bacterial intelligence shown to be DNA driven (Animals)

by David Turell , Tuesday, October 10, 2017, 14:56 (2387 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The very fact that there is no consensus among the experts should make it clear to you that neither hypothesis is “beyond possibility”.
DAVID: Of course not.
dhw: Thank you. This is an important agreement, since it is key to the whole debate on how evolution has happened.
DAVID: Really?

dhw: Have you “really” not understood the three theistic evolutionary hypotheses on offer? Let me remind you yet again:
1) God created a mechanism of random mutations. (Rejected by both of us.)
2) God controlled the whole of evolution by a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, or by personal intervention which we have called dabbling.
3) God allowed evolution to run its own course by creating an autonomous inventive mechanism which I have called cellular intelligence.
Your agreement that cellular intelligence is NOT “beyond possibility” is key to hypothesis 3). That does not mean hypothesis 3) is now proven. It means that hypothesis 3) is possible.

I believe I said that since God is universal consciousness His consciousness could be extended into the cellular level. I still believe cellular responses are automatic.

Xxxx

DAVID's comment: These scientists act like God might. If the instructions are put into bacterial DNA the bacteria act automatically to respond to them. Bacteria are automatic responders obviously. Note I have subverted the point of the article to support my theories, just as I have a perfect right to use Shapiro in my interpretations.

dhw: If you insert certain chemicals into the human body, you can completely change the behaviour of the person concerned. Hypnosis is said to have the same effect. Humans “are automatic responders obviously”. No? Then why do you draw different conclusions from the same process?

Anesthetics put one to sleep temporarily. Psychedelics cause experiences which are transient. The bacteria are totally changed. Your statement is not correct.