bacterial intelligence shown to be DNA driven (Animals)

by dhw, Saturday, October 14, 2017, 13:10 (2386 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Totally misses the point. The bacteria are responding to DNA alterations of living instructions. My battered body still has an intact DNA. Comparing injury to changing instructions. Apples and oranges.
dhw: So are you telling me that if scientists were given a totally free hand to mess about with human DNA (as they can with bacteria) in whatever part of the body they chose, they would not be able to change the person concerned?
DAVID: Messing with DNA was my point, NOW its yours. A fully formed human will not be changed, unless your scientist altered the DNA of neurons to change human behaviour. Way off the original point.

Scientists altered the behaviour of bacteria by fiddling with their DNA. I gave examples of behaviour being altered by the physical effects of poisons, injuries and viruses, but you rejected them because your point concerned fiddling with DNA. I have therefore replied by returning to DNA. You tell us that if scientists altered the DNA of neurons, they would change human behaviour. Of course bacteria do not have a nervous system or a brain, but you have kindly extended my quotes from experts in the field who believe they have an equivalent. Same process, then.

DAVID: I don't know if Shapiro really disagrees with me. He says bacteria can edit their DNA. That could be an automatic God-given mechanism. Shapiro was president of his Jewish Temple.
How often do I have to quote him? And you can add Jeffrey Stock. And belief in bacterial intelligence does not make you an atheist!
From ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/the-secret-life-of-bacteria--...
You now go on to quote Jeffrey Stock, who concludes:

“Intelligence is about taking information in the environment and making decisions that are advantageous to the organism. Koshland said that there's no question that bacteria are the most intelligent organisms on earth, at least on a per gram weight basis because they are so small."

You said you didn’t know if Shapiro disagreed with you. So now we have Shapiro, Stockland and Koshland disagreeing with you. Thank you for adding to the lengthening list.

DAVID: Just because we don't know how it works, does not mean it is not automatic. And it is too complex for chance. Intelligent design instructions are just that. The mind of God at work.

So you have quoted yet more of your opponents in order to tell us you disagree with them all. As I keep saying, there is no consensus, and therefore cellular intelligence remains a possibility. If, as you say, Shapiro is a theist, I’m sure he will agree that bacterial intelligence is too complex for chance and must have been created by your God.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

QUOTE: "Many bacteria have molecular control elements via which they can switch genes on and off. These riboswitches also open up new options in the development of antibiotics or the detection and decomposition of environmental toxins.
***
"Riboswitches are located on the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) that transports genetic information to the site of protein biosynthesis. A riboswitch consists of a sensor measuring the concentration of a small metabolic molecule and an effector controlling gene expression and, hence, synthesis of a protein. (DAVID’s bold)

David’s comment: Note my bold. The riboswitch has a sensor which is following protein levels. It senses and automatically acts. This is the 'intelligence' a bacteria exhibits. All comes from intelligent design and planned instructions.

Humans have all kinds of control elements via which they switch this, that and the other on and off. Humans, like bacteria, are physical beings, and there are automatic processes as well as directed processes. Shapiro and his colleagues tell us that the latter (such as decision-making, in your quote from the microbiologist Jeffrey Stock) are directed by intelligence and are not automatic. You disagree.