An inventive mechanism: another outside discussion (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, October 10, 2014, 15:31 (3477 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I was naturally disappointed that there was no mention of the crucial need for more research into what McClintock called “knowledge the cell has of itself, and how it utilizes this knowledge in a ‘thoughtful' manner when challenged.”-DAVID: Overintrepreting McClintock as usual. Shapiro, her acolyte, describes how the genome is changed by methylation, etc. The genome of the cells is in charge. Remember the genome is in the nucleus which has a semipermeable membrane and it receives molecular information from the rest of the cell which reports stimuli it is receiving from its outer membrane to the nucleus. There is a hierarchy of control I'm trying to get you to recognize. You are lumping and I am splitting tp follow the lines of control.-There is no interpretation let alone overinterpretation here. I am simply quoting McClintock, who used the term “cell”, whereas presumably you want her to use the term “genome”. Yes, there is a hierarchy, yes the “brain” is in control of the cell, but when someone says humans are inventive, have knowledge of themselves, and utilize their knowledge, we don't protest and say “the brain is in charge”, “there is a hierarchy of control”, and therefore you can't say humans are inventive, you must say human brains are inventive. I have recognized the hierarchy of control. When I first suggested that cells may have an intelligent, autonomous, inventive mechanism which was the equivalent of the brain, I was aware of the fact that this mechanism would direct operations. It must be about eighteen months ago that I even drew your attention to the work of Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, who said that the centrosome was the control centre or “brain” of the cell, but in those days you were still insisting that the cell was an automaton with no “brain” of its own. You may be splitting to follow the lines of control. You are also splitting hairs and, to mix metaphors, flogging dead horses. Time to move on.
 
DAVID: Yes, intelligence is needed. Did you read the other part of the reference in which old-time Darwinists are agast at their proposal and they almost fully reject it? And you bring up the subject of environmental change. Perhaps evolution is simply a method of overcoming vast changes in nature. What was present on Earth 3.7 byo is not today's Earth. Vast changes. Perhaps life's responses, as an evolutionary mechanism, are totally driven by nature. Chicxulub and the dinos!-Atheistic Darwinists will always cling to randomness and will be aghast at any suggestion of “intelligence”, just as some theistic Darwinists will always cling to their version of divine purpose and will be aghast at any suggestion that their God might not have been in complete control of evolution. But I don't think evolution is a matter solely of overcoming vast changes in Nature. The whole point of an inventive mechanism would be that it can exploit the opportunities offered by change, so broadly speaking I'd say evolution is a mixture of overcoming changes (adaptation) and making use of them to invent new forms of life (innovation).