was the only system available to use


DAVID: ….and provided editing. I repeat, an all-knowing God knew which system would work and which wouldn't. We live in the only one available.

dhw: His “editing” didn’t always work. Of course he knew which system would work, and we live in a system which works, so we should assume that the system works in precisely the way he wanted! Not with “errors” which he didn’t want and couldn’t correct!

The editing system is part of an error-possible system, so of course editing made errors


Biofilms
dhw: Your beliefs and the fact that we have big brains are not attributes that denote intelligence! These, I suggest, would include the ability to absorb and process information, remember it, pass it on to fellow members of the community, cooperate with them, reach decisions, implement those decisions. Please tell us what other attributes have convinced you that your fellow humans are intelligent and are not mere automatons.

DAVID: Our free will discussions established that. And we live inside ourselves, while observing cells from their outside.

dhw: Free will is a debatable issue. Meanwhile, you and I do not live inside each other. I hope you regard me as intelligent. Please tell me what attributes, other than those listed, convince you that I am autonomously intelligent and am not an automaton.

My points require answers that automaticity cannot create.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Thursday, January 13, 2022, 09:47 (168 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have never understood how humanized your God appears to be: He needs entertainment, He experiments as if not knowing where He is headed from the beginning of His creations, or He throws in free-for-all to let the process find its own ending even if not His!!! Your God has no sense of purpose, but your God wants entertainment as purpose.

I keep asking you not to use the word “need”, because this certainly weakens the image (a “needy” God). You have said he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. That’s enough for me to suggest that his purpose may have been to create things he would enjoy creating and would be interested in watching. A free-for-all goes back to his wanting “to create something surprising and unpredictable to watch” (which included humans and the whole of evolution), and you replied: “I can’t disagree to this form.” Experimenting involves either having a fixed purpose (humans) and working out how to achieve it – the very opposite of having “no sense of purpose” – or the curiosity of finding out what would happen if he tried this or that combination. Why is it purposeless to set out to discover new things?) And why is all this more “human” than you telling us how kindly your all-powerful God is, trying to correct errors (but just like us humans, sometimes failing) because he doesn’t wish us evil, and enjoying creating, watching with interest, maybe wanting us to admire his work, and have a relationship with him? And why are you wrong when you say that in some ways we might mimic him?

xxxx

DAVID: I have only agreed that species modify to new changes as the same species.

Your usual volte face when challenged. Under “Oxygen” you wrote: “It is obvious more complex life forms were allowed to appear as more oxygen became available. […] You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn’t present.

DAVID: You keep ignoring my point God chose to evolve us from bacteria. All of evolution connected. Your constant illogical complaint slices it into disparate parts.

dhw: If God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms from bacteria, and the bush of life evolved into countless separate branches or “disparate parts”, most of which had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Same complaint, so my worthless answer in your eyes given again: […] From Jan. 10:
"The Earth is a giant restaurant. All life must have continuous energy supply to live. From the theodicy viewpoint it is impossible to create life not needing energy supplies. All organisms live in their own organized ecosystem, the complexities of which have been shown here. They have developed since the start of life and its diversification."

All absolutely logical, and I doubt if anyone – theist or atheist – would disagree. But you forgot to mention your illogical theory that every diversified life form and every diversified econiche, including all those that had no connection with humans, was part of your God’s one and only goal, which was to “evolve [= design] humans” and their food. You haven’t even mentioned humans. Please stop dodging!

Antibiotic resistance
DAVID: An all-knowing God knew which system for life would work and used it recognizing errors were probable.

dhw: That is not what you wrote, which was that he “designed the system He wanted that He knew would work”. This can only mean that he did not want "errors" he could not control, so they were not errors, and he did not try in vain to correct them. They are the consequence of freedom of choice, and what you and I consider to be a “bad” bacterium or a cell "going wrong" would, if it could talk our language, tell us that it’s simply finding its own way to survive - just like the "good" bacteria and cells which try to fight off the invaders.

DAVID: Of course it means he did not want the accompanying error potential…..

dhw: So you agree that he designed the system he wanted, but the system he wanted included things he didn’t want!

DAVID: He was willing to accept the errors since it was the only system available to use.

And so your all-powerful God was powerless to invent a system that did not contain errors he did not want, and which he tried but sometimes failed to correct, but this was “the system He wanted”, so He wanted the errors he did not want.

Biofilms
dhw: Please tell me what attributes, other than those listed, convince you that I am autonomously intelligent and am not an automaton.

DAVID: My points require answers that automaticity cannot create.

When new invaders threaten our immune system, just as my questions threaten your rigid and illogical beliefs, answers are required that automaticity cannot create. In both cases, new information must be perceived and processed, and decisions then taken as to how the new threat can be “answered”.

Mutations random or not
QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival".

DAVID: It has been found that DNA has hot spots of mutation, but non-random mutation is anti-Darwin and consistent with ID.

It is also consistent with cellular intelligence. It is worth noting that the motivation for the changes is survival, which is pro-Darwin.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 13, 2022, 15:41 (167 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have never understood how humanized your God appears to be: He needs entertainment, He experiments as if not knowing where He is headed from the beginning of His creations, or He throws in free-for-all to let the process find its own ending even if not His!!! Your God has no sense of purpose, but your God wants entertainment as purpose.

dhw: I keep asking you not to use the word “need”, because this certainly weakens the image (a “needy” God). You have said he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. That’s enough for me to suggest that his purpose may have been to create things he would enjoy creating and would be interested in watching. A free-for-all goes back to his wanting “to create something surprising and unpredictable to watch” (which included humans and the whole of evolution), and you replied: “I can’t disagree to this form.” Experimenting involves either having a fixed purpose (humans) and working out how to achieve it – the very opposite of having “no sense of purpose” – or the curiosity of finding out what would happen if he tried this or that combination. Why is it purposeless to set out to discover new things?) And why is all this more “human” than you telling us how kindly your all-powerful God is, trying to correct errors (but just like us humans, sometimes failing) because he doesn’t wish us evil, and enjoying creating, watching with interest, maybe wanting us to admire his work, and have a relationship with him? And why are you wrong when you say that in some ways we might mimic him?

None of this convinces me your God is not part human.


dhw: If God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms from bacteria, and the bush of life evolved into countless separate branches or “disparate parts”, most of which had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Same complaint, so my worthless answer in your eyes given again: […] From Jan. 10:
"The Earth is a giant restaurant. All life must have continuous energy supply to live. From the theodicy viewpoint it is impossible to create life not needing energy supplies. All organisms live in their own organized ecosystem, the complexities of which have been shown here. They have developed since the start of life and its diversification."

All absolutely logical, and I doubt if anyone – theist or atheist – would disagree. But you forgot to mention your illogical theory that every diversified life form and every diversified econiche, including all those that had no connection with humans, was part of your God’s one and only goal,

Same illogical complaint.


Antibiotic resistance

DAVID: Of course it means he did not want the accompanying error potential…..

dhw: So you agree that he designed the system he wanted, but the system he wanted included things he didn’t want!

DAVID: He was willing to accept the errors since it was the only system available to use.

dhw: And so your all-powerful God was powerless to invent a system that did not contain errors he did not want, and which he tried but sometimes failed to correct, but this was “the system He wanted”, so He wanted the errors he did not want.

If only one system would work, He had to use it. Why not respond to my theory directly instead of inventing your weak form of God making life.


Biofilms
dhw: Please tell me what attributes, other than those listed, convince you that I am autonomously intelligent and am not an automaton.

DAVID: My points require answers that automaticity cannot create.

dhw: When new invaders threaten our immune system, just as my questions threaten your rigid and illogical beliefs, answers are required that automaticity cannot create. In both cases, new information must be perceived and processed, and decisions then taken as to how the new threat can be “answered”.

You have forgotten how immunity works. B and T cells automatically identify non-self, add an antidote and a new antibody is automatically added to the library.


Mutations random or not
QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival".

DAVID: It has been found that DNA has hot spots of mutation, but non-random mutation is anti-Darwin and consistent with ID.

dhw: It is also consistent with cellular intelligence. It is worth noting that the motivation for the changes is survival, which is pro-Darwin.

Saving Darwin as usual. Survival as a driving force for speciation is unproven theory.

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Friday, January 14, 2022, 09:15 (167 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have never understood how humanized your God appears to be […]

dhw: […] A free-for-all goes back to his wanting “to create something surprising and unpredictable to watch” (which included humans and the whole of evolution), and you replied: “I can’t disagree to this form.” Experimenting involves either having a fixed purpose (humans) and working out how to achieve it – the very opposite of having “no sense of purpose” – or the curiosity of finding out what would happen if he tried this or that combination. Why is it purposeless to set out to discover new things?) And why is all this more “human” than you telling us how kindly your all-powerful God is, trying to correct errors (but just like us humans, sometimes failing) because he doesn’t wish us evil, and enjoying creating, watching with interest, maybe wanting us to admire his work, and have a relationship with him? And why are you wrong when you say that in some ways we might mimic him?

DAVID: None of this convinces me your God is not part human.

“Part human” is a strange way of putting it. I am proposing, just as you once did, that your God has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in certain ways. Not surprising, as it seems highly unlikely that we would be the inventors of thought patterns, emotions etc. that were unknown to an all-knowing God.

xxxx

DAVID: "The Earth is a giant restaurant. All life must have continuous energy supply to live. From the theodicy viewpoint it is impossible to create life not needing energy supplies. All organisms live in their own organized ecosystem, the complexities of which have been shown here. They have developed since the start of life and its diversification."

dhw: All absolutely logical, and I doubt if anyone – theist or atheist – would disagree. But you forgot to mention your illogical theory that every diversified life form and every diversified econiche, including all those that had no connection with humans, was part of your God’s one and only goal.

DAVID: Same illogical complaint.

Having ignored it yet again, perhaps you will now once and for all explain why a God with the single “goal” of designing humans plus their food would first of all design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his single goal.

Antibiotic resistance
DAVID: If only one system would work, He had to use it. Why not respond to my theory directly instead of inventing your weak form of God making life.

Once again: your all-powerful God is forced to design a system containing errors he did not want and could not correct. And yet you agreed this was the system he wanted! What is weak about a God who designs precisely the system he wants, as opposed to being forced to design a system containing errors he doesn’t want?

Biofilms
dhw: Please tell me what attributes, other than those listed, convince you that I am autonomously intelligent and am not an automaton.

DAVID: My points require answers that automaticity cannot create.

dhw: When new invaders threaten our immune system, just as my questions threaten your rigid and illogical beliefs, answers are required that automaticity cannot create. In both cases, new information must be perceived and processed, and decisions then taken as to how the new threat can be “answered”.

DAVID: You have forgotten how immunity works. B and T cells automatically identify non-self, add an antidote and a new antibody is automatically added to the library.

You have forgotten that it is only your belief that these processes occur automatically. You have agreed over and over again that the cells appear to be intelligent, and once you wrote that “those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own”. How do you know they don’t? And still I wait for you to add attributes to my list of those that convince you humans ARE autonomously intelligent.

Mutations random or not
QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival".

DAVID: […] non-random mutation is anti-Darwin and consistent with ID.

dhw: It is also consistent with cellular intelligence. It is worth noting that the motivation for the changes is survival, which is pro-Darwin.

DAVID: Saving Darwin as usual. Survival as a driving force for speciation is unproven theory.

I was merely pointing out that the quote took the theory for granted, as do many people since it is such an obvious motive for both adaptation and speciation.

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Friday, January 14, 2022, 15:01 (166 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: None of this convinces me your God is not part human.

dhw: “Part human” is a strange way of putting it. I am proposing, just as you once did, that your God has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in certain ways. Not surprising, as it seems highly unlikely that we would be the inventors of thought patterns, emotions etc. that were unknown to an all-knowing God.

I'm in full agreement with your statement about God's thoughts and ours. It is your God's decisions and actions that are the present subject. Experimenting, Free-for-all evolution, needing entertainment area all signs of a weak humanlike form of a God.


xxxx

DAVID: Same illogical complaint.

dhw: Having ignored it yet again, perhaps you will now once and for all explain why a God with the single “goal” of designing humans plus their food would first of all design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his single goal.

A God who chooses to create all of reality in stepwise fashion forms an evolutionary process as we view it. Endlessly I repeat: the universe evolved, the Earth evolved, life evolved. God's choice of method is obvious in the history. All steps are necessarily related, the multibranched bush of life, as you have agreed is the food for all of life. Humans are God's desired endpoint, the most complicated of all His steps.


Antibiotic resistance
DAVID: If only one system would work, He had to use it. Why not respond to my theory directly instead of inventing your weak form of God making life.

dhw: Once again: your all-powerful God is forced to design a system containing errors he did not want and could not correct. And yet you agreed this was the system he wanted! What is weak about a God who designs precisely the system he wants, as opposed to being forced to design a system containing errors he doesn’t want?

Still ignoring my major point/theory: God used the only system that would work and does. He had to use it. Your usual dodge. An all-powerful, all-knowing God knows what can be done and does it. Your humanized God is now seems more powerful than mine!! He purposely creates a messy system, so He is not in full control.


Biofilms

DAVID: You have forgotten how immunity works. B and T cells automatically identify non-self, add an antidote and a new antibody is automatically added to the library.

dhw: You have forgotten that it is only your belief that these processes occur automatically. You have agreed over and over again that the cells appear to be intelligent, and once you wrote that “those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own”. How do you know they don’t? And still I wait for you to add attributes to my list of those that convince you humans ARE autonomously intelligent.

We both know humans are autonomously intelligent and at least I accept free will without question. Note the 'molecules' ACT AS IF. My statement does not say they are intelligent. You constantly twist statements..


Mutations random or not
QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival".

DAVID: […] non-random mutation is anti-Darwin and consistent with ID.

dhw: It is also consistent with cellular intelligence. It is worth noting that the motivation for the changes is survival, which is pro-Darwin.

DAVID: Saving Darwin as usual. Survival as a driving force for speciation is unproven theory.

dhw: I was merely pointing out that the quote took the theory for granted, as do many people since it is such an obvious motive for both adaptation and speciation.

So you work at the level of 'taking for granted' to save Darwin's survival theory? Or do you recognize the problem with the theory?

Cellular intelligence:

by dhw, Saturday, January 15, 2022, 07:59 (166 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: None of this convinces me your God is not part human.

dhw: “Part human” is a strange way of putting it. I am proposing, just as you once did, that your God has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in certain ways. Not surprising, as it seems highly unlikely that we would be the inventors of thought patterns, emotions etc. that were unknown to an all-knowing God.

DAVID: I'm in full agreement with your statement about God's thoughts and ours. It is your God's decisions and actions that are the present subject. Experimenting, Free-for-all evolution, needing entertainment area all signs of a weak humanlike form of a God.

I have no idea why you have suddenly decided that “humanizing” no longer refers to your use of such terms as “kindly”, or "interested” or “enjoy” or “wanting to have his work admired” or “to have a relationship with us”, though I do understand your burning desire to change the subject. I also have no idea why you regard experimenting to achieve a purpose or to learn something new, or creating something surprising and unpredictable (you agreed to this), as being weak. Or why a God who is forced to create a system containing errors he doesn’t want and can’t correct is stronger than a God who creates precisely the system he wants. (See below.) However, what is abundantly clear to me, and should be to you, is that all my theistic explanations of evolution’s history are more logical than his decision to create countless life forms plus ecosystems that have no connection with humans, although his only purpose according to you was to create humans plus their ecosystems.

The rest of this section is devoted to your repeatedly dodging the above bolded illogicality.

Antibiotic resistance
DAVID: Still ignoring my major point/theory: God used the only system that would work and does. He had to use it.

I keep pointing out that it is absurd to call your God all-powerful if he is forced to use a system that contains errors he does not want and cannot correct!

DAVID: Your usual dodge. An all-powerful, all-knowing God knows what can be done and does it. Your humanized God is now seems more powerful than mine!! He purposely creates a messy system, so He is not in full control.

You seem to forget that we’re both looking at the same system. Your all-powerful, all-knowing God has no choice and is forced to design a system with errors he doesn’t want and can’t correct. Apparently that makes him strong. My all-powerful, all-knowing God chooses to design this system because he wants the diversity that results from organisms having the freedom to find their own ways of surviving. Apparently that makes him weak! Errors that can’t be controlled apparently aren’t messy, but deliberately created diversity is.

Biofilms
dhw: You have agreed over and over again that the cells appear to be intelligent, and once you wrote that “those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own”. How do you know they don’t? And still I wait for you to add attributes to my list of those that convince you humans ARE autonomously intelligent.

DAVID: We both know humans are autonomously intelligent and at least I accept free will without question. Note the 'molecules' ACT AS IF. My statement does not say they are intelligent. You constantly twist statements.

My point was that if they act as if they are intelligent, how do you know they are not? Why have you ignored the question, which was the reason for my quoting you? I agree with you that we are autonomously intelligent, but you still haven’t offered one single attribute in addition to those I listed as evidence that cells are also intelligent.

Mutations random or not
QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival".

DAVID: […] non-random mutation is anti-Darwin and consistent with ID.

dhw: It is also consistent with cellular intelligence. It is worth noting that the motivation for the changes is survival, which is pro-Darwin.[…]

DAVID: So you work at the level of 'taking for granted' to save Darwin's survival theory? Or do you recognize the problem with the theory?

I pointed out that the authors took it for granted, and so do many others, and frankly I have no idea why you think that organisms which undergo changes that will help them to get food to eat, to protect themselves from harm, to adapt to new conditions etc. do not undergo these changes for the sake of survival – whether they make the changes themselves or your God designs them. No, I don’t recognize the problem. Please tell me.

Pathogens fight hosts
DAVID: its eat or die out there. This is another example of the war over food supply. It has been and will be continuous in every ecosystem. [...]

Surprise, surprise. Yes, it’s eat or die. And yet you do not see survival as a key motive for evolutionary developments. Why do pathogens fight hosts and hosts fight pathogens, each of them coming up with new strategies, if it’s not for survival?

Cellular intelligence:

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 15, 2022, 15:10 (165 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm in full agreement with your statement about God's thoughts and ours. It is your God's decisions and actions that are the present subject. Experimenting, Free-for-all evolution, needing entertainment area all signs of a weak humanlike form of a God.

dhw: I have no idea why you have suddenly decided that “humanizing” no longer refers to your use of such terms as “kindly”, or "interested” or “enjoy” or “wanting to have his work admired” or “to have a relationship with us”, though I do understand your burning desire to change the subject.

Personality terms have nothing to do with with comparisons of purposeful actions to define underlying personality. So you dodge the point.

dhw: I also have no idea why you regard experimenting to achieve a purpose or to learn something new, or creating something surprising and unpredictable (you agreed to this), as being weak.

My all-powerful and all-knowing God knows exactly what to do, what he wants and directly does it. You just made my point.

dhw: Or why a God who is forced to create a system containing errors he doesn’t want and can’t correct is stronger than a God who creates precisely the system he wants.

You've continued to ignore the point, God invented the only system that works.

dhw: However, what is abundantly clear to me, and should be to you, is that all my theistic explanations of evolution’s history are more logical than his decision to create countless life forms plus ecosystems that have no connection with humans, although his only purpose according to you was to create humans plus their ecosystems.

You agree food for all and then withdraw it. Your complaint is empty rhetoric.


Antibiotic resistance

DAVID: Still ignoring my major point/theory: God used the only system that would work and does. He had to use it.

dhw: I keep pointing out that it is absurd to call your God all-powerful if he is forced to use a system that contains errors he does not want and cannot correct!

Why do you ignore the facts: trillions of reactions a second are correct, in the only system that will work to make living organisms?


DAVID: Your usual dodge. An all-powerful, all-knowing God knows what can be done and does it. Your humanized God is now seems more powerful than mine!! He purposely creates a messy system, so He is not in full control.

dhw: My all-powerful, all-knowing God chooses to design this system because he wants the diversity that results from organisms having the freedom to find their own ways of surviving. Apparently that makes him weak! Errors that can’t be controlled apparently aren’t messy, but deliberately created diversity is.

Back to your weak God not in total control He doesn't want.


Biofilms

DAVID: We both know humans are autonomously intelligent and at least I accept free will without question. Note the 'molecules' ACT AS IF. My statement does not say they are intelligent. You constantly twist statements.

dhw: My point was that if they act as if they are intelligent, how do you know they are not? Why have you ignored the question, which was the reason for my quoting you? I agree with you that we are autonomously intelligent, but you still haven’t offered one single attribute in addition to those I listed as evidence that cells are also intelligent.

Appearing intelligent doesn't mean it is not all automatic functions, remember?


Mutations random or not

DAVID: So you work at the level of 'taking for granted' to save Darwin's survival theory? Or do you recognize the problem with the theory?

dhw: I pointed out that the authors took it for granted, and so do many others, and frankly I have no idea why you think that organisms which undergo changes that will help them to get food to eat, to protect themselves from harm, to adapt to new conditions etc. do not undergo these changes for the sake of survival – whether they make the changes themselves or your God designs them. No, I don’t recognize the problem. Please tell me.

Darwin's theory is that survival adaptations make speciation. Not proven is my only point.


Pathogens fight hosts
DAVID: its eat or die out there. This is another example of the war over food supply. It has been and will be continuous in every ecosystem. [...]

dhw: Surprise, surprise. Yes, it’s eat or die. And yet you do not see survival as a key motive for evolutionary developments. Why do pathogens fight hosts and hosts fight pathogens, each of them coming up with new strategies, if it’s not for survival?

Back to pure Darwin support.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Friday, January 21, 2022, 07:56 (160 days ago) @ dhw

Again our threads are overlapping, so I’m reopening this one and juxtaposing certain posts.

DAVID: One set of cooperating neurons is not the same as skull bone cells anticipating the size needs of a suddenly grown brain. No comparison!

dhw: Just as the cooperating cells for complexification RESPOND autonomously to new requirements (e.g. learning new skills), the cooperating cells of the skull would also RESPOND autonomously to new requirements (e.g. to accommodate the additional cells needed to learn new skills). That is the whole point of cellular flexibility – to respond to new requirements.

DAVID: You haven't answered the problem posed! The bone cells must know what the brain size has enlarged into. How does your imagined cooperation work? Please tell me a coherent theory, not platitudes.

It works through what I believe is known as communication. Cells communicate, as you have shown in countless articles that you have reproduced here. In your excellent book The Atheist Delusion, you quoted James Shapiro: “Living cells…are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.” Even if you don’t believe it, please don’t tell me that it’s not a possible answer to “the problem posed”.

dhw: But you have your God designing a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for a group of brains/birth canals to expand at a given moment 3+ billion years later, before the expansion is even needed. Or alternatively popping in to perform operations on each of those brains/birth canals, to prepare them in advance of conditions/requirements that don’t yet exist. Please add on every other evolutionary development, lifestyle, natural wonder, econiche etc, and perhaps you will understand why these two concepts strain my credulity.

DAVID: Not the point of the current discussion, but if God is the designer, He does it in His own way. I've made my guesses and I've read your humanized theory of God. we differ.

Of course it’s the current point at issue. I find your programming and your dabbling theories almost impossible to believe. I ask why, if your God gave cells the intelligence to complexify autonomously in response to new requirements (not in anticipation of them) , he couldn’t also have given cells the ability to expand autonomously to meet new requirements, but you don’t answer. And I can’t see what is “humanizing” about the invention of flexible, intelligent cells.

DAVID: [under “Biochemistry"…] all new conditions allow exploitation as more oxygen allowing more organismal complexity.

And so you agree that conditions change BEFORE organisms (cell communities) change. Cell communities do not change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

DAVID: God made sure by designing photosynthesis there would be enough oxygen for complex animals. Conditions changed to allow Cambrian forms. We agree….

At last!:-)

DAVID: ...but I've presented plenty of evidence of the opposite, as the simplest example of preparation for future use, our brain.

You have produced no evidence at all. See above.You agree that complexification is the brain cells’ RESPONSE to new requirements, not an anticipation of them, and you have no evidence whatsoever that expansion was NOT a similar RESPONSE to the need for greater capacity.

Camels’ noses
DAVID: Great design, as usual better than the ones we make. Did this come with the original camelids? One can propose starting close to a desert and by slowly venturing out the design develops. But the complexity is precise and effective and I believe far beyond dhw's wishes for cellular intelligence. Cells just ain't that smart, even if given design ability by God as dhw always theorizes. A purposeful God sees established endpoints to development by evolution. Cell designers don't have God's foresight or His direct abilities. That makes dhw's designer cells as secondhand designers n ot llikely to give God the results He definitely wants.

Humans are currently creating forms of artificial intelligence that can work wonders. But as you say, these natural wonders are often better than the ones we make. Why do you think your all-powerful God is incapable of making a mechanism that can create better wonders than we can? Cellular intelligence – if it exists (it remains a theory) – would be totally different from ours, but every natural wonder is geared to the same concept of improving an organism’s chances of survival in whatever conditions it finds itself. The camel’s nose is a wonderful example of cells responding to the requirements of the environment. You insist that it was all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or your God popped in to perform an operation on camels’ noses even before they found themselves in the desert (your "foresight"). Of course the complexity is precise and effective, and I don’t have a problem with it developing as camels became more accustomed to life in the desert - just as whale flippers would have developed as they settled down to life in the water. If humans can invent mechanisms that perform wonders, why can’t God? And for good measure, do you really believe that your God specially designed camels’ noses as part of his one and only goal to design humans and their food?

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Friday, January 21, 2022, 18:27 (159 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You haven't answered the problem posed! The bone cells must know what the brain size has enlarged into. How does your imagined cooperation work? Please tell me a coherent theory, not platitudes.

dhw: It works through what I believe is known as communication. Cells communicate, as you have shown in countless articles that you have reproduced here. In your excellent book The Atheist Delusion, you quoted James Shapiro: “Living cells…are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.” Even if you don’t believe it, please don’t tell me that it’s not a possible answer to “the problem posed”.

In skull and brain changes the Mother's cells must need to know in advance how big the new baby's skull is going to be. That is not cooperation but knowing what is coming.


DAVID: I've made my guesses and I've read your humanized theory of God. we differ.

dhw: Of course it’s the current point at issue. I find your programming and your dabbling theories almost impossible to believe. I ask why, if your God gave cells the intelligence to complexify autonomously in response to new requirements (not in anticipation of them) , he couldn’t also have given cells the ability to expand autonomously to meet new requirements, but you don’t answer. And I can’t see what is “humanizing” about the invention of flexible, intelligent cells.

I've answered: God will not desire to reach His goals by handing off to the cells secondhand designing. Cells might not go in His desired direction unless He constantly instructs them..


DAVID: [under “Biochemistry"…] all new conditions allow exploitation as more oxygen allowing more organismal complexity.

dhw: And so you agree that conditions change BEFORE organisms (cell communities) change. Cell communities do not change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

Only in a major gap like the Cambrian or plant bloom are the conditions prepared for a major change/advance.


DAVID: God made sure by designing photosynthesis there would be enough oxygen for complex animals. Conditions changed to allow Cambrian forms. We agree….

dhw: At last!:-)

Note gaps only!!!! ;-)


DAVID: ...but I've presented plenty of evidence of the opposite, as the simplest example of preparation for future use, our brain.

dhw: You have produced no evidence at all. See above. You agree that complexification is the brain cells’ RESPONSE to new requirements, not an anticipation of them, and you have no evidence whatsoever that expansion was NOT a similar RESPONSE to the need for greater capacity.

No!!! The brain is prepared in advance for new uses as the history of the sapiens brain shows, and complexification allows to handle future use.


Camels’ noses
DAVID: Great design, as usual better than the ones we make. Did this come with the original camelids? One can propose starting close to a desert and by slowly venturing out the design develops. But the complexity is precise and effective and I believe far beyond dhw's wishes for cellular intelligence. Cells just ain't that smart, even if given design ability by God as dhw always theorizes. A purposeful God sees established endpoints to development by evolution. Cell designers don't have God's foresight or His direct abilities. That makes dhw's designer cells as secondhand designers not likely to give God the results He definitely wants.

dhw: Humans are currently creating forms of artificial intelligence that can work wonders. But as you say, these natural wonders are often better than the ones we make. Why do you think your all-powerful God is incapable of making a mechanism that can create better wonders than we can? Cellular intelligence – if it exists (it remains a theory) – would be totally different from ours, but every natural wonder is geared to the same concept of improving an organism’s chances of survival in whatever conditions it finds itself. The camel’s nose is a wonderful example of cells responding to the requirements of the environment. You insist that it was all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or your God popped in to perform an operation on camels’ noses even before they found themselves in the desert (your "foresight"). Of course the complexity is precise and effective, and I don’t have a problem with it developing as camels became more accustomed to life in the desert - just as whale flippers would have developed as they settled down to life in the water. If humans can invent mechanisms that perform wonders, why can’t God? And for good measure, do you really believe that your God specially designed camels’ noses as part of his one and only goal to design humans and their food?

I agreed camel's nose can be an adaptation. His one an only goal followed a prelude of preparation for an Earth rich with resources for us: oil and gas, metal deposits, a a huge variety of food source. You just can't see it that way.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Saturday, January 22, 2022, 12:59 (158 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You haven't answered the problem posed! The bone cells must know what the brain size has enlarged into. How does your imagined cooperation work? Please tell me a coherent theory, not platitudes.

dhw: It works through what I believe is known as communication. Cells communicate, as you have shown in countless articles that you have reproduced here. [See yesterday’s quote from Shapiro.]

DAVID: In skull and brain changes the Mother's cells must need to know in advance how big the new baby's skull is going to be. That is not cooperation but knowing what is coming.

The whole of evolution depends on the flexibility of cell communities. If they spoke English, the brain cells nowadays would say: “New idea. Gotta create new connection.” You have agreed that this happens with no intervention from your God. In the past, if there weren’t ENOUGH cells, they would have said: “We need more”, and the skull cells would have said: “They’re adding more, so we better make ourselves bigger,” and the birth canal cells would have said: “Ouch, baby brain bigger than expected - better make ourselves bigger”. No doubt there’d have been plenty of problems and deaths in childbirth before natural selection determined that the larger birth canals took over, and in fact it’s still a major problem. The cells have never found a perfect solution, which is forgivable, since they are not all-powerful and all-knowing (which of course is why so many species die out). In your theory, the flexible cell communities follow the same process of size and/or shape-changing, except that it’s done by your all-powerful, all-knowing God popping in and performing one-by-one operations on a group of women. (In my theory, the individual intelligent cell communities respond in the same way to the same conditions = convergence.) But your God apparently performed his one-by-one canal operations before those women got pregnant: in fact he restructured the relevant flexible cell communities even though some of the women may never have got pregnant at all. Weird.

dhw: I find your programming and your dabbling theories almost impossible to believe. I ask why, if your God gave cells the intelligence to complexify autonomously in response to new requirements (not in anticipation of them) , he couldn’t also have given cells the ability to expand autonomously to meet new requirements, but you don’t answer. And I can’t see what is “humanizing” about the invention of flexible, intelligent cells.

DAVID: I've answered: God will not desire to reach His goals by handing off to the cells secondhand designing. Cells might not go in His desired direction unless He constantly instructs them.

How many goals has he got? You keep saying he only has one – us and our food. How do you know that his “desired direction” was not to create a vast, ever changing bush of life full of surprising and unpredictable life forms and natural wonders – which actually happens to be a pretty good description of life’s history. You simply answer my question by pretending you know what God does and doesn’t desire! When did he tell you?

DAVID: [under “Biochemistry"…] all new conditions allow exploitation as more oxygen allowing more organismal complexity.

dhw: And so you agree that conditions change BEFORE organisms (cell communities) change. Cell communities do not change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

DAVID: Only in a major gap like the Cambrian or plant bloom are the conditions prepared for a major change/advance.

So when pre-whale legs change into flippers, you now agree that it is in response to the new conditions and not in anticipation. And when skulls and birth canals expand, it is in response to the addition of cells/expansion of brains, and not in anticipation. Thank you.

DAVID: God made sure by designing photosynthesis there would be enough oxygen for complex animals. Conditions changed to allow Cambrian forms. We agree….

dhw: At last!:-)

DAVID: Note gaps only!!!! ;-)

Note: in ALL phases of evolution, from adaptation (in which even you have to agree that conditions change before organisms adapt to them) to innovation (in which even you ought to agree that new species are unlikely to be born BEFORE the changes in conditions under which they are to survive).:-)

Camels’ noses
DAVID: […] the complexity is precise and effective and I believe far beyond dhw's wishes for cellular intelligence.

dhw: […] Of course the complexity is precise and effective, and I don’t have a problem with it developing as camels became more accustomed to life in the desert - just as whale flippers would have developed as they settled down to life in the water. If humans can invent mechanisms that perform wonders, why can’t God? And for good measure, do you really believe that your God specially designed camels’ noses as part of his one and only goal to design humans and their food?

DAVID: I agreed camel's nose can be an adaptation.

Thank you. And so if your God didn’t pop in to operate on camels’ noses, but created a mechanism that would enable them to make what you yourself describe as “precise and effective” complexity, then (if he exists), he must have given the cells an autonomous mechanism to do their own designing of precise and effective complexities.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 22, 2022, 14:49 (158 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In skull and brain changes the Mother's cells must need to know in advance how big the new baby's skull is going to be. That is not cooperation but knowing what is coming.

dhw: No doubt there’d have been plenty of problems and deaths in childbirth before natural selection determined that the larger birth canals took over, and in fact it’s still a major problem.....In your theory, the flexible cell communities follow the same process of size and/or shape-changing, except that it’s done by your all-powerful, all-knowing God popping in and performing one-by-one operations on a group of women. (In my theory, the individual intelligent cell communities respond in the same way to the same conditions = convergence.) But your God apparently performed his one-by-one canal operations before those women got pregnant: in fact he restructured the relevant flexible cell communities even though some of the women may never have got pregnant at all. Weird.

All women come with the same pelvic form! Your comment is weird. Pregnancy is not a requirement


dhw: And I can’t see what is “humanizing” about the invention of flexible, intelligent cells.

DAVID: I've answered: God will not desire to reach His goals by handing off to the cells secondhand designing. Cells might not go in His desired direction unless He constantly instructs them.

dhw: How many goals has he got? You keep saying he only has one – us and our food. How do you know that his “desired direction” was not to create a vast, ever changing bush of life full of surprising and unpredictable life forms and natural wonders – which actually happens to be a pretty good description of life’s history. You simply answer my question by pretending you know what God does and doesn’t desire! When did he tell you?

Analysis of His works with an open mind. Humans are an endpoint for which God spent 3.8 billion years preparing the way for their survival, exactly life's history as seen by a true theist.


DAVID: [under “Biochemistry"…] all new conditions allow exploitation as more oxygen allowing more organismal complexity.

dhw: And so you agree that conditions change BEFORE organisms (cell communities) change. Cell communities do not change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

DAVID: Only in a major gap like the Cambrian or plant bloom are the conditions prepared for a major change/advance.

dhw: So when pre-whale legs change into flippers, you now agree that it is in response to the new conditions and not in anticipation. Thank you.

I'm discussing major gaps! You are not. Stay on point. Water and land existed all at the same time for semi-aquatic pre-whale mammals. God simply helped them become aquatic! The gaps have sequential condition issues prior to the appearance of new more complex forms


Camels’ noses
DAVID: […] the complexity is precise and effective and I believe far beyond dhw's wishes for cellular intelligence.

dhw: […] Of course the complexity is precise and effective, and I don’t have a problem with it developing as camels became more accustomed to life in the desert - just as whale flippers would have developed as they settled down to life in the water. If humans can invent mechanisms that perform wonders, why can’t God? And for good measure, do you really believe that your God specially designed camels’ noses as part of his one and only goal to design humans and their food?

DAVID: I agreed camel's nose can be an adaptation.

dhw: Thank you. And so if your God didn’t pop in to operate on camels’ noses, but created a mechanism that would enable them to make what you yourself describe as “precise and effective” complexity, then (if he exists), he must have given the cells an autonomous mechanism to do their own designing of precise and effective complexities.

Same species using God's epigenetics. Remember? Nothing major. I'm much less rigid than you imagine from your rigid viewpoint of me and my thoughts.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Sunday, January 23, 2022, 12:17 (158 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: In skull and brain changes the Mother's cells must need to know in advance how big the new baby's skull is going to be. That is not cooperation but knowing what is coming.(dhw’s bold)

In my reply, I explained in detail how cooperation worked. You have totally ignored my explanation. I also remarked that in your own theory, your God operated on individual women’s birth canals even before they got pregnant.

DAVID: All women come with the same pelvic form! Your comment is weird. Pregnancy is not a requirement.

Of course all women now come with the same pelvic form! We’re talking about how that form ORIGINATED when brains grew larger! I propose that changes occur IN RESPONSE to conditions and not in anticipation of non-existing conditions: here the relevant cells would have communicated and cooperated – as I described yesterday – when it was clear that the existing birth canal would have difficulty accommodating the newly existing larger brain. You say your God operated on individual women even before they got pregnant. (GOD to virgin pre-sapiens: “I’m operating now because one day in the future, you might have a baby with a big brain.”) That is what I find weird.

dhw: And I can’t see what is “humanizing” about the invention of flexible, intelligent cells.

DAVID: I've answered: God will not desire to reach His goals by handing off to the cells secondhand designing. Cells might not go in His desired direction unless He constantly instructs them.

dhw: How many goals has he got? You keep saying he only has one – us and our food. How do you know that his “desired direction” was not to create a vast, ever changing bush of life full of surprising and unpredictable life forms and natural wonders – which actually happens to be a pretty good description of life’s history. You simply answer my question by pretending you know what God does and doesn’t desire! When did he tell you?

DAVID: Analysis of His works with an open mind. Humans are an endpoint for which God spent 3.8 billion years preparing the way for their survival, exactly life's history as seen by a true theist.

Oops, yet again you left out 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans plus food. You always do. And you still haven’t said why inventing flexible, intelligent cells is “humanizing”, and I’m surprised to hear that all those folk (including Adler and all the ID-ers) who never even mention your illogical theory are not “true” theists.

DAVID: [under “Biochemistry"…] all new conditions allow exploitation as more oxygen allowing more organismal complexity.

dhw: And so you agree that conditions change BEFORE organisms (cell communities) change. Cell communities do not change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

DAVID: Only in a major gap like the Cambrian or plant bloom are the conditions prepared for a major change/advance.

dhw: So when pre-whale legs change into flippers, you now agree that it is in response to the new conditions and not in anticipation. Thank you.

DAVID: I'm discussing major gaps! You are not. Stay on point. Water and land existed all at the same time for semi-aquatic pre-whale mammals. God simply helped them become aquatic! The gaps have sequential condition issues prior to the appearance of new more complex forms.

You claimed your God designed ALL species in advance of the conditions in which they were to survive. I propose that whether God designs them or not, the conditions must change before the species come into existence. You have now conceded that this is true of “major gaps”. I propose that it is true of ALL species. I can see no logic in the concept of innovations taking place before the existence of the conditions they will survive in or exploit.

Camels’ noses
DAVID: […] the complexity is precise and effective and I believe far beyond dhw's wishes for cellular intelligence. [dhw's bold]

dhw: […] Of course the complexity is precise and effective, and I don’t have a problem with it developing as camels became more accustomed to life in the desert – […] If humans can invent mechanisms that perform wonders, why can’t God? And for good measure, do you really believe that your God specially designed camels’ noses as part of his one and only goal to design humans and their food?

DAVID: I agreed camel's nose can be an adaptation.

dhw: Thank you. And so if your God didn’t pop in to operate on camels’ noses, but created a mechanism that would enable them to make what you yourself describe as “precise and effective” complexity, then (if he exists), he must have given the cells an autonomous mechanism to do their own designing of precise and effective complexities.

DAVID: Same species using God's epigenetics. Remember? Nothing major. I'm much less rigid than you imagine from your rigid viewpoint of me and my thoughts.

I’m delighted to see your flexibility. A couple of days ago, the camel’s nose was so complex that it was “far beyond dhw’s wishes for cellular intelligence”, but now it is nothing major. So did your God pop in to operate on camels’ noses or preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, or did he give the cells a mechanism whereby they could design these precise and effective complexities themselves independently of any intervention by himself?

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 23, 2022, 15:05 (157 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In skull and brain changes the Mother's cells must need to know in advance how big the new baby's skull is going to be. That is not cooperation but knowing what is coming.(dhw’s bold)

dhw: In my reply, I explained in detail how cooperation worked. You have totally ignored my explanation. I also remarked that in your own theory, your God operated on individual women’s birth canals even before they got pregnant.

DAVID: All women come with the same pelvic form! Your comment is weird. Pregnancy is not a requirement.

dhw: Of course all women now come with the same pelvic form! We’re talking about how that form ORIGINATED when brains grew larger! I propose that changes occur IN RESPONSE to conditions and not in anticipation of non-existing conditions: here the relevant cells would have communicated and cooperated – as I described yesterday – when it was clear that the existing birth canal would have difficulty accommodating the newly existing larger brain. You say your God operated on individual women even before they got pregnant. (GOD to virgin pre-sapiens: “I’m operating now because one day in the future, you might have a baby with a big brain.”) That is what I find weird.

How do women's pelvic bone cells communicate with baby skull cells? Telepathy? Your theory is beyond weird.


dhw: So when pre-whale legs change into flippers, you now agree that it is in response to the new conditions and not in anticipation. Thank you.

DAVID: I'm discussing major gaps! You are not. Stay on point. Water and land existed all at the same time for semi-aquatic pre-whale mammals. God simply helped them become aquatic! The gaps have sequential condition issues prior to the appearance of new more complex forms.

dhw: You claimed your God designed ALL species in advance of the conditions in which they were to survive. I propose that whether God designs them or not, the conditions must change before the species come into existence. You have now conceded that this is true of “major gaps”. I propose that it is true of ALL species. I can see no logic in the concept of innovations taking place before the existence of the conditions they will survive in or exploit.

Still forgetting our huge brain 315,000 years before the uses in modern civilization, as you admitted is my great example of dsign.


Camels’ noses
DAVID: […] the complexity is precise and effective and I believe far beyond dhw's wishes for cellular intelligence. [dhw's bold]

dhw: […] Of course the complexity is precise and effective, and I don’t have a problem with it developing as camels became more accustomed to life in the desert – […] If humans can invent mechanisms that perform wonders, why can’t God? And for good measure, do you really believe that your God specially designed camels’ noses as part of his one and only goal to design humans and their food?

DAVID: I agreed camel's nose can be an adaptation.

dhw: Thank you. And so if your God didn’t pop in to operate on camels’ noses, but created a mechanism that would enable them to make what you yourself describe as “precise and effective” complexity, then (if he exists), he must have given the cells an autonomous mechanism to do their own designing of precise and effective complexities.

DAVID: Same species using God's epigenetics. Remember? Nothing major. I'm much less rigid than you imagine from your rigid viewpoint of me and my thoughts.

dhw: I’m delighted to see your flexibility. A couple of days ago, the camel’s nose was so complex that it was “far beyond dhw’s wishes for cellular intelligence”, but now it is nothing major. So did your God pop in to operate on camels’ noses or preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, or did he give the cells a mechanism whereby they could design these precise and effective complexities themselves independently of any intervention by himself?

I originally proposed both ways: "Comment: Great design, as usual better than the ones we make. Did this come with the original camelids? One can propose starting close to a desert and by slowly venturing out the design develops. But the complexity is precise and effective and I believe far beyond dhw's wishes for cellular intelligence. Cells just ain't that smart, even if given design ability by God as dhw always theorizes. A purposeful God sees established endpoints to development by evolution." As you see I can imaginer either way it came. With further evolved thought about camel noses I can go either way and accept epigenetics, a God-given mechanism, as the cause.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Monday, January 24, 2022, 12:33 (156 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All women come with the same pelvic form! Your comment is weird. Pregnancy is not a requirement.

dhw: Of course all women now come with the same pelvic form! We’re talking about how that form ORIGINATED when brains grew larger! I propose that changes occur IN RESPONSE to conditions and not in anticipation of non-existing conditions: here the relevant cells would have communicated and cooperated – as I described yesterday – when it was clear that the existing birth canal would have difficulty accommodating the newly existing larger brain. You say your God operated on individual women even before they got pregnant. (GOD to virgin pre-sapiens: “I’m operating now because one day in the future, you might have a baby with a big brain.”) That is what I find weird.

DAVID: How do women's pelvic bone cells communicate with baby skull cells? Telepathy? Your theory is beyond weird.

So now you are even telling us that cells don’t communicate! When your brain tells your hand to lift your pen, how’s it done? Telepathy? The pregnant woman’s birth canal had to respond to the size of the baby, and all the connected muscles and bones had to respond at the same time. The term I’d use for this process is “adaptation”. I'm sure you've heard of it. And surprise, surprise, the birth canal and the connected muscles and bones all consist of various cells. The size of the baby would therefore have been the trigger that set in motion the communication and cooperation between all these cell communities. As I wrote before in the response which you ignored, there are sure to have been many deaths in childbirth before natural selection established the new birth canal and pelvis as the norm, and indeed the design still causes problems.

dhw: You claimed your God designed ALL species in advance of the conditions in which they were to survive. I propose that whether God designs them or not, the conditions must change before the species come into existence. You have now conceded that this is true of “major gaps”. I propose that it is true of ALL species. I can see no logic in the concept of innovations taking place before the existence of the conditions they will survive in or exploit.

DAVID: Still forgetting our huge brain 315,000 years before the uses in modern civilization, as you admitted is my great example of design.

It is your favourite example, which I have categorically opposed on the grounds that we know the brain RESPONDS to new requirements, as opposed to changing itself in anticipation of new requirements. We have discussed this in detail several times, so please don’t pretend that I agree with you.

Camels' noses

dhw: I’m delighted to see your flexibility. A couple of days ago, the camel’s nose was so complex that it was “far beyond dhw’s wishes for cellular intelligence”, but now it is nothing major. So did your God pop in to operate on camels’ noses or preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, or did he give the cells a mechanism whereby they could design these precise and effective complexities themselves independently of any intervention by himself?

DAVID: I originally proposed both ways: "Comment: Great design, as usual better than the ones we make. Did this come with the original camelids? One can propose starting close to a desert and by slowly venturing out the design develops. But the complexity is precise and effective and I believe far beyond dhw's wishes for cellular intelligence. Cells just ain't that smart…” As you see I can imagine either way it came.

No you can’t. Now you are even twisting your own words! You tell us there are two theories, and you categorically reject one! You can’t imagine cells being “that smart”!

DAVID: With further evolved thought about camel noses I can go either way and accept epigenetics, a God-given mechanism, as the cause.

So you have changed your mind (beautifully disguised as “further evolved thought”) because you now realize that you contradicted yourself. Epigenetics does not rule out cellular intelligence. Any change in the response of genes to their environment can still entail the “sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (Shapiro) that denote intelligence. But I’m delighted at your conversion to the idea that your God may have created a mechanism that enables cells to act autonomously, even in cases of precise and effective complexity.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Monday, January 24, 2022, 15:22 (156 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How do women's pelvic bone cells communicate with baby skull cells? Telepathy? Your theory is beyond weird.

dhw: So now you are even telling us that cells don’t communicate! When your brain tells your hand to lift your pen, how’s it done? Telepathy? The pregnant woman’s birth canal had to respond to the size of the baby, and all the connected muscles and bones had to respond at the same time. The term I’d use for this process is “adaptation”. I'm sure you've heard of it. And surprise, surprise, the birth canal and the connected muscles and bones all consist of various cells. The size of the baby would therefore have been the trigger that set in motion the communication and cooperation between all these cell communities. As I wrote before in the response which you ignore there are sure to have been many deaths in childbirth before natural selection established the new birth canal and pelvis as the norm, and indeed the design still causes problems.

Such just-so fairytales! Neuron communication is not the issue. The Mother's DNA, the Father's DNA and the baby DNA all contribute to the size changes and are all unrelated in actions. How does the Mother's pelvis anticipate the baby skull size based on the Father's DNA contribution? Without anticipatory design change every baby skull would be squashed, and Habilis would not become Erectus. So proudly use the term adaptation, which tells us nothing about how it must happen..


dhw: You claimed your God designed ALL species in advance of the conditions in which they were to survive. I propose that whether God designs them or not, the conditions must change before the species come into existence. You have now conceded that this is true of “major gaps”. I propose that it is true of ALL species. I can see no logic in the concept of innovations taking place before the existence of the conditions they will survive in or exploit.

DAVID: Still forgetting our huge brain 315,000 years before the uses in modern civilization, as you admitted is my great example of design.

dhw: It is your favourite example, which I have categorically opposed on the grounds that we know the brain RESPONDS to new requirements, as opposed to changing itself in anticipation of new requirements. We have discussed this in detail several times, so please don’t pretend that I agree with you.

The new brain that already exists is the only one that can respond to new uses. You answer doesn't solve that point.


Camels' noses

dhw: I’m delighted to see your flexibility. A couple of days ago, the camel’s nose was so complex that it was “far beyond dhw’s wishes for cellular intelligence”, but now it is nothing major. So did your God pop in to operate on camels’ noses or preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, or did he give the cells a mechanism whereby they could design these precise and effective complexities themselves independently of any intervention by himself?

DAVID: I originally proposed both ways: "Comment: Great design, as usual better than the ones we make. Did this come with the original camelids? One can propose starting close to a desert and by slowly venturing out the design develops. But the complexity is precise and effective and I believe far beyond dhw's wishes for cellular intelligence. Cells just ain't that smart…” As you see I can imagine either way it came.

dhw: No you can’t. Now you are even twisting your own words! You tell us there are two theories, and you categorically reject one! You can’t imagine cells being “that smart”!

DAVID: With further evolved thought about camel noses I can go either way and accept epigenetics, a God-given mechanism, as the cause.

dhw: So you have changed your mind (beautifully disguised as “further evolved thought”) because you now realize that you contradicted yourself. Epigenetics does not rule out cellular intelligence. Any change in the response of genes to their environment can still entail the “sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (Shapiro) that denote intelligence. But I’m delighted at your conversion to the idea that your God may have created a mechanism that enables cells to act autonomously, even in cases of precise and effective complexity.

I've admitted some epigenetic may be quite complex. The exquisite camel nose may or may not be designed, but here I am agnostic like someone I know.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 07:49 (156 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: How do women's pelvic bone cells communicate with baby skull cells? Telepathy? Your theory is beyond weird.

dhw: So now you are even telling us that cells don’t communicate! When your brain tells your hand to lift your pen, how’s it done? Telepathy? The pregnant woman’s birth canal had to respond to the size of the baby, and all the connected muscles and bones had to respond at the same time. The term I’d use for this process is “adaptation”. […] The size of the baby would therefore have been the trigger that set in motion the communication and cooperation between all these cell communities. […]

DAVID: Such just-so fairytales! Neuron communication is not the issue.

I am pointing out that every organ in our bodies requires cell connection and communication. No point in your sneering: “Telepathy?” unless you believe cells do not communicate. Do you?

DAVID: The Mother's DNA, the Father's DNA and the baby DNA all contribute to the size changes and are all unrelated in actions. How does the Mother's pelvis anticipate the baby skull size based on the Father's DNA contribution? Without anticipatory design change every baby skull would be squashed, and Habilis would not become Erectus. So proudly use the term adaptation, which tells us nothing about how it must happen.

You have forgotten that we are talking about the ORIGIN of the process! Your “just-so fairy tale" is that overnight, a group of women woke up with new birth canals and pelvises to accommodate bigger brained babies which had not yet even been conceived. God had been and gone and done it.
My proposal is that new requirements (e.g. new tools, ideas, discoveries, environments) resulted in general brain expansion, which was heritable (as it must have been after your God's overnight operations), and which meant that over generations, brains grew bigger and so did babies. Bigger brained babies required bigger birth canals etc., i.e. birth canals etc. RESPONDED to the new baby size. They did not expand in anticipation of conception! In due course (no doubt after many deaths in childbirth, which even today causes problems) the changes in brain, birth canal and pelvis became the heritable norm. Please explain why you find this less credible than your fairy tale.

dhw: […] I propose that whether God designs [all species] or not, the conditions must change before the species come into existence. You have now conceded that this is true of “major gaps”. […]

DAVID: Still forgetting our huge brain 315,000 years before the uses in modern civilization, as you admitted is my great example of design.

dhw: It is your favourite example, which I have categorically opposed […]

DAVID: The new brain that already exists is the only one that can respond to new uses. You answer doesn't solve that point.

The new brain responds to new requirements by autonomously complexifying, just as in earlier times it would have responded by autonomous complexification until it needed greater capacity, which I propose meant autonomous expansion (as opposed to your God’s overnight operations). The sapiens expansion (not "huge" compared to late erectus) would also have been a response to new requirements, and from then on it responded through complexification (which was so efficient that the brain shrank). The process is always requirement first, and you have never offered a single reason for rejecting this logical theory.

Camels' noses
dhw: I’m delighted to see your flexibility. A couple of days ago, the camel’s nose was so complex that it was “far beyond dhw’s wishes for cellular intelligence”, but now it is nothing major. […]

DAVID: I originally proposed both ways: "Comment: Great design, as usual better than the ones we make. Did this come with the original camelids? One can propose starting close to a desert and by slowly venturing out the design develops. But the complexity is precise and effective and I believe far beyond dhw's wishes for cellular intelligence. Cells just ain't that smart…” As you see I can imagine either way it came.

dhw: No you can’t.[…] You tell us there are two theories, and you categorically reject one! You can’t imagine cells being “that smart”!

DAVID: With further evolved thought about camel noses I can go either way and accept epigenetics, a God-given mechanism, as the cause.

dhw: So you have changed your mind (beautifully disguised as “further evolved thought”) because you now realize that you contradicted yourself. Epigenetics does not rule out cellular intelligence. Any change in the response of genes to their environment can still entail the “sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (Shapiro) that denote intelligence. But I’m delighted at your conversion to the idea that your God may have created a mechanism that enables cells to act autonomously, even in cases of precise and effective complexity.

DAVID: I've admitted some epigenetic may be quite complex. The exquisite camel nose may or may not be designed, but here I am agnostic like someone I know.

I would argue that it is clearly designed, and since epigenetics = a mechanism which apparently does not require your God’s direct intervention, I am more than happy to accept your belief that such complexities can be designed by cells independently of your God.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 18:27 (155 days ago) @ dhw

I am pointing out that every organ in our bodies requires cell connection and communication. No point in your sneering: “Telepathy?” unless you believe cells do not communicate. Do you?

The point vis not all cells connect with all other cells as below:


DAVID: The Mother's DNA, the Father's DNA and the baby DNA all contribute to the size changes and are all unrelated in actions. How does the Mother's pelvis anticipate the baby skull size based on the Father's DNA contribution? Without anticipatory design change every baby skull would be squashed, and Habilis would not become Erectus. So proudly use the term adaptation, which tells us nothing about how it must happen.

dhw: My proposal is that new requirements (e.g. new tools, ideas, discoveries, environments) resulted in general brain expansion, which was heritable (as it must have been after your God's overnight operations), and which meant that over generations, brains grew bigger and so did babies.

Over what generations? Now no gaps? In your mind they just disappear.

Bigger brained babies required bigger birth canals etc., i.e. birth canals etc. RESPONDED to the new baby size. They did not expand in anticipation of conception! In due course (no doubt after many deaths in childbirth, which even today causes problems) the changes in brain, birth canal and pelvis became the heritable norm. Please explain why you find this less credible than your fairy tale.

The fossils demonstrate large gaps, which you cannot ignore. Why not use facts to support theories?


DAVID: The new brain that already exists is the only one that can respond to new uses. You answer doesn't solve that point.

dhw: The sapiens expansion (not "huge" compared to late erectus) would also have been a response to new requirements, and from then on it responded through complexification (which was so efficient that the brain shrank). The process is always requirement first, and you have never offered a single reason for rejecting this logical theory.

Size change is the issue since complexification comes with each new-sized brain. My reason is the fact example of our brain, much too large for current use when it appeared. What requirements made it so big at its start?


Camels' noses
dhw: I’m delighted to see your flexibility. A couple of days ago, the camel’s nose was so complex that it was “far beyond dhw’s wishes for cellular intelligence”, but now it is nothing major. […]

DAVID: I originally proposed both ways: "Comment: Great design, as usual better than the ones we make. Did this come with the original camelids? One can propose starting close to a desert and by slowly venturing out the design develops. But the complexity is precise and effective and I believe far beyond dhw's wishes for cellular intelligence. Cells just ain't that smart…” As you see I can imagine either way it came.

dhw: No you can’t.[…] You tell us there are two theories, and you categorically reject one! You can’t imagine cells being “that smart”!

DAVID: With further evolved thought about camel noses I can go either way and accept epigenetics, a God-given mechanism, as the cause.

dhw: So you have changed your mind (beautifully disguised as “further evolved thought”) because you now realize that you contradicted yourself. Epigenetics does not rule out cellular intelligence. Any change in the response of genes to their environment can still entail the “sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (Shapiro) that denote intelligence. But I’m delighted at your conversion to the idea that your God may have created a mechanism that enables cells to act autonomously, even in cases of precise and effective complexity.

DAVID: I've admitted some epigenetic may be quite complex. The exquisite camel nose may or may not be designed, but here I am agnostic like someone I know.

dhw: I would argue that it is clearly designed, and since epigenetics = a mechanism which apparently does not require your God’s direct intervention, I am more than happy to accept your belief that such complexities can be designed by cells independently of your God.

And my problem, and really yours is we have no current evidence of epigenetics being capable of this degree of design complexity, which complexity you recognize.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Wednesday, January 26, 2022, 11:42 (155 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am pointing out that every organ in our bodies requires cell connection and communication. No point in your sneering: “Telepathy?” unless you believe cells do not communicate. Do you?

DAVID: The point vis not all cells connect with all other cells as below:

I am not saying all cells connect with each other! Do you or do you not believe that cells communicate?

dhw: My proposal is that new requirements (e.g. new tools, ideas, discoveries, environments) resulted in general brain expansion, which was heritable (as it must have been after your God's overnight operations), and which meant that over generations, brains grew bigger and so did babies.

DAVID: Over what generations? Now no gaps? In your mind they just disappear.
And
The fossils demonstrate large gaps, which you cannot ignore. Why not use facts to support theories?

One generation = one mummy and daddy, and the next generation = their offspring. We know the erectus brain capacity gradually increased: One website says that 1.7 million years ago, the average was 885 cc, but 200,000 years ago it was 1,186 cc. Doesn’t this suggest to you that brain size increased over generations? And we get excited when we find one fossil, but you want at least one fossil per cc.!

DAVID: The new brain that already exists is the only one that can respond to new uses.

dhw: The sapiens expansion (not "huge" compared to late erectus) would also have been a response to new requirements, and from then on it responded through complexification (which was so efficient that the brain shrank). The process is always requirement first, and you have never offered a single reason for rejecting this logical theory.

DAVID: Size change is the issue since complexification comes with each new-sized brain. My reason is the fact example of our brain, much too large for current use when it appeared. What requirements made it so big at its start?

How many more times? Nobody knows what requirements led to each expansion, which is why I have offered you a list of possibles (new ideas, inventions, discoveries, environments). Once pre-sapiens brains had expanded they would have used complexification of the then existing cells to meet all new requirements – just as ours do – but when new requirements exceeded the existing capacity, they expanded. In ours, expansion ended and the existing cells enhanced their ability to complexify (so efficiently as to shrink the brain). Yet again: why is this theory illogical, especially when compared to yours, in which your God operates on groups of individuals who wake up one morning with bigger brains and birth canals?

Camels' noses
dhw: I’m delighted to see your flexibility. A couple of days ago, the camel’s nose was so complex that it was “far beyond dhw’s wishes for cellular intelligence”, but now it is nothing major. […]

DAVID: With further evolved thought about camel noses I can go either way and accept epigenetics, a God-given mechanism, as the cause.

dhw: […] since epigenetics = a mechanism which apparently does not require your God’s direct intervention, I am more than happy to accept your belief that such complexities can be designed by cells independently of your God.

DAVID: And my problem, and really yours is we have no current evidence of epigenetics being capable of this degree of design complexity, which complexity you recognize.

You've just said that with your “evolved thought” you CAN accept epigenetics as being capable of this degree of design complexity! But of course we don’t know the ultimate possible degree, which is why Shapiro’s theory (and mine) remains a theory, just like the theory that a God keeps operating on all the noses, brains and birth canals he didn’t preprogramme 3.8 billion years ago.

Molecular binding controls
QUOTE: "Using the detailed information they gleaned from studying these interactions, the researchers created their own synthetic molecule capable of binding extremely tightly to a protein called ENAH, which is implicated in cancer metastasis.

DAVID: this study shows how molecules know with whom to combine or react, automatically, no thought involved because of the design. Cell intelligence is in the design, not autonomously active.

Borderlines are blurred. Generally, molecules will indeed behave automatically in order to preserve an established system (though new systems will have been originated through intelligence.) If they don’t find the "right" combination, there will be problems. These may be the “errors” which your all-powerful God was incapable of avoiding and often of correcting. The example mentioned here is cancer – but these cells have found their own way of surviving. They “eat” us. In many cases, cells will also respond to invaders by developing new defences. This is where again I suggest automatic behaviour ends and intelligence comes into play. I know you disagree, but we should distinguish between automatic actions that maintain the status quo and actions that change the status quo (innovations) or constitute new responses to preserve it (as in the immune system or in adaptations). These are the circumstances in which autonomous intelligence comes into play, as opposed to your God directing or preprogramming every single response to every single new requirement for past, present and future evolution.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 26, 2022, 16:02 (154 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am not saying all cells connect with each other! Do you or do you not believe that cells communicate?

Of course they do in specific tasks.


dhw: One generation = one mummy and daddy, and the next generation = their offspring. We know the erectus brain capacity gradually increased: One website says that 1.7 million years ago, the average was 885 cc, but 200,000 years ago it was 1,186 cc. Doesn’t this suggest to you that brain size increased over generations? And we get excited when we find one fossil, but you want at least one fossil per cc.!

How do we know God didn't help with those intra-Erectus changes of enlargement? Remember sapiens started at close to 1,350 cc. So a jump gap exists. You still have not solved how baby brain communicates to mommy's pelvis


DAVID: Size change is the issue since complexification comes with each new-sized brain. My reason is the fact example of our brain, much too large for current use when it appeared. What requirements made it so big at its start?

dhw: How many more times? Nobody knows what requirements led to each expansion, which is why I have offered you a list of possibles (new ideas, inventions, discoveries, environments).

But we do know lifestyle comparisons. Early sapiens lived like late Erectus. Your requirements theory has no basis in known facts. Endogenous Brazilian tribes still aren't suing their brains as we do.

dhw: Yet again: why is this theory illogical, especially when compared to yours, in which your God operates on groups of individuals who wake up one morning with bigger brains and birth canals?

I accept you feel God is illogical. So?


Camels' noses

DAVID: And my problem, and really yours is we have no current evidence of epigenetics being capable of this degree of design complexity, which complexity you recognize.

dhw: You've just said that with your “evolved thought” you CAN accept epigenetics as being capable of this degree of design complexity!

The point is you and I do not know how far epigenetics can creete complexity


Molecular binding controls
QUOTE: "Using the detailed information they gleaned from studying these interactions, the researchers created their own synthetic molecule capable of binding extremely tightly to a protein called ENAH, which is implicated in cancer metastasis.

DAVID: this study shows how molecules know with whom to combine or react, automatically, no thought involved because of the design. Cell intelligence is in the design, not autonomously active.

dhw: Borderlines are blurred. Generally, molecules will indeed behave automatically in order to preserve an established system (though new systems will have been originated through intelligence.) If they don’t find the "right" combination, there will be problems. These may be the “errors” which your all-powerful God was incapable of avoiding and often of correcting. The example mentioned here is cancer – but these cells have found their own way of surviving. They “eat” us. In many cases, cells will also respond to invaders by developing new defences. This is where again I suggest automatic behaviour ends and intelligence comes into play. I know you disagree, but we should distinguish between automatic actions that maintain the status quo and actions that change the status quo (innovations) or constitute new responses to preserve it (as in the immune system or in adaptations). These are the circumstances in which autonomous intelligence comes into play, as opposed to your God directing or preprogramming every single response to every single new requirement for past, present and future evolution.

Cancer is an escape from control and literally errors in normal patterns. They may be wild but they don't think, which your theory requires..

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Thursday, January 27, 2022, 07:21 (154 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am not saying all cells connect with each other! Do you or do you not believe that cells communicate?

DAVID: Of course they do in specific tasks.

There wouldn’t be much point in their communicating if there wasn’t something specific to communicate. Your sneer of “Telepathy?” was totally irrelevant.

dhw: One generation = one mummy and daddy, and the next generation = their offspring. We know the erectus brain capacity gradually increased: One website says that 1.7 million years ago, the average was 885 cc, but 200,000 years ago it was 1,186 cc. Doesn’t this suggest to you that brain size increased over generations? And we get excited when we find one fossil, but you want at least one fossil per cc.!

DAVID: How do we know God didn't help with those intra-Erectus changes of enlargement?

You scoffed at the idea that brains and babies may have grown bigger over generations instead of your God enlarging them overnight with one operation. Now you have him operating umpteen times! That still = gradual expansion over generations, so thank you for agreeing.

DAVID: Remember sapiens started at close to 1,350 cc. So a jump gap exists. You still have not solved how baby brain communicates to mommy's pelvis.

1350 cc is the average, but yes, every average increase is a jump. Australopithecus to habilis, and habilis to erectus, and erectus to sapiens are each around 200 cc, and I have suggested various possible causes. What’s the problem? Baby’s big brain does not have to communicate with mummy’s pelvis! Baby’s big brain is what sets in motion a chain of communications between birth canal and surrounding bones and muscles to accommodate big baby.

DAVID: Size change is the issue since complexification comes with each new-sized brain. My reason is the fact example of our brain, much too large for current use when it appeared. What requirements made it so big at its start?

dhw: How many more times? Nobody knows what requirements led to each expansion, which is why I have offered you a list of possibles (new ideas, inventions, discoveries, environments etc.).

DAVID: But we do know lifestyle comparisons. Early sapiens lived like late Erectus. Your requirements theory has no basis in known facts. Endogenous Brazilian tribes still aren't suing their brains as we do.

All our ancestors would have lived like one another and like our fellow animals, with survival the basis of their actions. But homos gradually developed more sophisticated MEANS of survival. For instance, tools and weapons. Please tell us your God’s reasons for each overnight operation that he conducted on each species of homo to make their brains jump 200 cc? To prepare for what, if you think they all lived the same way? I’m reluctant to include Brazilian tribes, as they have their own cultures which should be respected as being different but not inferior to ours.

dhw: Yet again: why is this theory illogical, especially when compared to yours, in which your God operates on groups of individuals who wake up one morning with bigger brains and birth canals?

DAVID: I accept you feel God is illogical. So?

You keep assuming that your interpretation of your God’s actions and life’s history are the absolute and incontrovertible truth. It is your interpretation that I find illogical, and you still haven’t said what is illogical about my own theory!

Camels' noses
DAVID: And my problem, and really yours is we have no current evidence of epigenetics being capable of this degree of design complexity, which complexity you recognize.

dhw: You've just said that with your “evolved thought” you CAN accept epigenetics as being capable of this degree of design complexity!

DAVID: The point is you and I do not know how far epigenetics can creete complexity.

The point is you now agree with the theory that your God has created a mechanism that can autonomously produce such complex organs as the camel’s nose. I have long agreed that we don’t know how far this autonomous ability can go, which is why it remains a theory, just as your own theory of divine preprogramming and dabbling remains a theory.

Molecular binding controls
dhw: […] I know you disagree, but we should distinguish between automatic actions that maintain the status quo and actions that change the status quo (innovations) or constitute new responses to preserve it (as in the immune system or in adaptations). These are the circumstances in which autonomous intelligence comes into play, as opposed to your God directing or preprogramming every single response to every single new requirement for past, present and future evolution.

DAVID: Cancer is an escape from control and literally errors in normal patterns. They may be wild but they don't think, which your theory requires.

I’m reluctant to use the word “think”, which is too “humanizing”. We know cancer cells send one another information, which would be useless if it wasn’t then processed and acted on, and presumably your God hasn’t instructed them on what they should attack, so a degree of autonomous intelligence is implied. But my main concern above is to distinguish between automatic and autonomous actions, since you always focus on what is already established (and therefore automatic) and try to avoid actions that require new responses.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 27, 2022, 16:47 (153 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Remember sapiens started at close to 1,350 cc. So a jump gap exists. You still have not solved how baby brain communicates to mommy's pelvis.

dhw: 1350 cc is the average, but yes, every average increase is a jump. Australopithecus to habilis, and habilis to erectus, and erectus to sapiens are each around 200 cc, and I have suggested various possible causes. What’s the problem? Baby’s big brain does not have to communicate with mummy’s pelvis! Baby’s big brain is what sets in motion a chain of communications between birth canal and surrounding bones and muscles to accommodate big baby.

Sizeable jumps of 200 cc in skull size will kill the babies. Still no explanation accept design.


dhw: How many more times? Nobody knows what requirements led to each expansion, which is why I have offered you a list of possibles (new ideas, inventions, discoveries, environments etc.).

DAVID: But we do know lifestyle comparisons. Early sapiens lived like late Erectus. Your requirements theory has no basis in known facts. Endogenous Brazilian tribes still aren't using their brains as we do.

dhw: All our ancestors would have lived like one another and like our fellow animals, with survival the basis of their actions. But homos gradually developed more sophisticated MEANS of survival. For instance, tools and weapons. Please tell us your God’s reasons for each overnight operation that he conducted on each species of homo to make their brains jump 200 cc? To prepare for what, if you think they all lived the same way? I’m reluctant to include Brazilian tribes, as they have their own cultures which should be respected as being different but not inferior to ours.

The bold above is significant. Gradual development using a bigger brain, which allows it, is my point


dhw: Yet again: why is this theory illogical, especially when compared to yours, in which your God operates on groups of individuals who wake up one morning with bigger brains and birth canals?

DAVID: I accept you feel God is illogical. So?

dhw: You keep assuming that your interpretation of your God’s actions and life’s history are the absolute and incontrovertible truth. It is your interpretation that I find illogical, and you still haven’t said what is illogical about my own theory!

Intelligent cells cannot design for future use.


Molecular binding controls
dhw: […] I know you disagree, but we should distinguish between automatic actions that maintain the status quo and actions that change the status quo (innovations) or constitute new responses to preserve it (as in the immune system or in adaptations). These are the circumstances in which autonomous intelligence comes into play, as opposed to your God directing or preprogramming every single response to every single new requirement for past, present and future evolution.

DAVID: Cancer is an escape from control and literally errors in normal patterns. They may be wild but they don't think, which your theory requires.

dhw: I’m reluctant to use the word “think”, which is too “humanizing”. We know cancer cells send one another information, which would be useless if it wasn’t then processed and acted on, and presumably your God hasn’t instructed them on what they should attack, so a degree of autonomous intelligence is implied. But my main concern above is to distinguish between automatic and autonomous actions, since you always focus on what is already established (and therefore automatic) and try to avoid actions that require new responses.

In cancer there are new responses which are distortions of what normal cells do autoatically.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Friday, January 28, 2022, 13:25 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Remember sapiens started at close to 1,350 cc. So a jump gap exists.

dhw: 1350 cc is the average, but yes, every average increase is a jump. Australopithecus to habilis, and habilis to erectus, and erectus to sapiens are each around 200 cc, and I have suggested various possible causes. What’s the problem? .

DAVID: Sizeable jumps of 200 cc in skull size will kill the babies. Still no explanation accept design.

You seem to think that these jumps happened overnight - your God performing his 200 cc jump operations on a particular group of (hopefully sedated) homos! The average is the point between lowest and highest. The fact that erectus gradually moved from approx. 900 to approx.1200 has led even you to acknowledge that brains (including baby brains) may change gradually over generations, and so you have even suggested that your God continued to perform his operations (“How do we know God didn’t help…?”). And as usual, you want fossils for every cc.

dhw: How many more times? Nobody knows what requirements led to each expansion, which is why I have offered you a list of possibles (new ideas, inventions, discoveries, environments etc.).

DAVID: But we do know lifestyle comparisons. Early sapiens lived like late Erectus. Your requirements theory has no basis in known facts. Endogenous Brazilian tribes still aren't using their brains as we do.

dhw: All our ancestors would have lived like one another and like our fellow animals, with survival the basis of their actions. bbBut homos gradually developed more sophisticated MEANS of survival.bb For instance, tools and weapons. Please tell us your God’s reasons for each overnight operation that he conducted on each species of homo to make their brains jump 200 cc? To prepare for what, if you think they all lived the same way? I’m reluctant to include Brazilian tribes, as they have their own cultures which should be respected as being different but not inferior to ours.

DAVID: The bold above is significant. Gradual development using a bigger brain, which allows it, is my point.

Your point was that there was no change in lifestyle. Now you agree that there were gradual changes. And the other “point” is that we don’t know what requirements led to each expansion, but of course once the brain had expanded, it was used and would have complexified (just as ours does) in response to whatever was required, until some major new requirement would have exhausted its capacity for complexification, and then it would have needed to expand.

dhw: Yet again: why is this theory illogical, especially when compared to yours, in which your God operates on groups of individuals who wake up one morning with bigger brains and birth canals?

DAVID: I accept you feel God is illogical. So?

dhw: You keep assuming that your interpretation of your God’s actions and life’s history are the absolute and incontrovertible truth. It is your interpretation that I find illogical, and you still haven’t said what is illogical about my own theory!

DAVID: Intelligent cells cannot design for future use.

No, they design in response to present requirements. Pre-sapiens X is sick of hand-to-paw battles with his prey and invents the spear. This requires new cells for its design, manufacture and use. But of course once the spear has been designed it will be used in the future!

Introducing the brain: improve, preserve it, exercise more
QUOTES: Science is increasingly revealing that the brains of those who regularly work out can look very different compared to the brains of people who don't.
"One way exercise can induce changes in the brain is by increasing levels of the protein brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in the blood, which is linked to neurogenesis. More BDNF may mean more new neurons in the brain.

Please note: The brain changes in response to actions and not in anticipation. This would apply to mental as well as physical actions (e.g. illiterate women learning to read).

Requirements for design” transferred from “More miscellany”)
dhw: The brain example seems to be the only one you can think of, and you still haven’t offered a single reason for rejecting my proposal/

DAVID: Each past brain form had the necessary size/complexity present to then respond to new requirements. That brains can respond in no way shows how they enlarged.

They would have used their existing size and ability to complexify until the capacity was insufficient to deal with a new requirement, and so meeting that new requirement would have resulted in the formation of new cells, i.e. expansion. Why do you find this illogical?


Molecular binding controls.
dhw: […] my main concern above is to distinguish between automatic and autonomous actions, since you always focus on what is already established (and therefore automatic) and try to avoid actions that require new responses.

DAVID: In cancer there are new responses which are distortions of what normal cells do automatically.

Agreed. But cancer cells unfortunately find their own means of survival, and they process and communicate information just as normal cells do. If you believe in common descent, then every evolutionary innovation will entail a change from what some cells “normally” do automatically.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Friday, January 28, 2022, 21:25 (152 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Sizeable jumps of 200 cc in skull size will kill the babies. Still no explanation accept design.

dhw: You seem to think that these jumps happened overnight -...And as usual, you want fossils for every cc.

The many erectus fossils over much time and differing areas indicate gaps since we NEVER find evidence of itty-bitty stepwise changes you viewpoint demands.


dhw: All our ancestors would have lived like one another and like our fellow animals, with survival the basis of their actions. bbBut homos gradually developed more sophisticated MEANS of survival.bb For instance, tools and weapons. Please tell us your God’s reasons for each overnight operation that he conducted on each species of homo to make their brains jump 200 cc? To prepare for what, if you think they all lived the same way? I’m reluctant to include Brazilian tribes, as they have their own cultures which should be respected as being different but not inferior to ours.

DAVID: The bold above is significant. Gradual development using a bigger brain, which allows it, is my point.

dhw: Your point was that there was no change in lifestyle. Now you agree that there were gradual changes. And the other “point” is that we don’t know what requirements led to each expansion, but of course once the brain had expanded, it was used and would have complexified (just as ours does) in response to whatever was required, until some major new requirement would have exhausted its capacity for complexification, and then it would have needed to expand.

You make my point. Each bigger brain has capacity used up and then it jumps to a bigger size until that size is used up.


DAVID: Intelligent cells cannot design for future use.

dhw: No, they design in response to present requirements. Pre-sapiens X is sick of hand-to-paw battles with his prey and invents the spear. This requires new cells for its design, manufacture and use.

No, existing cells complexify in the same-sized brain. They are there waiting to be used.

Requirements for design” transferred from “More miscellany”)
dhw: The brain example seems to be the only one you can think of, and you still haven’t offered a single reason for rejecting my proposal/

DAVID: Each past brain form had the necessary size/complexity present to then respond to new requirements. That brains can respond in no way shows how they enlarged.

dhw: They would have used their existing size and ability to complexify until the capacity was insufficient to deal with a new requirement, and so meeting that new requirement would have resulted in the formation of new cells, i.e. expansion. Why do you find this illogical?

That is my point as explained above. They enlarge after full use. Each new size and neuron complexity comes large in preparation for new uses. Illogical??>


Molecular binding controls.
dhw: […] my main concern above is to distinguish between automatic and autonomous actions, since you always focus on what is already established (and therefore automatic) and try to avoid actions that require new responses.

DAVID: In cancer there are new responses which are distortions of what normal cells do automatically.

dhw: Agreed. But cancer cells unfortunately find their own means of survival, and they process and communicate information just as normal cells do. If you believe in common descent, then every evolutionary innovation will entail a change from what some cells “normally” do automatically.

Agreed. New automatic processes appear

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Saturday, January 29, 2022, 08:04 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Sizeable jumps of 200 cc in skull size will kill the babies. Still no explanation accept design.

dhw: You seem to think that these jumps happened overnight -...And as usual, you want fossils for every cc.

DAVID: The many erectus fossils over much time and differing areas indicate gaps since we NEVER find evidence of itty-bitty stepwise changes you viewpoint demands.
I have pointed out averages are the middle point between lows and highs, and that the progression from an early average of approx. 900 cc to a late average of approx 1200 cc confirmed that brain size would have increased over generations. You chimed in that your God might have “helped”. This sounds like itty-bitty changes to me, whether your God conducted his overnight operations or not. But as usual, you expect to find one fossil per cc of growth.

dhw: All our ancestors would have lived like one another and like our fellow animals, with survival the basis of their actions. But homos gradually developed more sophisticated MEANS of survival. For instance, tools and weapons.

DAVID: The bold above is significant. Gradual development using a bigger brain, which allows it, is my point.

dhw: Your point was that there was no change in lifestyle. Now you agree that there were gradual changes. And the other “point” is that we don’t know what requirements led to each expansion, but of course once the brain had expanded, it was used and would have complexified (just as ours does) in response to whatever was required, until some major new requirement would have exhausted its capacity for complexification, and then it would have needed to expand.

DAVID: You make my point. Each bigger brain has capacity used up and then it jumps to a bigger size until that size is used up.

That is my point, too. The difference between us is the CAUSE of expansion. I say new ideas, intentions, conditions, problems etc. exceeded the complexifying capabilities of existing cells, and so more cells were needed to RESPOND to these new requirements. Your cells change because your God operated on them in anticipation of later requirements. Just as you have him changing legs to flippers before pre-whales entered the water.

DAVID: … existing cells complexify in the same sized brain. They are there waiting to be used. […]

They complexify in the same brain until a new requirement exceeds their complexification capacity, and then they need additional cells. Only when sapiens arrived did existing cells increase their ABILITY to complexify, thus making expansion unnecessary, and this was so efficient that the brain shrank.

DAVID: They enlarge after full use. Each new size and neuron complexity comes large in preparation for new uses. Illogical??

Yes, they enlarge when their existing complexification capability cannot cope with new requirements. Yes, the new size will contain enough cells to deal with requirements until it’s used up its complexification capacity. But no, the complexity doesn’t “come large” in preparation. The mechanism for complexification remains the same, and the complexity increases as the brain meets new requirements. Only in sapiens has the mechanism for complexification “improved” sufficiently to make expansion unnecessary. To sum it up: early brains increased in size when the mechanism for complexification in existing cells could no longer RESPOND to new requirements, and so more cells were needed. In sapiens, the complexification capacity of existing cells became great enough to meet all new requirements, and so our brains became increasingly complex instead of increasingly large.


All this has been discussed before, and you have only raised it because it seems to be your last defence of your theory that all evolutionary changes- except for plants and in the Cambrian! - take place BEFORE conditions change rather than in RESPONSE to changing conditions.

Molecular binding controls.
DAVID: In cancer there are new responses which are distortions of what normal cells do automatically.

dhw: Agreed. But cancer cells unfortunately find their own means of survival, and they process and communicate information just as normal cells do. If you believe in common descent, then every evolutionary innovation will entail a change from what some cells “normally” do automatically.

DAVID: Agreed. New automatic processes appear.

They only become automatic when they are established. You keep refusing to acknowledge that every system must have a beginning, and if you believe in common descent, then that beginning will take place because of cells that do NOT automatically follow an existing pattern. Intelligence manifests itself when cells are confronted with new problems, conditions, requirements, opportunities.

Light sensing proteins
DAVID: Simply, God is the active designing intelligence.

I fnd it difficult to envisage as “simple” a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single evolutionary development in life’s history, to be switched on at every appropriate moment with all the appropriate instructions. And the image of God popping in to perform operations on all these micro and macro organisms in all sorts of conditions doesn’t sound simple to me either. One invention would save him all that trouble: the good old intelligent cell. :-)

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 29, 2022, 15:41 (151 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: … existing cells complexify in the same sized brain. They are there waiting to be used. […]

dhw: They complexify in the same brain until a new requirement exceeds their complexification capacity, and then they need additional cells. Only when sapiens arrived did existing cells increase their ABILITY to complexify, thus making expansion unnecessary, and this was so efficient that the brain shrank.

DAVID: They enlarge after full use. Each new size and neuron complexity comes large in preparation for new uses. Illogical??

dhw: Yes, they enlarge when their existing complexification capability cannot cope with new requirements. Yes, the new size will contain enough cells to deal with requirements until it’s used up its complexification capacity. But no, the complexity doesn’t “come large” in preparation. The mechanism for complexification remains the same, and the complexity increases as the brain meets new requirements.

We agree and you misread my comment now bolded. New brains with more complex neuron networks in preparation for new uses. Complexification is a process, not a size change.

dhw: Only in sapiens has the mechanism for complexification “improved” sufficiently to make expansion unnecessary. To sum it up: early brains increased in size when the mechanism for complexification in existing cells could no longer RESPOND to new requirements, and so more cells were needed. In sapiens, the complexification capacity of existing cells became great enough to meet all new requirements, and so our brains became increasingly complex instead of increasingly large.

Agreed.


dhw: All this has been discussed before, and you have only raised it because it seems to be your last defence of your theory that all evolutionary changes- except for plants and in the Cambrian! - take place BEFORE conditions change rather than in RESPONSE to changing conditions.

It isn't the only example but the simplest to use as we have discussed it. You favor a non-God approach with natural expansion.


Molecular binding controls.
DAVID: In cancer there are new responses which are distortions of what normal cells do automatically.

dhw: Agreed. But cancer cells unfortunately find their own means of survival, and they process and communicate information just as normal cells do. If you believe in common descent, then every evolutionary innovation will entail a change from what some cells “normally” do automatically.

DAVID: Agreed. New automatic processes appear.

dhw: They only become automatic when they are established. You keep refusing to acknowledge that every system must have a beginning, and if you believe in common descent, then that beginning will take place because of cells that do NOT automatically follow an existing pattern. Intelligence manifests itself when cells are confronted with new problems, conditions, requirements, opportunities.

All in the eye of the beholders prejudice. All I see is intelligent design.


Light sensing proteins
DAVID: Simply, God is the active designing intelligence.

dhw: I find it difficult to envisage as “simple” a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single evolutionary development in life’s history, to be switched on at every appropriate moment with all the appropriate instructions. And the image of God popping in to perform operations on all these micro and macro organisms in all sorts of conditions doesn’t sound simple to me either. One invention would save him all that trouble: the good old intelligent cell. :-)

Or the good old God actively designing as He produced evolution as we see it.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Sunday, January 30, 2022, 11:15 (151 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: … existing cells complexify in the same sized brain. They are there waiting to be used. […]

dhw: They complexify in the same brain until a new requirement exceeds their complexification capacity, and then they need additional cells. Only when sapiens arrived did existing cells increase their ABILITY to complexify, thus making expansion unnecessary, and this was so efficient that the brain shrank.

DAVID: They enlarge after full use. Each new size and neuron complexity comes large in preparation for new uses. Illogical??

dhw: Yes, they enlarge when their existing complexification capability cannot cope with new requirements. Yes, the new size will contain enough cells to deal with requirements until it’s used up its complexification capacity. But no, the complexity doesn’t “come large” in preparation. The mechanism for complexification remains the same, and bbbthe complexity increases as the brain meets new requirements.

DAVID: We agree and you misread my comment now bolded. New brains with more complex neuron networks in preparation for new uses. Complexification is a process, not a size change.

We certainly agree that complexification is a process, not a size change. But you seem to have completely left out the distinction between complexity and the ability to complexify. The latter is present at all times. In my theory, the brain enlarges because the existing cells are not ABLE to cope with a particular requirement by means of complexification. And so of course the new brain now contains enough cells to cope by complexification with that particular requirement plus any new uses. And then once again a major new requirement exceeds the ABILITY of existing cells to complexify, and once again more cells are needed. At all stages until sapiens (when the ability to complexify is enhanced), expansion RESULTS from the INABILITY of existing cells to meet a new requirement. In your theory, your God operates on each group of brains BEFORE there are any new requirements.

dhw: All this has been discussed before, and you have only raised it because it seems to be your last defence of your theory that all evolutionary changes- except for plants and in the Cambrian! - take place BEFORE conditions change rather than in RESPONSE to changing conditions.

DAVID: It isn't the only example but the simplest to use as we have discussed it. You favor a non-God approach with natural expansion.

This example does NOT prove your theory that your God operates on brains before there is any need for him to do so, and you have not yet found a single example that does. You have even had to concede that in plants and in the Cambrian, conditions must change BEFORE new species can exist. And it is not a non-God approach if an agnostic acknowledges the possibility that there is a God who created the whole mechanism whereby organisms RESPOND to changing conditions, instead of him preprogramming or dabbling every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder.

Molecular binding controls.
DAVID: In cancer there are new responses which are distortions of what normal cells do automatically.

dhw: Agreed. But cancer cells unfortunately find their own means of survival, and they process and communicate information just as normal cells do. If you believe in common descent, then every evolutionary innovation will entail a change from what some cells “normally” do automatically.

DAVID: Agreed. New automatic processes appear.

dhw: They only become automatic when they are established. You keep refusing to acknowledge that every system must have a beginning, and if you believe in common descent, then that beginning will take place because of cells that do NOT automatically follow an existing pattern. Intelligence manifests itself when cells are confronted with new problems, conditions, requirements, opportunities.

DAVID: All in the eye of the beholders prejudice. All I see is intelligent design.

I also see intelligent design, and your prejudice lies in your assumption that your God would not design intelligent cells, but would prefer to do it all himself.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 30, 2022, 16:10 (150 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We agree and you misread my comment now bolded. New brains with more complex neuron networks in preparation for new uses. Complexification is a process, not a size change.

dhw: We certainly agree that complexification is a process, not a size change. But you seem to have completely left out the distinction between complexity and the ability to complexify. The latter is present at all times. In my theory, the brain enlarges because the existing cells are not ABLE to cope with a particular requirement by means of complexification. And so of course the new brain now contains enough cells to cope by complexification with that particular requirement plus any new uses. And then once again a major new requirement exceeds the ABILITY of existing cells to complexify, and once again more cells are needed. At all stages until sapiens (when the ability to complexify is enhanced), expansion RESULTS from the INABILITY of existing cells to meet a new requirement. In your theory, your God operates on each group of brains BEFORE there are any new requirements.

By your rule our brain is the endpoint of evolution. No matter how much we learn that is new, the brain stays the same by master complexification.


dhw: All this has been discussed before, and you have only raised it because it seems to be your last defence of your theory that all evolutionary changes- except for plants and in the Cambrian! - take place BEFORE conditions change rather than in RESPONSE to changing conditions.

DAVID: It isn't the only example but the simplest to use as we have discussed it. You favor a non-God approach with natural expansion.

dhw: This example does NOT prove your theory that your God operates on brains before there is any need for him to do so, and you have not yet found a single example that does. You have even had to concede that in plants and in the Cambrian, conditions must change BEFORE new species can exist. And it is not a non-God approach if an agnostic acknowledges the possibility that there is a God who created the whole mechanism whereby organisms RESPOND to changing conditions, instead of him preprogramming or dabbling every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder.

Once again you turn to secondhand designing. I view God as never giving up tight control


Molecular binding controls.
DAVID: In cancer there are new responses which are distortions of what normal cells do automatically.

dhw: Agreed. But cancer cells unfortunately find their own means of survival, and they process and communicate information just as normal cells do. If you believe in common descent, then every evolutionary innovation will entail a change from what some cells “normally” do automatically.

DAVID: Agreed. New automatic processes appear.

dhw: They only become automatic when they are established. You keep refusing to acknowledge that every system must have a beginning, and if you believe in common descent, then that beginning will take place because of cells that do NOT automatically follow an existing pattern. Intelligence manifests itself when cells are confronted with new problems, conditions, requirements, opportunities.

DAVID: All in the eye of the beholders prejudice. All I see is intelligent design.

dhw: I also see intelligent design, and your prejudice lies in your assumption that your God would not design intelligent cells, but would prefer to do it all himself.

I repeat: "Once again you turn to secondhand designing. I view God as never giving up tight control."

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Monday, January 31, 2022, 12:02 (150 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: At all stages until sapiens (when the ability to complexify is enhanced), expansion RESULTS from the INABILITY of existing cells to meet a new requirement. In your theory, your God operates on each group of brains BEFORE there are any new requirements.

DAVID: By your rule our brain is the endpoint of evolution. No matter how much we learn that is new, the brain stays the same by master complexification.

We are discussing whether evolutionary changes occur before or after changes in conditions – not what might or might not be an endpoint. The brain never stayed/stays the same. In my theory (it’s not a “rule”) each complexification is a change. Here you are referring to sapiens’ brain, and are simply repeating that sapiens’ brain does not expand because complexification has been enhanced – to such a degree that in fact the brain has shrunk. You have no evidence that complexification occurs in ANTICIPATION of the new tasks that are to be performed later, just as you have no evidence that speciation occurs IN ANTICIPATION of conditions that do not yet exist.

dhw: All this has been discussed before, and you have only raised it because it seems to be your last defence of your theory that all evolutionary changes- except for plants and in the Cambrian! - take place BEFORE conditions change rather than in RESPONSE to changing conditions.

DAVID: It isn't the only example but the simplest to use as we have discussed it. You favor a non-God approach with natural expansion.

dhw: This example does NOT prove your theory that your God operates on brains before there is any need for him to do so, and you have not yet found a single example that does. You have even had to concede that in plants and in the Cambrian, conditions must change BEFORE new species can exist. And it is not a non-God approach if an agnostic acknowledges the possibility that there is a God who created the whole mechanism whereby organisms RESPOND to changing conditions, instead of him preprogramming or dabbling every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder.

DAVID: Once again you turn to secondhand designing. I view God as never giving up tight control.

You still haven’t found a single example of evolutionary changes taking place in anticipation of future changes in conditions, and a possibly God-designed intelligence is not a “non-God” approach.

Molecular binding controls.
dhw: If you believe in common descent, then every evolutionary innovation will entail a change from what some cells “normally” do automatically.

DAVID: Agreed. New automatic processes appear.

dhw: They only become automatic when they are established. You keep refusing to acknowledge that every system must have a beginning, and if you believe in common descent, then that beginning will take place because of cells that do NOT automatically follow an existing pattern. Intelligence manifests itself when cells are confronted with new problems, conditions, requirements, opportunities.

DAVID: All in the eye of the beholders prejudice. All I see is intelligent design.

dhw: I also see intelligent design, and your prejudice lies in your assumption that your God would not design intelligent cells, but would prefer to do it all himself.

DAVID: I repeat: "Once again you turn to secondhand designing. I view God as never giving up tight control."

We both see intelligent design. Your rigid belief that your God preprogrammed or individually dabbled every single stage of every organ, organism, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder, solution to problems etc. and could not possibly have given cells the same autonomous ability he has given to sapiens to perceive and process information, communicate and take decisions, might be described as “in the eye of the beholder’s prejudice.” NB It remains a theory, however. I only ask you not to reject it, as you do, solely on the grounds that although it offers a logical explanation of life’s history, it conflicts with your own rigid belief.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Monday, January 31, 2022, 18:42 (149 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: By your rule our brain is the endpoint of evolution. No matter how much we learn that is new, the brain stays the same by master complexification.

We are discussing whether evolutionary changes occur before or after changes in conditions – not what might or might not be an endpoint. The brain never stayed/stays the same....You have no evidence that complexification occurs in ANTICIPATION of the new tasks that are to be performed later, just as you have no evidence that speciation occurs IN ANTICIPATION of conditions that do not yet exist.

It all depends upon interpretation. A huge brain that appears barely used 310,000 years ago, that can easily accommodate all the new uses we have found over the time since it appeared, is obviously is ready for all that can be anticipated.


DAVID: Once again you turn to secondhand designing. I view God as never giving up tight control.

dhw: You still haven’t found a single example of evolutionary changes taking place in anticipation of future changes in conditions, and a possibly God-designed intelligence is not a “non-God” approach.

As above, our brain is the best obvious one I know.


Molecular binding controls.

DAVID: All in the eye of the beholders prejudice. All I see is intelligent design.

dhw: I also see intelligent design, and your prejudice lies in your assumption that your God would not design intelligent cells, but would prefer to do it all himself.

DAVID: I repeat: "Once again you turn to secondhand designing. I view God as never giving up tight control."

dhw: We both see intelligent design. Your rigid belief that your God preprogrammed or individually dabbled every single stage of every organ, organism, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder, solution to problems etc. and could not possibly have given cells the same autonomous ability he has given to sapiens to perceive and process information, communicate and take decisions, might be described as “in the eye of the beholder’s prejudice.” NB It remains a theory, however. I only ask you not to reject it, as you do, solely on the grounds that although it offers a logical explanation of life’s history, it conflicts with your own rigid belief.

A debate does not involve acceptance. I think your view is wrong.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Tuesday, February 01, 2022, 11:59 (149 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have no evidence that complexification occurs in ANTICIPATION of the new tasks that are to be performed later, just as you have no evidence that speciation occurs IN ANTICIPATION of conditions that do not yet exist.

DAVID: It all depends upon interpretation. A huge brain that appears barely used 310,000 years ago, that can easily accommodate all the new uses we have found over the time since it appeared, is obviously is ready for all that can be anticipated.

In my theory, all stages of expansion would have been able to accommodate some new uses through complexification until the capacity for complexification was exceeded by some major new requirement. The need for more cells RESULTED from a requirement, and the brain did not expand BEFORE the new requirement existed. In our case, however, complexification took over from expansion, and each new complexification takes place as a RESPONSE to new requirements. Therefore neither expansion nor complexification is an example of evolutionary changes taking place in anticipation of new requirements.

DAVID: Once again you turn to secondhand designing. I view God as never giving up tight control.

Your “view” does not invalidate my argument and does not provide a single example to illustrate your theory of anticipation.

dhw: NB It remains a theory, however. I only ask you not to reject it, as you do, solely on the grounds that although it offers a logical explanation of life’s history, it conflicts with your own rigid belief.

DAVID: A debate does not involve acceptance. I think your view is wrong.

I did not ask you to accept it. I asked you not to reject it. That is the difference between agnosticism and rigid belief. In a debate, one should be able to defend one’s viewpoint through reasoned argument, not through mere repetition of “I think you’re wrong”. ;-)

Transferred from “More Miscellany”:

DAVID: The mutations required for any early Cambrian has been calculated by ID into the millions of years. Using the same math Darwinists do. The phenotypic gap survives.

dhw: By “mutations” I can only assume you and they mean random mutations. But mutations are not by definition random! If you believe in common descent, then as above even your God has to engineer mutations, and so these wonderful calculations do not take into account the possibility of intelligent design. But oops, they do, because ID-ers like yourself would claim that the brief period (= sudden appearance of new species) can only be explained by an intelligent designer. And that could be your God, or it could be intelligent cells (perhaps originally designed by your God).

DAVID: […] What happened so quickly cannot be natural.

What do you mean by “natural”? If your intelligent God can do it, why can’t he have designed an intelligent mechanism that can do it?

dhw: The next entry might help us:
How proteins find the right DNA spot

DAVID: […] How the molecule knows its target is still not known.

dhw: […] So perhaps at the very least we should reserve judgement on the possibility that it is capable of autonomously and rapidly processing information and taking decisions. As you once wrote: “Those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own.”

DAVID: "Those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own”] simply refers to the brilliance of their design.

Yep, a molecule with a mind of its own would certainly be a brilliant design. Why do you assume that a life form that acts intelligently (as if it has a mind of its own) is not intelligent and does not have a mind of its own?

Thank you once more for your integrity in presenting the next article, which again emphasizes my point that mutations are NOT random:

Evidence of non-random mutation
QUOTE:"A new study by a team of researchers from Israel and Ghana has brought the first evidence of nonrandom mutation in human genes, challenging a core assumption at the heart of evolutionary theory by showing a long-term directional mutational response to environmental pressure.”

NB This also emphasizes that evolutionary changes are RESPONSES to changing conditions, and do not take place in ANTICIPATION of them.

QUOTE: "Contrary to the widely accepted expectations, the results supported the nonrandom pattern. The HbS mutation originated de novo not only much faster than expected from random mutation, but also much faster in the population […] where it is of adaptive significance. [dhw’s bold]

NB “de novo”. I’m not saying this provides proof of Shapiro’s theory, but it emphasizes that “evolutionary novelty” arises from cells’ responses to conditions. Note also the emphasis on speed.

DAVID: Livnat says complex information accumulates in the genome to guide it. Did God create the mechanism to accumulate information?

I like your question, and would extend it. Did God create the mechanism which not only accumulates information, but also processes it, communicates it, and takes decisions on how to use it? The theory of the intelligent cell does not in any way exclude your God.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 01, 2022, 16:01 (148 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It all depends upon interpretation. A huge brain that appears barely used 310,000 years ago, that can easily accommodate all the new uses we have found over the time since it appeared, is obviously is ready for all that can be anticipated.

dhw: In my theory, all stages of expansion would have been able to accommodate some new uses through complexification until the capacity for complexification was exceeded by some major new requirement. The need for more cells RESULTED from a requirement, and the brain did not expand BEFORE the new requirement existed. In our case, however, complexification took over from expansion, and each new complexification takes place as a RESPONSE to new requirements. Therefore neither expansion nor complexification is an example of evolutionary changes taking place in anticipation of new requirements.

The bolded sentence does not explain the fact that our early brain was way over-expanded for the uses of that time. That defines 'anticipation'.


DAVID: A debate does not involve acceptance. I think your view is wrong.

dhw: I did not ask you to accept it. I asked you not to reject it. That is the difference between agnosticism and rigid belief. In a debate, one should be able to defend one’s viewpoint through reasoned argument, not through mere repetition of “I think you’re wrong”.;-)

That is how we differ. I reason to a decision, you don't. Can you?


Transferred from “More Miscellany”:

DAVID: The mutations required for any early Cambrian has been calculated by ID into the millions of years. Using the same math Darwinists do. The phenotypic gap survives.

dhw: By “mutations” I can only assume you and they mean random mutations. But mutations are not by definition random! If you believe in common descent, then as above even your God has to engineer mutations, and so these wonderful calculations do not take into account the possibility of intelligent design. But oops, they do, because ID-ers like yourself would claim that the brief period (= sudden appearance of new species) can only be explained by an intelligent designer. And that could be your God, or it could be intelligent cells (perhaps originally designed by your God).

DAVID: […] What happened so quickly cannot be natural.

dhw: What do you mean by “natural”? If your intelligent God can do it, why can’t he have designed an intelligent mechanism that can do it?

Secondhand design by many cells is amorphous without a specific direction.


DAVID: "Those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own”] simply refers to the brilliance of their design.

dhw: Yep, a molecule with a mind of its own would certainly be a brilliant design. Why do you assume that a life form that acts intelligently (as if it has a mind of its own) is not intelligent and does not have a mind of its own?

And I ask again, where did the information to make that mind come from?


dhw: Thank you once more for your integrity in presenting the next article, which again emphasizes my point that mutations are NOT random:

Evidence of non-random mutation
QUOTE:"A new study by a team of researchers from Israel and Ghana has brought the first evidence of nonrandom mutation in human genes, challenging a core assumption at the heart of evolutionary theory by showing a long-term directional mutational response to environmental pressure.”

NB This also emphasizes that evolutionary changes are RESPONSES to changing conditions, and do not take place in ANTICIPATION of them.

QUOTE: "Contrary to the widely accepted expectations, the results supported the nonrandom pattern. The HbS mutation originated de novo not only much faster than expected from random mutation, but also much faster in the population […] where it is of adaptive significance. [dhw’s bold]

NB “de novo”. I’m not saying this provides proof of Shapiro’s theory, but it emphasizes that “evolutionary novelty” arises from cells’ responses to conditions. Note also the emphasis on speed.

DAVID: Livnat says complex information accumulates in the genome to guide it. Did God create the mechanism to accumulate information?

dhw: I like your question, and would extend it. Did God create the mechanism which not only accumulates information, but also processes it, communicates it, and takes decisions on how to use it? The theory of the intelligent cell does not in any way exclude your God.

So you half-accept God, but maybe the intelligent information just 'appeared'. How? Life runs on genome information.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Wednesday, February 02, 2022, 08:27 (148 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The need for more cells RESULTED from a requirement, and the brain did not expand BEFORE the new requirement existed.

DAVID: The bolded sentence does not explain the fact that our early brain was way over-expanded for the uses of that time. That defines 'anticipation'.

That is not a fact! You still haven’t grasped the sequence I am proposing. Our brain would have expanded, like every past brain, to meet some new requirement which the existing brain could not cope with through complexification. None of the brains were “over-expanded”. They all expanded to the size needed at the time, and the extra cells coped with all demands through complexification till the next major requirement. But once our sapiens brain had reached the size necessary to meet its new requirement, complexification took over. The enhanced ability of the cells to complexify even led to shrinkage, i.e. to the redundancy of some cells which had previously been in use. The same principle as loss of genes when a new species no longer needs them. No cells arrived surplus to requirements (overexpansion), but they BECAME surplus as evolution (speciation/brain complexification) developed.

Fire spot

QUOTE: "Prof. Barkai concludes: "Our study shows that early humans were able, with no sensors or simulators, to choose the perfect location for their hearth and manage the cave's space as early as 170,000 years ago -- long before the advent of modern humans in Europe. This ability reflects ingenuity, experience, and planned action, as well as awareness of the health damage caused by smoke exposure."

So you were wrong. The new brain did not go unused for thousands of years, as you have claimed, and our ancestors were a darn sight cleverer than you thought.

DAVID: […] The new brain anticipated needs, without question. I assume the cave folks experimented with different areas to find the best spots.

If cave folks experimented because they were cold and wanted fires, their brains were RESPONDING to a need, not ANTICIPATING it. And their experiments would no doubt have resulted in new complexities – like illiterate women learning to read – as they worked out solutions to their problems. Complexifications do not anticipate requirements that don’t yet exist!

Transferred from “More Miscellany”:

DAVID: The mutations required for any early Cambrian has been calculated by ID into the millions of years. Using the same math Darwinists do. The phenotypic gap survives.

dhw: By “mutations” I can only assume you and they mean random mutations. But mutations are not by definition random! If you believe in common descent, then as above even your God has to engineer mutations, and so these wonderful calculations do not take into account the possibility of intelligent design. But oops, they do, because ID-ers like yourself would claim that the brief period (= sudden appearance of new species) can only be explained by an intelligent designer. And that could be your God, or it could be intelligent cells (perhaps originally designed by your God).

DAVID: […] What happened so quickly cannot be natural.

dhw: What do you mean by “natural”? If your intelligent God can do it, why can’t he have designed an intelligent mechanism that can do it?

DAVID: Secondhand design by many cells is amorphous without a specific direction.

The specific direction of all the designs is survival. If your God exists, he will have a wider purpose, and we can only speculate what that might be. I have offered you various alternatives, each of which you agree fits in logically with the history of life. (See "More Miscellany" for a sensational new development.)

DAVID: "Those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own” simply refers to the brilliance of their design.

dhw: Yep, a molecule with a mind of its own would certainly be a brilliant design. Why do you assume that a life form that acts intelligently (as if it has a mind of its own) is not intelligent and does not have a mind of its own?

DAVID: And I ask again, where did the information to make that mind come from?

How many more times? Nobody knows where life and intelligence come from, but they may have come from your God. Our current disagreement concerns the question of whether cells are or are not intelligent. So why don’t you answer my now bolded question?

Evidence of non-random mutation

DAVID: Livnat says complex information accumulates in the genome to guide it. Did God create the mechanism to accumulate information?

dhw: I like your question, and would extend it. Did God create the mechanism which not only accumulates information, but also processes it, communicates it, and takes decisions on how to use it? The theory of the intelligent cell does not in any way exclude your God.

DAVID: So you half-accept God, but maybe the intelligent information just 'appeared'. How? Life runs on genome information.

No form of information is of any use to anything unless it is used! Life and evolution run on the existence of all kinds of information which has to be processed, communicated, filtered into appropriate decisions, and yes, it will be stored in the genome and used by the cell when required. Nobody knows how these processes originated, but of course I accept that your God is one possibility.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 02, 2022, 18:09 (147 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bolded sentence does not explain the fact that our early brain was way over-expanded for the uses of that time. That defines 'anticipation'.

dhw: That is not a fact! You still haven’t grasped the sequence I am proposing. Our brain would have expanded, like every past brain, to meet some new requirement which the existing brain could not cope with through complexification. None of the brains were “over-expanded”. They all expanded to the size needed at the time, and the extra cells coped with all demands through complexification till the next major requirement. But once our sapiens brain had reached the size necessary to meet its new requirement, complexification took over. The enhanced ability of the cells to complexify even led to shrinkage, i.e. to the redundancy of some cells which had previously been in use. The same principle as loss of genes when a new species no longer needs them. No cells arrived surplus to requirements (overexpansion), but they BECAME surplus as evolution (speciation/brain complexification) developed.

your tortured explanation does not review the fact that while each time a brain expands to larger size and complexity it has lots of room for future use with all those extra cells which then do use complexification to organize what is given.


Fire spot

QUOTE: "Prof. Barkai concludes: "Our study shows that early humans were able, with no sensors or simulators, to choose the perfect location for their hearth and manage the cave's space as early as 170,000 years ago -- long before the advent of modern humans in Europe. This ability reflects ingenuity, experience, and planned action, as well as awareness of the health damage caused by smoke exposure."

dhw: So you were wrong. The new brain did not go unused for thousands of years, as you have claimed, and our ancestors were a darn sight cleverer than you thought.

Not wrong. Just enabled to figure out a new problem


DAVID: […] The new brain anticipated needs, without question. I assume the cave folks experimented with different areas to find the best spots.

dhw: If cave folks experimented because they were cold and wanted fires, their brains were RESPONDING to a need, not ANTICIPATING it. And their experiments would no doubt have resulted in new complexities – like illiterate women learning to read – as they worked out solutions to their problems. Complexifications do not anticipate requirements that don’t yet exist!

Still twisted. The larger brain has new capacities to be used and complexify. Arrived in advance of new needs.


Transferred from “More Miscellany”:

DAVID: Secondhand design by many cells is amorphous without a specific direction.

dhw: The specific direction of all the designs is survival. If your God exists, he will have a wider purpose, and we can only speculate what that might be.

No speculation, humans!


dhw: Yep, a molecule with a mind of its own would certainly be a brilliant design. Why do you assume that a life form that acts intelligently (as if it has a mind of its own) is not intelligent and does not have a mind of its own?

DAVID: And I ask again, where did the information to make that mind come from?

dhw: How many more times? Nobody knows where life and intelligence come from, but they may have come from your God. Our current disagreement concerns the question of whether cells are or are not intelligent. So why don’t you answer my now bolded question?

God designed cells so perfectly they look intelligent but are automatic.


Evidence of non-random mutation

DAVID: Livnat says complex information accumulates in the genome to guide it. Did God create the mechanism to accumulate information?

dhw: I like your question, and would extend it. Did God create the mechanism which not only accumulates information, but also processes it, communicates it, and takes decisions on how to use it? The theory of the intelligent cell does not in any way exclude your God.

DAVID: So you half-accept God, but maybe the intelligent information just 'appeared'. How? Life runs on genome information.

dhw: No form of information is of any use to anything unless it is used! Life and evolution run on the existence of all kinds of information which has to be processed, communicated, filtered into appropriate decisions, and yes, it will be stored in the genome and used by the cell when required. Nobody knows how these processes originated, but of course I accept that your God is one possibility.

The only possibility.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Thursday, February 03, 2022, 12:07 (147 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The bolded sentence does not explain the fact that our early brain was way over-expanded for the uses of that time. That defines 'anticipation'.

dhw: That is not a fact! You still haven’t grasped the sequence I am proposing. Our brain would have expanded, like every past brain, to meet some new requirement which the existing brain could not cope with through complexification. None of the brains were “over-expanded”. They all expanded to the size needed at the time, and the extra cells coped with all demands through complexification till the next major requirement.

DAVID: your tortured explanation does not review the fact that while each time a brain expands to larger size and complexity it has lots of room for future use with all those extra cells which then do use complexification to organize what is given.

That is precisely what I have said, but you have left out the question of why the brain expanded in the first place. I have bolded it for you. Instead of your God operating on brains to expand them BEFORE extra cells were needed, I propose that brains expanded IN RESPONSE to a need, and then proceeded to cope with subsequent needs through complexification, until once again they needed extra cells. No brain was/is OVER-EXPANDED! The cells are in use all the time. And sapiens shrinkage was not because of “over-expansion” but because cells which had been in use became redundant when complexification took over.

Fire spot
QUOTE: "Prof. Barkai concludes: "Our study shows that early humans were able, with no sensors or simulators, to choose the perfect location for their hearth and manage the cave's space as early as 170,000 years ago -- long before the advent of modern humans in Europe. This ability reflects ingenuity, experience, and planned action, as well as awareness of the health damage caused by smoke exposure."

dhw: So you were wrong. The new brain did not go unused for thousands of years, as you have claimed, and our ancestors were a darn sight cleverer than you thought.

DAVID: Not wrong. Just enabled to figure out a new problem.

So you don’t think that figuring out a new problem constitutes use of the brain.

DAVID: […] The new brain anticipated needs, without question. I assume the cave folks experimented with different areas to find the best spots.

dhw: If cave folks experimented because they were cold and wanted fires, their brains were RESPONDING to a need, not ANTICIPATING it. And their experiments would no doubt have resulted in new complexities – like illiterate women learning to read – as they worked out solutions to their problems. Complexifications do not anticipate requirements that don’t yet exist!

DAVID: Still twisted. The larger brain has new capacities to be used and complexify. Arrived in advance of new needs.

There is no disagreement here, other than over the cause of expansion and the silly notion of “over-expansion”. We do not know of any changes to the brain that take place in anticipation of a new requirement. And so, as above, the brain expands to meet a new requirement; its cells then use their ability to complexify to meet further requirements until the next biggie again requires more cells. In sapiens, complexification took over completely. You have tried to use this process to illustrate your belief that your God designs species in anticipation of changing requirements. I am pointing out that both brain and species undergo their changes IN RESPONSE to requirements. The brain expands and complexifies IN RESPONSE to new requirements/conditions; common descent entails organisms changing IN RESPONSE to new requirements/conditions. Nothing originates BEFORE it is needed or BEFORE conditions allow for innovations.

Transferred from “More Miscellany”:

DAVID: Secondhand design by many cells is amorphous without a specific direction.

dhw: The specific direction of all the designs is survival. If your God exists, he will have a wider purpose, and we can only speculate what that might be.

DAVID: No speculation, humans!

And so you repeat your theory, ignoring the massive contradictions we are discussing on that thread, and you refuse to speculate on logical alternatives.

dhw: Yep, a molecule with a mind of its own would certainly be a brilliant design. Why do you assume that a life form that acts intelligently (as if it has a mind of its own) is not intelligent and does not have a mind of its own?

DAVID: And I ask again, where did the information to make that mind come from?

dhw: How many more times? Nobody knows where life and intelligence come from, but they may have come from your God. Our current disagreement concerns the question of whether cells are or are not intelligent. So why don’t you answer my now bolded question?

DAVID: God designed cells so perfectly they look intelligent but are automatic.

You assume that are not intelligent because you assume that they are not intelligent. Not much headway there!

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 03, 2022, 20:12 (146 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: That is precisely what I have said, but you have left out the question of why the brain expanded in the first place. I have bolded it for you. Instead of your God operating on brains to expand them BEFORE extra cells were needed, I propose that brains expanded IN RESPONSE to a need, and then proceeded to cope with subsequent needs through complexification, until once again they needed extra cells. No brain was/is OVER-EXPANDED! The cells are in use all the time. And sapiens shrinkage was not because of “over-expansion” but because cells which had been in use became redundant when complexification took over.

So you have a theory that brains expand by doing it themselves, and I have God, the designer.


Fire spot

dhw: So you were wrong. The new brain did not go unused for thousands of years, as you have claimed, and our ancestors were a darn sight cleverer than you thought.

DAVID: Not wrong. Just enabled to figure out a new problem.

dhw So you don’t think that figuring out a new problem constitutes use of the brain.

Just what I said/

DAVID: The larger brain has new capacities to be used and complexify. Arrived in advance of new needs.[/i]

dhw: There is no disagreement here, other than over the cause of expansion and the silly notion of “over-expansion”. We do not know of any changes to the brain that take place in anticipation of a new requirement. And so, as above, the brain expands to meet a new requirement; its cells then use their ability to complexify to meet further requirements until the next biggie again requires more cells. In sapiens, complexification took over completely. You have tried to use this process to illustrate your belief that your God designs species in anticipation of changing requirements. I am pointing out that both brain and species undergo their changes IN RESPONSE to requirements. The brain expands and complexifies IN RESPONSE to new requirements/conditions; common descent entails organisms changing IN RESPONSE to new requirements/conditions. Nothing originates BEFORE it is needed or BEFORE conditions allow for innovations.

A repeat. You think brains can expand themselves, and I state God designs them.


Transferred from “More Miscellany”:

DAVID: Secondhand design by many cells is amorphous without a specific direction.

dhw: The specific direction of all the designs is survival. If your God exists, he will have a wider purpose, and we can only speculate what that might be.

DAVID: No speculation, humans!

dhw: And so you repeat your theory, ignoring the massive contradictions we are discussing on that thread, and you refuse to speculate on logical alternatives.

Just as you continuously repeat your illogical view of God


dhw: Yep, a molecule with a mind of its own would certainly be a brilliant design. Why do you assume that a life form that acts intelligently (as if it has a mind of its own) is not intelligent and does not have a mind of its own?

DAVID: And I ask again, where did the information to make that mind come from?

dhw: How many more times? Nobody knows where life and intelligence come from, but they may have come from your God. Our current disagreement concerns the question of whether cells are or are not intelligent. So why don’t you answer my now bolded question?

DAVID: God designed cells so perfectly they look intelligent but are automatic.

dhw: You assume that are not intelligent because you assume that they are not intelligent. Not much headway there!

We cannot agree if the possible interpretations from the outside of cells are 50/50. From inside the cell, all studies show automaticity.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Friday, February 04, 2022, 07:47 (146 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Instead of your God operating on brains to expand them BEFORE extra cells were needed, I propose that brains expanded IN RESPONSE to a need, and then proceeded to cope with subsequent needs through complexification, until once again they needed extra cells. No brain was/is OVER-EXPANDED! The cells are in use all the time. And sapiens shrinkage was not because of “over-expansion” but because cells which had been in use became redundant when complexification took over.

DAVID: So you have a theory that brains expand by doing it themselves, and I have God, the designer.

Why have you changed the subject? You claim that your God expands brains before any expansion is needed, and he designs life forms before the new conditions exist in which they are to live. I propose that brains expand IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and species evolve IN RESPONSE to new conditions. And there is no “overexpansion” of brains, because all the cells are used for complexification until a new major requirement demands additional cells. You know perfectly well that my theory allows for your God as the designer of the mechanisms for complexification and expansion, and you have already agreed that complexification takes place without his intervention, so why shouldn’t expansion do the same? If he can design cells to establish their own connections, why should it be impossible for him to enable them to add to their numbers and to enable the skull cells to adjust accordingly?

Fire spot

dhw: So you were wrong. The new brain did not go unused for thousands of years, as you have claimed, and our ancestors were a darn sight cleverer than you thought.

DAVID: Not wrong. Just enabled to figure out a new problem.

dhw So you don’t think that figuring out a new problem constitutes use of the brain.

DAVID: Just what I said.

You have told us repeatedly that the new brain went unused for thousands of years. That was the whole point of your theory that it was “overexpanded”, with God giving us extra cells in anticipation of later requirements. The new brain clearly did not go unused if it was already solving such problems.

Transferred from “More Miscellany”:

DAVID: Secondhand design by many cells is amorphous without a specific direction.

dhw: The specific direction of all the designs is survival. If your God exists, he will have a wider purpose, and we can only speculate what that might be.

DAVID: No speculation, humans!

dhw: And so you repeat your theory, ignoring the massive contradictions we are discussing on that thread, and you refuse to speculate on logical alternatives.

DAVID: Just as you continuously repeat your illogical view of God

What illogical view? I have offered you alternative theistic interpretations of life’s history, all of which you agree are logical. Your only objection has been that they “humanize” your God, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic like ours, and we mimic him.

dhw: Yep, a molecule with a mind of its own would certainly be a brilliant design. Why do you assume that a life form that acts intelligently (as if it has a mind of its own) is not intelligent and does not have a mind of its own?

DAVID: 'We cannot agree if the possible interpretations from the outside of cells are 50/50. From inside the cell, all studies show automaticity.

You must be joking. We can only draw conclusions from the behaviour of cells – i.e. we are outside them and observing them from the outside. Or are you telling me you know of a scientist who turned himself into a cell, found himself obeying God's instructions, and then came back to tell us all about it?

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Friday, February 04, 2022, 15:57 (145 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: So you have a theory that brains expand by doing it themselves, and I have God, the designer.

dhw: Why have you changed the subject? You claim that your God expands brains before any expansion is needed, and he designs life forms before the new conditions exist in which they are to live. I propose that brains expand IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and species evolve IN RESPONSE to new conditions. And there is no “overexpansion” of brains, because all the cells are used for complexification until a new major requirement demands additional cells. You know perfectly well that my theory allows for your God as the designer of the mechanisms for complexification and expansion, and you have already agreed that complexification takes place without his intervention, so why shouldn’t expansion do the same? If he can design cells to establish their own connections, why should it be impossible for him to enable them to add to their numbers and to enable the skull cells to adjust accordingly?

Back to the past: The design of the new bony skull must allow the new bigger brain to have enough room in the skull brain pan cavity, and somehow the Mother's bony pelvis must adjust its birth canal size to the new bigger skull. All must be coordinated simultaneously. How do the disparate cells communicate through time and space, telepathy? Mother and baby are separate individuals as is Dad's DNA input in to the fertilized egg.


Fire spot

dhw: So you were wrong. The new brain did not go unused for thousands of years, as you have claimed, and our ancestors were a darn sight cleverer than you thought.

DAVID: Not wrong. Just enabled to figure out a new problem.

dhw So you don’t think that figuring out a new problem constitutes use of the brain.

DAVID: Just what I said.

dhw: You have told us repeatedly that the new brain went unused for thousands of years. That was the whole point of your theory that it was “overexpanded”, with God giving us extra cells in anticipation of later requirements. The new brain clearly did not go unused if it was already solving such problems.

The usual distortion of what has been presented. A new sized, more complex brain obviously can be used in new ways immediately. You are conflating expected future use, with no immediate use. Totally illogical. The sapiens brain from 310,000 years ago is now fully used, starting with new uses 310,000 years ago. Slicing and dicing as usual.


Transferred from “More Miscellany”:

dhw: Yep, a molecule with a mind of its own would certainly be a brilliant design. Why do you assume that a life form that acts intelligently (as if it has a mind of its own) is not intelligent and does not have a mind of its own?

DAVID: 'We cannot agree if the possible interpretations from the outside of cells are 50/50. From inside the cell, all studies show automaticity.

dhw: You must be joking. We can only draw conclusions from the behaviour of cells – i.e. we are outside them and observing them from the outside. Or are you telling me you know of a scientist who turned himself into a cell, found himself obeying God's instructions, and then came back to tell us all about it?

Don't you realize all the intracellular molecular reaction studies are really intracellular?

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Saturday, February 05, 2022, 08:27 (145 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: So you have a theory that brains expand by doing it themselves, and I have God, the designer.

dhw: Why have you changed the subject? You claim that your God expands brains before any expansion is needed, and he designs life forms before the new conditions exist in which they are to live. I propose that brains expand IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and species evolve IN RESPONSE to new conditions. And there is no “overexpansion” of brains, because all the cells are used for complexification until a new major requirement demands additional cells. You know perfectly well that my theory allows for your God as the designer of the mechanisms for complexification and expansion, and you have already agreed that complexification takes place without his intervention, so why shouldn’t expansion do the same? If he can design cells to establish their own connections, why should it be impossible for him to enable them to add to their numbers and to enable the skull cells to adjust accordingly?

DAVID: Back to the past: The design of the new bony skull must allow the new bigger brain to have enough room in the skull brain pan cavity, and somehow the Mother's bony pelvis must adjust its birth canal size to the new bigger skull. All must be coordinated simultaneously. How do the disparate cells communicate through time and space, telepathy? Mother and baby are separate individuals as is Dad's DNA input in to the fertilized egg.

You have ignored the whole of my entry above, including the questions, and as usual, tried to change the subject. You raised exactly the same issue in almost exactly the same words, even down to the “telepathy” sneer, about 10 days ago. I gave you a complete answer in my post of January 25th on this thread. This whole discussion about the brain is part of your desperate attempt to prove your theory that speciation occurs in anticipation of changing conditions – a theory which you yourself have demolished in post after post, the latest being under the heading of “Mass extinctions relate to volcanos”.

Fire spot

dhw: You have told us repeatedly that the new brain went unused for thousands of years. That was the whole point of your theory that it was “overexpanded”, with God giving us extra cells in anticipation of later requirements. The new brain clearly did not go unused if it was already solving such problems.

DAVID: The usual distortion of what has been presented. A new sized, more complex brain obviously can be used in new ways immediately. You are conflating expected future use, with no immediate use. Totally illogical. The sapiens brain from 310,000 years ago is now fully used, starting with new uses 310,000 years ago. Slicing and dicing as usual.

What “expected future use” are you talking about? And what on earth do you mean by “fully used”? Are you telling us that 310,000 years ago your God looked into his crystal ball and provided humans with cells that would not be used (= overexpansion) until we invented computers and rockets and the theory of relativity? My point is that ALL the cells were used, and new ideas, requirements etc. resulted in the SAME CELLS COMPLEXIFYING. Cells do not complexify in anticipation of new requirements, and complexification is now so efficient that some cells which were previously in use became redundant – hence shrinkage. Why do you think the brain is now “fully” used? Do you really believe that even a hundred years from now, humans will have stopped coming up with new ideas etc. that result in new complexifications? In brief: There was no overexpansion, all cells were used 310,000 years ago and then complexified - and still do - to cope with "future uses", you have agreed that complexification takes place without divine intervention, and the brain is not now “fully used” unless you think humankind is about to disappear.

Transferred from “More Miscellany”:

dhw: Yep, a molecule with a mind of its own would certainly be a brilliant design. Why do you assume that a life form that acts intelligently (as if it has a mind of its own) is not intelligent and does not have a mind of its own?

DAVID: 'We cannot agree if the possible interpretations from the outside of cells are 50/50. From inside the cell, all studies show automaticity.

dhw: You must be joking. We can only draw conclusions from the behaviour of cells – i.e. we are outside them and observing them from the outside. Or are you telling me you know of a scientist who turned himself into a cell, found himself obeying God's instructions, and then came back to tell us all about it?

DAVID: Don't you realize all the intracellular molecular reaction studies are really intracellular?

How on earth does that obvious fact mean that your scientists can study cells from the inside? They can only observe cellular behaviour (which includes molecular behaviour) from the outside, and many scientists have published studies which suggest intelligence, not automaticity (though I’d better repeat that SOME behaviour has to be automatic to preserve the status quo, and intelligence only comes into play when cells must change in response to new conditions.)

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 05, 2022, 15:49 (144 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: So you have a theory that brains expand by doing it themselves, and I have God, the designer.

dhw: Why have you changed the subject? You claim that your God expands brains before any expansion is needed, and he designs life forms before the new conditions exist in which they are to live. I propose that brains expand IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and species evolve IN RESPONSE to new conditions. And there is no “overexpansion” of brains, because all the cells are used for complexification until a new major requirement demands additional cells. You know perfectly well that my theory allows for your God as the designer of the mechanisms for complexification and expansion, and you have already agreed that complexification takes place without his intervention, so why shouldn’t expansion do the same? If he can design cells to establish their own connections, why should it be impossible for him to enable them to add to their numbers and to enable the skull cells to adjust accordingly?

DAVID: Back to the past: The design of the new bony skull must allow the new bigger brain to have enough room in the skull brain pan cavity, and somehow the Mother's bony pelvis must adjust its birth canal size to the new bigger skull. All must be coordinated simultaneously. How do the disparate cells communicate through time and space, telepathy? Mother and baby are separate individuals as is Dad's DNA input in to the fertilized egg.

dhw: You have ignored the whole of my entry above, including the questions, and as usual, tried to change the subject. You raised exactly the same issue in almost exactly the same words, even down to the “telepathy” sneer, about 10 days ago. I gave you a complete answer in my post of January 25th on this thread. This whole discussion about the brain is part of your desperate attempt to prove your theory that speciation occurs in anticipation of changing conditions – a theory which you yourself have demolished in post after post, the latest being under the heading of “Mass extinctions relate to volcanos”.

Sorry for your disappointment but both question marks sentences are answered. You repeat your theory I reject and I repeat my objection. All simple repetition. As for new larger brains, I thought we agreed new brains are larger, then capacity is used and new larger size appears. We differ on cause and that difference won't change as long as you invent no-God scenarios that do not fit the known facts as I see them.


Fire spot

dhw: You have told us repeatedly that the new brain went unused for thousands of years. That was the whole point of your theory that it was “overexpanded”, with God giving us extra cells in anticipation of later requirements. The new brain clearly did not go unused if it was already solving such problems.

DAVID: The usual distortion of what has been presented. A new sized, more complex brain obviously can be used in new ways immediately. You are conflating expected future use, with no immediate use. Totally illogical. The sapiens brain from 310,000 years ago is now fully used, starting with new uses 310,000 years ago. Slicing and dicing as usual.

dhw: What “expected future use” are you talking about? And what on earth do you mean by “fully used”? Are you telling us that 310,000 years ago your God looked into his crystal ball and provided humans with cells that would not be used (= overexpansion) until we invented computers and rockets and the theory of relativity? My point is that ALL the cells were used, and new ideas, requirements etc. resulted in the SAME CELLS COMPLEXIFYING. Cells do not complexify in anticipation of new requirements, and complexification is now so efficient that some cells which were previously in use became redundant – hence shrinkage.

Cave-dwelling earliest homos did not use much of their brain capacity! Face the fact. Shrinkage shows our brain came oversized for use, as you noted above.

dhw: Why do you think the brain is now “fully” used?

We now handle everything with the complexification you champion.


Transferred from “More Miscellany”:

DAVID: Don't you realize all the intracellular molecular reaction studies are really intracellular?

dhw: How on earth does that obvious fact mean that your scientists can study cells from the inside? They can only observe cellular behaviour (which includes molecular behaviour) from the outside, and many scientists have published studies which suggest intelligence, not automaticity (though I’d better repeat that SOME behaviour has to be automatic to preserve the status quo, and intelligence only comes into play when cells must change in response to new conditions.)

The studies clearly show the inner workings of cells on information is their genome they follow..

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Sunday, February 06, 2022, 11:50 (144 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: there is no “overexpansion” of brains, because all the cells are used for complexification until a new major requirement demands additional cells. You know perfectly well that my theory allows for your God as the designer of the mechanisms for complexification and expansion, and you have already agreed that complexification takes place without his intervention, so why shouldn’t expansion do the same? If he can design cells to establish their own connections, why should it be impossible for him to enable them to add to their numbers and to enable the skull cells to adjust accordingly?

You ignored all this, did not answer the questions, but reverted to the subject of baby brains and pelvises, already covered in full on January 25th.

dhw: This whole discussion about the brain is part of your desperate attempt to prove your theory that speciation occurs in anticipation of changing conditions – a theory which you yourself have demolished in post after post, the latest being under the heading of “Mass extinctions relate to volcanos”.

DAVID: Sorry for your disappointment but both question marks sentences are answered. [...]

What have I missed? Please tell us (again?) why a God who could create a mechanism for autonomous complexification could not have invented a mechanism for autonomous expansion of cells and skulls.

DAVID: As for new larger brains, I thought we agreed new brains are larger, then capacity is used and new larger size appears.

Yes, new larger brains are indeed new and larger, and they appear when the existing capacity FOR COMPLEXIFICATION has been used up and new cells are needed to meet a major new requirement.

DAVID: We differ on cause and that difference won't change as long as you invent no-God scenarios that do not fit the known facts as I see them.

Yes, we differ on the cause of each expansion. You claim that your God prophesies what new requirements lie ahead, and prepares the way by adding cells that are not used at the time. I suggest that the new cells are necessary to meet a new requirement, and the same cells continue to be used – through complexification – until once more their number needs to be increased to meet the next major new requirement. You continue to pretend that this latter method removes your God although, as in the statement that begins this post, I always allow for God as designer of the mechanism for expansion and complexification.


Fire spot
dhw: You have told us repeatedly that the new brain went unused for thousands of years. That was the whole point of your theory that it was “overexpanded”, with God giving us extra cells in anticipation of later requirements. The new brain clearly did not go unused if it was already solving such problems.

DAVID: The usual distortion of what has been presented. A new sized, more complex brain obviously can be used in new ways immediately. You are conflating expected future use, with no immediate use. Totally illogical. The sapiens brain from 310,000 years ago is now fully used, starting with new uses 310,000 years ago. Slicing and dicing as usual.

dhw: What “expected future use” are you talking about? And what on earth do you mean by “fully used”? Are you telling us that 310,000 years ago your God looked into his crystal ball and provided humans with cells that would not be used (= overexpansion) until we invented computers and rockets and the theory of relativity? My point is that ALL the cells were used, and new ideas, requirements etc. resulted in the SAME CELLS COMPLEXIFYING. Cells do not complexify in anticipation of new requirements, and complexification is now so efficient that some cells which were previously in use became redundant – hence shrinkage.

DAVID: Cave-dwelling earliest homos did not use much of their brain capacity! Face the fact. Shrinkage shows our brain came oversized for use, as you noted above.

I noted no such thing! I maintain that they used ALL their cells, and any new requirements were met by the efficiency of complexification. There was no oversize/overexpansion because the efficiency of complexification [resulted in some cells which had previously been used, becoming redundant.

dhw: Why do you think the brain is now “fully” used?

DAVID: We now handle everything with the complexification you champion.

And so you believe that complexification is finished, do you? Every time we learn something new, there is new complexification (remember the illiterate women?) – and so the brain will only be “fully used” when there is nothing left to learn!

Transferred from “More Miscellany”:
DAVID: The studies clearly show the inner workings of cells on information is their genome they follow.

The studies clearly show that some cells remain the same and some can change, and the latter sometimes appear to act intelligently – even you point out that “molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own”. And the studies show that cells absorb, process, remember, communicate and act on the information they absorb. You believe your God provided them with instructions, some scientists believe the above processes denote autonomous intelligence, and I suspect many scientists would rather not delve into the possible source of what appears to be intelligence. Please stop kidding yourself that your theory is the norm.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 06, 2022, 15:54 (143 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: This whole discussion about the brain is part of your desperate attempt to prove your theory that speciation occurs in anticipation of changing conditions – a theory which you yourself have demolished in post after post, the latest being under the heading of “Mass extinctions relate to volcanos”.

DAVID: Sorry for your disappointment but both question marks sentences are answered. [...]

dhw: What have I missed? Please tell us (again?) why a God who could create a mechanism for autonomous complexification could not have invented a mechanism for autonomous expansion of cells and skulls.

What you keep ignoring is a three-part problem. DNA from father and mother combine into baby DNA producing a new larger skull. Mother's pelvis must respond simultaneously. The cells from all three individuals do not communicate in a way that God can create an autonomous mechanism by themselves. You blithely hope for anything but God directly designing, and ignore the real problems of secondhand design for God who has specific purposes for the direction of evolution.


DAVID: As for new larger brains, I thought we agreed new brains are larger, then capacity is used and new larger size appears.

dhw: Yes, new larger brains are indeed new and larger, and they appear when the existing capacity FOR COMPLEXIFICATION has been used up and new cells are needed to meet a major new requirement.

The degree of new brain use is directly related to present required activities of dailliving, a concept you ignore.


DAVID: We differ on cause and that difference won't change as long as you invent no-God scenarios that do not fit the known facts as I see them.

dhw: Yes, we differ...I suggest that the new cells are necessary to meet a new requirement, and the same cells continue to be used – through complexification – until once more their number needs to be increased to meet the next major new requirement.

Ignoring not many new neurons are immediately used.


Fire spot

DAVID: Cave-dwelling earliest homos did not use much of their brain capacity! Face the fact. Shrinkage shows our brain came oversized for use, as you noted above.

dhw: I noted no such thing! I maintain that they used ALL their cells, and any new requirements were met by the efficiency of complexification.

Your love of complexification is pure confusion. The advanced use of a new need, like London cabbies results in a thickened complexified area!!! That is a tiny example of enlargement, but we also know modern heavily used brains shrank 150 cc and also had London cabbie regions!!!


dhw: Why do you think the brain is now “fully” used?

DAVID: We now handle everything with the complexification you champion.

dhw: And so you believe that complexification is finished, do you? Every time we learn something new, there is new complexification (remember the illiterate women?) – and so the brain will only be “fully used” when there is nothing left to learn!

Our God-given brain can handle all the new knowledge in the future. No future expansion ever.


Transferred from “More Miscellany”:
DAVID: The studies clearly show the inner workings of cells on information in their genome they follow.

dhw: The studies clearly show that some cells remain the same and some can change, and the latter sometimes appear to act intelligently – even you point out that “molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own”. And the studies show that cells absorb, process, remember, communicate and act on the information they absorb. You believe your God provided them with instructions, some scientists believe the above processes denote autonomous intelligence, and I suspect many scientists would rather not delve into the possible source of what appears to be intelligence. Please stop kidding yourself that your theory is the norm.

Enter ID to see their norm.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Monday, February 07, 2022, 07:16 (143 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Please tell us […] why a God who could create a mechanism for autonomous complexification could not have invented a mechanism for autonomous expansion of cells and skulls.

DAVID: What you keep ignoring is a three-part problem. DNA from father and mother combine into baby DNA producing a new larger skull. Mother's pelvis must respond simultaneously. The cells from all three individuals do not communicate in a way that God can create an autonomous mechanism by themselves. […]

I asked you to read my post of 25 January, which dealt with this supposed example of your theory that your God speciates in advance of requirements – a theory already discredited elsewhere. This was my response:

"You have forgotten that we are talking about the ORIGIN of the process! Your “just-so fairy tale" is that overnight, a group of women woke up with new birth canals and pelvises to accommodate bigger brained babies which had not yet even been conceived. God had been and gone and done it.
My proposal is that new requirements (e.g. new tools, ideas, discoveries, environments) resulted in general brain expansion, which was heritable (as it must have been after your God's overnight operations), and which meant that over generations, brains grew bigger and so did babies. Bigger brained babies required bigger birth canals etc., i.e. birth canals etc. RESPONDED to the new baby size. They did not expand in anticipation of conception! In due course (no doubt after many deaths in childbirth, which even today causes problems) the changes in brain, birth canal and pelvis became the heritable norm. Please explain why you find this less credible than your fairy tale.
"

You later pooh-poohed the idea of changes taking place over generations, but reproduced an article by Mirouze which made the same point.

DAVID: As for new larger brains, I thought we agreed new brains are larger, then capacity is used and new larger size appears.

dhw: Yes, new larger brains are indeed new and larger, and they appear when the existing capacity FOR COMPLEXIFICATION has been used up and new cells are needed to meet a major new requirement.

DAVID: The degree of new brain use is directly related to present required activities of dailliving, a concept you ignore.

Of course it’s used for present required activities, and when new activities become present, it’s used for them too, until a new requirement demands extra capacity, which is when the brain expands.

DAVID: We differ on cause and that difference won't change as long as you invent no-God scenarios that do not fit the known facts as I see them.

dhw: Yes, we differ...I suggest that the new cells are necessary to meet a new requirement, and the same cells continue to be used – through complexification – until once more their number needs to be increased to meet the next major new requirement.

DAVID: Ignoring not many new neurons are immediately used.

I didn’t know you had witnessed each phase of brain expansion and observed which neurons were not used. And my theory is not a “no-God scenario”!

Fire spot

DAVID: Cave-dwelling earliest homos did not use much of their brain capacity! Face the fact. Shrinkage shows our brain came oversized for use, as you noted above.

dhw: I noted no such thing! I maintain that they used ALL their cells, and any new requirements were met by the efficiency of complexification.

DAVID: Your love of complexification is pure confusion. The advanced use of a new need, like London cabbies results in a thickened complexified area!!! That is a tiny example of enlargement, but we also know modern heavily used brains shrank 150 cc and also had London cabbie regions!!!

Yes, the odd instance of enlargement provides clear evidence that enlargement is also an autonomous process independent of your God’s involvement. Thank you for remembering that. But most of our requirements are met by autonomous complexification, not autonomous expansion. And shrinkage, yet again, is caused by the fact that cells which had been useful in the past are no longer needed because complexification has proved so efficient that it has made them redundant.

dhw: Why do you think the brain is now “fully” used? […]

DAVID: Our God-given brain can handle all the new knowledge in the future. No future expansion ever.

If it is going to be used in the future to handle all the new knowledge, how does that come to mean that our brain is already “fully used”?

Transferred from “More Miscellany”:
DAVID: The studies clearly show the inner workings of cells on information in their genome they follow.

dhw: The studies clearly show that some cells remain the same and some can change, and the latter sometimes appear to act intelligently […] the studies show that cells absorb, process, remember, communicate and act on the information they absorb. You believe your God provided them with instructions, some scientists believe the above processes denote autonomous intelligence, and I suspect many scientists would rather not delve into the possible source of what appears to be intelligence. Please stop kidding yourself that your theory is the norm.

DAVID: Enter ID to see their norm.

I was not aware that ID-ers now represented the norm in the scientific world. In any case, cellular intelligence and ID are not incompatible.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Monday, February 07, 2022, 16:45 (142 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What you keep ignoring is a three-part problem. DNA from father and mother combine into baby DNA producing a new larger skull. Mother's pelvis must respond simultaneously. The cells from all three individuals do not communicate in a way that God can create an autonomous mechanism by themselves. […]

dhw: I asked you to read my post of 25 January, which dealt with this supposed example of your theory that your God speciates in advance of requirements – a theory already discredited elsewhere. This was my response:

My proposal is that new requirements (e.g. new tools, ideas, discoveries, environments) resulted in general brain expansion, which was heritable (as it must have been after your God's overnight operations), and which meant that over generations, brains grew bigger and so did babies... Please explain why you find this less credible than your fairy tale.[/i]"

You totally ignore the problem of three new DNA inputs in the new big skull problem. God cannot invent an independent mechanism to make the separate DNA's communicate in any meaningful fashion.

dhw: Yes, we differ...I suggest that the new cells are necessary to meet a new requirement, and the same cells continue to be used – through complexification – until once more their number needs to be increased to meet the next major new requirement.

DAVID: Ignoring not many new neurons are immediately used.

dhw: I didn’t know you had witnessed each phase of brain expansion and observed which neurons were not used. And my theory is not a “no-God scenario”!

A non-answer. Early sapiens did not use their brain as we do, the same brain!


Fire spot

DAVID: Your love of complexification is pure confusion. The advanced use of a new need, like London cabbies results in a thickened complexified area!!! That is a tiny example of enlargement, but we also know modern heavily used brains shrank 150 cc and also had London cabbie regions!!!

dhw: Yes, the odd instance of enlargement provides clear evidence that enlargement is also an autonomous process independent of your God’s involvement. Thank you for remembering that. But most of our requirements are met by autonomous complexification, not autonomous expansion. And shrinkage, yet again, is caused by the fact that cells which had been useful in the past are no longer needed because complexification has proved so efficient that it has made them redundant.

So you have decided complexification is not a God-given mechanism?


dhw: Why do you think the brain is now “fully” used? […]

DAVID: Our God-given brain can handle all the new knowledge in the future. No future expansion ever.

dhw: If it is going to be used in the future to handle all the new knowledge, how does that come to mean that our brain is already “fully used”?

We have added uses and knowledge for 315,000 years and it shrunk. Facts say it can handle any new use


Transferred from “More Miscellany”:
DAVID: The studies clearly show the inner workings of cells on information in their genome they follow.

dhw: The studies clearly show that some cells remain the same and some can change, and the latter sometimes appear to act intelligently […] the studies show that cells absorb, process, remember, communicate and act on the information they absorb. You believe your God provided them with instructions, some scientists believe the above processes denote autonomous intelligence, and I suspect many scientists would rather not delve into the possible source of what appears to be intelligence. Please stop kidding yourself that your theory is the norm.

DAVID: Enter ID to see their norm.

dhw: I was not aware that ID-ers now represented the norm in the scientific world. In any case, cellular intelligence and ID are not incompatible.

Many Ph.D. folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God's design.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Tuesday, February 08, 2022, 07:38 (142 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You totally ignore the problem of three new DNA inputs in the new big skull problem. God cannot invent an independent mechanism to make the separate DNA's communicate in any meaningful fashion.

Yet again: Instead of your God expanding a group of brains, skulls and birth canals simultaneously overnight, or preprogramming the overnight switch 3.8 billion years ago, I propose that 1) skull cells cooperate in RESPONDING as the brain expands, 2) mummy and daddy DNA gets mixed together (bigger brains are heritable); and 3) the only “communication” between cell communities is when birth canal and surrounding bones and muscles coordinate to accommodate (RESPOND to) the new size. It would have taken generations for ALL individual brains, skulls and birth canals to make these adjustments, and this would certainly have caused problems initially, and does so even today (childbirth is painful and can be fatal), but in due course the new sized or shaped brain, birth canal and pelvis would have become the norm. No overnight operations, no impossible communications, but new conditions requiring new responses, just as new species emerge when and not before conditions have changed.

dhw: I suggest that the new cells are necessary to meet a new requirement, and the same cells continue to be used – through complexification – until once more their number needs to be increased to meet the next major new requirement.

DAVID: Ignoring not many new neurons are immediately used.

dhw: I didn’t know you had witnessed each phase of brain expansion and observed which neurons were not used. And my theory is not a “no-God scenario”!

DAVID: A non-answer. Early sapiens did not use their brain as we do, the same brain!

Of course not. Our brain has thousands more requirements to cope with, and that is why the SAME CELLS have complexified! Why would new cells be added just to lie around doing nothing?

You keep focusing on the brain in your efforts to prove that your God speciates in anticipation of changing conditions (though it isn’t even an example of speciation). This theory has now been discredited, and this whole discussion is a repeat of the thread on brain expansion, which ran from April 2020 until October 2020!

Fire spot

DAVID: Your love of complexification is pure confusion. The advanced use of a new need, like London cabbies results in a thickened complexified area!!! That is a tiny example of enlargement, but we also know modern heavily used brains shrank 150 cc and also had London cabbie regions!!!

dhw: Yes, the odd instance of enlargement provides clear evidence that enlargement is also an autonomous process independent of your God’s involvement. Thank you for remembering that. But most of our requirements are met by autonomous complexification, not autonomous expansion. And shrinkage, yet again, is caused by the fact that cells which had been useful in the past are no longer needed because complexification has proved so efficient that it has made them redundant.

DAVID: So you have decided complexification is not a God-given mechanism?

A silly distortion. Quite apart from glossing over the evidence of autonomous expansion and my explanation of shrinkage, you again ignore my statement and question on 4 February: “…my theory allows for your God as the designer of the mechanisms for complexification and expansion. […] If he can design cells to establish their own connections, why should it be impossible for him to enable them to add to their numbers and enable the skull to adjust accordingly?” You never answered.

dhw: Why do you think the brain is now “fully” used? […]

DAVID: We have added uses and knowledge for 315,000 years and it shrunk. Facts say it can handle any new use.

On shrinkage, see the bold above. Let’s not forget your own theory: that your God blundered: three-quarters of the cells he gave us 315,000 years ago were apparently never used! And if our brain is going to handle new uses in the future, how can that mean it is now “fully used”?

Cellular intelligence (at last!)

DAVID: The studies clearly show the inner workings of cells on information in their genome they follow.

dhw: The studies clearly show that some cells remain the same and some can change, and the latter sometimes appear to act intelligently […] the studies show that cells absorb, process, remember, communicate and act on the information they absorb. You believe your God provided them with instructions, some scientists believe the above processes denote autonomous intelligence, and I suspect many scientists would rather not delve into the possible source of what appears to be intelligence. Please stop kidding yourself that your theory is the norm.

DAVID: Enter ID to see their norm.

dhw: I was not aware that ID-ers now represented the norm in the scientific world. In any case, cellular intelligence and ID are not incompatible.

DAVID: Many Ph.D. folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God's design.

What a revelation! After your claim that your rejection of the theory is the norm, apparently even ID-ers accept it! And of course they recognize that it’s compatible with belief in a designer. Thank you for this honest admission, which makes your dismissal of the theory even more blinkered.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 08, 2022, 15:16 (141 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You totally ignore the problem of three new DNA inputs in the new big skull problem. God cannot invent an independent mechanism to make the separate DNA's communicate in any meaningful fashion.

dhw: Yet again: Instead of your God expanding a group of brains, skulls and birth canals simultaneously overnight, or preprogramming the overnight switch 3.8 billion years ago, I propose that 1) skull cells cooperate in RESPONDING as the brain expands, 2) mummy and daddy DNA gets mixed together (bigger brains are heritable); and 3) the only “communication” between cell communities is when birth canal and surrounding bones and muscles coordinate to accommodate (RESPOND to) the new size...No overnight operations, no impossible communications, but new conditions requiring new responses, just as new species emerge when and not before conditions have changed.

So the fossil skulls show no gaps? 200cc, almost seven ounces of size ignored.

DAVID: Early sapiens did not use their brain as we do, the same brain!

dhw: Of course not. Our brain has thousands more requirements to cope with, and that is why the SAME CELLS have complexified! Why would new cells be added just to lie around doing nothing?

The specialized five layer prefrontal and frontal cortex was relatively unused conceptually until recently. Most of the brain did not change uses when the new frontal area appeared. What enlarges is what matters.


Fire spot

DAVID: Your love of complexification is pure confusion. The advanced use of a new need, like London cabbies results in a thickened complexified area!!! That is a tiny example of enlargement, but we also know modern heavily used brains shrank 150 cc and also had London cabbie regions!!!

dhw: Yes, the odd instance of enlargement provides clear evidence that enlargement is also an autonomous process independent of your God’s involvement. Thank you for remembering that. But most of our requirements are met by autonomous complexification, not autonomous expansion. And shrinkage, yet again, is caused by the fact that cells which had been useful in the past are no longer needed because complexification has proved so efficient that it has made them redundant.

dhw: my theory allows for your God as the designer of the mechanisms for complexification and expansion. […] If he can design cells to establish their own connections, why should it be impossible for him to enable them to add to their numbers and enable the skull to adjust accordingly?” You never answered.

You are ignoring the very complex specialized five-tier arrangement seen only in our brain, and you think our neurons knew how to design it. God would have to give precise building instructions. Cells cannot design new complexity by themselves. Complexification is simply a reorganization of what exists, new connections appearing between neurons


Cellular intelligence (at last!)

DAVID: Enter ID to see their norm.

dhw: I was not aware that ID-ers now represented the norm in the scientific world. In any case, cellular intelligence and ID are not incompatible.

DAVID: Many Ph.D. folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God's design.

dhw: What a revelation! After your claim that your rejection of the theory is the norm, apparently even ID-ers accept it! And of course they recognize that it’s compatible with belief in a designer. Thank you for this honest admission, which makes your dismissal of the theory even more blinkered.

ID hides God, but He is understood to be the designer. Cells automatically follow instructions in the information in the genome

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Wednesday, February 09, 2022, 09:16 (141 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You totally ignore the problem of three new DNA inputs in the new big skull problem. God cannot invent an independent mechanism to make the separate DNA's communicate in any meaningful fashion.

dhw: Yet again: Instead of your God expanding a group of brains, skulls and birth canals simultaneously overnight, or preprogramming the overnight switch 3.8 billion years ago, I propose that 1) skull cells cooperate in RESPONDING as the brain expands, 2) mummy and daddy DNA gets mixed together (bigger brains are heritable); and 3) the only “communication” between cell communities is when birth canal and surrounding bones and muscles coordinate to accommodate (RESPOND to) the new size...No overnight operations, no impossible communications, but new conditions requiring new responses, just as new species emerge when and not before conditions have changed.

DAVID: So the fossil skulls show no gaps? 200cc, almost seven ounces of size ignored.

As usual, you dodge from one subject to another. I have just dealt with the “big skull problem”, so you switch to the gap! I have offered you an explanation umpteen times, not just of our 200 cc, but of ALL stages of brain expansion.

DAVID: Early sapiens did not use their brain as we do, the same brain!

dhw: Of course not. Our brain has thousands more requirements to cope with, and that is why the SAME CELLS have complexified! Why would new cells be added just to lie around doing nothing?

DAVID: The specialized five layer prefrontal and frontal cortex was relatively unused conceptually until recently. Most of the brain did not change uses when the new frontal area appeared. What enlarges is what matters.

The key to this is your use of the word “relatively”. You keep saying your God provided sapiens with cells that were not used until thousands of years later because he put them there in preparation for future concepts. (In fact he gave us too many, because we discarded 150 cc!) I don’t believe there were any cells, including cortex cells, that were not used. I propose that our new concepts would have resulted in existing cells complexifying. (And shrinkage happened when complexification made some hitherto useful cells redundant.)

Fire spot

DAVID: Your love of complexification is pure confusion. The advanced use of a new need, like London cabbies results in a thickened complexified area!!! That is a tiny example of enlargement, but we also know modern heavily used brains shrank 150 cc and also had London cabbie regions!!!

dhw: Yes, the odd instance of enlargement provides clear evidence that enlargement is also an autonomous process independent of your God’s involvement. Thank you for remembering that. But most of our requirements are met by autonomous complexification, not autonomous expansion. […]

dhw: my theory allows for your God as the designer of the mechanisms for complexification and expansion. […] If he can design cells to establish their own connections, why should it be impossible for him to enable them to add to their numbers and enable the skull to adjust accordingly?” You never answered.

DAVID: You are ignoring the very complex specialized five-tier arrangement seen only in our brain, and you think our neurons knew how to design it. God would have to give precise building instructions.

You say the same about every complexity that ever took place during the whole history of speciation: God had to design every individual organ, development, stage, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. According to you, even the weaverbird’s nest is too complex for the weaverbird to have designed it!

DAVID: Cells cannot design new complexity by themselves. Complexification is simply a reorganization of what exists, new connections appearing between neurons.

New connections are the key! And you agree that the cells make these connections without your God’s intervention. And so perhaps you will at last answer my question: if your God could design a mechanism that enabled cells to complexify without his intervention, why do you think he could not have designed the same mechanism to cause enlargement (i.e. cells adding to their number without his intervention)?

Cellular intelligence (at last!)

DAVID: Enter ID to see their norm.

dhw: I was not aware that ID-ers now represented the norm in the scientific world. In any case, cellular intelligence and ID are not incompatible.

DAVID: Many Ph.D. folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God's design.

dhw: What a revelation! After your claim that your rejection of the theory is the norm, apparently even ID-ers accept it! And of course they recognize that it’s compatible with belief in a designer. Thank you for this honest admission, which makes your dismissal of the theory even more blinkered.

DAVID: ID hides God, but He is understood to be the designer. Cells automatically follow instructions in the information in the genome.

You have just told us that ID-ers accept cellular intelligence designed by God, and now you tell us that cells are not intelligent but follow instructions. What did you mean when you said that ID-ers “accept so-called cell intelligence” from God’s design, if you did not mean that they accept so-called cell intelligence from God’s design?

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 09, 2022, 15:50 (140 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Early sapiens did not use their brain as we do, the same brain!

dhw: Of course not. Our brain has thousands more requirements to cope with, and that is why the SAME CELLS have complexified! Why would new cells be added just to lie around doing nothing?

DAVID: The specialized five layer prefrontal and frontal cortex was relatively unused conceptually until recently. Most of the brain did not change uses when the new frontal area appeared. What enlarges is what matters.

dhw: The key to this is your use of the word “relatively”. You keep saying your God provided sapiens with cells that were not used until thousands of years later because he put them there in preparation for future concepts. (In fact he gave us too many, because we discarded 150 cc!) I don’t believe there were any cells, including cortex cells, that were not used. I propose that our new concepts would have resulted in existing cells complexifying. (And shrinkage happened when complexification made some hitherto useful cells redundant.)

Complexification is a new consolidation of existing neurons and connections. So neurons waiting for new conceptualization were certainly alive, somewhat active, but not like when eventually in deep active thought producing a new concept, like Einstein's special thickened area. Complexification is the result of intensive new use.


Fire spot

DAVID: Cells cannot design new complexity by themselves. Complexification is simply a reorganization of what exists, new connections appearing between neurons.

dhw: New connections are the key! And you agree that the cells make these connections without your God’s intervention. And so perhaps you will at last answer my question: if your God could design a mechanism that enabled cells to complexify without his intervention, why do you think he could not have designed the same mechanism to cause enlargement (i.e. cells adding to their number without his intervention)?

Previously explained. The complexity of new designs requires an active mind planning it. The whole point of ID. You want secondhand design. If you had a new play in mind, would you outline the plot to a friend and ask him to write it?


Cellular intelligence (at last!)

DAVID: ID hides God, but He is understood to be the designer. Cells automatically follow instructions in the information in the genome.

dhw: You have just told us that ID-ers accept cellular intelligence designed by God, and now you tell us that cells are not intelligent but follow instructions. What did you mean when you said that ID-ers “accept so-called cell intelligence” from God’s design, if you did not mean that they accept so-called cell intelligence from God’s design?

No change in ID or my view of their theory about cell intelligence. Final repeat: cells act as if they are innately intelligent, but are simply following intelligent information in their genome.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Thursday, February 10, 2022, 13:37 (139 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The studies clearly show the inner workings of cells on information in their genome they follow.

dhw: The studies clearly show that some cells remain the same and some can change, and the latter sometimes appear to act intelligently […] the studies show that cells absorb, process, remember, communicate and act on the information they absorb. You believe your God provided them with instructions, some scientists believe the above processes denote autonomous intelligence, and I suspect many scientists would rather not delve into the possible source of what appears to be intelligence. Please stop kidding yourself that your theory is the norm.

DAVID: Enter ID to see their norm.

dhw: I was not aware that ID-ers now represented the norm in the scientific world. In any case, cellular intelligence and ID are not incompatible.

DAVID: Many Ph.D. folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God's design.

dhw: What a revelation! After your claim that your rejection of the theory is the norm, apparently even ID-ers accept it! And of course they recognize that it’s compatible with belief in a designer. Thank you for this honest admission, which makes your dismissal of the theory even more blinkered.

DAVID: ID hides God, but He is understood to be the designer. Cells automatically follow instructions in the information in the genome.

dhw: You have just told us that ID-ers accept cellular intelligence designed by God, and now you tell us that cells are not intelligent but follow instructions. What did you mean when you said that ID-ers “accept so-called cell intelligence” from God’s design, if you did not mean that they accept so-called cell intelligence from God’s design?

DAVID: No change in ID or my view of their theory about cell intelligence. Final repeat: cells act as if they are innately intelligent, but are simply following intelligent information in their genome.

You don’t need to repeat your fixed belief. The point here is that you have persistently argued that cellular intelligence has no current followers – ignoring all the websites I have referred you to. You then suggested that your theory was the norm in ID, but now it turns out that ID-ers accept that God (though not mentioned by name) is the designer of cellular intelligence. Thank you for enlisting ID-ers to support Shapiro’s theory (and mine).

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 10, 2022, 16:12 (139 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I was not aware that ID-ers now represented the norm in the scientific world. In any case, cellular intelligence and ID are not incompatible.

DAVID: Many Ph.D. folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God's design.

dhw: What a revelation! After your claim that your rejection of the theory is the norm, apparently even ID-ers accept it! And of course they recognize that it’s compatible with belief in a designer. Thank you for this honest admission, which makes your dismissal of the theory even more blinkered.

DAVID: ID hides God, but He is understood to be the designer. Cells automatically follow instructions in the information in the genome.

dhw: You have just told us that ID-ers accept cellular intelligence designed by God, and now you tell us that cells are not intelligent but follow instructions. What did you mean when you said that ID-ers “accept so-called cell intelligence” from God’s design, if you did not mean that they accept so-called cell intelligence from God’s design?

DAVID: No change in ID or my view of their theory about cell intelligence. Final repeat: cells act as if they are innately intelligent, but are simply following intelligent information in their genome.

dhw: You don’t need to repeat your fixed belief. The point here is that you have persistently argued that cellular intelligence has no current followers – ignoring all the websites I have referred you to. You then suggested that your theory was the norm in ID, but now it turns out that ID-ers accept that God (though not mentioned by name) is the designer of cellular intelligence. Thank you for enlisting ID-ers to support Shapiro’s theory (and mine).

Remember the cells follow God's instructions and are not independent of them. As for Shapiro, and his bacterial studies, the bacterial ability to edit DNA is required to survive their battles as free-living single-celled organisms. What that might translate into in the evolution of higher forms is pure theory.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Friday, February 11, 2022, 13:37 (138 days ago) @ David Turell

I've done some more juggling of entries to make the discussion more coherent,

dhw: You have just told us that ID-ers accept cellular intelligence designed by God, and now you tell us that cells are not intelligent but follow instructions. What did you mean when you said that ID-ers “accept so-called cell intelligence” from God’s design, if you did not mean that they accept so-called cell intelligence from God’s design?

DAVID: No change in ID or my view of their theory about cell intelligence. Final repeat: cells act as if they are innately intelligent, but are simply following intelligent information in their genome.

dhw: You don’t need to repeat your fixed belief. The point here is that you have persistently argued that cellular intelligence has no current followers – ignoring all the websites I have referred you to. You then suggested that your theory was the norm in ID, but now it turns out that ID-ers accept that God (though not mentioned by name) is the designer of cellular intelligence. Thank you for enlisting ID-ers to support Shapiro’s theory (and mine).

DAVID: Remember the cells follow God's instructions and are not independent of them.

That is your fixed belief!

DAVID: As for Shapiro, and his bacterial studies, the bacterial ability to edit DNA is required to survive their battles as free-living single-celled organisms. What that might translate into in the evolution of higher forms is pure theory.

It’s an excellent piece of evidence for the theory of cellular intelligence proposed by many scientists past and present, and as you have now informed us, these also include ID-ers.

DAVID: Total distortion of my statement: I'll repeat, cells follow God's designed instructions in their genomes to look and act as if innately intelligent. Pure ID.

Yet again, you merely repeat your rigid beliefs. Your statement was: “Many Ph.D. folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design.” You have also in the past said that lots of ID folk love Shapiro. “Cell intelligence” is the exact opposite of “following instructions” so, once again, please explain how your ID-ers can accept what we call cell intelligence from God’s design if they don’t accept that cell intelligence exists and was designed by God. Conversely, are you quite certain that all your ID-ers espouse the theory that your God has provided instructions for every single development in the history of evolution, including every lifestyle, solution to problems, econiche, natural wonder etc. – apart from those which he popped in to dabble?

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Friday, February 11, 2022, 15:45 (138 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As for Shapiro, and his bacterial studies, the bacterial ability to edit DNA is required to survive their battles as free-living single-celled organisms. What that might translate into in the evolution of higher forms is pure theory.

dhw: It’s an excellent piece of evidence for the theory of cellular intelligence proposed by many scientists past and present, and as you have now informed us, these also include ID-ers.

DAVID: Total distortion of my statement: I'll repeat, cells follow God's designed instructions in their genomes to look and act as if innately intelligent. Pure ID.

dhw: Yet again, you merely repeat your rigid beliefs. Your statement was: “Many Ph.D. folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design.” You have also in the past said that lots of ID folk love Shapiro. “Cell intelligence” is the exact opposite of “following instructions” so, once again, please explain how your ID-ers can accept what we call cell intelligence from God’s design if they don’t accept that cell intelligence exists and was designed by God. Conversely, are you quite certain that all your ID-ers espouse the theory that your God has provided instructions for every single development in the history of evolution, including every lifestyle, solution to problems, econiche, natural wonder etc. – apart from those which he popped in to dabble?

ID believes God designed all stages of evolution. Designed cells look and act as if innately intelligent but are simply following intelligently designed instructional information.

Cellular intelligence: epithelial repair

by David Turell @, Friday, February 11, 2022, 23:01 (138 days ago) @ David Turell

How epithelial cells respond to wounds and repair the damage:

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/11_february_2022_Main/MobilePage...

"Layers of epithelial cells protect animals from environmental insults. When the integrity of these tissues is compromised by injury, epithelial cells migrate as a cohesive unit over the exposed area to seal the breach. In some epithelia, collective migration is guided by cells that acquire leader behavior. Leader cells activate specific migratory pathways and drive directed migration of the remaining epithelial cells, which act as follower cells to enable wound closure. How leader cells arise from a seemingly homogeneous population remains unresolved, particularly because only a few cells at the wound edge develop into leader cells.

***

"We took advantage of the fact that in untreated MDCK cultures, a few cells spontaneously display a morphology reminiscent of leader cells and, on contact with neighbor cells with epithelial morphology, lead directed migration. These “spontaneous leaders” behave similarly to leaders observed at the edge of injured MDCK epithelial sheets. We investigated the mechanisms that drive spontaneous leader cell behavior, as an entry point to identify what invokes leader cell specification upon epithelial injury.

"We found that spontaneous leaders exhibited elevated cellular tumor antigen p53 levels. Indeed, inducing p53 activation, either by inducing binucleation (which is a common feature among leader cells) or with the DNA-damaging agent mitomycin C (MMC) or the Mdm2 inhibitor nutlin-3, was sufficient to instruct leader behavior. Ablation of p53 by CRISPR mutagenesis strongly inhibited the emergence of leader cells upon MMC treatment, indicating that p53 is necessary for cells to be leaders. Working downstream of p53, we found that its target gene p21WAF1/CIP1 (p21) was also elevated in spontaneous leaders. Indeed, p21 elevation and its functional output, cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) activity inhibition, were sufficient and necessary to induce leader cell behavior. Up-regulating p21 was sufficient to elevate integrin b1 and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), which are known markers of spontaneous leader cells and are required for their migration.

***

"We found that scratch-induced leader cells experienced cell cycle delay, consistent with CDK inhibition, and showed high levels of both p53 and p21. Using a live reporter of p53 activity, we showed that injury itself induced p53 elevation at the edge of the damaged epithelium. This induction likely resulted from the mechanical insult, as it was dependent on the stress kinase p38, which activates p53 in response to mechanical stress. We then found that p53 and p21 both promoted cell migration in monolayers undergoing repair. Indeed, activating p53 at the migration front by laser-induced DNA damage accelerated cell migration, an effect that could be rescued by p53 inhibition. Conversely, inhibiting p53 or p21 slowed down migration.

***

"...we found that, once the epithelium was repaired, leader cells with high p53 activity were cleared by cell competition, undergoing extrusion or apoptosis. Failure to remove leader cells compromised the regular cobblestone-like morphology of the epithelium.

"CONCLUSION: We have identified p53 as a key determinant of leader-driven cell migration in epithelial repair. p53 activation appeared to instruct leader cell specification and accelerate cell migration by modulating p21 and CDK activity. Upon epithelial repair, p53 induced leader cell elimination by mechanical cell competition, reinstating epithelial integrity. Nonproliferative cells leading collective migration have been previously observed in vivo in various physiological and pathological contexts. The p53-p21-CDK pathway could therefore have broader relevance in leader-driven cell migration."

Comment: this shows the automaticity of cell responses to humoral stimulants, which start the process by automatically appearing in a response to injury. This type of rapid response is beautifully programmed to protect life from injuries or possible infections in the wound. The appearance of the stimulating proteins produces the automatic responses. All gives the outward appearance that the cells know what they are doing, which can easily be interpreted as Brilliant cells. All in basic understanding the proper point of view.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Saturday, February 12, 2022, 08:05 (138 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your statement was: “Many Ph.D. folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design.” You have also in the past said that lots of ID folk love Shapiro. “Cell intelligence” is the exact opposite of “following instructions” so, once again, please explain how your ID-ers can accept what we call cell intelligence from God’s design if they don’t accept that cell intelligence exists and was designed by God. Conversely, are you quite certain that all your ID-ers espouse the theory that your God has provided instructions for every single development in the history of evolution, including every lifestyle, solution to problems, econiche, natural wonder etc. – apart from those which he popped in to dabble?

DAVID: ID believes God designed all stages of evolution. Designed cells look and act as if innately intelligent but are simply following intelligently designed instructional information.

Please explain what you meant by “Many Ph.D folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design.” And please tell us if they all believe the theory I have just bolded.


Epithelial repair

QUOTE: Leader cells activate specific migratory pathways and drive directed migration of the remaining epithelial cells, which act as follower cells to enable wound closure. How leader cells arise from a seemingly homogeneous population remains unresolved, particularly because only a few cells at the wound edge develop into leader cells.

DAVID: this shows the automaticity of cell responses to humoral stimulants, which start the process by automatically appearing in a response to injury. This type of rapid response is beautifully programmed to protect life from injuries or possible infections in the wound. The appearance of the stimulating proteins produces the automatic responses. All gives the outward appearance that the cells know what they are doing, which can easily be interpreted as Brilliant cells.

Yet again I am indebted to David for an amazing example of how the micro mirrors the macro. What is difficult for us to grasp is that we ourselves are a huge community of communities, but if we start with the concept of single cell organisms (bacteria) that have the intelligence to work out their own ways of survival in ever changing conditions, and then imagine them joining together in a community to pool their intelligences, it might help us to understand how ants do the same – creating huge and highly efficient cities, farms, armies etc. – and we ourselves do the same, both outwardly and inwardly. The above example lays bare the fact that even if cells all look the same to us (homogeneous), nevertheless a particular community contains potential leaders who direct the rest. If we imagine some giant being looking down on Earth, no doubt we humans too would all look the same, but we are not. We have leaders who direct followers. Sadly in our case, our leaders are often far from giving the outward appearance that they know what they’re doing, but in the micro world inside us – which admittedly tends to allot specialist taskS to specialist leaders – there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the outward appearance of intelligence is anything other than a manifestation of intelligence, i.e. they know what they are doing. But of course that doesn’t mean that their intelligence is such that they philosophize about it.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 12, 2022, 16:59 (137 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Your statement was: “Many Ph.D. folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design.” You have also in the past said that lots of ID folk love Shapiro. “Cell intelligence” is the exact opposite of “following instructions” so, once again, please explain how your ID-ers can accept what we call cell intelligence from God’s design if they don’t accept that cell intelligence exists and was designed by God. Conversely, are you quite certain that all your ID-ers espouse the theory that your God has provided instructions for every single development in the history of evolution, including every lifestyle, solution to problems, econiche, natural wonder etc. – apart from those which he popped in to dabble?

DAVID: ID believes God designed all stages of evolution. Designed cells look and act as if innately intelligent but are simply following intelligently designed instructional information.

dhw: Please explain what you meant by “Many Ph.D folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design.” And please tell us if they all believe the theory I have just bolded.

What needs explanation? I mentioned Ph.D.'s to show level of education. They believe as I do, a designer created all steps in evolution, by whatever or however He did it.

Epithelial repair

QUOTE: Leader cells activate specific migratory pathways and drive directed migration of the remaining epithelial cells, which act as follower cells to enable wound closure. How leader cells arise from a seemingly homogeneous population remains unresolved, particularly because only a few cells at the wound edge develop into leader cells.

DAVID: this shows the automaticity of cell responses to humoral stimulants, which start the process by automatically appearing in a response to injury. This type of rapid response is beautifully programmed to protect life from injuries or possible infections in the wound. The appearance of the stimulating proteins produces the automatic responses. All gives the outward appearance that the cells know what they are doing, which can easily be interpreted as brilliant cells.

dhw: Yet again I am indebted to David for an amazing example of how the micro mirrors the macro. What is difficult for us to grasp is that we ourselves are a huge community of communities, but if we start with the concept of single cell organisms (bacteria) that have the intelligence to work out their own ways of survival in ever changing conditions, and then imagine them joining together in a community to pool their intelligences, it might help us to understand how ants do the same – creating huge and highly efficient cities, farms, armies etc. – and we ourselves do the same, both outwardly and inwardly. The above example lays bare the fact that even if cells all look the same to us (homogeneous), nevertheless a particular community contains potential leaders who direct the rest. If we imagine some giant being looking down on Earth, no doubt we humans too would all look the same, but we are not. We have leaders who direct followers. Sadly in our case, our leaders are often far from giving the outward appearance that they know what they’re doing, but in the micro world inside us – which admittedly tends to allot specialist tasks to specialist leaders – there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the outward appearance of intelligence is anything other than a manifestation of intelligence, i.e. they know what they are doing. But of course that doesn’t mean that their intelligence is such that they philosophize about it.

You have expressed your views elegantly, but not challenged my view of automaticity.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Sunday, February 13, 2022, 12:22 (137 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Please explain what you meant by “Many Ph.D folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design.” And please tell us if they all believe the theory I have just bolded.

DAVID: What needs explanation? I mentioned Ph.D.'s to show level of education. They believe as I do, a designer created all steps in evolution, by whatever or however He did it.

“However he did it” could include giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing, so what did you mean when you said the Ph.D’s “accepted so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design”. You’ve told us that lots of them like Shapiro, so I don’t know what they like if your statement means they reject Shapiro and accept your theory that all cells behave automatically, following your God’s instructions.

Epithelial repair

QUOTE: Leader cells activate specific migratory pathways and drive directed migration of the remaining epithelial cells, which act as follower cells to enable wound closure. How leader cells arise from a seemingly homogeneous population remains unresolved, particularly because only a few cells at the wound edge develop into leader cells.

DAVID: this shows the automaticity of cell responses to humoral stimulants, which start the process by automatically appearing in a response to injury. This type of rapid response is beautifully programmed to protect life from injuries or possible infections in the wound. The appearance of the stimulating proteins produces the automatic responses. All gives the outward appearance that the cells know what they are doing, which can easily be interpreted as brilliant cells.

dhw: Yet again I am indebted to David for an amazing example of how the micro mirrors the macro. What is difficult for us to grasp is that we ourselves are a huge community of communities, but if we start with the concept of single cell organisms (bacteria) that have the intelligence to work out their own ways of survival in ever changing conditions, and then imagine them joining together in a community to pool their intelligences, it might help us to understand how ants do the same – creating huge and highly efficient cities, farms, armies etc. – and we ourselves do the same, both outwardly and inwardly. The above example lays bare the fact that even if cells all look the same to us (homogeneous), nevertheless a particular community contains potential leaders who direct the rest. If we imagine some giant being looking down on Earth, no doubt we humans too would all look the same, but we are not. We have leaders who direct followers. Sadly in our case, our leaders are often far from giving the outward appearance that they know what they’re doing, but in the micro world inside us – which admittedly tends to allot specialist tasks to specialist leaders – there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the outward appearance of intelligence is anything other than a manifestation of intelligence, i.e. they know what they are doing. But of course that doesn’t mean that their intelligence is such that they philosophize about it.

DAVID: You have expressed your views elegantly, but not challenged my view of automaticity.

Thank you for the compliment. I’ve reproduced the whole passage, because I feel that it all helps to establish a pattern that leads to my conclusion, which is that I see “no reason to suppose that the outward appearance of intelligence is anything other than a manifestation of intelligence”. That is as direct a challenge as I can possibly offer to your view of automaticity.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 13, 2022, 15:26 (136 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Please explain what you meant by “Many Ph.D folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design.” And please tell us if they all believe the theory I have just bolded.

DAVID: What needs explanation? I mentioned Ph.D.'s to show level of education. They believe as I do, a designer created all steps in evolution, by whatever or however He did it.

dhw: “However he did it” could include giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing, so what did you mean when you said the Ph.D’s “accepted so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design”. You’ve told us that lots of them like Shapiro, so I don’t know what they like if your statement means they reject Shapiro and accept your theory that all cells behave automatically, following your God’s instructions.

Shapiro is not an ID'er but i D liked his work.


Epithelial repair

QUOTE: Leader cells activate specific migratory pathways and drive directed migration of the remaining epithelial cells, which act as follower cells to enable wound closure. How leader cells arise from a seemingly homogeneous population remains unresolved, particularly because only a few cells at the wound edge develop into leader cells.

DAVID: this shows the automaticity of cell responses to humoral stimulants, which start the process by automatically appearing in a response to injury. This type of rapid response is beautifully programmed to protect life from injuries or possible infections in the wound. The appearance of the stimulating proteins produces the automatic responses. All gives the outward appearance that the cells know what they are doing, which can easily be interpreted as brilliant cells.

dhw: Yet again I am indebted to David for an amazing example of how the micro mirrors the macro. What is difficult for us to grasp is that we ourselves are a huge community of communities, but if we start with the concept of single cell organisms (bacteria) that have the intelligence to work out their own ways of survival in ever changing conditions, and then imagine them joining together in a community to pool their intelligences, it might help us to understand how ants do the same – creating huge and highly efficient cities, farms, armies etc. – and we ourselves do the same, both outwardly and inwardly. The above example lays bare the fact that even if cells all look the same to us (homogeneous), nevertheless a particular community contains potential leaders who direct the rest. If we imagine some giant being looking down on Earth, no doubt we humans too would all look the same, but we are not. We have leaders who direct followers. Sadly in our case, our leaders are often far from giving the outward appearance that they know what they’re doing, but in the micro world inside us – which admittedly tends to allot specialist tasks to specialist leaders – there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the outward appearance of intelligence is anything other than a manifestation of intelligence, i.e. they know what they are doing. But of course that doesn’t mean that their intelligence is such that they philosophize about it.

DAVID: You have expressed your views elegantly, but not challenged my view of automaticity.

dhw: Thank you for the compliment. I’ve reproduced the whole passage, because I feel that it all helps to establish a pattern that leads to my conclusion, which is that I see “no reason to suppose that the outward appearance of intelligence is anything other than a manifestation of intelligence”. That is as direct a challenge as I can possibly offer to your view of automaticity.

The 'manifestation of intelligence" is in the underlying design. Remember odds are 50/50, but only one is correct. I've chosen my side of the issue from my knowledge of how biochemistry has to work.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Monday, February 14, 2022, 08:57 (136 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Please explain what you meant by “Many Ph.D folks are in the ID corps. They all accept so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design.” And please tell us if they all believe the theory I have just bolded.

DAVID: What needs explanation? I mentioned Ph.D.'s to show level of education. They believe as I do, a designer created all steps in evolution, by whatever or however He did it.

dhw: “However he did it” could include giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing, so what did you mean when you said the Ph.D’s “accepted so-called cell intelligence is from God’s design”. You’ve told us that lots of them like Shapiro, so I don’t know what they like if your statement means they reject Shapiro and accept your theory that all cells behave automatically, following your God’s instructions.

DAVID: Shapiro is not an ID'er but i D liked his work.

I know. That’s why I asked what you meant by ID-ers “accept so-called intelligence is from God’s design” and why they like Shapiro if they all firmly believe as you do that cells are automatons which only obey your God’s instructions. Why don’t you answer?

dhw: What is difficult for us to grasp is that we ourselves are a huge community of communities, but if we start with the concept of single cell organisms (bacteria) that have the intelligence to work out their own ways of survival in ever changing conditions, and then imagine them joining together in a community to pool their intelligences, it might help us to understand how ants do the same – creating huge and highly efficient cities, farms, armies etc. – and we ourselves do the same, both outwardly and inwardly. The above example lays bare the fact that even if cells all look the same to us (homogeneous), nevertheless a particular community contains potential leaders who direct the rest. If we imagine some giant being looking down on Earth, no doubt we humans too would all look the same, but we are not. We have leaders who direct followers. Sadly in our case, our leaders are often far from giving the outward appearance that they know what they’re doing, but in the micro world inside us – which admittedly tends to allot specialist tasks to specialist leaders – there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the outward appearance of intelligence is anything other than a manifestation of intelligence, i.e. they know what they are doing. But of course that doesn’t mean that their intelligence is such that they philosophize about it.

DAVID: You have expressed your views elegantly, but not challenged my view of automaticity.

dhw: Thank you for the compliment. I’ve reproduced the whole passage, because I feel that it all helps to establish a pattern that leads to my conclusion, which is that I see “no reason to suppose that the outward appearance of intelligence is anything other than a manifestation of intelligence”. That is as direct a challenge as I can possibly offer to your view of automaticity.

DAVID: The 'manifestation of intelligence" is in the underlying design. Remember odds are 50/50, but only one is correct. I've chosen my side of the issue from my knowledge of how biochemistry has to work.

And other scientists who know how biochemistry has to work support the concept of cellular intelligence. We don’t need to be reminded of the different viewpoints. I just wish you would respond to the astonishing parallels that we find in the micro world (which you claim is automatic) and the macro world (which you claim is autonomous). This is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”, but you don’t seem able to see the parallels.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Monday, February 14, 2022, 16:31 (135 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Shapiro is not an ID'er but ID liked his work.

dhw: I know. That’s why I asked what you meant by ID-ers “accept so-called intelligence is from God’s design” and why they like Shapiro if they all firmly believe as you do that cells are automatons which only obey your God’s instructions. Why don’t you answer?

I've told you before, Shapiro's elegant work on bacteria was appreciated by ID, but his extrapolation to its application to explain evolution was not.


dhw: What is difficult for us to grasp is that we ourselves are a huge community of communities, but if we start with the concept of single cell organisms (bacteria) that have the intelligence to work out their own ways of survival in ever changing conditions, and then imagine them joining together in a community to pool their intelligences, it might help us to understand how ants do the same – creating huge and highly efficient cities, farms, armies etc. – and we ourselves do the same, both outwardly and inwardly. The above example lays bare the fact that even if cells all look the same to us (homogeneous), nevertheless a particular community contains potential leaders who direct the rest. If we imagine some giant being looking down on Earth, no doubt we humans too would all look the same, but we are not. We have leaders who direct followers. Sadly in our case, our leaders are often far from giving the outward appearance that they know what they’re doing, but in the micro world inside us – which admittedly tends to allot specialist tasks to specialist leaders – there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the outward appearance of intelligence is anything other than a manifestation of intelligence, i.e. they know what they are doing. But of course that doesn’t mean that their intelligence is such that they philosophize about it.

DAVID: You have expressed your views elegantly, but not challenged my view of automaticity.

dhw: Thank you for the compliment. I’ve reproduced the whole passage, because I feel that it all helps to establish a pattern that leads to my conclusion, which is that I see “no reason to suppose that the outward appearance of intelligence is anything other than a manifestation of intelligence”. That is as direct a challenge as I can possibly offer to your view of automaticity.

DAVID: The 'manifestation of intelligence" is in the underlying design. Remember odds are 50/50, but only one is correct. I've chosen my side of the issue from my knowledge of how biochemistry has to work.

dhw: And other scientists who know how biochemistry has to work support the concept of cellular intelligence. We don’t need to be reminded of the different viewpoints. I just wish you would respond to the astonishing parallels that we find in the micro world (which you claim is automatic) and the macro world (which you claim is autonomous). This is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”, but you don’t seem able to see the parallels.

I see all the parallels. Pure parallelism is an observation, not any offer of proof.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 08:13 (135 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Shapiro is not an ID'er but ID liked his work.

dhw: I know. That’s why I asked what you meant by ID-ers “accept so-called intelligence is from God’s design” and why they like Shapiro if they all firmly believe as you do that cells are automatons which only obey your God’s instructions. Why don’t you answer?

DAVID: I've told you before, Shapiro's elegant work on bacteria was appreciated by ID, but his extrapolation to its application to explain evolution was not.

That is not what you told me, and it is not what I asked. Do (some) ID-ers accept the concept of cellular intelligence designed by God, or do they share your fixed belief that cells do nothing but obey your God’s instructions?

DAVID: The 'manifestation of intelligence" is in the underlying design. Remember odds are 50/50, but only one is correct. I've chosen my side of the issue from my knowledge of how biochemistry has to work.

dhw: And other scientists who know how biochemistry has to work support the concept of cellular intelligence. We don’t need to be reminded of the different viewpoints. I just wish you would respond to the astonishing parallels that we find in the micro world (which you claim is automatic) and the macro world (which you claim is autonomous). This is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”, but you don’t seem able to see the parallels.

DAVID: I see all the parallels. Pure parallelism is an observation, not any offer of proof.

All our theories are based on observation, and none of them offer “proof”. If they were proven, they would be seen as facts and not theories. Would you agree that the parallels offer a rational basis for the theory that since the macro world clearly demonstrates autonomous intelligence, it is POSSIBLE that the micro world is also a manifestation of autonomous intelligence?

Immunity system explaining B cells

QUOTE: The first time a B cell encounters an antigen, it can take up to 15 days to produce sufficient neutralizing antibodies to quell the pathogen. The second time the same pathogen is encountered, memory B cells, which morph into antibody-producing plasma cells, respond in as few as five days and flood infiltrating pathogens with 100 times more antibodies than during the first encounter.

A fine example of how B cells learn from experience. Just like humans, they need time to work out solutions to problems, but they remember what they have done, and then they become more proficient. One would have thought that if God had issued them with instructions, either they would or would not automatically obey them. Maybe instead of issuing them with instructions, he gave them the ability to work out solutions for themselves and to remember what they have done. Just a thought.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 15:48 (134 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Shapiro is not an ID'er but ID liked his work.

DAVID: I've told you before, Shapiro's elegant work on bacteria was appreciated by ID, but his extrapolation to its application to explain evolution was not.

dhw: That is not what you told me, and it is not what I asked. Do (some) ID-ers accept the concept of cellular intelligence designed by God, or do they share your fixed belief that cells do nothing but obey your God’s instructions?

I am an exact copy of all ID'ers. God's instructions win.


DAVID: The 'manifestation of intelligence" is in the underlying design. Remember odds are 50/50, but only one is correct. I've chosen my side of the issue from my knowledge of how biochemistry has to work.

dhw: And other scientists who know how biochemistry has to work support the concept of cellular intelligence. We don’t need to be reminded of the different viewpoints. I just wish you would respond to the astonishing parallels that we find in the micro world (which you claim is automatic) and the macro world (which you claim is autonomous). This is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”, but you don’t seem able to see the parallels.

DAVID: I see all the parallels. Pure parallelism is an observation, not any offer of proof.

dhw: All our theories are based on observation, and none of them offer “proof”. If they were proven, they would be seen as facts and not theories. Would you agree that the parallels offer a rational basis for the theory that since the macro world clearly demonstrates autonomous intelligence, it is POSSIBLE that the micro world is also a manifestation of autonomous intelligence?

You can't win. We observe intelligent activity by cells. The rest is logical interpretations of how that is accomplished. I see only automaticity. You theorize the opposite.


Immunity system explaining B cells

QUOTE: The first time a B cell encounters an antigen, it can take up to 15 days to produce sufficient neutralizing antibodies to quell the pathogen. The second time the same pathogen is encountered, memory B cells, which morph into antibody-producing plasma cells, respond in as few as five days and flood infiltrating pathogens with 100 times more antibodies than during the first encounter.

dhw: A fine example of how B cells learn from experience. Just like humans, they need time to work out solutions to problems, but they remember what they have done, and then they become more proficient. One would have thought that if God had issued them with instructions, either they would or would not automatically obey them. Maybe instead of issuing them with instructions, he gave them the ability to work out solutions for themselves and to remember what they have done. Just a thought.

More flailing for independent cells actions while immunity is seen as automatic by most scientists I know.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Wednesday, February 16, 2022, 11:33 (134 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Shapiro is not an ID'er but ID liked his work.
And:
DAVID: I've told you before, Shapiro's elegant work on bacteria was appreciated by ID, but his extrapolation to its application to explain evolution was not.

dhw: That is not what you told me, and it is not what I asked. Do (some) ID-ers accept the concept of cellular intelligence designed by God, or do they share your fixed belief that cells do nothing but obey your God’s instructions?

DAVID: I am an exact copy of all ID'ers. God's instructions win.

I’m surprised to hear from you that ID-ers like Shapiro, accept the concept of cellular intelligence (designed by God), and yet reject the concept of cellular intelligence in favour of God’s instructions, although many of them try to avoid even mentioning God. See also the thread on your theory for more dubious views on what ID-ers believe. But frankly, it doesn’t matter here what they do or don’t believe, since this discussion is between you and me.

dhw: I just wish you would respond to the astonishing parallels that we find in the micro world (which you claim is automatic) and the macro world (which you claim is autonomous). This is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”, but you don’t seem able to see the parallels.

DAVID: I see all the parallels. Pure parallelism is an observation, not any offer of proof.

dhw: All our theories are based on observation, and none of them offer “proof”. If they were proven, they would be seen as facts and not theories. Would you agree that the parallels offer a rational basis for the theory that since the macro world clearly demonstrates autonomous intelligence, it is POSSIBLE that the micro world is also a manifestation of autonomous intelligence?

DAVID: You can't win. We observe intelligent activity by cells. The rest is logical interpretations of how that is accomplished. I see only automaticity. You theorize the opposite.

Neither of us can “win” because nobody knows the truth. I didn’t think our discussions were a matter of winning or losing. My aim is to consider just how reasonable and believable the different theories are. You have provided us with an amazing service in presenting so many different aspects of the various topics, but it seems that the more we learn, the less we know! Nevertheless, I'd like to know if you think it's POSSIBLE that the parallels offer a rational basis for believing that the microworld's forms of intelligence are as autonomous as those of the macroworld.

Immunity system explaining B cells

dhw: A fine example of how B cells learn from experience. Just like humans, they need time to work out solutions to problems, but they remember what they have done, and then they become more proficient. One would have thought that if God had issued them with instructions, either they would or would not automatically obey them. Maybe instead of issuing them with instructions, he gave them the ability to work out solutions for themselves and to remember what they have done. Just a thought.

DAVID: More flailing for independent cells actions while immunity is seen as automatic by most scientists I know.

Most cellular actions have to be automatic to preserve the status quo. It’s when things go wrong that autonomous intelligence manifests itself. Do most scientists you know believe that cells are provided with God’s instructions to deal with any new problems that might arise? I can’t remember you posting a single article concerning the activities of cells in which your God was even mentioned – except, of course, by you.

Magic embryology

QUOTE: Duncan McKenzie, lead researcher and postdoctoral training fellow in the Crick's Immunosurveillance Laboratory, said: "In order to sense disruption these cells need to know what's normal for the tissue. Like security guards, they stay familiar with their surroundings so that they can most effectively identify when things go wrong.

DAVID: the design never ceases to amaze how complex it is. Rapid automatic response to invaders is vital.

I echo your wonderment, but I repeat the question above: do most scientists you know believe that cells are provided with your God's instructions? (Apologies for the repetition, but I often have to repeat questions before I get an answer! ;-) )

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 16, 2022, 15:28 (133 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Do (some) ID-ers accept the concept of cellular intelligence designed by God, or do they share your fixed belief that cells do nothing but obey your God’s instructions?

DAVID: I am an exact copy of all ID'ers. God's instructions win.

dhw: I’m surprised to hear from you that ID-ers like Shapiro, accept the concept of cellular intelligence (designed by God), and yet reject the concept of cellular intelligence in favour of God’s instructions, although many of them try to avoid even mentioning God. See also the thread on your theory for more dubious views on what ID-ers believe. But frankly, it doesn’t matter here what they do or don’t believe, since this discussion is between you and me.

So I'm not allowed to quote my experts as you do with you adopted favorites.


DAVID: You can't win. We observe intelligent activity by cells. The rest is logical interpretations of how that is accomplished. I see only automaticity. You theorize the opposite.

dhw: Neither of us can “win” because nobody knows the truth. I didn’t think our discussions were a matter of winning or losing. My aim is to consider just how reasonable and believable the different theories are. You have provided us with an amazing service in presenting so many different aspects of the various topics, but it seems that the more we learn, the less we know! Nevertheless, I'd like to know if you think it's POSSIBLE that the parallels offer a rational basis for believing that the microworld's forms of intelligence are as autonomous as those of the macroworld.

Why ask? It is rational to see the possibility of innate cellular intelligence, but how cells could possibly cause future design as well as all their obvious automatic activity is an extrapolation beyond rational belief.


Immunity system explaining B cells

dhw: A fine example of how B cells learn from experience. Just like humans, they need time to work out solutions to problems, but they remember what they have done, and then they become more proficient. One would have thought that if God had issued them with instructions, either they would or would not automatically obey them. Maybe instead of issuing them with instructions, he gave them the ability to work out solutions for themselves and to remember what they have done. Just a thought.

DAVID: More flailing for independent cells actions while immunity is seen as automatic by most scientists I know.

dhw: Most cellular actions have to be automatic to preserve the status quo. It’s when things go wrong that autonomous intelligence manifests itself. Do most scientists you know believe that cells are provided with God’s instructions to deal with any new problems that might arise? I can’t remember you posting a single article concerning the activities of cells in which your God was even mentioned – except, of course, by you.

ID article are not allowed to mention God, but He is inferred as the required designing mind.


Magic embryology

QUOTE: Duncan McKenzie, lead researcher and postdoctoral training fellow in the Crick's Immunosurveillance Laboratory, said: "In order to sense disruption these cells need to know what's normal for the tissue. Like security guards, they stay familiar with their surroundings so that they can most effectively identify when things go wrong.

DAVID: the design never ceases to amaze how complex it is. Rapid automatic response to invaders is vital.

dhw: I echo your wonderment, but I repeat the question above: do most scientists you know believe that cells are provided with your God's instructions? (Apologies for the repetition, but I often have to repeat questions before I get an answer! ;-) )

Some questions come across as facetious. All ID folks believe as I do. Said many times.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Thursday, February 17, 2022, 11:36 (133 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I am an exact copy of all ID'ers. God's instructions win.

dhw: I’m surprised to hear from you that ID-ers like Shapiro, accept the concept of cellular intelligence (designed by God), and yet reject the concept of cellular intelligence in favour of God’s instructions, although many of them try to avoid even mentioning God. See also the thread on your theory for more dubious views on what ID-ers believe. But frankly, it doesn’t matter here what they do or don’t believe, since this discussion is between you and me.

DAVID: So I'm not allowed to quote my experts as you do with you adopted favorites.

But you don’t quote them. You tell me they accept Shapiro’s theory but reject it. You tell me they support what used to be your theory until now – that your God’s only purpose was to create humans plus food – but actually, no they don’t. All they support is the theory that life was designed.

dhw: I'd like to know if you think it's POSSIBLE that the parallels offer a rational basis for believing that the microworld's forms of intelligence are as autonomous as those of the macroworld.

DAVID: Why ask? It is rational to see the possibility of innate cellular intelligence, but how cells could possibly cause future design as well as all their obvious automatic activity is an extrapolation beyond rational belief.

For the umpteenth time, they do not “cause future design”. They respond to present needs or opportunities. Once they have created a successful design, then of course it will remain as it is until the next change in conditions either kills them off or makes them adapt or allows them to innovate. Their automatic activities are what enable them to remain stable as species.

Immunity system explaining B cells

DAVID: […] immunity is seen as automatic by most scientists I know.

dhw: Most cellular actions have to be automatic to preserve the status quo. It’s when things go wrong that autonomous intelligence manifests itself. Do most scientists you know believe that cells are provided with God’s instructions to deal with any new problems that might arise? […]

DAVID: ID article are not allowed to mention God, but He is inferred as the required designing mind.
And:
DAVID: Some questions come across as facetious. All ID folks believe as I do. Said many times.

Firstly, you said “most scientists I know”. I presume you know of scientists who are not ID-ers. Secondly, once again you dismiss my question as facetious. Why? You keep repeating over and over again that cells obey your God’s instructions. That is your explanation of their automaticity! I keep repeating that many activities have to be automatic to preserve the status quo, but other activities require intelligent reactions to new situations. The scientists you quote make no reference whatsoever to the question of HOW cells know what to do.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 17, 2022, 15:41 (132 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: So I'm not allowed to quote my experts as you do with you adopted favorites.

dhw: But you don’t quote them. You tell me they accept Shapiro’s theory but reject it. You tell me they support what used to be your theory until now – that your God’s only purpose was to create humans plus food – but actually, no they don’t. All they support is the theory that life was designed.

My theory is an amalgam of sources. ID gives me the design backing. Adler adds humans as an endpoint.


dhw: I'd like to know if you think it's POSSIBLE that the parallels offer a rational basis for believing that the microworld's forms of intelligence are as autonomous as those of the macroworld.

DAVID: Why ask? It is rational to see the possibility of innate cellular intelligence, but how cells could possibly cause future design as well as all their obvious automatic activity is an extrapolation beyond rational belief.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, they do not “cause future design”. They respond to present needs or opportunities. Once they have created a successful design, then of course it will remain as it is until the next change in conditions either kills them off or makes them adapt or allows them to innovate. Their automatic activities are what enable them to remain stable as species.

This comment is simply survival of the species leading to new speciation. Pure Darwin.


Immunity system explaining B cells

DAVID: […] immunity is seen as automatic by most scientists I know.

dhw: Most cellular actions have to be automatic to preserve the status quo. It’s when things go wrong that autonomous intelligence manifests itself. Do most scientists you know believe that cells are provided with God’s instructions to deal with any new problems that might arise? […]

DAVID: ID article s are not allowed to mention God, but He is inferred as the required designing mind.
And:
DAVID: Some questions come across as facetious. All ID folks believe as I do. Said many times.

dhw: Firstly, you said “most scientists I know”. I presume you know of scientists who are not ID-ers. Secondly, once again you dismiss my question as facetious. Why? You keep repeating over and over again that cells obey your God’s instructions. That is your explanation of their automaticity! I keep repeating that many activities have to be automatic to preserve the status quo, but other activities require intelligent reactions to new situations. The scientists you quote make no reference whatsoever to the question of HOW cells know what to do.

Yes they do, giving an answer you seem to hate: information in their genome drives all living cell activity. Information from a designing mind.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Friday, February 18, 2022, 11:46 (132 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: So I'm not allowed to quote my experts as you do with you adopted favorites.

dhw: But you don’t quote them. You tell me they accept Shapiro’s theory but reject it. You tell me they support what used to be your theory until now – that your God’s only purpose was to create humans plus food – but actually, no they don’t. All they support is the theory that life was designed.

DAVID: My theory is an amalgam of sources. ID gives me the design backing. Adler adds humans as an endpoint.

We needn’t dwell on the now defunct theory that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, which received backing from nobody, but we are still left with your theory that all cellular behaviour is automatic and predetermined by God’s instructions. This is tantamount to saying that all of evolution is dictated by God’s instructions. It’s another major issue, since it leads us back to the “facetious “ questions on the thread concerning your theory of evolution.

DAVID: It is rational to see the possibility of innate cellular intelligence, but how cells could possibly cause future design as well as all their obvious automatic activity is an extrapolation beyond rational belief.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, they do not “cause future design”. They respond to present needs or opportunities. Once they have created a successful design, then of course it will remain as it is until the next change in conditions either kills them off or makes them adapt or allows them to innovate. Their automatic activities are what enable them to remain stable as species.

DAVID: This comment is simply survival of the species leading to new speciation. Pure Darwin.

You have agreed that the changes that lead to speciation are all associated with the purpose of improving chances of survival. You seem to think that the very mention of the word “Darwin” invalidates any argument against your own theory, which is that your God makes all these changes before they are needed (i.e. in anticipation of the future). This in spite of the fact that in your analysis of the Cambrian explosion, you agree that oxygen came first, because if the species had been designed before the oxygen was there, it could not have survived. I maintain that this principle applies to all speciation. Changes first, and speciation is in response to those changes. This argument removes your objection that cells can’t design for the future, because cells don’t do so – they design responses to present conditions. But of course so long as those conditions continue unchanged, the new species will have a future (i.e. will survive).

Immunity system explaining B cells

DAVID: […] immunity is seen as automatic by most scientists I know.

dhw: Most cellular actions have to be automatic to preserve the status quo. It’s when things go wrong that autonomous intelligence manifests itself. Do most scientists you know believe that cells are provided with God’s instructions to deal with any new problems that might arise? […]

DAVID: ID article s are not allowed to mention God, but He is inferred as the required designing mind.
And:
DAVID: Some questions come across as facetious. All ID folks believe as I do. Said many times.

dhw: Firstly, you said “most scientists I know”. I presume you know of scientists who are not ID-ers. Secondly, once again you dismiss my question as facetious. Why? You keep repeating over and over again that cells obey your God’s instructions. That is your explanation of their automaticity! I keep repeating that many activities have to be automatic to preserve the status quo, but other activities require intelligent reactions to new situations. The scientists you quote make no reference whatsoever to the question of HOW cells know what to do.

DAVID: Yes they do, giving an answer you seem to hate: information in their genome drives all living cell activity. Information from a designing mind.

We are not talking about “information”, but even if we were, do all the scientists you know say that the information came from a "designing mind"? We are actually talking specifically about instructions, and so my question is: do all the scientists you know tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions?

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Friday, February 18, 2022, 16:43 (131 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My theory is an amalgam of sources. ID gives me the design backing. Adler adds humans as an endpoint.

dhw: We needn’t dwell on the now defunct theory that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, which received backing from nobody, but we are still left with your theory that all cellular behaviour is automatic and predetermined by God’s instructions. This is tantamount to saying that all of evolution is dictated by God’s instructions. It’s another major issue, since it leads us back to the “facetious “ questions on the thread concerning your theory of evolution.

Why can't you accept the idea that God speciates, even from your iffy God? Evolution needs a designer, and to that extent, a designing mind is necessary. We won't call it God to proceed.


DAVID: It is rational to see the possibility of innate cellular intelligence, but how cells could possibly cause future design as well as all their obvious automatic activity is an extrapolation beyond rational belief.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, they do not “cause future design”. They respond to present needs or opportunities. Once they have created a successful design, then of course it will remain as it is until the next change in conditions either kills them off or makes them adapt or allows them to innovate. Their automatic activities are what enable them to remain stable as species.

DAVID: This comment is simply survival of the species leading to new speciation. Pure Darwin.

dhw: You have agreed that the changes that lead to speciation are all associated with the purpose of improving chances of survival. You seem to think that the very mention of the word “Darwin” invalidates any argument against your own theory, which is that your God makes all these changes before they are needed (i.e. in anticipation of the future). This in spite of the fact that in your analysis of the Cambrian explosion, you agree that oxygen came first, because if the species had been designed before the oxygen was there, it could not have survived. I maintain that this principle applies to all speciation. Changes first, and speciation is in response to those changes. This argument removes your objection that cells can’t design for the future, because cells don’t do so – they design responses to present conditions. But of course so long as those conditions continue unchanged, the new species will have a future (i.e. will survive).

Don't you realize or recognize your return to pure Darwinism? Oxygen is simply an element required to be present for further evolution to occur. We are discussing how biological organisms can be evolved, so physical conditions must allow evolution, but do not drive evolution.


Immunity system explaining B cells

dhw: Firstly, you said “most scientists I know”. I presume you know of scientists who are not ID-ers. Secondly, once again you dismiss my question as facetious. Why? You keep repeating over and over again that cells obey your God’s instructions. That is your explanation of their automaticity! I keep repeating that many activities have to be automatic to preserve the status quo, but other activities require intelligent reactions to new situations. The scientists you quote make no reference whatsoever to the question of HOW cells know what to do.

DAVID: Yes they do, giving an answer you seem to hate: information in their genome drives all living cell activity. Information from a designing mind.

dhw: We are not talking about “information”, but even if we were, do all the scientists you know say that the information came from a "designing mind"? We are actually talking specifically about instructions, and so my question is: do all the scientists you know tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions?

Simply, yes! Among all IDers. But I constantly present articles from others who have no reason to discuss a designer.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Saturday, February 19, 2022, 07:32 (131 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My theory is an amalgam of sources. ID gives me the design backing. Adler adds humans as an endpoint.

dhw: We needn’t dwell on the now defunct theory that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, which received backing from nobody, but we are still left with your theory that all cellular behaviour is automatic and predetermined by God’s instructions. This is tantamount to saying that all of evolution is dictated by God’s instructions. It’s another major issue, since it leads us back to the “facetious “ question on the thread concerning your theory of evolution.

DAVID: Why can't you accept the idea that God speciates, even from your iffy God? Evolution needs a designer, and to that extent, a designing mind is necessary. We won't call it God to proceed.

If God exists, I have no objection to any of this. My objections are to the theory that he designed every species, every solution, every lifestyle, every natural wonder in the history of life, and did so in anticipation of future conditions, either through a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or through ad hoc intervention to manipulate every change. You yourself have given us the example of Cambrian oxygen, which must have existed BEFORE the new species that depended on it, and you regard my questions about how the preprogramming or the dabbling actually work as “facetious”, which I can only take to mean that you find your own theory too far-fetched even to be considered! So let me ask you in turn: why can’t you accept the idea that your God, who you are sure enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, might just possibly have designed the mechanisms which enable cells/cell communities to design their own methods of adjusting to or exploiting different conditions? After all, humans have the freedom to make their own decisions, and the unpredictability resulting from such freedom would surely be more interesting for God than watching automatons doing exactly what he knows they will do. And your God could still do an occasional dabble if he felt like it. Just an unprovable theory, like your own. I have others, as you know.

dhw: […] if the species had been designed before the oxygen was there, it could not have survived. I maintain that this principle applies to all speciation. Changes first, and speciation is in response to those changes. This argument removes your objection that cells can’t design for the future, because cells don’t do so – they design responses to present conditions. But of course so long as those conditions continue unchanged, the new species will have a future (i.e. will survive).

DAVID:Don't you realize or recognize your return to pure Darwinism? Oxygen is simply an element required to be present for further evolution to occur. We are discussing how biological organisms can be evolved, so physical conditions must allow evolution, but do not drive evolution.

You seem to think that the very mention of the word ”Darwin” is enough to remove any opposition to your own theories. You claim that cells can’t foresee the future. I agree. They respond to the present. You claim that your God speciates in anticipation of future conditions. The oxygen argument shows clearly that even if he did design the new species, the new conditions had to precede the new species! Of course oxygen did not “drive” evolution. There couldn’t be any evolution if there were no organisms around to use it, or if the organisms didn’t have the means to adapt to or exploit the new conditions. And why would an organism try to adapt to new conditions? Because it wants to survive! You have agreed that organismal changes are designed to “improve chances of survival”. That is the purpose of the changes, even if your God designed them directly. So: 1) cells do not have crystal balls; 2) cells do not require crystal balls because they respond to their present conditions; 3) when conditions change (and not before conditions change) cells/cell communities adapt or innovate in order to improve their chances of survival. 4) The mechanism for adaptation and innovation may have been designed by your God. Forgetting your prejudice against anything that might remind us of Darwin, please explain why you find this theory untenable.

Immunity system explaining B cells

dhw: The scientists you quote make no reference whatsoever to the question of HOW cells know what to do.

DAVID: Yes they do, giving an answer you seem to hate: information in their genome drives all living cell activity. Information from a designing mind.

dhw: We are not talking about “information”, but even if we were, do all the scientists you know say that the information came from a "designing mind"? We are actually talking specifically about instructions, and so my question is: do all the scientists you know tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions?

DAVID: Simply, yes! Among all IDers. But I constantly present articles from others who have no reason to discuss a designer.

So all ID-ers believe God issued instructions for all cellular behaviour, though they never mention God, but it’s presumably possible that there are other scientists who don’t believe this, only they don’t count because you don’t know them. Got it! ;-)

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 19, 2022, 16:17 (130 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why can't you accept the idea that God speciates, even from your iffy God? Evolution needs a designer, and to that extent, a designing mind is necessary. We won't call it God to proceed.

dhw: If God exists, I have no objection to any of this. My objections are to the theory that he designed every species, every solution, every lifestyle, every natural wonder in the history of life, and did so in anticipation of future conditions, either through a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or through ad hoc intervention to manipulate every change. You yourself have given us the example of Cambrian oxygen, which must have existed BEFORE the new species that depended on it,

Please recognize the difference I have stated and noted yesterday. Conditions becoming ripe for new evolution is not the process of evolution itself, which is a biological response to what is available to use.

dhw: and you regard my questions about how the preprogramming or the dabbling actually work as “facetious”, which I can only take to mean that you find your own theory too far-fetched even to be considered! So let me ask you in turn: why can’t you accept the idea that your God, who you are sure enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, might just possibly have designed the mechanisms which enable cells/cell communities to design their own methods of adjusting to or exploiting different conditions?

Fully answered. You've agreed you wouldn't assign your plot for a play to a secondary writer. Neither would a designing God.

dhw: After all, humans have the freedom to make their own decisions, and the unpredictability resulting from such freedom would surely be more interesting for God than watching automatons doing exactly what he knows they will do.

Again, you have no idea how you offer a humanized God who needs interesting events as considerations for what He should create.


dhw: You claim that your God speciates in anticipation of future conditions. The oxygen argument shows clearly that even if he did design the new species, the new conditions had to precede the new species! Of course oxygen did not “drive” evolution. There couldn’t be any evolution if there were no organisms around to use it, or if the organisms didn’t have the means to adapt to or exploit the new conditions. And why would an organism try to adapt to new conditions? Because it wants to survive! You have agreed that organismal changes are designed to “improve chances of survival”. That is the purpose of the changes, even if your God designed them directly. So: 1) cells do not have crystal balls; 2) cells do not require crystal balls because they respond to their present conditions; 3) when conditions change (and not before conditions change) cells/cell communities adapt or innovate in order to improve their chances of survival. 4) The mechanism for adaptation and innovation may have been designed by your God. Forgetting your prejudice against anything that might remind us of Darwin, please explain why you find this theory untenable.

(4) God speciates, not a secondary mechanism cells can use independently. one thru three are OK as long as you mean adaptation within existing species


Immunity system explaining B cells

dhw: The scientists you quote make no reference whatsoever to the question of HOW cells know what to do.

DAVID: Yes they do, giving an answer you seem to hate: information in their genome drives all living cell activity. Information from a designing mind.

dhw: We are not talking about “information”, but even if we were, do all the scientists you know say that the information came from a "designing mind"? We are actually talking specifically about instructions, and so my question is: do all the scientists you know tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions?

DAVID: Simply, yes! Among all IDers. But I constantly present articles from others who have no reason to discuss a designer.

dhw: So all ID-ers believe God issued instructions for all cellular behaviour, though they never mention God, but it’s presumably possible that there are other scientists who don’t believe this, only they don’t count because you don’t know them. Got it! ;-)

I do read many articles by non-IDers. Of course I offer comments sowing how the findings fit design.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Sunday, February 20, 2022, 08:10 (130 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why can't you accept the idea that God speciates, even from your iffy God? Evolution needs a designer, and to that extent, a designing mind is necessary. We won't call it God to proceed.

dhw: If God exists, I have no objection to any of this. My objections are to the theory that he designed every species, every solution, every lifestyle, every natural wonder in the history of life, and did so in anticipation of future conditions, either through a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or through ad hoc intervention to manipulate every change. You yourself have given us the example of Cambrian oxygen, which must have existed BEFORE the new species that depended on it.

DAVID: Please recognize the difference I have stated and noted yesterday. Conditions becoming ripe for new evolution is not the process of evolution itself, which is a biological response to what is available to use.

Thank you for telling me what I have been telling you for months: speciation is a response to new conditions and does not take place in anticipation of them! I don’t know where you’ve picked up the idea that anyone believes new conditions mean the process of evolution! As I wrote in my last post: "There couldn’t be any evolution if there were no organisms around to use it [the oxygen], or if the organisms didn’t have the means to adapt to or exploit the new conditions."

dhw: […] why can’t you accept the idea that your God, who you are sure enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, might just possibly have designed the mechanisms which enable cells/cell communities to design their own methods of adjusting to or exploiting different conditions?

DAVID: Fully answered. You've agreed you wouldn't assign your plot for a play to a secondary writer. Neither would a designing God.

The analogy is pointless. God’s “plot” may have been to create an ever changing and unpredictable bush in which autonomous organisms constantly surprise him with their unpredictable designs (speciation) as well as behaviours (lifestyles and natural wonders), with humans as the most surprising and unpredictable of them all.

dhw: After all, humans have the freedom to make their own decisions, and the unpredictability resulting from such freedom would surely be more interesting for God than watching automatons doing exactly what he knows they will do.

DAVID: Again, you have no idea how you offer a humanized God who needs interesting events as considerations for what He should create.

It’s only taken you two days to backtrack. When I proposed the same theory, with the same reference to humans, you wrote: “Now you make sense. You have repeated my guesses about God and his purposes with humans as an endpoint.”

dhw: […] why would an organism try to adapt to new conditions? Because it wants to survive! You have agreed that organismal changes are designed to “improve chances of survival”. That is the purpose of the changes, even if your God designed them directly. So: 1) cells do not have crystal balls; 2) cells do not require crystal balls because they respond to their present conditions; 3) when conditions change (and not before conditions change) cells/cell communities adapt or innovate in order to improve their chances of survival. 4) The mechanism for adaptation and innovation may have been designed by your God. Forgetting your prejudice against anything that might remind us of Darwin, please explain why you find this theory untenable.

DAVID: (4) God speciates, not a secondary mechanism cells can use independently. one thru three are OK as long as you mean adaptation within existing species.

You don’t need to repeat your fixed belief. That does not tell me why my theory is untenable. I’m relieved that at last you have dropped you own theory that species are designed in anticipation of future conditions, but no, I don’t just mean adaptation. I have specified adaptation or innovation, as I am proposing that innovations are also responses to changing conditions and just like adaptations serve the purpose of improving chances of survival.

Immunity system explaining B cells

dhw: ...my question is: do all the scientists you know tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions?

DAVID: Simply, yes! Among all IDers. But I constantly present articles from others who have no reason to discuss a designer.

dhw: So all ID-ers believe God issued instructions for all cellular behaviour, though they never mention God, but it’s presumably possible that there are other scientists who don’t believe this, only they don’t count because you don’t know them. Got it! ;-)

DAVID: I do read many articles by non-IDers. Of course I offer comments sowing how the findings fit design.

Let me help you: your answer to my question whether all the scientists you know “tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions” should be “no”!:-)

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 20, 2022, 15:59 (129 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please recognize the difference I have stated and noted yesterday. Conditions becoming ripe for new evolution is not the process of evolution itself, which is a biological response to what is available to use.

dhw: Thank you for telling me what I have been telling you for months: speciation is a response to new conditions and does not take place in anticipation of them! I don’t know where you’ve picked up the idea that anyone believes new conditions mean the process of evolution! As I wrote in my last post: "There couldn’t be any evolution if there were no organisms around to use it [the oxygen], or if the organisms didn’t have the means to adapt to or exploit the new conditions."

That does not explain our giant, capable brain arriving so far in advance of its massive use today.


dhw: […] why can’t you accept the idea that your God, who you are sure enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, might just possibly have designed the mechanisms which enable cells/cell communities to design their own methods of adjusting to or exploiting different conditions?

DAVID: Fully answered. You've agreed you wouldn't assign your plot for a play to a secondary writer. Neither would a designing God.

dhw: The analogy is pointless. God’s “plot” may have been to create an ever changing and unpredictable bush in which autonomous organisms constantly surprise him with their unpredictable designs (speciation) as well as behaviours (lifestyles and natural wonders), with humans as the most surprising and unpredictable of them all.

Back to humanizing God who wants surprises from His creations. God creates selflessly.


dhw: […] why would an organism try to adapt to new conditions? Because it wants to survive! You have agreed that organismal changes are designed to “improve chances of survival”. That is the purpose of the changes, even if your God designed them directly. So: 1) cells do not have crystal balls; 2) cells do not require crystal balls because they respond to their present conditions; 3) when conditions change (and not before conditions change) cells/cell communities adapt or innovate in order to improve their chances of survival. 4) The mechanism for adaptation and innovation may have been designed by your God. Forgetting your prejudice against anything that might remind us of Darwin, please explain why you find this theory untenable.

DAVID: (4) God speciates, not a secondary mechanism cells can use independently. one thru three are OK as long as you mean adaptation within existing species.

dhw: You don’t need to repeat your fixed belief. That does not tell me why my theory is untenable. I’m relieved that at last you have dropped you own theory that species are designed in anticipation of future conditions,

I don't know how you interpret my views that way? God prepares species for new lifestyles.

dhw: I have specified adaptation or innovation, as I am proposing that innovations are also responses to changing conditions and just like adaptations serve the purpose of improving chances of survival.

I agree to this recognizing 'innovations' mean speciation, which is what God designs.


Immunity system explaining B cells

dhw: ...my question is: do all the scientists you know tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions?

DAVID: Simply, yes! Among all IDers. But I constantly present articles from others who have no reason to discuss a designer.

dhw: So all ID-ers believe God issued instructions for all cellular behaviour, though they never mention God, but it’s presumably possible that there are other scientists who don’t believe this, only they don’t count because you don’t know them. Got it! ;-)

DAVID: I do read many articles by non-IDers. Of course I offer comments sowing how the findings fit design.

dhw: Let me help you: your answer to my question whether all the scientists you know “tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions” should be “no”!:-)

Word game playing. All scientists are not IDers. I follow all. :-)

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Monday, February 21, 2022, 11:29 (129 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Please recognize the difference I have stated and noted yesterday. Conditions becoming ripe for new evolution is not the process of evolution itself, which is a biological response to what is available to use.

dhw: Thank you for telling me what I have been telling you for months: speciation is a response to new conditions and does not take place in anticipation of them! I don’t know where you’ve picked up the idea that anyone believes new conditions mean the process of evolution! As I wrote in my last post: "There couldn’t be any evolution if there were no organisms around to use it [the oxygen], or if the organisms didn’t have the means to adapt to or exploit the new conditions."

DAVID: That does not explain our giant, capable brain arriving so far in advance of its massive use today.

First of all, our giant brain is the product of a step-by-step increase in brain size. It is not giant by comparison with late erectus, and it is actually smaller than Neanderthal. All inventions arrive in advance of their future!!! Evolution entails the arrival of something new which will then continue to function into its future until/unless conditions demand or allow change. I suggest that in the same way, all past brains arrived and then complexified and then expanded in response to new conditions, while sapiens’ brain responds to new conditions by complexifying but not expanding. As you have agreed, the process of evolution is a response to new conditions, not an anticipation of them.

DAVID: I don't know how you interpret my views that way? God prepares species for new lifestyles.

But according to your own theory, he does not produce the species in anticipation of the new conditions that will require or allow new lifestyles. The new conditions (e.g. oxygen) must come first. You have just said so, quoted above: evolution “is a biological response to what is available to use”.

Immunity system explaining B cells

dhw: ...my question is: do all the scientists you know tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions?

DAVID: Simply, yes! Among all IDers. But I constantly present articles from others who have no reason to discuss a designer.

dhw: So all ID-ers believe God issued instructions for all cellular behaviour, though they never mention God, but it’s presumably possible that there are other scientists who don’t believe this, only they don’t count because you don’t know them. Got it! ;-)

DAVID: I do read many articles by non-IDers. Of course I offer comments sowing how the findings fit design.

dhw: Let me help you: your answer to my question whether all the scientists you know “tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions” should be “no”! :-)

DAVID: Word game playing. All scientists are not IDers. I follow all.

I have found the original quote, and I exaggerated slightly, for which I apologize. You wrote: “…immunity is seen as automatic by most scientists I know.” You did not say “all”. However, it makes little difference to my scepticism, because I very much doubt whether even the majority of your known scientists would declare that cellular behaviour is governed by “God’s instructions” – this being your explanation for the “automatic” behaviour of cells, even when they are called upon to absorb and process new information, communicate with other cells, and take decisions to deal with new problems.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Monday, February 21, 2022, 14:49 (128 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Thank you for telling me what I have been telling you for months: speciation is a response to new conditions and does not take place in anticipation of them! I don’t know where you’ve picked up the idea that anyone believes new conditions mean the process of evolution! As I wrote in my last post: "There couldn’t be any evolution if there were no organisms around to use it [the oxygen], or if the organisms didn’t have the means to adapt to or exploit the new conditions."

DAVID: That does not explain our giant, capable brain arriving so far in advance of its massive use today.

dhw: First of all, our giant brain is the product of a step-by-step increase in brain size. It is not giant by comparison with late erectus, and it is actually smaller than Neanderthal. All inventions arrive in advance of their future!!! Evolution entails the arrival of something new which will then continue to function into its future until/unless conditions demand or allow change. I suggest that in the same way, all past brains arrived and then complexified and then expanded in response to new conditions, while sapiens’ brain responds to new conditions by complexifying but not expanding. As you have agreed, the process of evolution is a response to new conditions, not an anticipation of them.

I agree that advancing evolution at some stages requires new conditions (oxygen for Cambrian), but Habilis to Erectus to Sapiens did not. The jump from Erectus may have involved more advanced complexity of neuronal circuits with five layers of pyramidal neurons in ours. And the fate of Neanderthals tells us just size doesn't matter.


DAVID: I don't know how you interpret my views that way? God prepares species for new lifestyles.

dhw: But according to your own theory, he does not produce the species in anticipation of the new conditions that will require or allow new lifestyles. The new conditions (e.g. oxygen) must come first. You have just said so, quoted above: evolution “is a biological response to what is available to use”.

Of course oxygen had to come first. It doesn't explain the Cambrian gap, just allowed it to appear. You look at necessary conditions in a strange way. Conditions are not biological evolution but can be only antecedent requirement as God designs.


Immunity system explaining B cells

dhw: ...my question is: do all the scientists you know tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions?

DAVID: Simply, yes! Among all IDers. But I constantly present articles from others who have no reason to discuss a designer.

dhw: So all ID-ers believe God issued instructions for all cellular behaviour, though they never mention God, but it’s presumably possible that there are other scientists who don’t believe this, only they don’t count because you don’t know them. Got it! ;-)

DAVID: I do read many articles by non-IDers. Of course I offer comments sowing how the findings fit design.

dhw: Let me help you: your answer to my question whether all the scientists you know “tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions” should be “no”! :-)

DAVID: Word game playing. All scientists are not IDers. I follow all.

dhw: I have found the original quote, and I exaggerated slightly, for which I apologize. You wrote: “…immunity is seen as automatic by most scientists I know.” You did not say “all”. However, it makes little difference to my scepticism, because I very much doubt whether even the majority of your known scientists would declare that cellular behaviour is governed by “God’s instructions” – this being your explanation for the “automatic” behaviour of cells, even when they are called upon to absorb and process new information, communicate with other cells, and take decisions to deal with new problems.

I started in college biochemistry being taught that biochemical reactions were automatic. Same in Med school, and ID supports my belief.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Tuesday, February 22, 2022, 09:06 (128 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Thank you for telling me what I have been telling you for months: speciation is a response to new conditions and does not take place in anticipation of them! […]

DAVID: [...]I agree that advancing evolution at some stages requires new conditions (oxygen for Cambrian), but Habilis to Erectus to Sapiens did not...
And:
DAVID: That does not explain our giant, capable brain arriving so far in advance of ts massive use today.

We have no idea what caused the jumps, but I have given you a list of possibilities: new ideas, inventions, discoveries, changes to local environments etc. (Speciation can start in a single community and then spread). Since you keep coming back to the brain, I can only repeat that of course the sapiens jump occurred in advance of its use today, just as all evolutionary changes occurred in advance of their future! But you want your God to operate on the brain before there is any need for its expansion, whereas I propose that it would have expanded (just like speciation) IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and not in anticipation of them.

DAVID: I don't know how you interpret my views that way? God prepares species for new lifestyles.

dhw: But according to your own theory, he does not produce the species in anticipation of the new conditions that will require or allow new lifestyles. The new conditions (e.g. oxygen) must come first. You have just said so: evolution “is a biological response to what is available to use”.

DAVI: Of course oxygen had to come first. It doesn't explain the Cambrian gap, just allowed it to appear. You look at necessary conditions in a strange way. Conditions are not biological evolution but can be only antecedent requirement as God designs.

Thank you for your continued agreement that speciation – whether designed by your God or not - does not take place in anticipation of changing conditions but in response to them. Biological evolution is the process by which organisms adapt to new conditions or use them to create new methods of survival.

Immunity system explaining B cells.

dhw: Let me help you: your answer to my question whether all the scientists you know “tell us that all cellular behaviour is governed by God’s instructions” should be “no”!

DAVID: Word game playing. All scientists are not IDers. I follow all.

dhw: I have found the original quote, and I exaggerated slightly, for which I apologize. You wrote: “…immunity is seen as automatic by most scientists I know.” You did not say “all”. However, it makes little difference to my scepticism, because I very much doubt whether even the majority of your known scientists would declare that cellular behaviour is governed by “God’s instructions” – this being your explanation for the “automatic” behaviour of cells, even when they are called upon to absorb and process new information, communicate with other cells, and take decisions to deal with new problems.

DAVID: I started in college biochemistry being taught that biochemical reactions were automatic. Same in Med school, and ID supports my belief.

As I keep pointing out, most reactions, once established, will have to be automatic, to preserve the organism’s identity. Your teachers, a lifetime ago, could only teach you what is there now, not how it came to be there. Perhaps they would not have agreed with you that your God designed each one. And did they tell you that God provided cells with a list of instructions on how to deal with all illnesses for the rest of life’s history? So why do we need doctors? Because of your God's inadequacies, or because cellular intelligence sometimes can't cope alone? Furthermore, intelligence will only be needed if conditions change – for instance, an attack by a new virus. Then the cells will have to absorb and process the new information, communicate and cooperate in devising a defence against the intruder. Some folk would say these actions indicate intelligence. Many of us will die, though, which suggests that there is no list of instructions already available to all cells.

How genes are read and produced

QUOTE:. "The process is universal, affecting every cell and every mRNA molecule in the body," (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: totally automatic and precisely controlled. Irreducibly complex, which means designed. This process is in every cell in our bodies, acting at necessarily high speed.
And under “Cell death controls”:
DAVID: the need for such precise controls implies it has to be a designed mechanism, as it is irreducibly complex.

As above. If you want to discuss cellular intelligence, you need to discuss those circumstances in which it is demonstrated, not those which have to work automatically.

Magic embryology

QUOTE: Embryonic stem cells and other pluripotent cells divide rapidly and have the capacity to become nearly any cell type in the body.

Whenever you post an article about stem cells, I get the same impression that these are absolutely key to our understanding of how evolution works. They must certainly play a huge role in the ability of cells to form new combinations, and hence new organs and new species. And just to reassure you, David, this suggestion does not exclude your God who, if he exists, would certainly have been the designer.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 22, 2022, 16:15 (127 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: That does not explain our giant, capable brain arriving so far in advance of ts massive use today.

dhw:... Since you keep coming back to the brain, I can only repeat that of course the sapiens jump occurred in advance of its use today, just as all evolutionary changes occurred in advance of their future! But you want your God to operate on the brain before there is any need for its expansion, whereas I propose that it would have expanded (just like speciation) IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and not in anticipation of them.

So we are back to future design without a designing mind, a blank. How do simple cells do it?


DAVID: Of course oxygen had to come first. It doesn't explain the Cambrian gap, just allowed it to appear. You look at necessary conditions in a strange way. Conditions are not biological evolution but can be only antecedent requirement as God designs.

dhw: Thank you for your continued agreement that speciation – whether designed by your God or not - does not take place in anticipation of changing conditions but in response to them. Biological evolution is the process by which organisms adapt to new conditions or use them to create new methods of survival.

Of course anticipation. Back to whales. No deep diving unless body prepared to do so.


Immunity system explaining B cells.

DAVID: I started in college biochemistry being taught that biochemical reactions were automatic. Same in Med school, and ID supports my belief.

dhw: As I keep pointing out, most reactions, once established, will have to be automatic, to preserve the organism’s identity. Your teachers, a lifetime ago, could only teach you what is there now, not how it came to be there. Perhaps they would not have agreed with you that your God designed each one. And did they tell you that God provided cells with a list of instructions on how to deal with all illnesses for the rest of life’s history? So why do we need doctors? Because of your God's inadequacies, or because cellular intelligence sometimes can't cope alone? Furthermore, intelligence will only be needed if conditions change – for instance, an attack by a new virus. Then the cells will have to absorb and process the new information, communicate and cooperate in devising a defence against the intruder. Some folk would say these actions indicate intelligence. Many of us will die, though, which suggests that there is no list of instructions already available to all cells.

Most of us don't die because of the cells acting on their God-given information can respond to all infections, but I admit some unsuccessfully.


How genes are read and produced

QUOTE:. "The process is universal, affecting every cell and every mRNA molecule in the body," (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: totally automatic and precisely controlled. Irreducibly complex, which means designed. This process is in every cell in our bodies, acting at necessarily high speed.
And under “Cell death controls”:
DAVID: the need for such precise controls implies it has to be a designed mechanism, as it is irreducibly complex.

dhw: As above. If you want to discuss cellular intelligence, you need to discuss those circumstances in which it is demonstrated, not those which have to work automatically.

The implication is all is automatic.


Magic embryology

QUOTE: Embryonic stem cells and other pluripotent cells divide rapidly and have the capacity to become nearly any cell type in the body.

dhw: Whenever you post an article about stem cells, I get the same impression that these are absolutely key to our understanding of how evolution works. They must certainly play a huge role in the ability of cells to form new combinations, and hence new organs and new species. And just to reassure you, David, this suggestion does not exclude your God who, if he exists, would certainly have been the designer.

In embryology it is apparent stem cells follow in strict instructions. Why can 't you recognize all cells do?

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Wednesday, February 23, 2022, 11:58 (127 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: That does not explain our giant, capable brain arriving so far in advance of ts massive use today.

dhw: […]of course the sapiens jump occurred in advance of its use today, just as all evolutionary changes occurred in advance of their future! But you want your God to operate on the brain before there is any need for its expansion, whereas I propose that it would have expanded (just like speciation) IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and not in anticipation of them.

DAVID: So we are back to future design without a designing mind, a blank. How do simple cells do it?

Yet again: I propose that simple cells do NOT design for the future. They respond to new requirements. The brain complexifies IN RESPONSE to these, and earlier brains expanded when their existing cells could no longer cope with new requirements. But like all species, once the new cells exist, they continue to exist and function as the future becomes the present!

DAVID: Of course oxygen had to come first. It doesn't explain the Cambrian gap, just allowed it to appear. You look at necessary conditions in a strange way. Conditions are not biological evolution but can be only antecedent requirement as God designs.

dhw: Thank you for your continued agreement that speciation – whether designed by your God or not - does not take place in anticipation of changing conditions but in response to them. Biological evolution is the process by which organisms adapt to new conditions or use them to create new methods of survival.

DAVID: Of course anticipation. Back to whales. No deep diving unless body prepared to do so.

So you still have your God preplanning deep diving 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in to operate, though when asked if that was the case, you described the question as “facetious”. You accept autonomous adaptation to new conditions, but reject the possibility that the same autonomous mechanism might also be capable of major changes leading to the innovations that make for speciation. Instead you opt rigidly for the “facetious” alternatives.

Immunity system explaining B cells.

DAVID: I started in college biochemistry being taught that biochemical reactions were automatic. Same in Med school, and ID supports my belief.

dhw: As I keep pointing out, most reactions, once established, will have to be automatic, to preserve the organism’s identity. Your teachers, a lifetime ago, could only teach you what is there now, not how it came to be there.[…] And did they tell you that God provided cells with a list of instructions on how to deal with all illnesses for the rest of life’s history? So why do we need doctors? Because of your God's inadequacies, or because cellular intelligence sometimes can't cope alone? Furthermore, intelligence will only be needed if conditions change – for instance, an attack by a new virus. Then the cells will have to absorb and process the new information, communicate and cooperate in devising a defence against the intruder. Some folk would say these actions indicate intelligence. Many of us will die, though, which suggests that there is no list of instructions already available to all cells.

DAVID: Most of us don't die because of the cells acting on their God-given information can respond to all infections, but I admit some unsuccessfully.

I can’t follow your sentence structure, but I shall still presume that your teachers did not discuss the origins of all the working systems, and did not inform you that God had provided all the cells with instructions to cope with all the problems thrown up by his designs.

How genes are read and produced

DAVID: totally automatic and precisely controlled. Irreducibly complex, which means designed. This process is in every cell in our bodies, acting at necessarily high speed.
And under “Cell death controls”:
DAVID: the need for such precise controls implies it has to be a designed mechanism, as it is irreducibly complex.

dhw: As above. If you want to discuss cellular intelligence, you need to discuss those circumstances in which it is demonstrated, not those which have to work automatically.

DAVID: The implication is all is automatic.

Which you say means obeying your God's instructions. Some scientists say the implication is that cells have autonomous intelligence which enables them to solve new problems or exploit new conditions.

Magic embryology

QUOTE: Embryonic stem cells and other pluripotent cells divide rapidly and have the capacity to become nearly any cell type in the body.

dhw: Whenever you post an article about stem cells, I get the same impression that these are absolutely key to our understanding of how evolution works. They must certainly play a huge role in the ability of cells to form new combinations, and hence new organs and new species. […]

DAVID: In embryology it is apparent stem cells follow in strict instructions. Why can 't you recognize all cells do?

Why can’t you recognize that some cells absorb and process information, communicate with other cells, and take decisions in order to cope with new conditions, and these qualities are hallmarks of intelligence? As for stem cells, my focus is entirely on the fact that they can change their identity, which is obviously a crucial factor for speciation, in which one form changes into another.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 23, 2022, 15:48 (126 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So you still have your God preplanning deep diving 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in to operate, though when asked if that was the case, you described the question as “facetious”. You accept autonomous adaptation to new conditions, but reject the possibility that the same autonomous mechanism might also be capable of major changes leading to the innovations that make for speciation. Instead you opt rigidly for the “facetious” alternatives.

You sticking to your facetious God who hands off design to others.


Immunity system explaining B cells.

DAVID: Most of us don't die because of the cells acting on their God-given information can respond to all infections, but I admit some unsuccessfully.

dhw: I can’t follow your sentence structure, but I shall still presume that your teachers did not discuss the origins of all the working systems, and did not inform you that God had provided all the cells with instructions to cope with all the problems thrown up by his designs.

God never appeared in Med school


How genes are read and produced

DAVID: totally automatic and precisely controlled. Irreducibly complex, which means designed. This process is in every cell in our bodies, acting at necessarily high speed.
And under “Cell death controls”:
DAVID: the need for such precise controls implies it has to be a designed mechanism, as it is irreducibly complex.

dhw: As above. If you want to discuss cellular intelligence, you need to discuss those circumstances in which it is demonstrated, not those which have to work automatically.

DAVID: The implication is all is automatic.

dhw: Which you say means obeying your God's instructions. Some scientists say the implication is that cells have autonomous intelligence which enables them to solve new problems or exploit new conditions.

Of course God designed cells to respond intelligently. If they didn't life would end.


Magic embryology

QUOTE: Embryonic stem cells and other pluripotent cells divide rapidly and have the capacity to become nearly any cell type in the body.

dhw: Whenever you post an article about stem cells, I get the same impression that these are absolutely key to our understanding of how evolution works. They must certainly play a huge role in the ability of cells to form new combinations, and hence new organs and new species. […]

DAVID: In embryology it is apparent stem cells follow in strict instructions. Why can 't you recognize all cells do?

dhw: Why can’t you recognize that some cells absorb and process information, communicate with other cells, and take decisions in order to cope with new conditions, and these qualities are hallmarks of intelligence? As for stem cells, my focus is entirely on the fact that they can change their identity, which is obviously a crucial factor for speciation, in which one form changes into another.

All you describe is correct as the cells are designed to act exactly that way.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 11:47 (126 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So you still have your God preplanning deep diving 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in to operate, though when asked if that was the case, you described the question as “facetious”. You accept autonomous adaptation to new conditions, but reject the possibility that the same autonomous mechanism might also be capable of major changes leading to the innovations that make for speciation. Instead you opt rigidly for the “facetious” alternatives.

DAVID: You sticking to your facetious God who hands off design to others.

Even if you ridicule the possibility that your God – who enjoys creating and is interested in his creations – might find a free-for-all more interesting than a puppet show, it does not alter the fact that you have also ridiculed your own theory as “facetious”.

Immunity system explaining B cells.

dhw: I shall still presume that your teachers did not discuss the origins of all the working systems, and did not inform you that God had provided all the cells with instructions to cope with all the problems thrown up by his designs.

DAVID: God never appeared in Med school.

Thank you. I would have been very surprised if your teachers had confirmed your theory about God issuing instructions etc.

How genes are read and produced

DAVID: The implication is all is automatic.

dhw: Which you say means obeying your God's instructions. Some scientists say the implication is that cells have autonomous intelligence which enables them to solve new problems or exploit new conditions.

DAVID: Of course God designed cells to respond intelligently. If they didn't life would end.

I’d be very happy with that statement if I didn’t know that by “respond intelligently” you mean they merely obeyed your God’s instructions as issued 3.8 billion years ago, or as somehow inserted ad hoc when new problems arise. See below:

Magic embryology

dhw: Why can’t you recognize that some cells absorb and process information, communicate with other cells, and take decisions in order to cope with new conditions, and these qualities are hallmarks of intelligence? As for stem cells, my focus is entirely on the fact that they can change their identity, which is obviously a crucial factor for speciation, in which one form changes into another.

DAVID: All you describe is correct as the cells are designed to act exactly that way.

If you meant they may have been designed to use their autonomous intelligence for the purpose of solving problems, and adapting to or exploiting new conditions, we could shake hands, but of course you dismiss that possibility.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 15:27 (125 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You sticking to your facetious God who hands off design to others.

Even if you ridicule the possibility that your God – who enjoys creating and is interested in his creations – might find a free-for-all more interesting than a puppet show, it does not alter the fact that you have also ridiculed your own theory as “facetious”.

Another misinterpretation.


Magic embryology

dhw: Why can’t you recognize that some cells absorb and process information, communicate with other cells, and take decisions in order to cope with new conditions, and these qualities are hallmarks of intelligence? As for stem cells, my focus is entirely on the fact that they can change their identity, which is obviously a crucial factor for speciation, in which one form changes into another.

DAVID: All you describe is correct as the cells are designed to act exactly that way.

dhw: If you meant they may have been designed to use their autonomous intelligence for the purpose of solving problems, and adapting to or exploiting new conditions, we could shake hands, but of course you dismiss that possibility.

You never tell me how your innately intelligent cells developed the ability to think.

Cellular intelligence: a man -made cell functions

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 18:51 (125 days ago) @ David Turell

Totally manufactured from parts which include 94 vital genes, whose underlying functions are not known:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/most-complete-simulation-of-a-cell-probes-lifes-hidden-r...

From the illustration:

"As the simulation of the minimal cell JCVI-syn3A grows and divides, the model tracks the movements and interactions of the cell’s components, including its ribosomes (yellow spheres) and specific membrane complexes and proteins (red, blue and green spheres), all wrapped up inside its cell membrane (green cubes).

"Now, as described recently in Cell, a team at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and their colleagues have created the most complete computer simulation ever of a living cell. With this digital model, biologists can burst through nature’s constraints and accelerate their exploration of how the most basic unit of life ticks — and what would happen if it ticked differently.

***

"The cell in question is a lab-made “minimal cell” that teeters on the line between life and non-life, carrying a limited number of genes, most of them necessary for survival. By replicating the known biochemical processes happening inside this very basic cell and tracking all the nutrients, waste, gene products and other molecules moving through it in three dimensions, the simulation brings scientists closer to understanding how the simplest life form sustains itself and reveals some of the bare-bones requirements of life.

***

"Though simple, the cell is still enigmatic. For example, no one knows what 94 of those genes do except that the cell dies without them. Their presence suggests that there may be “living tasks or functions essential for life that … science is oblivious to,” said John Glass, a co-author of the new study and the leader of the synthetic biology group at the Venter Institute, and part of the team that developed the minimal cell in 2016. With modeling, the researchers hope they can quickly start to unveil some of these mysteries.

***

"As the digital cell grew and divided, thousands of simulated biochemical reactions occurred, revealing how every molecule behaved and changed over time.

"The simulations mirrored many measurements of living JCVI-syn3A cells in culture. But they also predicted characteristics of the cells that hadn’t yet been noticed in the lab such as how the cell portions out its energy budget and how quickly its messenger RNA molecules degrade, a fact that critically affects researchers’ understanding of how the cell regulates genes.

"Some of the most surprising discoveries concerned the speedy growth and division of JCVI-syn3A cells. The simulation showed that to divide as rapidly as it does, the cell needs an enzyme called a transaldolase — but none seems to be present. Either the cell has evolved a metabolic pathway that makes the enzyme unnecessary, or “we are left with the possibility that there is such an enzyme, but that it does not look like an ordinary transaldolase,” Glass said.

***

"Not all of the simulation’s data agreed with experimental data — and the model has important gaps, such as the unknown functions of 94 of the genes. What’s more, the model is a fundamentally biochemical one, but “to fully understand the cell, we need to sort of model all of the forces and interactions of every atom or molecule of the cell,” Glass said."

Comment: this is a simulated model made up of pick-up parts. So let me ask where does the independent intelligent activity come from? It is obviously built into the parts which know somehow how to work together. This is miraculous. Organic molecules know what to do only when put together properly. Separately they simply lie there as separate parts. Only a designed system fits the question I asked. This degree of design requires a brilliant mind. No other conclusion can be reached. See the illustration to understand how a single cell is packed full of active parts.

Cellular intelligence: a man-made corona virus functions

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 19:14 (125 days ago) @ David Turell

Just like the human cell previously described:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-made-a-minimalist-sars-cov-2-and-found-somethin...

When the machine is a deadly virus, you can't afford to be so cavalier with its molecular clockwork. But researchers are getting around this problem by making minimalist versions of dangerous microbes that barely teeter on the edge of functionality.

Using this method for SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogen behind the ongoing coronavirus pandemic – has revealed a surprising way the virus's spikes act as a kind of switchblade, allowing it to hide more easily from our immune system.

Researchers from across Germany and the UK came up with 'lite' versions of SARS-CoV-2 to safely analyze its infectious behavior under lab conditions.

Described as "synthetic minimal virions", the particles consist of modules created from scratch to provide insights into key features of the virus, without an ability to operate together as an infectious unit.

***

The first mechanism the team turned their attention to was the eponymous corona (crown) of spikes jutting from the virus's coat.

***

It's become increasingly clear the proteins are both a help and a hindrance for the tiny invader.

Going in its favor, the spikes act like a key for a type of cellular lock called an ACE2 receptor, tricking tissues into permitting the virus entry.

Yet the proteins are also an easily identifiable feature for antibodies to latch onto and trigger a clean-out. We even base vaccines on its prominence, providing naïve, uninfected immune systems with an impression of its structure to better prepare them for an actual infection.

It turns out, the crafty coronavirus has learned a thing or two in its time that helps it get around this inconvenience.

The researchers focused on the way specific fatty acid-type immune molecules interact with the spikes in order to generate inflammation.

Prior research had already highlighted a section of the spike the immune molecules stuck to. Given this region was stubbornly resistant to change, it's fair to assume it must be a pretty important structure for the virus's survival.

Now we know why. The researchers noticed the spike underwent a structural change when the immune molecule grabbed on, effectively folding itself away.

This makes it much harder to break into any nearby cells. But while in this configuration, it's also harder for the virus to attract antibodies.

"By 'ducking down' ... the spike protein upon binding of inflammatory fatty acids, the virus becomes less visible to the immune system," says Staufer.

"This could be a mechanism to avoid detection by the host and a strong immune response for a longer period of time and increase total infection efficiency."

Comment: once again a man-made cell can relate to its thrown-together parts and act intelligently. The molecules have built-in automatic reactions that make this work. Only a carefully designed system by a brilliant mind can accomplish this result.

Cellular intelligence: sending molecules to proper spots

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 19:28 (125 days ago) @ David Turell

The cell is constantly producing proteins with different parts. Proper sorting to the correct destinations is controlled:

https://phys.org/news/2022-02-proteins-cell-team-decade-old-puzzle.html

"Researchers solve the more than 25-year-old puzzle of how proteins are sorted in the cell. A protein complex known as NAC (nascent polypeptide-associated complex) serves as a "gatekeeper" in protein synthesis, regulating the transport of proteins within the cell. The molecular mechanism behind this function has now been elucidated by cell and molecular biologists from Konstanz within an international collaborative project.

"For the maintenance of our cellular functions, it is essential that proteins are transported to various destinations within the cell—referred to as "cell organelles" in analogy to the organs of our body—while they are still being synthesized. But how is it possible to distinguish between different transport destinations and prevent proteins from reaching the wrong organelles? An international research team has now discovered how this complex process is controlled at the molecular level for an important cellular destination—the transport of nascent proteins to a membrane network of the cell, the endoplasmic reticulum.

"In their current publication in the journal Science, the researchers were able to show that a protein complex known among experts as NAC, which was discovered more than 25 years ago, plays a decisive role in this process: Like a gatekeeper, NAC ensures that only proteins with the endoplasmic reticulum as destination are passed on to the protein transporter SRP (signal recognition particle). SRP then mediates the transport of the "cargo" to the specified destination. If, on the other hand, a nascent protein has a destination other than the endoplasmic reticulum, the gatekeeper NAC denies access to the protein transporter SRP.

"Until now, it was known that two protein complexes, the aforementioned NAC and SRP, play an important role in the targeted transport of nascent proteins to the endoplasmic reticulum. SRP is the actual "transport protein" that establishes the contact of the nascent proteins together with the ribosome to the endoplasmic reticulum. It recognizes a specific transport signal that is encoded in the newly synthesized protein. However, there is a problem: SRP also binds non-specifically to ribosomes that have no signal for the endoplasmic reticulum.

"'Uncontrolled, SRP would bind to any ribosome close by and then transport it to the endoplasmic reticulum, regardless of whether or not a protein with that destination is currently being produced. This would result in countless misdeliveries that would severely impair the function and viability of the cell," explains Elke Deuerling,

***

"According to this, NAC binds to the ribosome, specifically to the section where the nascent protein leaves the "protein factory." Like a gatekeeper, part of NAC sits protectively in front of this exit, the ribosomal tunnel, and denies SRP access to the ribosome and the nascent protein. Access is only granted when a transport signal sequence for the endoplasmic reticulum—encoded in the nascent protein—leaves the tunnel in the course of the protein synthesis. NAC recognizes this signal and changes its position on the ribosome. This way, the exit of the ribosomal tunnel becomes unblocked and SRP can now dock to the tunnel exit after being actively recruited to the ribosome via a "grabbing arm" of NAC, i.e. the UBA domain. After SRP binding and signal sequence transfer, the ribosome together with the nascent protein is transported to the endoplasmic reticulum.

"'Our study reveals the molecular function of NAC as a gatekeeper, granting SRP only access for those nascent proteins whose destination is the endoplasmic reticulum," Professor Elke Deuerling summarizes this fundamental control mechanism."

Comment: More evidence of necessary automaticity in cell functions. NAC is programmed to play its role, by design.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Friday, February 25, 2022, 11:11 (125 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You sticking to your facetious God who hands off design to others.

dhw: Even if you ridicule the possibility that your God – who enjoys creating and is interested in his creations – might find a free-for-all more interesting than a puppet show, it does not alter the fact that you have also ridiculed your own theory as “facetious”.

DAVID: Another misinterpretation.

I asked if you thought your God had preprogrammed deep-sea diving 3.8 billion years ago or had dabbled by performing operations on existing whales, and you dismissed my question as “facetious”. However, you have confirmed that these are the only explanations you can come up with.

Magic embryology

DAVID: You never tell me how your innately intelligent cells developed the ability to think.

Nobody knows how ANY organisms, including ourselves, developed the ability to think, but I have always included the possibility that your God designed the mechanism. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots

Your first comment generally applies to the other two illuminating articles as well:

DAVID: this is a simulated model made up of pick-up parts. So let me ask where does the independent intelligent activity come from? It is obviously built into the parts which know somehow how to work together. This is miraculous. Organic molecules know what to do only when put together properly. Separately they simply lie there as separate parts. Only a designed system fits the question I asked. This degree of design requires a brilliant mind. No other conclusion can be reached.

Yes, somehow cells - just like humans - “know”. And as I have repeatedly agreed, this mystery coupled with the amazing complexity of the design, is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of your God the designer. Where does the "independent intelligent activity" of cells and humans come from?

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Friday, February 25, 2022, 15:33 (124 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: You never tell me how your innately intelligent cells developed the ability to think.

dhw: Nobody knows how ANY organisms, including ourselves, developed the ability to think, but I have always included the possibility that your God designed the mechanism. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

Understood.


Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots

Your first comment generally applies to the other two illuminating articles as well:

DAVID: this is a simulated model made up of pick-up parts. So let me ask where does the independent intelligent activity come from? It is obviously built into the parts which know somehow how to work together. This is miraculous. Organic molecules know what to do only when put together properly. Separately they simply lie there as separate parts. Only a designed system fits the question I asked. This degree of design requires a brilliant mind. No other conclusion can be reached.

dhw: Yes, somehow cells - just like humans - “know”. And as I have repeatedly agreed, this mystery coupled with the amazing complexity of the design, is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of your God the designer. Where does the "independent intelligent activity" of cells and humans come from?

ID answer is molecules have their actions designed into the byplay of all molecular reactions all occurring simultaneously. God gave us our brains as part of His designs.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Saturday, February 26, 2022, 07:34 (124 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

DAVID: You never tell me how your innately intelligent cells developed the ability to think.

dhw: Nobody knows how ANY organisms, including ourselves, developed the ability to think, but I have always included the possibility that your God designed the mechanism. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

DAVID: Understood.

And worth remembering, since I keep having to remind you!

“Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots”

DAVID: this is a simulated model made up of pick-up parts. So let me ask where does the independent intelligent activity come from? It is obviously built into the parts which know somehow how to work together. This is miraculous. Organic molecules know what to do only when put together properly. Separately they simply lie there as separate parts. Only a designed system fits the question I asked. This degree of design requires a brilliant mind. No other conclusion can be reached.

dhw: Yes, somehow cells - just like humans - “know”. And as I have repeatedly agreed, this mystery coupled with the amazing complexity of the design, is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of your God the designer. Where does the "independent intelligent activity" of cells and humans come from?

DAVID: ID answer is molecules have their actions designed into the byplay of all molecular reactions all occurring simultaneously. God gave us our brains as part of His designs.

You might just as well say that your God gave individual cells and cell communities the ability to direct their molecules intelligently without his having to preprogramme or dabble every single combination and every single solution to every single problem that they will encounter for the rest of history.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 26, 2022, 15:52 (123 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: You never tell me how your innately intelligent cells developed the ability to think.

dhw: Nobody knows how ANY organisms, including ourselves, developed the ability to think, but I have always included the possibility that your God designed the mechanism. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

DAVID: Understood.

dhw: And worth remembering, since I keep having to remind you!

Remember I am trying to open your mind.


“Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots”

DAVID: this is a simulated model made up of pick-up parts. So let me ask where does the independent intelligent activity come from? It is obviously built into the parts which know somehow how to work together. This is miraculous. Organic molecules know what to do only when put together properly. Separately they simply lie there as separate parts. Only a designed system fits the question I asked. This degree of design requires a brilliant mind. No other conclusion can be reached.

dhw: Yes, somehow cells - just like humans - “know”. And as I have repeatedly agreed, this mystery coupled with the amazing complexity of the design, is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of your God the designer. Where does the "independent intelligent activity" of cells and humans come from?

DAVID: ID answer is molecules have their actions designed into the byplay of all molecular reactions all occurring simultaneously. God gave us our brains as part of His designs.

dhw: You might just as well say that your God gave individual cells and cell communities the ability to direct their molecules intelligently without his having to preprogramme or dabble every single combination and every single solution to every single problem that they will encounter for the rest of history.

Exactly! Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Sunday, February 27, 2022, 08:40 (123 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: You never tell me how your innately intelligent cells developed the ability to think.

dhw: Nobody knows how ANY organisms, including ourselves, developed the ability to think, but I have always included the possibility that your God designed the mechanism. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

DAVID: Understood.

dhw: And worth remembering, since I keep having to remind you!

DAVID: Remember I am trying to open your mind.

There is something slightly odd in the concept of a person with rigid beliefs trying to open the mind of someone who has no rigid beliefs. But I will not deny that you have opened my mind to areas of human knowledge that I knew very little about when I started this website 14 years ago. For this (and our personal friendship) I shall always be grateful.

“Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots”

dhw: Yes, somehow cells - just like humans - “know”. And as I have repeatedly agreed, this mystery coupled with the amazing complexity of the design, is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of your God the designer. Where does the "independent intelligent activity" of cells and humans come from?

DAVID: ID answer is molecules have their actions designed into the byplay of all molecular reactions all occurring simultaneously. God gave us our brains as part of His designs.

dhw: You might just as well say that your God gave individual cells and cell communities the ability to direct their molecules intelligently without his having to preprogramme or dabble every single combination and every single solution to every single problem that they will encounter for the rest of history.

DAVID: Exactly! Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.

I’m sure you will backtrack on this statement as soon as you realize that you have confirmed the possibility, bolded above, that your God gave cells and cell communities an autonomous intelligence independent of his own. But thank you today for agreeing to what you will no doubt withdraw tomorrow. :-)

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 27, 2022, 15:39 (122 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: Remember I am trying to open your mind.

dhw: There is something slightly odd in the concept of a person with rigid beliefs trying to open the mind of someone who has no rigid beliefs. But I will not deny that you have opened my mind to areas of human knowledge that I knew very little about when I started this website 14 years ago. For this (and our personal friendship) I shall always be grateful.

Through all the debate our friendship is a pleasure. You still recognize the requirement for design but not a designer.


“Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots”

dhw: Yes, somehow cells - just like humans - “know”. And as I have repeatedly agreed, this mystery coupled with the amazing complexity of the design, is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of your God the designer. Where does the "independent intelligent activity" of cells and humans come from?

DAVID: ID answer is molecules have their actions designed into the byplay of all molecular reactions all occurring simultaneously. God gave us our brains as part of His designs.

dhw: You might just as well say that your God gave individual cells and cell communities the ability to direct their molecules intelligently without his having to preprogramme or dabble every single combination and every single solution to every single problem that they will encounter for the rest of history.

DAVID: Exactly! Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.

dhw: I’m sure you will backtrack on this statement as soon as you realize that you have confirmed the possibility, bolded above, that your God gave cells and cell communities an autonomous intelligence independent of his own. But thank you today for agreeing to what you will no doubt withdraw tomorrow. :-)

Your usual twist given to my meaning. I left out the understood word 'automatic' from: "Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria." ;-)

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Monday, February 28, 2022, 11:08 (122 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

DAVID: Remember I am trying to open your mind.

dhw: There is something slightly odd in the concept of a person with rigid beliefs trying to open the mind of someone who has no rigid beliefs. But I will not deny that you have opened my mind to areas of human knowledge that I knew very little about when I started this website 14 years ago. For this (and our personal friendship) I shall always be grateful.

DAVID: Through all the debate our friendship is a pleasure. You still recognize the requirement for design but not a designer.

Yes, in the sense that I find it just as difficult to believe in a first cause top-down designer (your God) as in first cause bottom-up designers (rudimentary, panpsychic intelligences that evolve into higher intelligences). I am, of course, wrong one way or the other. But which way?

Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots”

dhw: […] Where does the "independent intelligent activity" of cells and humans come from?

DAVID: ID answer is molecules have their actions designed into the byplay of all molecular reactions all occurring simultaneously. God gave us our brains as part of His designs.

dhw: You might just as well say that your God gave individual cells and cell communities the ability to direct their molecules intelligently without his having to preprogramme or dabbbble every single combination and every single solution to every single problem that they will encounter for the rest of history.

DAVID: Exactly! Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.

dhw: I’m sure you will backtrack on this statement as soon as you realize that you have confirmed the possibility, bolded above, that your God gave cells and cell communities an autonomous intelligence independent of his own. But thank you today for agreeing to what you will no doubt withdraw tomorrow. :-)

DAVID: Your usual twist given to my meaning. I left out the understood word 'automatic' from: "Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria." ;-)

It is not understood. You frequently make statements to confirm the logic of my proposals (especially in relation to “humanization”, but also regarding your own illogical theory of evolution), and then withdraw them when you realize what you have done. Experimentation under “biggest bacterium” was last week’s prime example. I wish you would take your own spontaneous, commonsense insights more seriously, rather than attack me for agreeing with them!

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Monday, February 28, 2022, 18:44 (121 days ago) @ dhw

Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots”

dhw: […] Where does the "independent intelligent activity" of cells and humans come from?

DAVID: ID answer is molecules have their actions designed into the byplay of all molecular reactions all occurring simultaneously. God gave us our brains as part of His designs.

dhw: You might just as well say that your God gave individual cells and cell communities the ability to direct their molecules intelligently without his having to preprogramme or dabbbble every single combination and every single solution to every single problem that they will encounter for the rest of history.

DAVID: Exactly! Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.

dhw: I’m sure you will backtrack on this statement as soon as you realize that you have confirmed the possibility, bolded above, that your God gave cells and cell communities an autonomous intelligence independent of his own. But thank you today for agreeing to what you will no doubt withdraw tomorrow. :-)

DAVID: Your usual twist given to my meaning. I left out the understood word 'automatic' from: "Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria." ;-)

dhw: It is not understood. You frequently make statements to confirm the logic of my proposals (especially in relation to “humanization”, but also regarding your own illogical theory of evolution), and then withdraw them when you realize what you have done. Experimentation under “biggest bacterium” was last week’s prime example. I wish you would take your own spontaneous, commonsense insights more seriously, rather than attack me for agreeing with them!

All I said was it is possible God was tweaking a process and suddenly I've made a major concession. The word possible is not the word probable

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Tuesday, March 01, 2022, 06:56 (121 days ago) @ David Turell

Immune system complexity

DAVID: All immune system cells develop a memorized library to fight again in the future, all automatic.

You always forget that each new infection will require absorbing and processing new information, cooperating with other cells, and taking decisions. Only when these are successful will they then become part of the memorized library.

“Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots

dhw: […] Where does the "independent intelligent activity" of cells and humans come from?

DAVID: ID answer is molecules have their actions designed into the byplay of all molecular reactions all occurring simultaneously. God gave us our brains as part of His designs.

dhw: You might just as well say that your God gave individual cells and cell communities the ability to direct their molecules intelligently without his having to preprogramme or dabble every single combination and every single solution to every single problem that they will encounter for the rest of history.

DAVID: Exactly! Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.

dhw: I’m sure you will backtrack on this statement as soon as you realize that you have confirmed the possibility, bolded above, that your God gave cells and cell communities an autonomous intelligence independent of his own. But thank you today for agreeing to what you will no doubt withdraw tomorrow. :-)

DAVID: Your usual twist given to my meaning. I left out the understood word 'automatic' from: "Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria." ;-)

dhw: It is not understood. You frequently make statements to confirm the logic of my proposals (especially in relation to “humanization”, but also regarding your own illogical theory of evolution), and then withdraw them when you realize what you have done. Experimentation under “biggest bacterium” was last week’s prime example. I wish you would take your own spontaneous, commonsense insights more seriously, rather than attack me for agreeing with them! :-P

DAVID: All I said was it is possible God was tweaking a process and suddenly I've made a major concession. The word possible is not the word probable.

I thought you said: “Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.” And under “biggest bacterium” I thought you said your God “might try different approaches”. I did not use the word probable either. I am satisfied with the word possible. And I am happy with your agreement that your God might possibly have given cells the autonomous intelligence to direct their molecules, and he himself might possibly have experimented. Thank you.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 01, 2022, 15:05 (120 days ago) @ dhw

Immune system complexity

DAVID: All immune system cells develop a memorized library to fight again in the future, all automatic.

dhw: You always forget that each new infection will require absorbing and processing new information, cooperating with other cells, and taking decisions. Only when these are successful will they then become part of the memorized library.

Immune cells do that automatically from birth, nothing forgotten.


“Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots

dhw: You might just as well say that your God gave individual cells and cell communities the ability to direct their molecules intelligently without his having to preprogramme or dabble every single combination and every single solution to every single problem that they will encounter for the rest of history.

DAVID: Exactly! Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.

dhw: I’m sure you will backtrack on this statement as soon as you realize that you have confirmed the possibility, bolded above, that your God gave cells and cell communities an autonomous intelligence independent of his own. But thank you today for agreeing to what you will no doubt withdraw tomorrow. :-)

DAVID: Your usual twist given to my meaning. I left out the understood word 'automatic' from: "Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria." ;-)

dhw: It is not understood. You frequently make statements to confirm the logic of my proposals (especially in relation to “humanization”, but also regarding your own illogical theory of evolution), and then withdraw them when you realize what you have done. Experimentation under “biggest bacterium” was last week’s prime example. I wish you would take your own spontaneous, commonsense insights more seriously, rather than attack me for agreeing with them! :-P

DAVID: All I said was it is possible God was tweaking a process and suddenly I've made a major concession. The word possible is not the word probable.

dhw: I thought you said: “Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.” And under “biggest bacterium” I thought you said your God “might try different approaches”. I did not use the word probable either. I am satisfied with the word possible. And I am happy with your agreement that your God might possibly have given cells the autonomous intelligence to direct their molecules, and he himself might possibly have experimented. Thank you.

Just a dabble possibility.

Cellular intelligence: started in bacteria

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 02, 2022, 00:14 (120 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Exactly! Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.

dhw: I thought you said: “Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.

Here is an example of an early bacterial process carried all the way to humans:

https://phys.org/news/2022-03-scientists-rare-discovery-protein-function.html

"Scientists have discovered that a human receptor protein has the ability to detect individual amino acids in exactly the same way that bacteria do.

***

"Receptors on cell surfaces detect all kinds of nutrients—fats, sugars and vitamins, for example—but use different types of protein segments called sensors, and no common chemical detection mechanism is currently known.

"In this work, scientists discovered a universal sensor present in many different receptors that detects amino acids by precisely interacting with the two groups of atoms that are shared by all amino acids.

"'For the first time, we've found the universal way of detecting amino acids. Nearly every organism can do it through this mechanism," said Igor Jouline, senior author of the study and a professor of microbiology at The Ohio State University.

"'In our experience, it's very rare when we can extrapolate a very specific sensory function with such precision from bacteria to humans, because these life forms are separated by such a long evolutionary time—about 3 billion years."

***

"This motif is located in an outer-facing segment of the protein that crosses a cell's outer membrane. Combining their computations with available experimental data, the team determined that this motif exists in proteins found in organisms spanning the tree of life, with the exception of fungi and a few plant species. Further analyses showed that all of the motif-containing proteins bind amino acids—and only amino acids.

"In bacteria, this sensor helps the organisms navigate toward amino acids, an important food source.

"'It's a part of a primitive nervous system for bacteria, which detects signals and helps them make decisions," Jouline said. "There's a spectacular parallel because in humans, this amino acid sensor is also a part of the nervous system. We identified this sensor in human calcium channels that modulate release of neurotransmitters from synapses in several neuronal tissues. Malfunctioning of these calcium channels results in neuropathic pain."

***

"Though there may never be a definitive answer to the age-old question of what exactly bacteria and humans have in common biologically, Jouline has begun a broader search for sensors that have a role in sustaining life. (my bold)

"'Now we know where to look—not at whole proteins, but only at their segments that are involved in recognizing physical and chemical parameters important to all living systems," he said."

Comment: Note my bold. Of course we have biochemical commonality with bacteria. At the start of life many simple biochemical reactions were designed and evolution would carry them forward. That is how evolution works, much to dhw's surprise. Early simple steps lead to later more complex ones built on the early ones.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Wednesday, March 02, 2022, 11:35 (120 days ago) @ David Turell

Immune system complexity

DAVID: All immune system cells develop a memorized library to fight again in the future, all automatic.

dhw: You always forget that each new infection will require absorbing and processing new information, cooperating with other cells, and taking decisions. Only when these are successful will they then become part of the memorized library.

DAVID: Immune cells do that automatically from birth, nothing forgotten.

As I said, you always forget that each volume must have had an origin before it became part of the inherited library.

“Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots

DAVID: All I said was it is possible God was tweaking a process and suddenly I've made a major concession. The word possible is not the word probable.

dhw: I thought you said: “Human biochemistry runs on many processes God put into original bacteria.” And under “biggest bacterium” I thought you said your God “might try different approaches”. I did not use the word probable either. I am satisfied with the word possible. And I am happy with your agreement that your God might possibly have given cells the autonomous intelligence to direct their molecules, and he himself might possibly have experimented. Thank you.

DAVID: Just a dabble possibility.

Well, yes, you could certainly call experimentation a form of dabbling, and if you like to call bacterial intelligence the result of dabbling, I have no objection. Thank you again for agreeing that both theories are possible. That is all I ask.

Cellular intelligence: started in bacteria

QUOTE: "Though there may never be a definitive answer to the age-old question of what exactly bacteria and humans have in common biologically, Jouline has begun a broader search for sensors that have a role in sustaining life. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. Of course we have biochemical commonality with bacteria. At the start of life many simple biochemical reactions were designed and evolution would carry them forward. That is how evolution works, much to dhw's surprise. Early simple steps lead to later more complex ones built on the early ones.

I’m more than surprised at your total distortion of my views. In my support of Shapiro’s theory, I have laid enormous emphasis on the intelligence of the original cells, and their pooling of intelligences as cells combine and cooperate in producing increasingly complex organs and organisms. I am delighted by the heading you have given to this post, which could hardly be more supportive of my proposal. Just to set the record straight, however, what DOES surprise me is your theory that every single step from simple to complex was “preparation” for humans and “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food. This, I think, would surprise a lot of scientists and philosophers, especially when even you accept that the majority of life forms resulting from the process had absolutely no connection with humans and their food.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 02, 2022, 18:55 (119 days ago) @ dhw

Immune system complexity

DAVID: All immune system cells develop a memorized library to fight again in the future, all automatic.

dhw: You always forget that each new infection will require absorbing and processing new information, cooperating with other cells, and taking decisions. Only when these are successful will they then become part of the memorized library.

DAVID: Immune cells do that automatically from birth, nothing forgotten.

dhw: As I said, you always forget that each volume must have had an origin before it became part of the inherited library.

My mention of automaticity of response by immune cells tells exactly that, nothing forgotten.


“Man-made cell” and “Man-made corona virus” and “sending molecules to proper spots

Cellular intelligence: started in bacteria

QUOTE: "Though there may never be a definitive answer to the age-old question of what exactly bacteria and humans have in common biologically, Jouline has begun a broader search for sensors that have a role in sustaining life. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. Of course we have biochemical commonality with bacteria. At the start of life many simple biochemical reactions were designed and evolution would carry them forward. That is how evolution works, much to dhw's surprise. Early simple steps lead to later more complex ones built on the early ones.

dhw: I’m more than surprised at your total distortion of my views. In my support of Shapiro’s theory, I have laid enormous emphasis on the intelligence of the original cells, and their pooling of intelligences as cells combine and cooperate in producing increasingly complex organs and organisms. I am delighted by the heading you have given to this post, which could hardly be more supportive of my proposal. Just to set the record straight, however, what DOES surprise me is your theory that every single step from simple to complex was “preparation” for humans and “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food. This, I think, would surprise a lot of scientists and philosophers, especially when even you accept that the majority of life forms resulting from the process had absolutely no connection with humans and their food.

You always forget all life has to eat. Today ID views Shapiro as I do:

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/11/university-of-chicago-biochemist-all-living-cells-are-co...

"He shows that these simple cells show many types of behavior that the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “cognition.” One of the most interesting examples he gives is quorum sensing among bacteria (how they decide to do things):

"The best-known form of interbacterial communication has come to be labelled “quorum sensing” (QS) because it serves to inform a population if it has achieved a critical density for making a regulatory decision (i.e., a quorum). Quorum sensing occurs when the bacteria secrete a chemical “quorum signal” in an autoinduced positive feedback loop but only produce a coordinated multicellular response output when the signal’s concentration exceeds a critical threshold. Quorum sensing is similar to autocrine signalling in complex eukaryotes, and it activates many different processes. The quorum signals come in many chemical forms, and have potential for great specificity, but some signals are also common to multiple types of bacteria, allowing interspecific communication as well.

***

"Two questions arise: Is it the intelligence of the cell? That seems inconsistent with how we usually use the word “intelligence.” If we see that a one-celled life form functions with lot of intelligence, perhaps it is more like a book that contains great ideas. Paper doesn’t create ideas; neither, by itself, does protoplasm. Something else is at work.

"If the cell itself does not create the intelligence it embodies, what does? Panpsychists argue that all of nature participates in some way in consciousness and humans are the most highly developed example. Theists argue that only a mind outside the universe could create something like human consciousness.

"As we learn more and more about the intricate complexities of nature, perhaps debates over the origin of life, intelligence, consciousness, and similar topics will increasingly be between panpsychists and theists rather than materialists and theists. A whole new environment."

Comment: In the ID community Shapiro is highly respected as a significant researcher. They obviously reach a different conclusion as to the source of intelligent reactions and responses. I agree with ID.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Thursday, March 03, 2022, 13:50 (118 days ago) @ David Turell

Immune system complexity

DAVID: All immune system cells develop a memorized library to fight again in the future, all automatic.

dhw: You always forget that each new infection will require absorbing and processing new information, cooperating with other cells, and taking decisions. Only when these are successful will they then become part of the memorized library.

DAVID: Immune cells do that automatically from birth, nothing forgotten.

dhw: As I said, you always forget that each volume must have had an origin before it became part of the inherited library.

DAVID: My mention of automaticity of response by immune cells tells exactly that, nothing forgotten.

Your mention of automaticity does NOT tell us how each immune reaction first originated, when cells were called on to process new information and find a solution to the problem it posed.


Cellular intelligence: started in bacteria

QUOTE: "Though there may never be a definitive answer to the age-old question of what exactly bacteria and humans have in common biologically, Jouline has begun a broader search for sensors that have a role in sustaining life. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. Of course we have biochemical commonality with bacteria. At the start of life many simple biochemical reactions were designed and evolution would carry them forward. That is how evolution works, much to dhw's surprise. Early simple steps lead to later more complex ones built on the early ones.

dhw: I’m more than surprised at your total distortion of my views. In my support of Shapiro’s theory, I have laid enormous emphasis on the intelligence of the original cells, and their pooling of intelligences as cells combine and cooperate in producing increasingly complex organs and organisms. I am delighted by the heading you have given to this post, which could hardly be more supportive of my proposal. Just to set the record straight, however, what DOES surprise me is your theory that every single step from simple to complex was “preparation” for humans and “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food. This, I think, would surprise a lot of scientists and philosophers, especially when even you accept that the majority of life forms resulting from the process had absolutely no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: You always forget all life has to eat.

You always forget that not “all life” and food throughout history has been connected with humans, which makes nonsense of your claim that all life was preparation for humans, and part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans. This sort of statement is the reason why we can never end our discussion of your theory.

DAVID: Today ID views Shapiro as I do:

But this article, as quoted here, does not view Shapiro as you do.

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/11/university-of-chicago-biochemist-all-living-cells-are-co...

QUOTE: "Two questions arise: Is it the intelligence of the cell? That seems inconsistent with how we usually use the word “intelligence.” If we see that a one-celled life form functions with lot of intelligence, perhaps it is more like a book that contains great ideas. Paper doesn’t create ideas; neither, by itself, does protoplasm. Something else is at work.

This where the author does a big slide from bacteria functioning “with a lot of intelligence” to the origin of intelligence generally:

QUOTES: "If the cell itself does not create the intelligence it embodies, what does? Panpsychists argue that all of nature participates in some way in consciousness and humans are the most highly developed example. Theists argue that only a mind outside the universe could create something like human consciousness.
"As we learn more and more about the intricate complexities of nature, perhaps debates over the origin of life, intelligence, consciousness, and similar topics will increasingly be between panpsychists and theists rather than materialists and theists. A whole new environment.
"

The author is simply raising the problem of the origin of intelligence/consciousness, and is not dismissing the concept of cellular intelligence as you do.

DAVID: In the ID community Shapiro is highly respected as a significant researcher. They obviously reach a different conclusion as to the source of intelligent reactions and responses. I agree with ID.

Exactly. Shapiro’s concept of cellular intelligence (which you flatly refuse even to consider) is used only as a basis for discussing the source of intelligence generally. You and ID-ers apparently agree that the source is your God, although they don’t mention God and you do. As far as I know, Shapiro steers clear of discussing the possible source.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 03, 2022, 15:34 (118 days ago) @ dhw

Immune system complexity

DAVID: My mention of automaticity of response by immune cells tells exactly that, nothing forgotten.

dhw: Your mention of automaticity does NOT tell us how each immune reaction first originated, when cells were called on to process new information and find a solution to the problem it posed.

To repeat: immune cells recognize non-self, and automatically attach killing protein, and remember to do it in the future.

Cellular intelligence: started in bacteria

QUOTE: "Though there may never be a definitive answer to the age-old question of what exactly bacteria and humans have in common biologically, Jouline has begun a broader search for sensors that have a role in sustaining life. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: You always forget all life has to eat.

dhw: You always forget that not “all life” and food throughout history has been connected with humans, which makes nonsense of your claim that all life was preparation for humans, and part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans. This sort of statement is the reason why we can never end our discussion of your theory.

The obvious connection is the progressive process of evolution.


DAVID: Today ID views Shapiro as I do:

dhw: But this article, as quoted here, does not view Shapiro as you do.

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/11/university-of-chicago-biochemist-all-living-cells-are-co...

QUOTE: "Two questions arise: Is it the intelligence of the cell? That seems inconsistent with how we usually use the word “intelligence.” If we see that a one-celled life form functions with lot of intelligence, perhaps it is more like a book that contains great ideas. Paper doesn’t create ideas; neither, by itself, does protoplasm. Something else is at work.

dhw: This where the author does a big slide from bacteria functioning “with a lot of intelligence” to the origin of intelligence generally:

QUOTES: "If the cell itself does not create the intelligence it embodies, what does? Panpsychists argue that all of nature participates in some way in consciousness and humans are the most highly developed example. Theists argue that only a mind outside the universe could create something like human consciousness.
"As we learn more and more about the intricate complexities of nature, perhaps debates over the origin of life, intelligence, consciousness, and similar topics will increasingly be between panpsychists and theists rather than materialists and theists. A whole new environment.
"

dhw: The author is simply raising the problem of the origin of intelligence/consciousness, and is not dismissing the concept of cellular intelligence as you do.

The ID inference throughout the article implies God does it. You are so unacquainted with how ID works (no God mention) God is constantly understood as inferred. As a result you and I read the article differently.


DAVID: In the ID community Shapiro is highly respected as a significant researcher. They obviously reach a different conclusion as to the source of intelligent reactions and responses. I agree with ID.

dhw: Exactly. Shapiro’s concept of cellular intelligence (which you flatly refuse even to consider) is used only as a basis for discussing the source of intelligence generally. You and ID-ers apparently agree that the source is your God, although they don’t mention God and you do. As far as I know, Shapiro steers clear of discussing the possible source.

Agreed.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Friday, March 04, 2022, 09:26 (118 days ago) @ David Turell

Immune system complexity

DAVID: My mention of automaticity of response by immune cells tells exactly that, nothing forgotten.

dhw: Your mention of automaticity does NOT tell us how each immune reaction first originated, when cells were called on to process new information and find a solution to the problem it posed.

DAVID: To repeat: immune cells recognize non-self, and automatically attach killing protein, and remember to do it in the future.

Each new disease presents new problems. If it didn’t, nobody would ever fall ill. That is why we humans have to use all our intelligence to try and find cures, because the immune system sometimes can’t cope on its own. It can only “remember” what has already been accomplished, and it is the origin of each cure that would have required the use of intelligence. You have said that God issued the cells with instructions on how to solve each new problem. I suggest that if he exists, he gave cells the ability to work out their own solutions, though we know for a fact that in many cases they are unable to do so. Their intelligence is limited. And in your theory, somewhat surprisingly perhaps, your all-knowing God’s instructions are also limited.

Cellular intelligence: started in bacteria

QUOTE: "Though there may never be a definitive answer to the age-old question of what exactly bacteria and humans have in common biologically, Jouline has begun a broader search for sensors that have a role in sustaining life. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: You always forget all life has to eat.

dhw: You always forget that not “all life” and food throughout history has been connected with humans, which makes nonsense of your claim that all life was preparation for humans, and part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans. This sort of statement is the reason why we can never end our discussion of your theory.

DAVID: The obvious connection is the progressive process of evolution.

And this has led to the vast variety of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: Today ID views Shapiro as I do:

dhw: But this article, as quoted here, does not view Shapiro as you do.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/11/university-of-chicago-biochemist-all-living-cells-are-co...

dhw: [...] This where the author does a big slide from bacteria functioning “with a lot of intelligence” to the origin of intelligence generally:

QUOTES: "If the cell itself does not create the intelligence it embodies, what does? Panpsychists argue that all of nature participates in some way in consciousness and humans are the most highly developed example. Theists argue that only a mind outside the universe could create something like human consciousness.
"As we learn more and more about the intricate complexities of nature, perhaps debates over the origin of life, intelligence, consciousness, and similar topics will increasingly be between panpsychists and theists rather than materialists and theists. A whole new environment."

dhw: The author is simply raising the problem of the origin of intelligence/consciousness, and is not dismissing the concept of cellular intelligence as you do.

DAVID: The ID inference throughout the article implies God does it. You are so unacquainted with how ID works (no God mention) God is constantly understood as inferred. As a result you and I read the article differently.

You said that “ID view Shapiro as I do”. But the article doesn’t, because it doesn’t debunk Shapiro’s theory that cells are intelligent. It simply asks what is the source of intelligence, consciousness etc. See below for your agreement.

DAVID: In the ID community Shapiro is highly respected as a significant researcher. They obviously reach a different conclusion as to the source of intelligent reactions and responses. I agree with ID.

dhw: Exactly. Shapiro’s concept of cellular intelligence (which you flatly refuse even to consider) is used only as a basis for discussing the source of intelligence generally. You and ID-ers apparently agree that the source is your God, although they don’t mention God and you do. As far as I know, Shapiro steers clear of discussing the possible source.

DAVID: Agreed.

Thank you. I trust you will now withdraw your remark that I am unacquainted with how ID works.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Friday, March 04, 2022, 15:40 (117 days ago) @ dhw

Immune system complexity

DAVID: To repeat: immune cells recognize non-self, and automatically attach killing protein, and remember to do it in the future.

dhw: I suggest that if he exists, he gave cells the ability to work out their own solutions, though we know for a fact that in many cases they are unable to do so. Their intelligence is limited. And in your theory, somewhat surprisingly perhaps, your all-knowing God’s instructions are also limited.

Yes, we get sick. Immune response is not immediate in success, but immune cells make antibodies to all attackers automatically.


Cellular intelligence: started in bacteria

DAVID: Today ID views Shapiro as I do:

dhw: But this article, as quoted here, does not view Shapiro as you do.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/11/university-of-chicago-biochemist-all-living-cells-are-co...

dhw: [...] This where the author does a big slide from bacteria functioning “with a lot of intelligence” to the origin of intelligence generally:

QUOTES: "If the cell itself does not create the intelligence it embodies, what does? Panpsychists argue that all of nature participates in some way in consciousness and humans are the most highly developed example. Theists argue that only a mind outside the universe could create something like human consciousness.
"As we learn more and more about the intricate complexities of nature, perhaps debates over the origin of life, intelligence, consciousness, and similar topics will increasingly be between panpsychists and theists rather than materialists and theists. A whole new environment."

dhw: The author is simply raising the problem of the origin of intelligence/consciousness, and is not dismissing the concept of cellular intelligence as you do.

DAVID: The ID inference throughout the article implies God does it. You are so unacquainted with how ID works (no God mention) God is constantly understood as inferred. As a result you and I read the article differently.

dhw: You said that “ID view Shapiro as I do”. But the article doesn’t, because it doesn’t debunk Shapiro’s theory that cells are intelligent. It simply asks what is the source of intelligence, consciousness etc. See below for your agreement.

DAVID: In the ID community Shapiro is highly respected as a significant researcher. They obviously reach a different conclusion as to the source of intelligent reactions and responses. I agree with ID.

dhw: Exactly. Shapiro’s concept of cellular intelligence (which you flatly refuse even to consider) is used only as a basis for discussing the source of intelligence generally. You and ID-ers apparently agree that the source is your God, although they don’t mention God and you do. As far as I know, Shapiro steers clear of discussing the possible source.

DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: Thank you. I trust you will now withdraw your remark that I am unacquainted with how ID works.

I had to remind you. Your earlier comments ignored what I made you finally recognize the inference to God as the source of nature's intelligence always underlies every ID article. I work just like ID.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Saturday, March 05, 2022, 08:23 (117 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: To repeat: immune cells recognize non-self, and automatically attach killing protein, and remember to do it in the future.

dhw: I suggest that if he exists, he gave cells the ability to work out their own solutions, though we know for a fact that in many cases they are unable to do so. Their intelligence is limited. And in your theory, somewhat surprisingly perhaps, your all-knowing God’s instructions are also limited.

DAVID: Yes, we get sick. Immune response is not immediate in success, but immune cells make antibodies to all attackers automatically.

That is your theory – though you also tell us that they obey your God’s instructions. So tell us why sometimes the immune system fails to produce antibodies, and we humans have to intervene.

Cellular intelligence: started in bacteria

DAVID: Today ID views Shapiro as I do:

dhw: But this article, as quoted here, does not view Shapiro as you do.

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/11/university-of-chicago-biochemist-all-living-cells-are-co...

dhw: The author is simply raising the problem of the origin of intelligence/consciousness, and is not dismissing the concept of cellular intelligence as you do.

We can leave it at that, since the rest of the post is dedicated to what ID-ers believe. The article itself confirms the heading you have given to this thread.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 05, 2022, 15:34 (116 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: To repeat: immune cells recognize non-self, and automatically attach killing protein, and remember to do it in the future.

dhw: I suggest that if he exists, he gave cells the ability to work out their own solutions, though we know for a fact that in many cases they are unable to do so. Their intelligence is limited. And in your theory, somewhat surprisingly perhaps, your all-knowing God’s instructions are also limited.

DAVID: Yes, we get sick. Immune response is not immediate in success, but immune cells make antibodies to all attackers automatically.

dhw: That is your theory – though you also tell us that they obey your God’s instructions. So tell us why sometimes the immune system fails to produce antibodies, and we humans have to intervene.

They always produce antibodies, but if they are not adequate for the job, now we can add antibiotics or antivirals


Cellular intelligence: started in bacteria

DAVID: Today ID views Shapiro as I do:

dhw: But this article, as quoted here, does not view Shapiro as you do.

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/11/university-of-chicago-biochemist-all-living-cells-are-co...

dhw: The author is simply raising the problem of the origin of intelligence/consciousness, and is not dismissing the concept of cellular intelligence as you do.

We can leave it at that, since the rest of the post is dedicated to what ID-ers believe. The article itself confirms the heading you have given to this thread.

Good.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Sunday, March 06, 2022, 11:45 (116 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: To repeat: immune cells recognize non-self, and automatically attach killing protein, and remember to do it in the future.

dhw: I suggest that if he exists, he gave cells the ability to work out their own solutions, though we know for a fact that in many cases they are unable to do so. Their intelligence is limited. And in your theory, somewhat surprisingly perhaps, your all-knowing God’s instructions are also limited.

DAVID: Yes, we get sick. Immune response is not immediate in success, but immune cells make antibodies to all attackers automatically.

dhw: That is your theory – though you also tell us that they obey your God’s instructions. So tell us why sometimes the immune system fails to produce antibodies, and we humans have to intervene.

DAVID: They always produce antibodies, but if they are not adequate for the job, now we can add antibiotics or antivirals.

So your God’s instructions are inadequate. So much for his all-powerful all-knowingness. But – assuming he exists – it all makes perfect sense if he designed cells to design their own means of survival, thus creating the vast variety of conflicts and of cooperative combinations, including those involving the sometimes victorious immune system and its sometimes victorious invaders.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 06, 2022, 15:17 (115 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: To repeat: immune cells recognize non-self, and automatically attach killing protein, and remember to do it in the future.

dhw: I suggest that if he exists, he gave cells the ability to work out their own solutions, though we know for a fact that in many cases they are unable to do so. Their intelligence is limited. And in your theory, somewhat surprisingly perhaps, your all-knowing God’s instructions are also limited.

DAVID: Yes, we get sick. Immune response is not immediate in success, but immune cells make antibodies to all attackers automatically.

dhw: That is your theory – though you also tell us that they obey your God’s instructions. So tell us why sometimes the immune system fails to produce antibodies, and we humans have to intervene.

DAVID: They always produce antibodies, but if they are not adequate for the job, now we can add antibiotics or antivirals.

dhw: So your God’s instructions are inadequate. So much for his all-powerful all-knowingness. But – assuming he exists – it all makes perfect sense if he designed cells to design their own means of survival, thus creating the vast variety of conflicts and of cooperative combinations, including those involving the sometimes victorious immune system and its sometimes victorious invaders.

Back to theodicy from long ago. God gave us the antibodies to use! We only had to discover what molds and bacteria do to protect themselves in the constant war to survive by eating. Perhaps you would prefer a god who invented life not requiring new energy every day?

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Monday, March 07, 2022, 14:41 (114 days ago) @ David Turell

The immune system

DAVID: To repeat: immune cells recognize non-self, and automatically attach killing protein, and remember to do it in the future.

dhw: I suggest that if he exists, he gave cells the ability to work out their own solutions, though we know for a fact that in many cases they are unable to do so. Their intelligence is limited. And in your theory, somewhat surprisingly perhaps, your all-knowing God’s instructions are also limited.

DAVID: Yes, we get sick. Immune response is not immediate in success, but immune cells make antibodies to all attackers automatically.

dhw: That is your theory – though you also tell us that they obey your God’s instructions. So tell us why sometimes the immune system fails to produce antibodies, and we humans have to intervene.

DAVID: They always produce antibodies, but if they are not adequate for the job, now we can add antibiotics or antivirals.

dhw: So your God’s instructions are inadequate. So much for his all-powerful all-knowingness. But – assuming he exists – it all makes perfect sense if he designed cells to design their own means of survival, thus creating the vast variety of conflicts and of cooperative combinations, including those involving the sometimes victorious immune system and its sometimes victorious invaders.

DAVID: Back to theodicy from long ago. God gave us the antibodies to use! We only had to discover what molds and bacteria do to protect themselves in the constant war to survive by eating. Perhaps you would prefer a god who invented life not requiring new energy every day?

I’m pleased to see that you recognize “the constant war to survive by eating”, which your God – if he exists – must have deliberately designed. Your comment clearly shows that he gave different cells the means to protect themselves, and sometimes what we regard as the “goodies” win, and sometimes the “baddies” win. The outcome of this war is not predetermined, and I assume that an all-powerful God created exactly the unpredictable system he wanted to create. The immune system and its invaders seem to me to be a very good example of this as a general truth about evolution itself, which is the history of a constant struggle to “survive by eating”, in which cells collaborate to find different means of surviving in the “constant war” between different cells/cell communities and between cells/cell communities and their changing environments.

Engineering thru nature to fight cancer

DAVID: Maintaining active living cells and life's homeostasis is a constant requirement, which means maintaining life is on a knife edge for the occurrence of as genetic mistake leading to cancer. Luckily or purposely we have God-given brains to step in with new solutions.

Once again you have your all-powerful, all-knowing God – who you believe is too kind to deliberately create causes of suffering – providing instructions that can’t solve the problems, whereas we humans are clever enough to solve some of the problems he couldn’t solve.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Monday, March 07, 2022, 23:51 (114 days ago) @ dhw

The immune system

dhw: That is your theory – though you also tell us that they obey your God’s instructions. So tell us why sometimes the immune system fails to produce antibodies, and we humans have to intervene.

DAVID: They always produce antibodies, but if they are not adequate for the job, now we can add antibiotics or antivirals.

dhw: So your God’s instructions are inadequate. So much for his all-powerful all-knowingness. But – assuming he exists – it all makes perfect sense if he designed cells to design their own means of survival, thus creating the vast variety of conflicts and of cooperative combinations, including those involving the sometimes victorious immune system and its sometimes victorious invaders.

DAVID: Back to theodicy from long ago. God gave us the antibodies to use! We only had to discover what molds and bacteria do to protect themselves in the constant war to survive by eating. Perhaps you would prefer a god who invented life not requiring new energy every day?

dhw: I’m pleased to see that you recognize “the constant war to survive by eating”, which your God – if he exists – must have deliberately designed.

I recognized the need to eat a long time ago, well before you would recognize it. The life God designed has to eat. How could any thing else happen, meaning everyone lives by eating others.

dhw: Your comment clearly shows that he gave different cells the means to protect themselves, and sometimes what we regard as the “goodies” win, and sometimes the “baddies” win. The outcome of this war is not predetermined, and I assume that an all-powerful God created exactly the unpredictable system he wanted to create. The immune system and its invaders seem to me to be a very good example of this as a general truth about evolution itself, which is the history of a constant struggle to “survive by eating”, in which cells collaborate to find different means of surviving in the “constant war” between different cells/cell communities and between cells/cell communities and their changing environments.

Every organism has an immune system or there would be no life. Your tortured view gives your god a weird uncontrolled outlook or lack of purpose. Repeat: our Gods are totally different. I'm happy with mine.


Engineering thru nature to fight cancer

DAVID: Maintaining active living cells and life's homeostasis is a constant requirement, which means maintaining life is on a knife edge for the occurrence of as genetic mistake leading to cancer. Luckily or purposely we have God-given brains to step in with new solutions.

dhw: Once again you have your all-powerful, all-knowing God – who you believe is too kind to deliberately create causes of suffering – providing instructions that can’t solve the problems, whereas we humans are clever enough to solve some of the problems he couldn’t solve.

What it really means is the system He designed can make mistakes, all discussed before.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Tuesday, March 08, 2022, 09:24 (114 days ago) @ David Turell

The immune system

dhw: [...] you also tell us that they obey your God’s instructions. So tell us why sometimes the immune system fails to produce antibodies, and we humans have to intervene.

DAVID: They always produce antibodies, but if they are not adequate for the job, now we can add antibiotics or antivirals.

dhw: So your God’s instructions are inadequate. So much for his all-powerful all-knowingness. But – assuming he exists – it all makes perfect sense if he designed cells to design their own means of survival, thus creating the vast variety of conflicts and of cooperative combinations, including those involving the sometimes victorious immune system and its sometimes victorious invaders.

DAVID: Back to theodicy from long ago. God gave us the antibodies to use! We only had to discover what molds and bacteria do to protect themselves in the constant war to survive by eating. Perhaps you would prefer a god who invented life not requiring new energy every day?

dhw: I’m pleased to see that you recognize “the constant war to survive by eating”, which your God – if he exists – must have deliberately designed.

DAVID: I recognized the need to eat a long time ago, well before you would recognize it. The life God designed has to eat. How could any thing else happen, meaning everyone lives by eating others.

I doubt if even a child would fail to recognize the need to eat. But what some people might fail to recognize is that evolution is the history of different life forms developing different methods of finding their food and of preventing themselves from becoming food. I know of one person who thinks that evolution is the history of God designing all life forms and natural wonders for the one and only purpose of designing humans and their food.

dhw: Your comment clearly shows that he gave different cells the means to protect themselves, and sometimes what we regard as the “goodies” win, and sometimes the “baddies” win. The outcome of this war is not predetermined, and I assume that an all-powerful God created exactly the unpredictable system he wanted to create. The immune system and its invaders seem to me to be a very good example of this as a general truth about evolution itself, which is the history of a constant struggle to “survive by eating”, in which cells collaborate to find different means of surviving in the “constant war” between different cells/cell communities and between cells/cell communities and their changing environments.

DAVID: Every organism has an immune system or there would be no life. Your tortured view gives your god a weird uncontrolled outlook or lack of purpose. Repeat: our Gods are totally different. I'm happy with mine.

Of course every organism has an immune system, and every organism is under threat from other cells/cell communities that threaten it. If you think your God created the cells which attack and the cells which defend, why is it weird to assume that he wanted the conflict? Back to theodicy: what do you think was his purpose in creating what you have called “the constant war to survive by eating”?

Engineering thru nature to fight cancer

DAVID: Maintaining active living cells and life's homeostasis is a constant requirement, which means maintaining life is on a knife edge for the occurrence of as genetic mistake leading to cancer. Luckily or purposely we have God-given brains to step in with new solutions.

dhw: Once again you have your all-powerful, all-knowing God – who you believe is too kind to deliberately create causes of suffering – providing instructions that can’t solve the problems, whereas we humans are clever enough to solve some of the problems he couldn’t solve.

DAVID: What it really means is the system He designed can make mistakes, all discussed before.

If your all-powerful God gives instructions which don’t work, or he tries unsuccessfully to solve problems and so leaves it to us to achieve what he can’t achieve, don’t you think you’re kind of belittling him?

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 08, 2022, 22:06 (113 days ago) @ dhw

The immune system

dhw: Your comment clearly shows that he gave different cells the means to protect themselves, and sometimes what we regard as the “goodies” win, and sometimes the “baddies” win. The outcome of this war is not predetermined, and I assume that an all-powerful God created exactly the unpredictable system he wanted to create. The immune system and its invaders seem to me to be a very good example of this as a general truth about evolution itself, which is the history of a constant struggle to “survive by eating”, in which cells collaborate to find different means of surviving in the “constant war” between different cells/cell communities and between cells/cell communities and their changing environments.

DAVID: Every organism has an immune system or there would be no life. Your tortured view gives your god a weird uncontrolled outlook or lack of purpose. Repeat: our Gods are totally different. I'm happy with mine.

dhw: Of course every organism has an immune system, and every organism is under threat from other cells/cell communities that threaten it. If you think your God created the cells which attack and the cells which defend, why is it weird to assume that he wanted the conflict? Back to theodicy: what do you think was his purpose in creating what you have called “the constant war to survive by eating”?

It is not purpose, it is the result of the life from He started which requires the constant intake of energy. That there are bad bugs has been discussed as the result of 'bad' bugs just being in te4owrong place.


Engineering thru nature to fight cancer

DAVID: Maintaining active living cells and life's homeostasis is a constant requirement, which means maintaining life is on a knife edge for the occurrence of as genetic mistake leading to cancer. Luckily or purposely we have God-given brains to step in with new solutions.

dhw: Once again you have your all-powerful, all-knowing God – who you believe is too kind to deliberately create causes of suffering – providing instructions that can’t solve the problems, whereas we humans are clever enough to solve some of the problems he couldn’t solve.

DAVID: What it really means is the system He designed can make mistakes, all discussed before.

dhw: If your all-powerful God gives instructions which don’t work, or he tries unsuccessfully to solve problems and so leaves it to us to achieve what he can’t achieve, don’t you think you’re kind of belittling him?

His system does the best it can do. All discussed before. You constantly belittle, I never do while constantly having to defend Him from your complaints about Him. He has done a marvelous job getting us into this reality, and all you can do is complain. When I ask ab out what your god might do, I find is is unsure of himself, experiments and set up entertainment that he can enjoy. That is no sort of supposed god I can be interested in knowing or recognizing.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 10:28 (113 days ago) @ David Turell

Immune system

DAVID: Every organism has an immune system or there would be no life. Your tortured view gives your god a weird uncontrolled outlook or lack of purpose.

dhw: Of course every organism has an immune system, and every organism is under threat from other cells/cell communities that threaten it. If you think your God created the cells which attack and the cells which defend, why is it weird to assume that he wanted the conflict? Back to theodicy: what do you think was his purpose in creating what you have called “the constant war to survive by eating”?

DAVID: It is not purpose, it is the result of the life from He started which requires the constant intake of energy. That there are bad bugs has been discussed as the result of 'bad' bugs just being in the wrong place.

I’d have thought your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-purposeful God would only create what he wanted to create. Are you now saying the “constant war to survive by eating” was NOT part of his plan?

dhw: If your all-powerful God gives instructions which don’t work, or he tries unsuccessfully to solve problems and so leaves it to us to achieve what he can’t achieve, don’t you think you’re kind of belittling him?

DAVID: His system does the best it can do. All discussed before.

Wonderful. You now have his system working independently of him and doing its best. Out goes total control, and in comes a free-for-all.

DAVID: You constantly belittle, I never do while constantly having to defend Him from your complaints about Him. He has done a marvelous job getting us into this reality, and all you can do is complain.

They are NOT complaints about him! They are complaints about the illogicality of your theories! I love and marvel at life just as much as you do, but I offer different (theistic) explanations for the history of life as we know it.

DAVID: When I ask about what your god might do, I find is is unsure of himself, experiments and set up entertainment that he can enjoy. That is no sort of supposed god I can be interested in knowing or recognizing.

I know you’re not interested in any theory different from your own, and therefore try to denigrate alternatives by using derogatory language. The concept of a God who enjoys creating, is interested in his own creations (your guesses as well as mine), maybe likes to experiment and to open himself up to new ideas, seems to me to be perfectly feasible and not at all belittling.

Cells
DAVID: Too long to edit, a bottom-up blind acceptance of intelligence:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-evolution-hacked-its-way-to-intelligence-from-the-bottom-up?...

DAVID: Read if you wish. It simply accepts intelligence because it is there.

Thank you for the present and for your integrity in reproducing an article that supports a concept you detest. I don’t know why you call it “blind”, as the authors are respectively a professor of biology and a professor of biological sciences and neuroscience, which suggests to me that their studies would at least have matched your own. Yes, they accept that it is there. And you don’t.

Evolution of consciousness

QUOTE: They argue that minds of a sort have existed since the first archaea colonized the planet, billions of years ago.

Another boost for the theory of cellular intelligence, but either the reviewer or the authors then seem to get into a muddle.

QUOTE: They state that insects have no consciousness, when there is good reason to suppose that bees, at least, have many of the mental attributes associated with consciousness, such as foresight and the ability to imagine. Even bacteria are not the simple automata portrayed here; other researchers describe bacterial behaviours in the language of cognition.

If minds have existed since the first archaea, why would the authors deny the existence of insect and bacteria minds? Something has gone wrong here, or have I misread it?

QUOTE: "The narrative is enjoyable and illuminating, but bbbit is flawed by a failure to separate fact from speculation. (DAVID’s bold)

Yes, that is often the fault with all parties in these discussions.

DAVID: Seeing something that seems to act intelligently doesn't mean it is intrinsically intelligent in and of itself. It may dimply be following instructions it has been given. Thermostats and robots are just that, looking as if they take intelligent actions and we understand how they do it by following built-in designed algorithms. So can cells and simple one-celled animals. To assume actual intelligence exists is a very thin analysis.

Artificial intelligence is just that. And natural intelligence is natural intelligence, but you want to make it into artificial intelligence by having your God insert algorithms into living material. Why not follow through the analogy: humans use their natural intelligence to create artificial intelligence, just as your God may have used his natural intelligence to create our natural intelligence, as well as the natural intelligence of the cells of which all life forms are composed?

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 17:11 (112 days ago) @ dhw

Immune system

DAVID: It is not purpose, it is the result of the life form He started which requires the constant intake of energy. That there are bad bugs has been discussed as the result of 'bad' bugs just being in the wrong place.

dhw: I’d have thought your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-purposeful God would only create what he wanted to create. Are you now saying the “constant war to survive by eating” was NOT part of his plan?

Don't understand the question. Life requires energy intake constantly.


DAVID: When I ask about what your god might do, I find is is unsure of himself, experiments and set up entertainment that he can enjoy. That is no sort of supposed god I can be interested in knowing or recognizing.

dhw: I know you’re not interested in any theory different from your own, and therefore try to denigrate alternatives by using derogatory language. The concept of a God who enjoys creating, is interested in his own creations (your guesses as well as mine), maybe likes to experiment and to open himself up to new ideas, seems to me to be perfectly feasible and not at all belittling.

You still don't see how you present a human god, not like anyone theologians describe


Evolution of consciousness

QUOTE: They argue that minds of a sort have existed since the first archaea colonized the planet, billions of years ago.

dhw: Another boost for the theory of cellular intelligence, but either the reviewer or the authors then seem to get into a muddle.

QUOTE: They state that insects have no consciousness, when there is good reason to suppose that bees, at least, have many of the mental attributes associated with consciousness, such as foresight and the ability to imagine. Even bacteria are not the simple automata portrayed here; other researchers describe bacterial behaviours in the language of cognition.

dhw: If minds have existed since the first archaea, why would the authors deny the existence of insect and bacteria minds? Something has gone wrong here, or have I misread it?

No, the reviewer infers his disagreement with the study.


QUOTE: "The narrative is enjoyable and illuminating, but bbbit is flawed by a failure to separate fact from speculation. (DAVID’s bold)

dhw: Yes, that is often the fault with all parties in these discussions.

DAVID: Seeing something that seems to act intelligently doesn't mean it is intrinsically intelligent in and of itself. It may dimply be following instructions it has been given. Thermostats and robots are just that, looking as if they take intelligent actions and we understand how they do it by following built-in designed algorithms. So can cells and simple one-celled animals. To assume actual intelligence exists is a very thin analysis.

dhw: Artificial intelligence is just that. And natural intelligence is natural intelligence, but you want to make it into artificial intelligence by having your God insert algorithms into living material. Why not follow through the analogy: humans use their natural intelligence to create artificial intelligence, just as your God may have used his natural intelligence to create our natural intelligence, as well as the natural intelligence of the cells of which all life forms are composed?

You simply want to believe things that act intelligently are intelligent. Just remember thermostats.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Thursday, March 10, 2022, 13:33 (111 days ago) @ David Turell

Immune system

dhw: I’d have thought your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-purposeful God would only create what he wanted to create. Are you now saying the “constant war to survive by eating” was NOT part of his plan?

DAVID: Don't understand the question. Life requires energy intake constantly.

Let’s focus on carnivorousness, which seems to me the cruellest method of obtaining energy. Do you think it is impossible for animals (including ourselves) to obtain energy without eating other animals? We can then broaden the question: did your God deliberately create a system whereby life forms had to wage constant war on each other, or are you saying it was an accident, or he couldn’t think of any other way of providing energy?

Evolution of consciousness (This article is a review

QUOTE: They [the authors] argue that minds of a sort have existed since the first archaea colonized the planet, billions of years ago.

dhw: Another boost for the theory of cellular intelligence, but either the reviewer or the authors then seem to get into a muddle.

QUOTE: They state that insects have no consciousness, when there is good reason to suppose that bees, at least, have many of the mental attributes associated with consciousness, such as foresight and the ability to imagine. Even bacteria are not the simple automata portrayed here; other researchers describe bacterial behaviours in the language of cognition.

dhw: If minds have existed since the first archaea, why would the authors deny the existence of insect and bacteria minds? Something has gone wrong here, or have I misread it?

DAVID: No, the reviewer infers his disagreement with the study.

You have missed the point. Why would The AUTHORS say minds have existed since archaea, and then say that insects and bacteria do not have minds? I have bolded the apparent discrepancy.

DAVID: Seeing something that seems to act intelligently doesn't mean it is intrinsically intelligent in and of itself. It may dimply be following instructions it has been given. Thermostats and robots are just that, looking as if they take intelligent actions and we understand how they do it by following built-in designed algorithms. So can cells and simple one-celled animals. To assume actual intelligence exists is a very thin analysis.

dhw: Artificial intelligence is just that. And natural intelligence is natural intelligence, but you want to make it into artificial intelligence by having your God insert algorithms into living material. Why not follow through the analogy: humans use their natural intelligence to create artificial intelligence, just as your God may have used his natural intelligence to create our natural intelligence, as well as the natural intelligence of the cells of which all life forms are composed?

DAVID: You simply want to believe things that act intelligently are intelligent. Just remember thermostats.

Thermostats are irrelevant! They are ARTIFICIALLY intelligent designs made by NATURALLY intelligent humans (whose intelligence may have been provided by your God). How does that even begin to suggest that the NATURALLY intelligent designs of new organs, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders could NOT have been made by NATURALLY intelligent cells (whose intelligence may have been provided by your God)?

Bone body communications

QUOTE: ..what’s clear already is that the skeleton is not just a nice set of mechanical supports. Bones constantly remodel themselves in response to the body’s needs, and they’re in constant communication with other parts of the body.."

DAVID: a laundry list of how bones are designed to work with all the other parts of the body. A marvelous example of irreducible complexity.

Bones apparently evolved from earlier protective structures, so I don’t know about “irreducible complexity”. However, it’s a marvellous example of the intelligent way cell communities are “in constant communication” with one another as they work out ways in which they can respond intelligently to one another’s needs in the great community of cell communities of which our bodies are composed.

Carnivorous plant origin

Quote: studies of two of its grislier elements — digestion and absorption — are revealing how evolution repurposed existing genes, putting some to work in new places and giving others new functions and the odd tweak to suit them better to their new roles. In many cases, plants that evolved carnivory entirely independently have repurposed the same genes. Faced with the problem of consuming flesh, they all hit on the same solution, Albert says. And central to the transformation was the plant’s age-old system of defense.

DAVID: What controlled the 'whole operation' of coordinating new gene functions all at the same time. I cannot imagine this developed stepwise since partial change had no survival advantage. Back to God as the designer.

I don’t see why it had to be immediate. The “age-old” method of feeding need not have disappeared immediately. The carnivorous form of feeding may have taken over once it had perfected itself. Back to your theory: why do you think humans could not have evolved or found food without plants becoming carnivorous?

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 10, 2022, 19:40 (111 days ago) @ dhw

Immune system

DAVID: Don't understand the question. Life requires energy intake constantly.

dhw: Let’s focus on carnivorousness, which seems to me the cruellest method of obtaining energy. Do you think it is impossible for animals (including ourselves) to obtain energy without eating other animals? We can then broaden the question: did your God deliberately create a system whereby life forms had to wage constant war on each other, or are you saying it was an accident, or he couldn’t think of any other way of providing energy?

I believe the current system of living biochemistry is the only one available to God. He had to choose the best.


Evolution of consciousness (This article is a review

QUOTE: They [the authors] argue that minds of a sort have existed since the first archaea colonized the planet, billions of years ago.

dhw: Another boost for the theory of cellular intelligence, but either the reviewer or the authors then seem to get into a muddle.

QUOTE: They state that insects have no consciousness, when there is good reason to suppose that bees, at least, have many of the mental attributes associated with consciousness, such as foresight and the ability to imagine. Even bacteria are not the simple automata portrayed here; other researchers describe bacterial behaviours in the language of cognition.

dhw: If minds have existed since the first archaea, why would the authors deny the existence of insect and bacteria minds? Something has gone wrong here, or have I misread it?

Note 'minds of a sort'


DAVID: No, the reviewer infers his disagreement with the study.

You have missed the point. Why would The AUTHORS say minds have existed since archaea, and then say that insects and bacteria do not have minds? I have bolded the apparent discrepancy.

My answer below fits the problem:


DAVID: Seeing something that seems to act intelligently doesn't mean it is intrinsically intelligent in and of itself. It may dimply be following instructions it has been given. Thermostats and robots are just that, looking as if they take intelligent actions and we understand how they do it by following built-in designed algorithms. So can cells and simple one-celled animals. To assume actual intelligence exists is a very thin analysis.

dhw: Artificial intelligence is just that. And natural intelligence is natural intelligence, but you want to make it into artificial intelligence by having your God insert algorithms into living material. Why not follow through the analogy: humans use their natural intelligence to create artificial intelligence, just as your God may have used his natural intelligence to create our natural intelligence, as well as the natural intelligence of the cells of which all life forms are composed?

DAVID: You simply want to believe things that act intelligently are intelligent. Just remember thermostats.

dhw: Thermostats are irrelevant! They are ARTIFICIALLY intelligent designs made by NATURALLY intelligent humans (whose intelligence may have been provided by your God). How does that even begin to suggest that the NATURALLY intelligent designs of new organs, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders could NOT have been made by NATURALLY intelligent cells (whose intelligence may have been provided by your God)?

You simply do not understand secondhand design doesn't work

Carnivorous plant origin

Quote: studies of two of its grislier elements — digestion and absorption — are revealing how evolution repurposed existing genes, putting some to work in new places and giving others new functions and the odd tweak to suit them better to their new roles. In many cases, plants that evolved carnivory entirely independently have repurposed the same genes. Faced with the problem of consuming flesh, they all hit on the same solution, Albert says. And central to the transformation was the plant’s age-old system of defense.

DAVID: What controlled the 'whole operation' of coordinating new gene functions all at the same time. I cannot imagine this developed stepwise since partial change had no survival advantage. Back to God as the designer.

dhw: I don’t see why it had to be immediate. The “age-old” method of feeding need not have disappeared immediately. The carnivorous form of feeding may have taken over once it had perfected itself. Back to your theory: why do you think humans could not have evolved or found food without plants becoming carnivorous?

Just part of an ecosystem. Again you ignore 'stepwise'. Just saying it perfected itself means you do not understand the problem. The parts all have to work together or the eating system is worthless.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Friday, March 11, 2022, 11:46 (111 days ago) @ David Turell

Immune system

DAVID: Life requires energy intake constantly.

dhw: Let’s focus on carnivorousness, which seems to me the cruellest method of obtaining energy. Do you think it is impossible for animals (including ourselves) to obtain energy without eating other animals? We can then broaden the question: did your God deliberately create a system whereby life forms had to wage constant war on each other, or are you saying it was an accident, or he couldn’t think of any other way of providing energy?

DAVID: I believe the current system of living biochemistry is the only one available to God. He had to choose the best.

Then let’s go one step at a time. You described life’s history as a “constant war to survive by eating”. Do you think it is impossible for animals (including ourselves) to obtain energy without eating other animals?

Evolution of consciousness (This article is a review)

QUOTE: They [the authors] argue that minds of a sort have existed since the first archaea colonized the planet, billions of years ago.

DAVID: Note 'minds of a sort'.

I do indeed note it. I can’t believe that anybody would equate a bacterial mind with a human mind, but it is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism” to claim that microbial life forms can’t think in their own different way.

dhw: Why would The AUTHORS say minds have existed since archaea, and then say that insects and bacteria do not have minds? I have bolded the apparent discrepancy.

DAVID: My answer below fits the problem.

I am pointing out that the reviewer says the authors believe bacteria have minds, and then later says that the authors believe that bacteria DON’T have minds. There must be something wrong with the review.

DAVID: You simply want to believe things that act intelligently are intelligent. Just remember thermostats.

dhw: Thermostats are irrelevant! They are ARTIFICIALLY intelligent designs made by NATURALLY intelligent humans (whose intelligence may have been provided by your God). How does that even begin to suggest that the NATURALLY intelligent designs of new organs, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders could NOT have been made by NATURALLY intelligent cells (whose intelligence may have been provided by your God)?

DAVID: You simply do not understand secondhand design doesn't work.

You keep hiding behind the meaningless term “secondhand”. You believe your God gave humans the autonomous ability to design a thermostat. Why then can you not believe that he could give cells the autonomous ability to restructure themselves?

Carnivorous plant origin

DAVID: What controlled the 'whole operation' of coordinating new gene functions all at the same time. I cannot imagine this developed stepwise since partial change had no survival advantage. Back to God as the designer.

dhw: I don’t see why it had to be immediate. The “age-old” method of feeding need not have disappeared immediately. The carnivorous form of feeding may have taken over once it had perfected itself. Back to your theory: why do you think humans could not have evolved or found food without plants becoming carnivorous?

DAVID: Just part of an ecosystem.

Thank you. You have your God designing carnivorous plans as “just part of an ecosystem” – not as preparation for humans and their food and as part of his one and only goal of evolving humans and their food.

DAVID: Again you ignore 'stepwise'. Just saying it perfected itself means you do not understand the problem. The parts all have to work together or the eating system is worthless.

Again you ignore the possibility that such changes may entail old systems continuing to work in tandem with the new system until the latter finally takes over. On the other hand, I find it excruciatingly difficult to believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for certain plants suddenly to switch to meat-eating, and I have the same problem imagining your all-powerful God suddenly popping in at various times to insert various meat-eating mechanisms in various plants as preparation for humans and their food millions of years later.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 01:40 (110 days ago) @ dhw

Immune system

DAVID: I believe the current system of living biochemistry is the only one available to God. He had to choose the best.

dhw: Then let’s go one step at a time. You described life’s history as a “constant war to survive by eating”. Do you think it is impossible for animals (including ourselves) to obtain energy without eating other animals?

Cows eat grass helped by gut biome. Your point?


Evolution of consciousness (This article is a review)

QUOTE: They [the authors] argue that minds of a sort have existed since the first archaea colonized the planet, billions of years ago.

DAVID: Note 'minds of a sort'.

dhw: I do indeed note it. I can’t believe that anybody would equate a bacterial mind with a human mind, but it is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism” to claim that microbial life forms can’t think in their own different way.

Shapiro found bacteria edit DNA? So do we. Bacteria do not think n or do we mentally methylate in DNA,


dhw: Why would The AUTHORS say minds have existed since archaea, and then say that insects and bacteria do not have minds? I have bolded the apparent discrepancy.

DAVID: My answer below fits the problem.

dhw: I am pointing out that the reviewer says the authors believe bacteria have minds, and then later says that the authors believe that bacteria DON’T have minds. There must be something wrong with the review.

Re-read the review. The reviewer has his pint of view like mine.


DAVID: You simply do not understand secondhand design doesn't work.

dhw: You keep hiding behind the meaningless term “secondhand”. You believe your God gave humans the autonomous ability to design a thermostat. Why then can you not believe that he could give cells the autonomous ability to restructure themselves?

Because that is exactly secondhand design, or an original designer gives the job an assistant with some instruction. but I'll bet in real life the real designer checks it before releasing it.


Carnivorous plant origin

DAVID: Again you ignore 'stepwise'. Just saying it perfected itself means you do not understand the problem. The parts all have to work together or the eating system is worthless.

dhw: Again you ignore the possibility that such changes may entail old systems continuing to work in tandem with the new system until the latter finally takes over. On the other hand, I find it excruciatingly difficult to believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for certain plants suddenly to switch to meat-eating, and I have the same problem imagining your all-powerful God suddenly popping in at various times to insert various meat-eating mechanisms in various plants as preparation for humans and their food millions of years later.

Carnivorous plants can't create digestive enzymes without also simultaneous creating self-protections. Multiple coordinated mutations all at once? Not stepwise Darwinism as you favor.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 08:26 (110 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I believe the current system of living biochemistry is the only one available to God. He had to choose the best.

dhw: Then let’s go one step at a time. You described life’s history as a “constant war to survive by eating”. Do you think it is impossible for animals (including ourselves) to obtain energy without eating other animals?

DAVID: Cows eat grass helped by gut biome. Your point?

My point is that it is perfectly possible for life forms to exist without eating one another. And yet your all-powerful God was apparently unable to design life without there being “a constant war to survive by eating”. Could your God NOT have designed forms of food that wage war? Does grass, for instance, fight to survive by eating? Since there IS a constant war, would it not make more sense to assume (theistic theory) that this is what your all-powerful God intended?

Evolution of consciousness (This article is a review)

QUOTE: They [the authors] argue that minds of a sort have existed since the first archaea colonized the planet, billions of years ago.

DAVID: Note 'minds of a sort'.

dhw: I do indeed note it. I can’t believe that anybody would equate a bacterial mind with a human mind, but it is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism” to claim that microbial life forms can’t think in their own different way.

DAVID: Shapiro found bacteria edit DNA? So do we. Bacteria do not think n or do we mentally methylate in DNA,

Shapiro found that cells, including bacteria, possess the “sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” which we associate with intelligence. That does not mean they think like us.

dhw: Why would The AUTHORS say minds have existed since archaea, and then say that insects and bacteria do not have minds? [...]

DAVID: Re-read the review. The reviewer has his pint of view like mine.

This is a non-argument. The REVIEWER reports that the AUTHORS say bacteria have minds, but then he reports that the AUTHORS say bacteria don’t have minds. Something is wrong somewhere.

DAVID: You simply do not understand secondhand design doesn't work.

dhw: You keep hiding behind the meaningless term “secondhand”. You believe your God gave humans the autonomous ability to design a thermostat. Why then can you not believe that he could give cells the autonomous ability to restructure themselves?

DAVID: Because that is exactly secondhand design, or an original designer gives the job an assistant with some instruction. but I'll bet in real life the real designer checks it before releasing it.

Theistic theory: God invents human intelligence, and human intelligence invents thermostats. God invents cellular intelligence, and cellular intelligence invents ways of surviving. You accept the first, but regard the second as impossible. Why? Because you have a fixed belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus their food, and so he had to control cellular inventions. But this leads to the absurd notion that he deliberately controlled countless inventions that had no connection with humans and their food – and as you have confessed yet again, you have “no idea why God chose his evolution method”. Maybe that was NOT his evolution purpose or method, and so maybe he did NOT control cellular inventions.

Carnivorous plant origin

DAVID: Again you ignore 'stepwise'. Just saying it perfected itself means you do not understand the problem. The parts all have to work together or the eating system is worthless.

dhw: Again you ignore the possibility that such changes may entail old systems continuing to work in tandem with the new system until the latter finally takes over. On the other hand, I find it excruciatingly difficult to believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for certain plants suddenly to switch to meat-eating, and I have the same problem imagining your all-powerful God suddenly popping in at various times to insert various meat-eating mechanisms in various plants as preparation for humans and their food millions of years later.

DAVID: Carnivorous plants can't create digestive enzymes without also simultaneous creating self-protections. Multiple coordinated mutations all at once? Not stepwise Darwinism as you favor.

Maybe initially some plants died before they perfected the system, just as millions of bacteria die before the survivors perfect their defences.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 18:00 (109 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: My point is that it is perfectly possible for life forms to exist without eating one another. And yet your all-powerful God was apparently unable to design life without there being “a constant war to survive by eating”. Could your God NOT have designed forms of food that wage war? Does grass, for instance, fight to survive by eating? Since there IS a constant war, would it not make more sense to assume (theistic theory) that this is what your all-powerful God intended?

The point is every form of life needs an intake of energy .


Evolution of consciousness (This article is a review)

QUOTE: They [the authors] argue that minds of a sort have existed since the first archaea colonized the planet, billions of years ago.

DAVID: Shapiro found bacteria edit DNA? So do we. Bacteria do not think n or do we mentally methylate in DNA,

dhw: Shapiro found that cells, including bacteria, possess the “sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” which we associate with intelligence. That does not mean they think like us.

Agreed


dhw: You keep hiding behind the meaningless term “secondhand”. You believe your God gave humans the autonomous ability to design a thermostat. Why then can you not believe that he could give cells the autonomous ability to restructure themselves?

DAVID: Because that is exactly secondhand design, or an original designer gives the job an assistant with some instruction. but I'll bet in real life the real designer checks it before releasing it.

dhw: Theistic theory: God invents human intelligence, and human intelligence invents thermostats. God invents cellular intelligence, and cellular intelligence invents ways of surviving. You accept the first, but regard the second as impossible. Why? Because you have a fixed belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus their food, and so he had to control cellular inventions. But this leads to the absurd notion that he deliberately controlled countless inventions that had no connection with humans and their food – and as you have confessed yet again, you have “no idea why God chose his evolution method”. Maybe that was NOT his evolution purpose or method, and so maybe he did NOT control cellular inventions.

Another contorted view of God as the designer of all organisms. See just below:


Carnivorous plant origin

DAVID: Again you ignore 'stepwise'. Just saying it perfected itself means you do not understand the problem. The parts all have to work together or the eating system is worthless.

dhw: Again you ignore the possibility that such changes may entail old systems continuing to work in tandem with the new system until the latter finally takes over. On the other hand, I find it excruciatingly difficult to believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for certain plants suddenly to switch to meat-eating, and I have the same problem imagining your all-powerful God suddenly popping in at various times to insert various meat-eating mechanisms in various plants as preparation for humans and their food millions of years later.

DAVID: Carnivorous plants can't create digestive enzymes without also simultaneous creating self-protections. Multiple coordinated mutations all at once? Not stepwise Darwinism as you favor.

dhw: Maybe initially some plants died before they perfected the system, just as millions of bacteria die before the survivors perfect their defences.

Same blind prayer that step-wise works.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Sunday, March 13, 2022, 11:30 (109 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My point is that it is perfectly possible for life forms to exist without eating one another. And yet your all-powerful God was apparently unable to design life without there being “a constant war to survive by eating”. Could your God NOT have designed forms of food that wage war? Does grass, for instance, fight to survive by eating? Since there IS a constant war, would it not make more sense to assume (theistic theory) that this is what your all-powerful God intended?

DAVID: The point is every form of life needs an intake of energy.

Of course it does. Bearing in mind that it is perfectly possible for energy to be provided without us and our fellow animals waging war on one another, please tell us whether the “constant war to survive by eating” was planned by your God or was the unavoidable outcome of his inability to find a system that did not involve such a war?

Evolution of consciousness (This article is a review)

dhw: Theistic theory: God invents human intelligence, and human intelligence invents thermostats. God invents cellular intelligence, and cellular intelligence invents ways of surviving. You accept the first, but regard the second as impossible. Why? Because you have a fixed belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus their food, and so he had to control cellular inventions. But this leads to the absurd notion that he deliberately controlled countless inventions that had no connection with humans and their food – and as you have confessed yet again, you have “no idea why God chose his evolution method”. Maybe that was NOT his evolution purpose or method, and so maybe he did NOT control cellular inventions.

DAVID: Another contorted view of God as the designer of all organisms. See just below:

What is contorted? You believe he designed all organisms: true or false? You believe all organisms were “preparation” for humans plus our food, i.e. part of his “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our food. True or false? And you have no idea why he would have designed all the organisms that had no connection with humans plus food. True or false? The exchange below explains absolutely nothing.

Carnivorous plant origin

DAVID: Carnivorous plants can't create digestive enzymes without also simultaneous creating self-protections. Multiple coordinated mutations all at once? Not stepwise Darwinism as you favor.

dhw: Maybe initially some plants died before they perfected the system, just as millions of bacteria die before the survivors perfect their defences.

DAVID: Same blind prayer that step-wise works.

It works with bacteria, and it even works with humans, since our own history is literally plagued with diseases which kill until we lend your God a helping hand and provide the cures for which he apparently couldn’t plant instructions in our immune system.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 13, 2022, 15:56 (108 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: My point is that it is perfectly possible for life forms to exist without eating one another. And yet your all-powerful God was apparently unable to design life without there being “a constant war to survive by eating”. Could your God NOT have designed forms of food that wage war? Does grass, for instance, fight to survive by eating? Since there IS a constant war, would it not make more sense to assume (theistic theory) that this is what your all-powerful God intended?

DAVID: The point is every form of life needs an intake of energy.

dhw: Of course it does. Bearing in mind that it is perfectly possible for energy to be provided without us and our fellow animals waging war on one another, please tell us whether the “constant war to survive by eating” was planned by your God or was the unavoidable outcome of his inability to find a system that did not involve such a war?

Eating must occur with red in tooth and claw. I don't see how it can work any other way. You want a pacifist evolution?


Evolution of consciousness (This article is a review)

dhw: Theistic theory: God invents human intelligence, and human intelligence invents thermostats. God invents cellular intelligence, and cellular intelligence invents ways of surviving. You accept the first, but regard the second as impossible. Why? Because you have a fixed belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus their food, and so he had to control cellular inventions. But this leads to the absurd notion that he deliberately controlled countless inventions that had no connection with humans and their food – and as you have confessed yet again, you have “no idea why God chose his evolution method”. Maybe that was NOT his evolution purpose or method, and so maybe he did NOT control cellular inventions.

DAVID: Another contorted view of God as the designer of all organisms. See just below:

What is contorted? You believe he designed all organisms: true or false? You believe all organisms were “preparation” for humans plus our food, i.e. part of his “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our food. True or false? And you have no idea why he would have designed all the organisms that had no connection with humans plus food. True or false? The exchange below explains absolutely nothing.

Carnivorous plant origin

DAVID: Carnivorous plants can't create digestive enzymes without also simultaneous creating self-protections. Multiple coordinated mutations all at once? Not stepwise Darwinism as you favor.

dhw: Maybe initially some plants died before they perfected the system, just as millions of bacteria die before the survivors perfect their defences.

DAVID: Same blind prayer that step-wise works.

dhw: It works with bacteria, and it even works with humans, since our own history is literally plagued with diseases which kill until we lend your God a helping hand and provide the cures for which he apparently couldn’t plant instructions in our immune system.

Our immune system works just fine in an amazingly accurate way 99% of the time. But yes, we have the ability to help out.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Monday, March 14, 2022, 11:18 (108 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Bearing in mind that it is perfectly possible for energy to be provided without us and our fellow animals waging war on one another, please tell us whether the “constant war to survive by eating” was planned by your God or was the unavoidable outcome of his inability to find a system that did not involve such a war?

DAVID: Eating must occur with red in tooth and claw. I don't see how it can work any other way. You want a pacifist evolution?

How red do teeth become when eaters eat grass, or potatoes or apples? Please tell us whether you think your God planned the constant war or was unable to devise a system that did not demand war.

Carvivorous plants

DAVID: Carnivorous plants can't create digestive enzymes without also simultaneous creating self-protections. Multiple coordinated mutations all at once? Not stepwise Darwinism as you favor.

dhw: Maybe initially some plants died before they perfected the system, just as millions of bacteria die before the survivors perfect their defences.

DAVID: Same blind prayer that step-wise works.

dhw: It works with bacteria, and it even works with humans, since our own history is literally plagued with diseases which kill until we lend your God a helping hand and provide the cures for which he apparently couldn’t plant instructions in our immune system.

DAVID: Our immune system works just fine in an amazingly accurate way 99% of the time. But yes, we have the ability to help out.

Do you or do you not accept that both bacteria and humans die in large numbers before they find ways of surviving new threats, i.e. that sometimes survival systems develop in stages?

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Monday, March 14, 2022, 14:41 (107 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Bearing in mind that it is perfectly possible for energy to be provided without us and our fellow animals waging war on one another, please tell us whether the “constant war to survive by eating” was planned by your God or was the unavoidable outcome of his inability to find a system that did not involve such a war?

DAVID: Eating must occur with red in tooth and claw. I don't see how it can work any other way. You want a pacifist evolution?

dhw: How red do teeth become when eaters eat grass, or potatoes or apples? Please tell us whether you think your God planned the constant war or was unable to devise a system that did not demand war.

You've shifted to grazing animals, but they can be eaten by predators. The sole point is everyone eats and life runs on energy. Why? Living organisms are dynamically maintaining their homeostasis which requires a constant input of energy .


Carnivorous plants

DAVID: Carnivorous plants can't create digestive enzymes without also simultaneous creating self-protections. Multiple coordinated mutations all at once? Not stepwise Darwinism as you favor.

dhw: Maybe initially some plants died before they perfected the system, just as millions of bacteria die before the survivors perfect their defences.

DAVID: Same blind prayer that step-wise works.

dhw: It works with bacteria, and it even works with humans, since our own history is literally plagued with diseases which kill until we lend your God a helping hand and provide the cures for which he apparently couldn’t plant instructions in our immune system.

DAVID: Our immune system works just fine in an amazingly accurate way 99% of the time. But yes, we have the ability to help out.

dhw: Do you or do you not accept that both bacteria and humans die in large numbers before they find ways of surviving new threats, i.e. that sometimes survival systems develop in stages?

No! All organisms are designed from the start of have immunity. You are stuck on naturalism to make an evolutionary process.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Tuesday, March 15, 2022, 07:15 (107 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Bearing in mind that it is perfectly possible for energy to be provided without us and our fellow animals waging war on one another, please tell us whether the “constant war to survive by eating” was planned by your God or was the unavoidable outcome of his inability to find a system that did not involve such a war?

DAVID: Eating must occur with red in tooth and claw. I don't see how it can work any other way. You want a pacifist evolution?

dhw: How red do teeth become when eaters eat grass, or potatoes or apples? Please tell us whether you think your God planned the constant war or was unable to devise a system that did not demand war.

DAVID: You've shifted to grazing animals, but they can be eaten by predators. The sole point is everyone eats and life runs on energy. Why? Living organisms are dynamically maintaining their homeostasis which requires a constant input of energy.

Of course all living organisms require energy. My point is that energy can be provided without animals eating one another. According to you, God designed every species. Therefore he deliberately designed predators, as he is all-knowing and all-powerful, although he must have known that there are plenty of energy sources apart from meat, and so life could easily continue without animals eating one another. Hence my question: do you think he deliberately planned life as a “constant war to survive by eating”? Or do you think he was unable to devise a system that did not demand war? Please answer.

Carnivorous plants

DAVID: Carnivorous plants can't create digestive enzymes without also simultaneous creating self-protections. Multiple coordinated mutations all at once? Not stepwise Darwinism as you favor.

dhw: Maybe initially some plants died before they perfected the system, just as millions of bacteria die before the survivors perfect their defences.

DAVID: Same blind prayer that step-wise works.

dhw: It works with bacteria, and it even works with humans, since our own history is literally plagued with diseases which kill until we lend your God a helping hand and provide the cures for which he apparently couldn’t plant instructions in our immune system.

DAVID: Our immune system works just fine in an amazingly accurate way 99% of the time. But yes, we have the ability to help out.

dhw: Do you or do you not accept that both bacteria and humans die in large numbers before they find ways of surviving new threats, i.e. that sometimes survival systems develop in stages?

DAVID: No! All organisms are designed from the start of have immunity. You are stuck on naturalism to make an evolutionary process.

You tell us that all aspects of carnivorous plants’ immunity must have been created at the same time. I have pointed out that both bacterial and human immunity take time to develop, since vast numbers may die before a “cure” is found. If God gave them and us instructions right from the beginning, why do so many die before we and bacteria can find the cure? Every death makes it blindingly obvious that the disease and the protection did not arrive simultaneously.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 15, 2022, 14:21 (106 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: How red do teeth become when eaters eat grass, or potatoes or apples? Please tell us whether you think your God planned the constant war or was unable to devise a system that did not demand war.

DAVID: You've shifted to grazing animals, but they can be eaten by predators. The sole point is everyone eats and life runs on energy. Why? Living organisms are dynamically maintaining their homeostasis which requires a constant input of energy.

dhw: Of course all living organisms require energy. My point is that energy can be provided without animals eating one another. According to you, God designed every species. Therefore he deliberately designed predators, as he is all-knowing and all-powerful, although he must have known that there are plenty of energy sources apart from meat, and so life could easily continue without animals eating one another. Hence my question: do you think he deliberately planned life as a “constant war to survive by eating”? Or do you think he was unable to devise a system that did not demand war? Please answer.

I think you have invented a pacifistic complaint about God. What would humans be like as pastoral animals? An aggressive nature produces progress. I'm delighted with God's approach. Life started with bacteria attacking each other. Passive plants were much later as food, although the Venus flytrap is not passive.


Carnivorous plants

dhw: Do you or do you not accept that both bacteria and humans die in large numbers before they find ways of surviving new threats, i.e. that sometimes survival systems develop in stages?

DAVID: No! All organisms are designed from the start of have immunity. You are stuck on naturalism to make an evolutionary process.

dhw: You tell us that all aspects of carnivorous plants’ immunity must have been created at the same time. I have pointed out that both bacterial and human immunity take time to develop, since vast numbers may die before a “cure” is found. If God gave them and us instructions right from the beginning, why do so many die before we and bacteria can find the cure? Every death makes it blindingly obvious that the disease and the protection did not arrive simultaneously.

A totally distorted misunderstanding of immune systems. Most organisms appear with fully intact immune systems, but must build an antibody library as each new attack appears. No attack, no answer! Mammals are different. Immune systems must develop, and colostrum in milk provides protection until innate immunity starts.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Wednesday, March 16, 2022, 11:23 (106 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] do you think [your God] deliberately planned life as a “constant war to survive by eating”? Or do you think he was unable to devise a system that did not demand war? Please answer.

DAVID: I think you have invented a pacifistic complaint about God. What would humans be like as pastoral animals? An aggressive nature produces progress. I'm delighted with God's approach. Life started with bacteria attacking each other. Passive plants were much later as food, although the Venus flytrap is not passive.

Presumably this means you think your God deliberately designed life to be a “constant war to survive by eating”. If so, I would suggest that instead of individually inventing all the different “good” and “bad” bacteria and viruses, and all the different strategies for eating and not being eaten, and all the different innovations for attack and defence in this great, ongoing, ever complexifying war for survival, your God created the mechanism whereby organisms did their own designing. After all, you guess that he is so kind as to give us solutions to some of the problems caused by his “bad” bacteria and viruses and what you see as the “errors” he could not avoid in his design of life. The concept of a free-for-all war would certainly be more interesting for him to watch than what you regard as “pacificistic” and “pastoral”, and maybe he even shares your own apparent delight in aggression.

Carnivorous plants
dhw: You tell us that all aspects of carnivorous plants’ immunity must have been created at the same time. I have pointed out that both bacterial and human immunity take time to develop, since vast numbers may die before a “cure” is found. If God gave them and us instructions right from the beginning, why do so many die before we and bacteria can find the cure? Every death makes it blindingly obvious that the disease and the protection did not arrive simultaneously.

DAVID: A totally distorted misunderstanding of immune systems. Most organisms appear with fully intact immune systems, but must build an antibody library as each new attack appears. No attack, no answer! Mammals are different. Immune systems must develop, and colostrum in milk provides protection until innate immunity starts.

Despite my “totally distorted misunderstanding”, thank you for confirming my view that each new attack requires a new response, as opposed to your God having already issued instructions in advance. The library grows with each new response, i.e. the disease and the protection do not arrive simultaneously.

Cell complexity increases
QUOTE: …it functions more like a chip that processes many signals simultaneously over a very small area. "This is very important for neurons, for example, as it allows them to process different signals at each of their various protrusions: one site can be activated while another lies dormant and a third is inhibited," he says.

DAVID: Please note that all of this complexity is presented as automatic reactions
And:
DAVID: ….because of the demonstrated automaticity, we can use it to manage therapeutic measures. Cells are designed to work automatically. They just look intelligent.

The complexity can only be described in terms of actions and reactions. It would be totally impossible to observe the intelligence that guides those actions and reactions. If you were to study the responses of your legs and feet to the demands of playing football, of course they would be automatic. But you can’t study the intelligence that makes all the instant decisions which guide the legs and feet.

Bird migration

QUOTE: "Migratory birds’ navigational input comes from several senses—mainly sight, smell and magnetoreception. By observing the apparent nighttime rotation of the stars around the North Star, the birds learn to locate north before they embark on their first migration, and an internal 24-hour clock allows them to calibrate their sun compass. Characteristic smells can help birds recognize places they have visited before. Scientists know a great deal about the detailed biophysical mechanisms of the birds’ senses of sight and smell. But the inner workings of their magnetic compass have proved harder to understand.

DAVID: to put this together from a design standpoint, I cannot believe these birds figured out how and where to migrate naturally. It is logical to want a warm spot in winter, but birds don't think at that level. And they don't follow maps. They migrate by instructions in their brains, as we know according to the article.

That is not what the above quote tells us. They “observe” and “learn” and “calibrate” and use smell to “recognize” places. These actions don’t denote “instructions”, although it stands to reason that each generation will use the knowledge already gained from its first migration. “Magnetoreception” is the problem area for our understanding, but as with other organisms, these birds may well have certain faculties which we don’t have and which naturally open up areas of knowledge that we have to acquire by indirect means.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 16, 2022, 16:00 (105 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, March 16, 2022, 16:22

dhw: […] do you think [your God] deliberately planned life as a “constant war to survive by eating”? Or do you think he was unable to devise a system that did not demand war? Please answer.

DAVID: I think you have invented a pacifistic complaint about God. What would humans be like as pastoral animals? An aggressive nature produces progress. I'm delighted with God's approach. Life started with bacteria attacking each other. Passive plants were much later as food, although the Venus flytrap is not passive.

dhw: Presumably this means you think your God deliberately designed life to be a “constant war to survive by eating”. If so, I would suggest that instead of individually inventing all the different “good” and “bad” bacteria and viruses, and all the different strategies for eating and not being eaten, and all the different innovations for attack and defence in this great, ongoing, ever complexifying war for survival, your God created the mechanism whereby organisms did their own designing. After all, you guess that he is so kind as to give us solutions to some of the problems caused by his “bad” bacteria and viruses and what you see as the “errors” he could not avoid in his design of life. The concept of a free-for-all war would certainly be more interesting for him to watch than what you regard as “pacificistic” and “pastoral”, and maybe he even shares your own apparent delight in aggression.

Why is it so important to you that God allows organisms to self-design? How does that help you solve the issue of whether God exists? I'll add an article today about directed mutation which follows on a previous entry .


Carnivorous plants

DAVID: A totally distorted misunderstanding of immune systems. Most organisms appear with fully intact immune systems, but must build an antibody library as each new attack appears. No attack, no answer! Mammals are different. Immune systems must develop, and colostrum in milk provides protection until innate immunity starts.

dhw: Despite my “totally distorted misunderstanding”, thank you for confirming my view that each new attack requires a new response, as opposed to your God having already issued instructions in advance. The library grows with each new response, i.e. the disease and the protection do not arrive simultaneously.

The response is instantaneous, but antibody production takes a little time. Killer immune cells are immediately active.


Cell complexity increases
QUOTE: …it functions more like a chip that processes many signals simultaneously over a very small area. "This is very important for neurons, for example, as it allows them to process different signals at each of their various protrusions: one site can be activated while another lies dormant and a third is inhibited," he says.

DAVID: Please note that all of this complexity is presented as automatic reactions
And:
DAVID: ….because of the demonstrated automaticity, we can use it to manage therapeutic measures. Cells are designed to work automatically. They just look intelligent.

dhw: The complexity can only be described in terms of actions and reactions. It would be totally impossible to observe the intelligence that guides those actions and reactions. If you were to study the responses of your legs and feet to the demands of playing football, of course they would be automatic. But you can’t study the intelligence that makes all the instant decisions which guide the legs and feet.

My instant decisions are from information in my brain developed by repeated practice. All cell automaticity is guided by intelligent instructions


Bird migration

QUOTE: "Migratory birds’ navigational input comes from several senses—mainly sight, smell and magnetoreception. By observing the apparent nighttime rotation of the stars around the North Star, the birds learn to locate north before they embark on their first migration, and an internal 24-hour clock allows them to calibrate their sun compass. Characteristic smells can help birds recognize places they have visited before. Scientists know a great deal about the detailed biophysical mechanisms of the birds’ senses of sight and smell. But the inner workings of their magnetic compass have proved harder to understand.

DAVID: to put this together from a design standpoint, I cannot believe these birds figured out how and where to migrate naturally. It is logical to want a warm spot in winter, but birds don't think at that level. And they don't follow maps. They migrate by instructions in their brains, as we know according to the article.

dhw: That is not what the above quote tells us. They “observe” and “learn” and “calibrate” and use smell to “recognize” places. These actions don’t denote “instructions”, although it stands to reason that each generation will use the knowledge already gained from its first migration. “Magnetoreception” is the problem area for our understanding, but as with other organisms, these birds may well have certain faculties which we don’t have and which naturally open up areas of knowledge that we have to acquire by indirect means.

Birds use God-given senses, and you carefully avoided the main point of the origin of the decision to migrate enormous distances.

Cellular intelligence: how cells communicate

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 16, 2022, 21:24 (105 days ago) @ David Turell

With chemical signals:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220316115008.htm

"Cells communicate with one another in the language of chemistry, but those from different kingdoms, such as bacteria and yeast, speak dialects virtually unintelligible to the other.

***

"In nature, many cells send and receive chemical signals. This strategy allows bacteria to regulate their behavior, fungi to mate and human cells to notify each other of threats. This type of chemical communication has inspired researchers to devise their own means to join these conversations so they can give cells instructions. While some studies have examined micro- or nano-scale particles that communicate with one type of cell, the use of particles to enable communication between two different types of cells has not been explored."

Comment: dhw how to cells exchange design ideas with these molecular signals? Not the real subject of this article, but it makes a point I wanted to present.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Thursday, March 17, 2022, 09:21 (105 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] do you think [your God] deliberately planned life as a “constant war to survive by eating”? Or do you think he was unable to devise a system that did not demand war? Please answer.

DAVID: I think you have invented a pacifistic complaint about God. What would humans be like as pastoral animals? An aggressive nature produces progress. I'm delighted with God's approach. Life started with bacteria attacking each other. […]

dhw: Presumably this means you think your God deliberately designed life to be a “constant war to survive by eating”. […] The concept of a free-for-all war would certainly be more interesting for him to watch than what you regard as “pacificistic” and “pastoral”, and maybe he even shares your own apparent delight in aggression.

DAVID: Why is it so important to you that God allows organisms to self-design? How does that help you solve the issue of whether God exists? I'll add an article today about directed mutation which follows on a previous entry.

This has nothing to do with the question of God’s existence! IF he exists, I’d like to know what our world might reveal of his possible nature, purpose and method. You now appear to believe that your God deliberately created a system of war and aggression rather than a pacifistic, pastoral system. And yet I thought you believed he was a kind God. You reject the possibility of an interesting free-for-all, so please tell us why you think he wanted war. Meanwhile, here is your “added article”:

Evidence of non-random mutation
QUOTE: These results upend the traditional example of random mutation and natural selection, turning it into an example of a nonrandom yet non-Lamarckian mutation. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Wow! Here we see just the mechanism dhw proposes in a very specific limited example, changing hemoglobin into form malaria cannot enter. And it doesn't seem a chance random mutation. But this is not at the level of complex phenotypical or physiological design dhw wants God to give organisms.

This has nothing to do with God’s deliberate creation of life as “a constant war to survive by eating”, but I’m delighted to see such support for my theory. Thank you. (I agree that it doesn’t necessarily extend to innovations. That is why we only have a theory and not a fact.)

Carnivorous plants

dhw: […] thank you for confirming my view that each new attack requires a new response, as opposed to your God having already issued instructions in advance. The library grows with each new response, i.e. the disease and the protection do not arrive simultaneously.

DAVID: The response is instantaneous, but antibody production takes a little time. Killer immune cells are immediately active.

An instantaneous response that fails to kill the invader is not going to add a new volume to the library. The need to produce new antibodies makes it abundantly clear that the disease and the protection do NOT arrive simultaneously!

BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS

DAVID: Must be designed all at once at the time the first real brains appeared, or brained life would not have survived.

It's possible that just like all other organs and organisms, they were subjected to toxins and antigens, and in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”, in due course they developed their own forms of protection. No doubt many would have died before the cells were able to design this means of survival. Again, the attack would have preceded development of the defence. Just a theory.

Cell complexity increases

DAVID: My instant decisions are from information in my brain developed by repeated practice. All cell automaticity is guided by intelligent instructions.

Of course it is. And the question is where those instructions come from. You think a Turell decision sets the automatic Turell processes in motion. The theory you detest is that a cell decision sets the automatic cell processes in motion.

Bird migration

DAVID: Birds use God-given senses, and you carefully avoided the main point of the origin of the decision to migrate enormous distances.

If God exists, we also use God-given senses in order to make our decisions about where to go and how to get there. You just can’t imagine that birds might observe and learn and calibrate and recognize places without your God preprogramming them or planting a self-driving sat nav in their brains. I see this as the main point, but as regards the origin, my guess would be that when the first flocks found themselves freezing in England, they decided to get away to warmer climes. Who can blame them? I expect millions died in the search, but once a flock had found a sunny spot – no matter how far away – that became the destination for all their descendants. What’s your theory?

How cells communicate

QUOTE: "In nature, many cells send and receive chemical signals. This strategy allows bacteria to regulate their behavior, fungi to mate and human cells to notify each other of threats.

DAVID: dhw how do cells exchange design ideas with these molecular signals?

These molecular signals are their language. If they can notify each other of threats, why should they not be able to notify each other of means to counter the threats, and of means to threaten others in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 17, 2022, 15:47 (104 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why is it so important to you that God allows organisms to self-design? How does that help you solve the issue of whether God exists? I'll add an article today about directed mutation which follows on a previous entry.

dhw: This has nothing to do with the question of God’s existence! IF he exists, I’d like to know what our world might reveal of his possible nature, purpose and method. You now appear to believe that your God deliberately created a system of war and aggression rather than a pacifistic, pastoral system. And yet I thought you believed he was a kind God. You reject the possibility of an interesting free-for-all, so please tell us why you think he wanted war.

Total sidestep of my direct question.

Meanwhile, here is your “added article”:


Evidence of non-random mutation
QUOTE: These results upend the traditional example of random mutation and natural selection, turning it into an example of a nonrandom yet non-Lamarckian mutation. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Wow! Here we see just the mechanism dhw proposes in a very specific limited example, changing hemoglobin into form malaria cannot enter. And it doesn't seem a chance random mutation. But this is not at the level of complex phenotypical or physiological design dhw wants God to give organisms.

dhw: This has nothing to do with God’s deliberate creation of life as “a constant war to survive by eating”, but I’m delighted to see such support for my theory. Thank you. (I agree that it doesn’t necessarily extend to innovations. That is why we only have a theory and not a fact.)

It shows more design at work. Another nail in Darwinism.


Carnivorous plants

DAVID: The response is instantaneous, but antibody production takes a little time. Killer immune cells are immediately active.

dhw: An instantaneous response that fails to kill the invader is not going to add a new volume to the library. The need to produce new antibodies makes it abundantly clear that the disease and the protection do NOT arrive simultaneously!

Neutrophils are spontaneous first responders.


BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS

DAVID: Must be designed all at once at the time the first real brains appeared, or brained life would not have survived.

dhw: It's possible that just like all other organs and organisms, they were subjected to toxins and antigens, and in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”, in due course they developed their own forms of protection. No doubt many would have died before the cells were able to design this means of survival. Again, the attack would have preceded development of the defence. Just a theory.

More just-so wooliness


Bird migration

DAVID: Birds use God-given senses, and you carefully avoided the main point of the origin of the decision to migrate enormous distances.

dhw: If God exists, we also use God-given senses in order to make our decisions about where to go and how to get there. You just can’t imagine that birds might observe and learn and calibrate and recognize places without your God preprogramming them or planting a self-driving sat nav in their brains...I expect millions died in the search, but once a flock had found a sunny spot – no matter how far away – that became the destination for all their descendants. What’s your theory?

God. Another just-so wooliness theory. we are considering thousands of miles just to find a spot


How cells communicate

QUOTE: "In nature, many cells send and receive chemical signals. This strategy allows bacteria to regulate their behavior, fungi to mate and human cells to notify each other of threats.

DAVID: dhw how do cells exchange design ideas with these molecular signals?

dhw: These molecular signals are their language. If they can notify each other of threats, why should they not be able to notify each other of means to counter the threats, and of means to threaten others in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”.

You have not described the ability to think to accomplish complex design in your favored cell committees.

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Friday, March 18, 2022, 09:54 (104 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why is it so important to you that God allows organisms to self-design? How does that help you solve the issue of whether God exists? I'll add an article today about directed mutation which follows on a previous entry.

dhw: This has nothing to do with the question of God’s existence! IF he exists, I’d like to know what our world might reveal of his possible nature, purpose and method. You now appear to believe that your God deliberately created a system of war and aggression rather than a pacifistic, pastoral system. And yet I thought you believed he was a kind God. You reject the possibility of an interesting free-for-all, so please tell us why you think he wanted war.

DAVID: Total sidestep of my direct question. Meanwhile, here is your “added article”:

I have explained why self-design is important to me: if God exists, I’d like to know his purpose and method. Meanwhile, please answer my own question.
The added article supported the case for non-random mutation.

dhw: This has nothing to do with God’s deliberate creation of life as “a constant war to survive by eating”, but I’m delighted to see such support for my theory. Thank you. (I agree that it doesn’t necessarily extend to innovations. That is why we only have a theory and not a fact.)

DAVID: It shows more design at work. Another nail in Darwinism.

And a neat way of dodging the “war” issue. Please tell us why you think your God wanted a constant war of survival between his creations.

Carnivorous plants

DAVID: The response is instantaneous, but antibody production takes a little time. Killer immune cells are immediately active.

dhw: An instantaneous response that fails to kill the invader is not going to add a new volume to the library. The need to produce new antibodies makes it abundantly clear that the disease and the protection do NOT arrive simultaneously!

DAVID: Neutrophils are spontaneous first responders.

How does that come to mean that any failure to kill the invader denotes the simultaneous presence of disease and cure?

BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS

DAVID: Must be designed all at once at the time the first real brains appeared, or brained life would not have survived.

dhw: It's possible that just like all other organs and organisms, they were subjected to toxins and antigens, and in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”, in due course they developed their own forms of protection. No doubt many would have died before the cells were able to design this means of survival. Again, the attack would have preceded development of the defence. Just a theory.

DAVID: More just-so wooliness.

No more just-so and woolly than your theory that an unknown and sourceless conscious being preprogrammed all these processes 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively kept popping in to deliver new instructions, give courses, or perform operations. (If that being exists, I would regard the process as less woolly if he simply endowed all organisms with the ability to design their own forms of attack and defence.)

Bird migration

DAVID: Birds use God-given senses, and you carefully avoided the main point of the origin of the decision to migrate enormous distances.

dhw: If God exists, we also use God-given senses in order to make our decisions about where to go and how to get there. You just can’t imagine that birds might observe and learn and calibrate and recognize places without your God preprogramming them or planting a self-driving sat nav in their brains...I expect millions died in the search, but once a flock had found a sunny spot – no matter how far away – that became the destination for all their descendants. What’s your theory?

DAVID: God. Another just-so wooliness theory. we are considering thousands of miles just to find a spot.

So why is it OK for God to choose a spot thousands of miles away, but just-so woolly if birds do it?

How cells communicate

DAVID: dhw how do cells exchange design ideas with these molecular signals?

dhw: These molecular signals are their language. If they can notify each other of threats, why should they not be able to notify each other of means to counter the threats, and of means to threaten others in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”?

DAVID: You have not described the ability to think to accomplish complex design in your favored cell committees.

And as usual you have ignored my question. As I said in my response to the article supporting cellular intelligence: I agree that it doesn’t necessarily extend to innovations. That is why we only have a theory and not a fact.

Cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Friday, March 18, 2022, 18:56 (103 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And a neat way of dodging the “war” issue. Please tell us why you think your God wanted a constant war of survival between his creations.

You still haven't resolved the issue of everyone has to eat, and plants have to absorb nutrients. The life system we have requires constant homeostasis, which means a constant energy requirement to support it. What kind of non-war life do you imagine?


Carnivorous plants

DAVID: The response is instantaneous, but antibody production takes a little time. Killer immune cells are immediately active.

dhw: An instantaneous response that fails to kill the invader is not going to add a new volume to the library. The need to produce new antibodies makes it abundantly clear that the disease and the protection do NOT arrive simultaneously!

DAVID: Neutrophils are spontaneous first responders.

dhw: How does that come to mean that any failure to kill the invader denotes the simultaneous presence of disease and cure?

The immune system we have is a stepwise response, first the attack cells and then antibodies


BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS

DAVID: Must be designed all at once at the time the first real brains appeared, or brained life would not have survived.

dhw: It's possible that just like all other organs and organisms, they were subjected to toxins and antigens, and in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”, in due course they developed their own forms of protection. No doubt many would have died before the cells were able to design this means of survival. Again, the attack would have preceded development of the defence. Just a theory.

DAVID: More just-so wooliness.

dhw: No more just-so and woolly than your theory that an unknown and sourceless conscious being preprogrammed all these processes 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively kept popping in to deliver new instructions, give courses, or perform operations. (If that being exists, I would regard the process as less woolly if he simply endowed all organisms with the ability to design their own forms of attack and defence.)

God gave us great defenses. Developing defense systems on the fly takes too much time.


Bird migration

DAVID: God. Another just-so wooliness theory. we are considering thousands of miles just to find a spot.

dhw: So why is it OK for God to choose a spot thousands of miles away, but just-so woolly if birds do it?

Tell me a logical way for birds to decide on a winter resort over 10,000 miles distant and do it every year?


How cells communicate

DAVID: dhw how do cells exchange design ideas with these molecular signals?

dhw: These molecular signals are their language. If they can notify each other of threats, why should they not be able to notify each other of means to counter the threats, and of means to threaten others in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”?

DAVID: You have not described the ability to think to accomplish complex design in your favored cell committees.

dhw: And as usual you have ignored my question. As I said in my response to the article supporting cellular intelligence: I agree that it doesn’t necessarily extend to innovations. That is why we only have a theory and not a fact.

And your theory still is cells can design for their future. How?

Cellular intelligence

by dhw, Saturday, March 19, 2022, 07:49 (103 days ago) @ David Turell

Carnivorous plants

dhw: An instantaneous response that fails to kill the invader is not going to add a new volume to the library. The need to produce new antibodies makes it abundantly clear that the disease and the protection do NOT arrive simultaneously! (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Neutrophils are spontaneous first responders.

dhw: How does that come to mean that any failure to kill the invader denotes the simultaneous presence of disease and cure?

DAVID: The immune system we have is a stepwise response, first the attack cells and then antibodies.

Thank you for agreeing that the disease and the protection do NOT arrive simultaneously after all.

BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS

DAVID: Must be designed all at once at the time the first real brains appeared, or brained life would not have survived.

dhw: It's possible that just like all other organs and organisms, they were subjected to toxins and antigens, and in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”, in due course they developed their own forms of protection. No doubt many would have died before the cells were able to design this means of survival. Again, the attack would have preceded development of the defence. Just a theory.

DAVID: More just-so wooliness.

dhw: No more just-so and woolly than your theory that an unknown and sourceless conscious being preprogrammed all these processes 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively kept popping in to deliver new instructions, give courses, or perform operations. (If that being exists, I would regard the process as less woolly if he simply endowed all organisms with the ability to design their own forms of attack and defence.)

DAVID: God gave us great defenses. Developing defense systems on the fly takes too much time.

You have just agreed that the your God’s defence system proceeds stepwise, and unfortunately it is such that vast numbers of organisms can die before the system comes up with a cure. In fact sometimes, we ourselves have to step in to give it a hand. That doesn’t fit in too well with your image of an all-powerful, all-knowing God, does it? Whereas if he created an autonomous mechanism to handle attack and defence in the constant war to survive, inevitably there would always have to be winners and losers.

Bird migration

dhw: What's your theory?

DAVID: God. Another just-so wooliness theory. we are considering thousands of miles just to find a spot.

dhw: So why is it OK for God to choose a spot thousands of miles away, but just-so woolly if birds do it?

DAVID: Tell me a logical way for birds to decide on a winter resort over 10,000 miles distant and do it every year?

I told you last time. It would have originated with a search, and when a suitable spot was found, it was remembered and the details were passed on. Now would you please answer my bolded question.

How cells communicate

DAVID: dhw how do cells exchange design ideas with these molecular signals?

dhw: These molecular signals are their language. If they can notify each other of threats, why should they not be able to notify each other of means to counter the threats, and of means to threaten others in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”?

DAVID: You have not described the ability to think to accomplish complex design in your favored cell committees.

dhw: And as usual you have ignored my question. As I said in my response to the article supporting cellular intelligence: I agree that it doesn’t necessarily extend to innovations. That is why we only have a theory and not a fact.

DAVID: And your theory still is cells can design for their future. How?

As you well know, my theory has NEVER been that they design for the future. They design in response to current conditions. If they can adapt to or exploit these conditions, they will have a future. Now would you please answer my bolded question above.