Genome complexity: variation within species (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, December 10, 2016, 22:13 (2687 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As always, a powerful case for design. But design of what? A microcosm within a macrocosm? “DNA tells our cells what to do…a mechanism that can recognize…like an individual intelligent agent…try to come up with a way…self-awareness…respond in several ways…” So many of the actions and attributes we associate with intelligence – and yet we are not even aware of them. It’s as if we are inhabited by a colony of ants, each with their own particular role to play, but constantly communicating, adapting, making decisions in the world that is you or me. It’s what some scientists call cellular intelligence.

The design comes from the intelligent information in DNA. The entire design of the organism. The source of that information is what you and I debate.

xxxxxxx

David’s comment: It is becoming recognized that alternate metabolic pathways may be present in many species, as I noted in our previous discussions about bacteria responding to antibiotics (can't find the reference). The species is still one species. It is not a new evolutionary process as the articles headline proclaim.

dhw: May I suggest that if the killifish is able to cope so quickly with different pollutants, what it carries before the sites are polluted is not an alternative metabolic pathway anticipating whatever might happen next, but the ability to process new information and change its genome accordingly – which means it can construct a new metabolic pathway to cope with each new threat.

On the other hand the article clearly suggests there are variable individuals in the species some of whom can handle the pollution and survive. If the fish are living in pollution they might not survive long enough to produce enough generations of offspring with the ability to survive. You are stretching your theory about cellular abilities to adapt on their own at high speed. I'll repeat current scientific thought as in bacteria. Species variation allows some individuals to survive and adapt the species to a new challenge.

dhw: And I would suggest that this applies to all processes of adaptation, though different organisms will have different capacities for change. You are quite right: this is not the same as innovation. It is simply confirmation that the genome can be changed when an organism experiences new conditions.

This is certainly true if new conditions are not severe and allow for several generations of change.

dhw:We don’t know how far the ability for change can extend. Or do you still think your God put each alternative metabolic pathway for all eventualities into the first cells to pass on to the killifish a few thousand million years later?

Many species have variable individuals who can survive changes, nothing more.

xxxxxxx

dhw: Nobody has yet solved the problem of defining species ... But what is really interesting is the variability between individuals. This would explain how common descent works. Changes can only take place in individuals, and individuals are different. So some will respond to environmental change and others won’t. So far we only know of adaptation and non-adaptation (those that can’t respond will die). But it is conceivable that the variation will also apply to innovation. Some organisms may have the wherewithal to invent. In much the same way as some humans are creative, and some are not.

All organisms can adapt to some degree. To invent a new species is a whole different ball game. Darwin theory has no explanation for it.