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

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 12, 2019, 18:56 (1873 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I did not throw out pre-programming as a reasonable theory. Twisted over-interpreting as usual. Dabbling is the other alternative if God creates species as I believe.

dhw: I described how your bacteria apparently distribute programmes for the whole of evolution, and you found it very funny. If my description was inaccurate, please tell us how else they could have done it.

Bacteria don't do anything with future use of the genome. They only have access to what they are programmed to use. Whenever advances in speciation occur, it is due to activation of a portion of the genome for that advance.

DAVID: Redesigning an ape pelvis to a human pelvis is not itty-bitty, considering the birthing issues that also arise. Chimp brain (400 cc) to human (1,200 cc) in 200 cc jumps is anything but itty-bitty. You present a very skewed view of evolutionary biological changes, just to sneak in your cell committees.

dhw: If, over millions of years, your God specially designed big toes, pelvises, mini brains and maxi brains and all the other bits and pieces that distinguish H. sapiens from pre-hominins, you have a stage by stage or itty-bitty design of H. sapiens.

Yes, God deigns parts, but then H. habilis jumps to H. erectus with all those parts which have now been designed for change in place. You have tried to introduce itty-bitty where it dos not exist. You know full well all major speciation introduces gaps!

DAVID: 90% of scientists are atheists. What interpretation did you expect? Remember the chances are still either/or.

dhw: You asked me what “more and more” scientists, and I have told you! So now you do a complete volte face and tell us that 90% of scientists reject your automaticity but let’s not listen to them because they are atheists!

I will interpret sources as I evaluate their biases! Still 50/50.

dhw: One digression after another. I wrote that more and more scientists accept the concept of cellular intelligence, and you asked: “What ‘more and more scientists’? You keep quoting your tiny list.” ....Do you accept that more and more scientists now favour the concept of cellular intelligence?

The final description of a scientific theory requires a paradigm shift due to enough convincing discoveries (Kuhn) and we are obviously not at that point in the known facts. It is still 50/50 although a majority try to say that cells show intelligence in their activities. Yes, they do, but it can be automatic from intelligent instruction/information.

DAVID (under “Biological complexity”): There is lots of cross talk and communication between all parts of the cells:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00792-9?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...

DAVID: All of this is automatic activity as the cell produces its products. A complex going factory. Huge article, hard to compress.

dhw: Thank you for giving us the gist- much appreciated. I keep pointing out that most cellular activity has to be automatic if a particular system is to survive intact, and intelligence will only be applied (a) when the system first comes into existence, and (b) when there are new conditions, e.g. new problems to be solved or new opportunities to be exploited. In my hypothesis, that is when cross talk and communication – essential elements of intelligent cooperation – precede intelligent decision-making, which in turn produces more automatic activity as new instructions are implemented.

As you state: intelligence will only be applied (a) when the system first comes into existence, and (b) when there are new conditions, e.g. new problems to be solved or new opportunities to be exploited. And what I can see is that you are describing the exact need for design and a designer. Our only experiences always show is that such complex systems require design and a designer.