Bacterial motors carefully studied (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Monday, April 11, 2016, 15:37 (981 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: I do reject chance, and I accept purpose and design, but that is the whole point of my hypothesis: that instead of design being “guided” by God, it is carried out by autonomous, intelligent cell communities (perhaps invented by God), and the purpose is self-improvement, not the production and feeding of humans.... I agree that only minds could do it, and so the question is: do cells have minds? Not human minds, but cell minds that are sentient, cognitive, communicative, cooperative, and capable of taking decisions. You say no, and others say yes. Even the yes, however, does not guarantee that those cell minds are capable of such complex innovations. I have never denied the problem of complexity.

I don't think that you have any notion of the complexity of living organic chemistry.


dhw: The complexity is the consideration, .... Both our hypotheses come up against questions they cannot answer, and there is no “evidence” for divine preprogramming or dabbling or autonomous cell communities producing innovations. But at least my proposal offers a cohesive explanation of the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution.

If I can cajole you, please watch the first 15 or so minutes of this lecture by a Rice U. professor who makes synthetic organic molecules as is profession, in a discussion of origin of life. But what he describers goes on every day in the living body after life starts:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/james-tour-on-the-hypocrisy-of-origin-of-...

I apologize that he is a terrible lecturer, but the point he makes about the intricacies of protein production in living tissues is right on. Your cell committees have no chance of ever making a major modification of form, style or structure in speciation. My large organism chauvinism is valid!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum