https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181222180749.htm

"Roots are critical for plants to acquire water and soluble nutrients from the soil. Water is essential for plant growth, yet changing climatic conditions makes acquiring moisture from soil even more challenging. Plants are able to adapt to different soil moisture conditions by altering their root architecture, but up until now, it was not understood how this is done.

"Root branches only form when in direct contact with soil moisture using an adaptive response termed 'hydropatterning'. Professor Malcolm Bennett of the University of Nottingham, and Professor Ari Sadanandom from the Department of Biosciences at Durham University, discovered that hydropatterning is controlled by a branching master gene called ARF7. Their teams observed plant roots lacking ARF7 were no longer able to hydropattern. The researchers concluded that when roots are exposed to moisture ARF7 remains active and promotes root branching, but when exposed to air, ARF7 is modified and inactivated, blocking root branching.

"'Plants are relatively immobile and therefore their growth and development is very much dependent on their environment. Our research has identified the particular protein which can modify, and even inactivate root branching, therefore limiting plant growth and development.
"This is hugely exciting as it opens up the possibility for us to adapt this protein interaction and potentially develop plants that could continue to branch roots even in challenging conditions such as water scarcity."

"Professor Bennett concluded: "Water is critical for plant growth, development and, ultimately, their survival. Surprisingly, understanding how plants sense water availability has eluded scientists until now. By studying how plant roots modify their branching in response to water availability, we have uncovered a novel molecular mechanism."

Comment: The finding is a logical result. Root cells have sensor molecules which direct growth of roots toward water, under this genetic control. The issue is how did it evolve naturally, because if the ability did not exist in the initial plants, they would not have survived, except in very wet areas. Why did plants end up in semi-arid areas unless they had this ability? They would not have attempted such areas unless they had this ability, which suggests they had to be designed for this ability .

DAVID: No I don't. A shift in one amino acid does the trick. Bacteria have thousands of enzymes in which this could happen. Nylonase is one recent example.

If they can produce thousands of enzymes, how do they know which ones to produce in any given situation? Do you think they are not aware of the different conditions and opportunities, and the necessary choices are made for them without them even knowing? When we produce antibiotics, and bacteria die by the millions before finding their own solution, what happened to their automatic mechanism for selecting the appropriate “shift”?

xxx

dhw: Here are some examples of bacterial intelligence listed on Wikipedia. You will say they are automatic, and others will say they are evidence of intelligence. (My bold)
Microbial intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
[…]
DAVID: All of which can be automatic.
dhw: As predicted above. And as you so rightly said, your opinion is no more valid than that of the scientists who say the examples (as listed under “Microbial intelligence”) are the product of intelligence. And so you cannot claim that science supports your rejection of my hypothesis that cellular intelligence might be a driving force behind evolution.
DAVID: I will stick to my observation that every reaction which is elucidated turns out to show automaticity.

It is not an observation; it is an opinion. As you very well know, other scientists have observed reactions and “elucidated” them as manifestations of intelligence.

dhw: Here are some examples of bacterial intelligence listed on Wikipedia. You will say they are automatic, and others will say they are evidence of intelligence. (My bold)

Microbial intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
[…]

DAVID: All of which can be automatic.

dhw: As predicted above. And as you so rightly said, your opinion is no more valid than that of the scientists who say the examples (as listed under “Microbial intelligence”) are the product of intelligence. And so you cannot claim that science supports your rejection of my hypothesis that cellular intelligence might be a driving force behind evolution.

I will stick to my observation that every reaction which is elucidated turns out to show automaticity.

Microbial intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
[…]

DAVID: All of which can be automatic.

As predicted above. And as you so rightly said, your opinion is no more valid than that of the scientists who say the examples (as listed under “Microbial intelligence”) are the product of intelligence. And so you cannot claim that science supports your rejection of my hypothesis that cellular intelligence might be a driving force behind evolution.

dhw: It doesn’t turn out to be automatic. Whenever there is a choice of responses, there is a decision to be taken, and whenever there is a new problem to be solved, there have to be new responses of which, as you keep repeating, it is impossible to say they are intelligent or automatic. This is a matter of interpretation, and as you rightly pointed out, “my” scientists’ interpretations are just as valid as those of “your” scientists.

DAVID: How do you know there is a choice of responses? A bacterium is not a human. It senses food and moves toward it, danger and moves away, an enemy and attacks, waste products accumulate and expels. It is simplicity. All of this is automatic.

dhw: Some time ago, we discussed experiments with E-coli in which they were given a choice - but I don't remember the details. In any case, when humans devise means of killing bacteria, they are initially successful, but after billions of bacterial deaths, in due course bacteria come up with solutions. What takes them so long if the solution is already built in to be applied automatically? I don’t know why you keep raising objections when you have agreed that the opinion of pro-intelligence scientists is just as valid as your own anti-intelligence opinion. Here are some examples of bacterial intelligence listed on Wikipedia. You will say they are automatic, and others will say they are evidence of intelligence.

Microbial intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence

Microbial intelligence (popularly known as bacterial intelligence) is the intelligence shown by microorganisms. The concept encompasses complex adaptive behaviour shown by single cells, and altruistic or cooperative behavior in populations of like or unlike cells mediated by chemical signalling that induces physiological or behavioral changes in cells and influences colony structures.
• The formation of biofilms requires joint decision by the whole colony.
• Biofilm of Bacillus subtilis can use electric signals (ion transmission) to synchronize growth so that the innermost cells of the biofilm do not starve.[3]
• Under nutritional stress bacterial colonies can organise themselves in such a way so as to maximise nutrient availability.
• Bacteria reorganise themselves under antibiotic stress.
• Bacteria can swap genes (such as genes coding antibiotic resistance) between members of mixed species colonies.
• Individual cells of myxobacteria and cellular slime moulds coordinate to produce complex structures or move as multicellular entities.
• Populations of bacteria use quorum sensing to judge their own densities and change their behaviors accordingly. This occurs in the formation of biofilms, infectious disease processes, and the light organs of bobtail squid.
• For any bacterium to enter a host's cell, the cell must display receptors to which bacteria can adhere and be able to enter the cell. Some strains of E. coli are able to internalize themselves into a host's cell even without the presence of specific receptors as they bring their own receptor to which they then attach and enter the cell.
• Under rough circumstances, some bacteria transform into endospores to resist heat and dehydration.
• A huge array of microorganisms have the ability to overcome being recognized by the immune system as they change their surface antigens so that any defense mechanisms directed against previously present antigens are now useless with the newly expressed ones.

All of which an be automatic.

DAVID: How do you know there is a choice of responses? A bacterium is not a human. It senses food and moves toward it, danger and moves away, an enemy and attacks, waste products accumulate and expels. It is simplicity. All of this is automatic.

Some time ago, we discussed experiments with E-coli in which they were given a choice - but I don't remember the details. In any case, when humans devise means of killing bacteria, they are initially successful, but after billions of bacterial deaths, in due course bacteria come up with solutions. What takes them so long if the solution is already built in to be applied automatically? I don’t know why you keep raising objections when you have agreed that the opinion of pro-intelligence scientists is just as valid as your own anti-intelligence opinion. Here are some examples of bacterial intelligence listed on Wikipedia. You will say they are automatic, and others will say they are evidence of intelligence.

Microbial intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence

Microbial intelligence (popularly known as bacterial intelligence) is the intelligence shown by microorganisms. The concept encompasses complex adaptive behaviour shown by single cells, and altruistic or cooperative behavior in populations of like or unlike cells mediated by chemical signalling that induces physiological or behavioral changes in cells and influences colony structures.
• The formation of biofilms requires joint decision by the whole colony.
• Biofilm of Bacillus subtilis can use electric signals (ion transmission) to synchronize growth so that the innermost cells of the biofilm do not starve.[3]
• Under nutritional stress bacterial colonies can organise themselves in such a way so as to maximise nutrient availability.
• Bacteria reorganise themselves under antibiotic stress.
• Bacteria can swap genes (such as genes coding antibiotic resistance) between members of mixed species colonies.
• Individual cells of myxobacteria and cellular slime moulds coordinate to produce complex structures or move as multicellular entities.
• Populations of bacteria use quorum sensing to judge their own densities and change their behaviors accordingly. This occurs in the formation of biofilms, infectious disease processes, and the light organs of bobtail squid.
• For any bacterium to enter a host's cell, the cell must display receptors to which bacteria can adhere and be able to enter the cell. Some strains of E. coli are able to internalize themselves into a host's cell even without the presence of specific receptors as they bring their own receptor to which they then attach and enter the cell.
• Under rough circumstances, some bacteria transform into endospores to resist heat and dehydration.
• A huge array of microorganisms have the ability to overcome being recognized by the immune system as they change their surface antigens so that any defense mechanisms directed against previously present antigens are now useless with the newly expressed ones.

DAVID: I certainly can make the claim when I see a research paper that shows a series of automatic molecular reactions to a specific stimulus.

dhw: You only pick examples of automatic molecular reactions, and choose to ignore the research that demonstrates decision-making or concludes that small organisms are intelligent. I’m sorry, but having agreed on 10 April that the views of such scientists are as valid as your own, you cannot then claim that science disproves their views or supports yours.

DAVID: I can only pick automatic reactions, because every time a reaction is studied it turns out to be automatic. Since not all reactions are as yet elucidated, I can only predict that when they all are studied I will found to be right. This is all I have actually stated in the past.

dhw: It doesn’t turn out to be automatic. Whenever there is a choice of responses, there is a decision to be taken, and whenever there is a new problem to be solved, there have to be new responses of which, as you keep repeating, it is impossible to say they are intelligent or automatic. This is a matter of interpretation, and as you rightly pointed out, “my” scientists’ interpretations are just as valid as those of “your” scientists.

How do you know there is a choice of responses? A bacterium is not a human. It senses food and moves toward it, danger and moves away, an enemy and attacks, waste products accumulate and expels. It is simplicity. All of this is automatic.

dhw: You only pick examples of automatic molecular reactions, and choose to ignore the research that demonstrates decision-making or concludes that small organisms are intelligent. I’m sorry, but having agreed on 10 April that the views of such scientists are as valid as your own, you cannot then claim that science disproves their views or supports yours.

DAVID: I can only pick automatic reactions, because every time a reaction is studied it turns out to be automatic. Since not all reactions are as yet elucidated, I can only predict that when they all are studied I will found to be right. This is all I have actually stated in the past.

It doesn’t turn out to be automatic. Whenever there is a choice of responses, there is a decision to be taken, and whenever there is a new problem to be solved, there have to be new responses of which, as you keep repeating, it is impossible to say they are intelligent or automatic. This is a matter of interpretation, and as you rightly pointed out, “my” scientists’ interpretations are just as valid as those of “your” scientists.

DAVID: Interesting response. Like Dawkins and Shapiro I've followed biochemistry all my life. I didn't stop thinking after med school. All I said was I expect further research to prove my point, and I agree you, that you Dawkins and Shapiro all have a right to your current position to which I disagree.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps then you would stop pretending that examples of automatic behaviour somehow prove that there is no such thing as autonomous behaviour in small organisms. Of course the influence of cellular intelligence on evolution (as opposed to your divine preprogramming and dabbling) remains a hypothesis, since nobody “knows” how evolutionary innovation came about, but you cannot claim that science disproves it, and you certainly cannot claim that science offers support for your own hypothesis.

DAVID: I certainly can make the claim when I see a research paper that shows a series of automatic molecular reactions to a specific stimulus.

dhw: You only pick examples of automatic molecular reactions, and choose to ignore the research that demonstrates decision-making or concludes that small organisms are intelligent. I’m sorry, but having agreed on 10 April that the views of such scientists are as valid as your own, you cannot then claim that science disproves their views or supports yours.

I can only pick automatic reactions, because every time a reaction is studied it turns out to be automatic. Since not all reactions are as yet elucidated, I can only predict that when they all are studied I will found to be right. This is all I have actually stated in the past.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps then you would stop pretending that examples of automatic behaviour somehow prove that there is no such thing as autonomous behaviour in small organisms. Of course the influence of cellular intelligence on evolution (as opposed to your divine preprogramming and dabbling) remains a hypothesis, since nobody “knows” how evolutionary innovation came about, but you cannot claim that science disproves it, and you certainly cannot claim that science offers support for your own hypothesis.

DAVID: I certainly can make the claim when I see a research paper that shows a series of automatic molecular reactions to a specific stimulus.

You only pick examples of automatic molecular reactions, and choose to ignore the research that demonstrates decision-making or concludes that small organisms are intelligent. I’m sorry, but having agreed on 10 April that the views of such scientists are as valid as your own, you cannot then claim that science disproves their views or supports yours.

dhw: Remember active intelligence will look just like intelligently designed responses, and (in a theistic context) intelligent design can refer to the design of active intelligence as well as to the design of intelligently designed responses. And remember also your own wise words, written just three days ago, concerning the scientists who disagree with you: “They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine.” So do please stop dismissing a hypothesis that has equal validity to your own.

DAVID: Interesting response. Like Dawkins and Shapiro I've followed biochemistry all my life. I didn't stop thinking after med school. All I said was I expect further research to prove my point, and I agree you, that you Dawkins and Shapiro all have a right to your current position to which I disagree.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps then you would stop pretending that examples of automatic behaviour somehow prove that there is no such thing as autonomous behaviour in small organisms. Of course the influence of cellular intelligence on evolution (as opposed to your divine preprogramming and dabbling) remains a hypothesis, since nobody “knows” how evolutionary innovation came about, but you cannot claim that science disproves it, and you certainly cannot claim that science offers support for your own hypothesis.

I certainly can make the claim when I see a research paper that shows a series of automatic molecular reactions to a specific stimulus.

DAVID: Interesting response. Like Dawkins and Shapiro I've followed biochemistry all my life. I didn't stop thinking after med school. All I said was I expect further research to prove my point, and I agree you, that you Dawkins and Shapiro all have a right to your current position to which I disagree.

Thank you. Perhaps then you would stop pretending that examples of automatic behaviour somehow prove that there is no such thing as autonomous behaviour in small organisms. Of course the influence of cellular intelligence on evolution (as opposed to your divine preprogramming and dabbling) remains a hypothesis, since nobody “knows” how evolutionary innovation came about, but you cannot claim that science disproves it, and you certainly cannot claim that science offers support for your own hypothesis.

DAVID: The full understanding of the signal pathways described above are not completely researched. When they are fully understood, as they are now in other situations, it will be shown to be a meaningful series of molecular reactions and nothing more: a stimulus with a series of molecular reactions to provide a molecular response, all based on information coded into the molecular 3-D shapes.

dhw: First you tell me: “Your faith in cell intelligence implies that there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made….” I refer you to websites in which research discusses cellular decision making. Then you tell me the research is not complete, and when it is, the researchers will confirm your own conclusion that, even though nobody can tell the difference between intelligence and automaticity, you are right. This puts you on an intellectual par with those folk who claim that when research into the nature of the universe is complete, it will prove that there is nothing beyond the material world and so there is no God. Ts, ts.

DAVID: I have only told you what I expect research to show as each series of stimuli result in a molecular series of reactions. From my training in biochemistry in med school this is what I expect to see. Remember intelligently designed responses will look just like active intelligence. And I believe in intelligent design, remember?

dhw: I have a shrewd suspicion that Dawkins’ expectations are also based on his training and research, and that Shapiro’s championship of cellular intelligence is also based on his training and research, and both of these might possibly be of more recent vintage than your own. But your and their qualifications are completely beside the point. Remember active intelligence will look just like intelligently designed responses, and (in a theistic context) intelligent design can refer to the design of active intelligence as well as to the design of intelligently designed responses. And remember also your own wise words, written just three days ago, concerning the scientists who disagree with you: “They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine.” So do please stop dismissing a hypothesis that has equal validity to your own.

Interesting response. Like Dawkins and Shapiro I've followed biochemistry all my life. I didn't stop thinking after med school. All I said was I expect further research to prove my point, and I agree you, that you Dawkins and Shapiro all have a right to your current position to which I disagree.

dhw: First you tell me: “Your faith in cell intelligence implies that there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made….” I refer you to websites in which research discusses cellular decision making. Then you tell me the research is not complete, and when it is, the researchers will confirm your own conclusion that, even though nobody can tell the difference between intelligence and automaticity, you are right. This puts you on an intellectual par with those folk who claim that when research into the nature of the universe is complete, it will prove that there is nothing beyond the material world and so there is no God. Ts, ts.

DAVID: I have only told you what I expect research to show as each series of stimuli result in a molecular series of reactions. From my training in biochemistry in med school this is what I expect to see. Remember intelligently designed responses will look just like active intelligence. And I believe in intelligent design, remember?

I have a shrewd suspicion that Dawkins’ expectations are also based on his training and research, and that Shapiro’s championship of cellular intelligence is also based on his training and research, and both of these might possibly be of more recent vintage than your own. But your and their qualifications are completely beside the point. Remember active intelligence will look just like intelligently designed responses, and (in a theistic context) intelligent design can refer to the design of active intelligence as well as to the design of intelligently designed responses. And remember also your own wise words, written just three days ago, concerning the scientists who disagree with you: “They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine.” So do please stop dismissing a hypothesis that has equal validity to your own.

dhw: You and others may tell us the decision-making processes are all automatic, but as you so rightly say over and over again, nobody can tell the difference, and both views have equal validity.

DAVID: The full understanding of the signal pathways described above are not completely researched. When they are fully understood, as they are now in other situations, it will be shown to be a meaningful series of molecular reactions and nothing more: a stimulus with a series of molecular reactions to provide a molecular response, all based on information coded into the molecular 3-D shapes.

dhw: First you tell me: “Your faith in cell intelligence implies that there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made….” I refer you to websites in which research discusses cellular decision making. Then you tell me the research is not complete, and when it is, the researchers will confirm your own conclusion that, even though nobody can tell the difference between intelligence and automaticity, you are right. This puts you on an intellectual par with those folk who claim that when research into the nature of the universe is complete, it will prove that there is nothing beyond the material world and so there is no God. Ts, ts.

I have only told you what I expect research to show as each series of stimuli result in a molecular series of reactions. From my training in biochemistry in med school this is what I expect to see. Remember intelligently designed responses will look just like active intelligence. And I believe in intelligent design, remember?

DAVID: The full understanding of the signal pathways described above are not completely researched. When they are fully understood, as they are now in other situations, it will be shown to be a meaningful series of molecular reactions and nothing more: a stimulus with a series of molecular reactions to provide a molecular response, all based on information coded into the molecular 3-D shapes.

First you tell me: “Your faith in cell intelligence implies that there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made….” I refer you to websites in which research discusses cellular decision making. Then you tell me the research is not complete, and when it is, the researchers will confirm your own conclusion that, even though nobody can tell the difference between intelligence and automaticity, you are right. This puts you on an intellectual par with those folk who claim that when research into the nature of the universe is complete, it will prove that there is nothing beyond the material world and so there is no God. Ts, ts.

dhw: And there you go again! There are umpteen websites on the subject of “How do cells make decisions?” Here is the first one on the long list:

How Do Cells Make Decisions: Engineering Micro- and ...
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jo/2010/363106

Abstract
Cell migration contributes to cancer metastasis and involves cell adhesion to the extracellular matrix (ECM), force generation through the cell's cytoskeletal, and finally cell detachment. Both adhesive cues from the ECM and soluble cues from neighbouring cells and tissue trigger intracellular signalling pathways that are essential for cell migration. While the machinery of many signalling pathways is relatively well understood, how hierarchies of different and conflicting signals are established is a new area of cellular cancer research. We examine the recent advances in microfabrication, microfluidics, and nanotechnology that can be utilized to engineer micro- and nanoscaled cellular environments. Controlling both adhesive and soluble cues for migration may allow us to decipher how cells become motile, choose the direction for migration, and how oncogenic transformations influences these decision-making processes.(My bold)

You and others may tell us the decision-making processes are all automatic, but as you so rightly say over and over again, nobody can tell the difference, and both views have equal validity.

The full understanding of the signal pathways described above are not completely researched. When they are fully understood, as they are now in other situations, it will be shown to be a meaningful series of molecular reactions and nothing more: a stimulus with a series of molecular reactions to provide a molecular response, all based on information coded into the molecular 3-D shapes.

Thank you. In that case, please stop stating that they are automatons, as it were a scientific fact. It is a purely subjective option.

DAVID: Your faith in cell intelligence implies there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made, but are automatic actions programmed in the molecular reactions.

And there you go again! There are umpteen websites on the subject of “How do cells make decisions?” Here is the first one on the long list:

How Do Cells Make Decisions: Engineering Micro- and ...
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jo/2010/363106

Abstract
Cell migration contributes to cancer metastasis and involves cell adhesion to the extracellular matrix (ECM), force generation through the cell's cytoskeletal, and finally cell detachment. Both adhesive cues from the ECM and soluble cues from neighbouring cells and tissue trigger intracellular signalling pathways that are essential for cell migration. While the machinery of many signalling pathways is relatively well understood, how hierarchies of different and conflicting signals are established is a new area of cellular cancer research. We examine the recent advances in microfabrication, microfluidics, and nanotechnology that can be utilized to engineer micro- and nanoscaled cellular environments. Controlling both adhesive and soluble cues for migration may allow us to decipher how cells become motile, choose the direction for migration, and how oncogenic transformations influences these decision-making processes.(My bold)

You and others may tell us the decision-making processes are all automatic, but as you so rightly say over and over again, nobody can tell the difference, and both views have equal validity.

DAVID: If a particular stimulus to a bacterium results in a series of molecular reactions leading to a molecular response, as research shows, it must be inferred that it is automatic. I'll stick to that interpretation as a strong inference.

dhw: Of course you will. And you will ignore any research which suggests that bacteria are capable of autonomous self-modification, cooperation, problem-solving, decision-making and any other attribute that we associate with intelligence, even though you admit that you have no way of distinguishing between automatic and autonomously intelligent behaviour.

But neither can your favorite scientists. They have a right to their assumptions which have equal validity to mine. Your faith in cell intelligence implies there must be decision making. Research clearly shows decisions are not made, but are automatic actions programmed in the molecular reactions.

DAVID (under “plant automatic breathing”): Plants open and close breathing pores by automatic molecular reactions:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180409103942.htm

DAVID’s comment: A great example of automaticity.

dhw: So is our own breathing. That doesn’t mean all our actions are automatic.

Most of your ability to live goes on automatically. Thinking is one of the few differences. The automatic pore responses are simply a series of molecular reactions to a stimulus, no decisions required.

dhw: As in my two comments above, you ignore all the attributes of intelligence, and insist that every bacterial adaptation – both nice and nasty – in the history of life has been preprogrammed or personally dabbled by your God, whose one and only purpose, let us remember, was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. And you think this is logical.
DAVID: Inventing bacteria is only the beginning of evolution of the brain. Evolution had to proceed from that point to now. The brain is the most complex unexpected outcome one could imagine.

dhw: For those of us who believe in common descent, evolution did (why “had to”?) proceed from that point until now. I don’t see how that proves that every bacterial adaptation in the history of life has been preprogrammed or dabbled by your God in order to produce the complexity of our brain. He could have given bacteria the means to do their own adapting. And he could have been pleasantly surprised by the unexpected outcome, or he could have experimented to get the outcome he desired, or he could suddenly have thought of a great new idea and done a dabble. All of these are far more logical and no more "humanizing" than his having a desire right from the beginning to create something that would recognize him and have a relationship with him, but first having to build the weaverbird’s nest (plus a few million other examples) in order to keep life going before he could do what he wanted to do.

Evolution had to proceed under God's direction because of His purpose to produce humans. I think God knew what He wanted to do from the point that He started he universe. You produce a doubtful hesitant God in your mind's meanderings about Him.

Of course you will. And you will ignore any research which suggests that bacteria are capable of autonomous self-modification, cooperation, problem-solving, decision-making and any other attribute that we associate with intelligence, even though you admit that you have no way of distinguishing between automatic and autonomously intelligent behaviour.

DAVID (under “plant automatic breathing”): Plants open and close breathing pores by automatic molecular reactions:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180409103942.htm
DAVID’s comment: A great example of automaticity.

So is our own breathing. That doesn’t mean all our actions are automatic.

dhw: As in my two comments above, you ignore all the attributes of intelligence, and insist that every bacterial adaptation – both nice and nasty – in the history of life has been preprogrammed or personally dabbled by your God, whose one and only purpose, let us remember, was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. And you think this is logical.
DAVID: Inventing bacteria is only the beginning of evolution of the brain. Evolution had to proceed from that point to now. The brain is the most complex unexpected outcome one could imagine.

For those of us who believe in common descent, evolution did (why “had to”?) proceed from that point until now. I don’t see how that proves that every bacterial adaptation in the history of life has been preprogrammed or dabbled by your God in order to produce the complexity of our brain. He could have given bacteria the means to do their own adapting. And he could have been pleasantly surprised by the unexpected outcome, or he could have experimented to get the outcome he desired, or he could suddenly have thought of a great new idea and done a dabble. All of these are far more logical and no more "humanizing" than his having a desire right from the beginning to create something that would recognize him and have a relationship with him, but first having to build the weaverbird’s nest (plus a few million other examples) in order to keep life going before he could do what he wanted to do.