Genome complexity: what genes do and don't do (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, February 04, 2019, 15:20 (1909 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We disagree about the source of the colored portion of the second quote as you note below.

dhw: so you agree that the cell communities (organism) use the passive information, but you disagree. (See below re the “library”).

You constantly stick to your interpretations of cell intelligence when below the quotes indicate they use available info.

dhw: So cells already know all the information necessary for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution, and along with that, your God has provided them with all the instructions necessary for picking out the one instruction (out of the billions) required for their particular situation. And this is your fixed belief?

Unless I see research to convince me otherwise

QUOTES from “How cells use genetic information”, with dhw’s bold:

"[The scientists] found that during embryo formation fruit fly cells use “all information available from the genetic code” to position themselves within a single cell’s width of where they are supposed to be.

“'The theoretical idea is very simple, which is that every cell is using all the information that it can squeeze out of the relevant genes," says physicist William Bialek.

“One can imagine cells as GPS devices which, instead of satellite signals, collect molecular ones to figure out their locations.”

“'This gives us an amazing tool for understanding how decision-making in biology actually works,

DAVID’s comment: Note the automaticity of the cells response to changed directions. The scientists could not have gotten these results if the cells did not automatically follow the substituted gene patterns.

dhw: Where do you find automaticity in these quotes? GPS devices are a form of artificial intelligence. If you changed the information from the satellite, no doubt you would be able to predict which way the GPS would send you. Fruit flies are not man-made: their intelligence is natural. The article says they “figure” things out, and if the information is changed, they change their response. So would you.

My bolds are all analogies that are imagined by the authors. The scientists re-directed cell activity by changing genes and the cells changed. The genes told them to change! All we know is the cells know how to interpret gene instructions. "An amazing tool' bold is the scientists praising heir new technique! All comment hyperbole. Remember these guys live by grant money, which they have to justify by touting their results. Please keep that in mind when you swallow the propaganda hook line and sinker. An interesting point: do you fully understand how the grant game is conducted?? I've had grants.

DAVID: This still does [not] tell us how genes act to create the final physical results they control. We do see they order the production of certain proteins at certain places b ut we do not know exactly how they exert their controls. We just see beginning and end but not much of the middle molecular activity.

dhw: Precisely. We do not know how cells exert their controls.

Misinterpreted. Note I said the genes control cell reactions. We don't know how that is done. Cells access the gene and respond. All we know is from outside the actual process. The gene may precisely tell the cell what to do, which is to make a precise set of protein molecules, and in this case placed at a precise position. An automatic response to direct instructions.

dhw: And yet you insist that, in spite of Shapiro & Co and the article you quoted and initially agreed with, the control cannot possibly be cellular intelligence but must be a 3.8-billion-year-old library of information together with a 3.8 billion-year-old set of instructions for every single situation in life's history bar those that your God dabbles in directly.

I still have a totally different interpretation as seen in my current comments.