cellular intelligence (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, October 18, 2020, 14:04 (1283 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I view multicellularity as a much more complex arrangement than single cells cooperating. That is a step on the way, just as Edicarans were multicellular but so much simpler than Cambrians.

dhw: What else is multicellularity if it is not single cells cooperating? The increasing complexity would be the result of millions and millions of years during which cells increased their range of activity and knowledge as they met with new conditions.

DAVID: The cooperation in multicellularity is each cell in each organ working for a common purpose, each organ working with the other organs for common purpose.

Correct. You’ve summed it up beautifully.

DAVID: The cells are trapped in a network of controls. Cell committees don't speciate.

Why “trapped”? The cells have formed a network of controls. Your last sentence is a complete non sequitur!
[…]
DAVID: There is no question God gave organisms the ability to adapt to changing conditions, but that does not mean they could self-speciate.

dhw: Do you agree, then, that adaptation is an autonomous mechanism, or do you think your God pre-planned every adaptation 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to dabble each one? You are quite right that adaptation is not the same as speciation, but it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between the two (e.g. pre-whales adapting to marine life, with legs giving way to fins). The theory therefore remains feasible: if there is a mechanism for cells autonomously restructuring themselves to make minor changes, maybe they were able to make major changes as well.

DAVID: You can have that 'maybe' approach. I think only a designer can speciate

“Maybe” applies to all theories, including your divine preprogramming or dabbling of every life form and natural wonder in the history of life on Earth. Feasibility is the best we can do. Thank you for the maybe.

DAVID: I don't know how God ran the process of evolution, as you note, but my thoughts are not unreasonable.

dhw: What is unreasonable is (a) your total rejection of what you agree is a 50/50 chance (cellular intelligence), and (b) your whole anthropocentric theory of evolution (= direct design) as dissected on various threads.

DAVID: I don't reject that cells act intelligently.

You usually add that they do so with guidelines from your God. I apologize for the misunderstanding and welcome you to the happy group of us who accept the feasibility of autonomous cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Shapiro tells us bacteria can edit their genome. Great example. Which I think is a God=given attribute God gave them.

dhw: Wonderful. If a single cell can edit its genome, it makes perfect sense to assume that lots of cells can edit their genome. Hence the birth of the intelligent cell community and a simple explanation for how evolution works: every cell community edits its genome in order to adapt to or exploit changing conditions, as exemplified by single-celled bacteria.

DAVID: The problem is the evidence is in free-living bacteria who are responsible for their own survival and must have that ability. In multicellular organisms most cells are simply cogs in parts of constructive activities.

Thank you for conceding that single-celled bacteria are “free-living”. This is real progress. If free-living organisms join together to cooperate, they will need to reach consensus on what action they take. They too are responsible for their survival, which is no doubt why they joined together. Yes of course “most of the cells” become cogs! But the constructive activities must be directed. So if a single-celled organism can provide its own directions, why do you think it's impossible for a colony of cooperating single-celled organisms to produce its own directions?

DAVID: The only way change occurs is change in the genome of germ cells. Bacteria reproduce by simply splitting, which makes them in full control of any change, and so far Lenski's E. coli are still E. coli after enormous numbers of generations.

Yes, the genome has to change if there is to be a new species. That is why we talk of new genes and of restructuring old genes. And yes, single-celled bacteria do very nicely, but at some time some free-living bacteria decided to form communities, and those are the ones that branched out into all the species that have formed the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth.

Under “information flow”:
QUOTE: Each human cell has an information network like a subway system underpinning the function of one of the world's major cities. Instead of human couriers, within our cells, messenger RNAs (mRNAs) carry information. Thousands of mRNAs emerge from the cell's nucleus with instructions for cellular functions and disappear into the cytoplasm when their duties are fulfilled.

DAVID: Amazing. Messenger RNA can be watched and followed. Each cell nucleus is in automatic control of the factory output using its information content.

It sounds just like an ant colony, with each ant running round performing its particular duty. I agree that the messengers act automatically – their job is to obey. The question is where the instructions come from, and the article suggests that the intelligence lies within the nucleus of the cell. That would also be the source of the autonomous, free-living intelligence of the single bacterium.