I was intrigued by the suggestion by one of the guests that cells might have some form of intelligence.
I’d like to know what experiments and tests have been proposed so that evidence of this intelligence can be shown and measured. It’s all well and good coming up with far out ideas like that, but if they can’t be demonstrated there is little point is trying to build an idea based on the hypothesis. It would be far more honest to prove the claim before trying to build an idea on it.
Bonnie Bassler’s TED talk “How Bacteria Talk” is a great start:
Nobel Prize winner Barbara McClintock had a lot to say:
“The ability of a cell to sense these broken ends, to direct them toward each other, and then to unite them so that the union of the two DNA strands is correctly oriented, is a particularly revealing example of the sensitivity of cells to all that is going on within them. They make wise decisions and act upon them.
Time does not allow even a modest listing of known responses of genomes to stress that could or should be included in a discussion aimed at the significance of responses of genomes to challenge.
In addition to modifying gene action, these elements can restructure the genome at various levels, from small changes involving a few nucleotides, to gross modifications involving large segments of chromosomes, such as duplications, deficiencies, inversions, and other more complex reorganizations.
The responses of genomes to unanticipated challenges are not so precisely programmed. Nevertheless, these are sensed, and the genome responds in a discernible but initially unforeseen manner.
A goal for the future would be to determine the extent of knowledge the cell has of itself, and how it utilizes this knowledge in a “thoughtful” manner when challenged.
Induction of such reprogrammings by insects, bacteria, fungi, and other organisms, which are not a required response of the plant genome at some stage in its life history, is quite astounding… It is becoming increasingly apparent that we know little of the potentials of a genome. Nevertheless, much evidence tells us that it must be vast.
The stimulus associated with placement of the insect egg into the leaf will initiate reprogramming of the plant’s genome, forcing it to make a unique structure adapted to the needs of the developing insect. The precise structural organization of a gall that gives it individuality must start with an initial stimulus, and each species provides its own specific stimulus. For each insect species the same distinctive reprogramming of the plant genome is seen to occur year-after-year.”
From Barbara McClintock’s 1984 Nobel Prize paper
“Life requires cognition at all scopes and scales. The critical factor in evolution was the moment of instantiation of the self-referential cell. How that occurred is unknown, but the fact that cells are self-aware problem-solving agencies cannot be reasonably disputed. I offer that it is best to consider it as a phase shift derivative of the thermodynamic scale as a state function. As a result, the cell acquires critical participant/observer status, by which physical data becomes information that can be used to solve problems through the attachment to the larger information space. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715300109
It proceeds then by differing means. This is best understood as engineering in the sense that Shapiro indicates with his concepts of natural genetic engineering. However, in this circumstance, it is natural cellular engineering (acknowledging the vital importance of all aspects of the crowded, active cellular environment including the cell membrane). It is clear then, that genes are tools and not a dominating agency. This process of cellular engineering is conceptually just like humans making a city though competition and collaboration wherein every individual (cell) is serving its own interests which are then reciprocally linked to all other participants. This is evolution as successive rounds of niche construction, emanating from the cell as the first niche construction, as John Torday has correctly identified. When we, as humans build we use the tools we have according to our abilities. Cells do the same, and their substrate are bioactive materials.”
-William Miller MD author of “The Microcosm Within”
“Cells are cognitive entities possessing great computational power. DNA serves as a multivalent information storage medium for these computations at various time scales. Information is stored in sequences, epigenetic modifications, and rapidly changing nucleoprotein complexes. Because DNA must operate through complexes formed with other molecules in the cell, genome functions are inherently interactive and involve two-way communication with various cellular compartments. Both coding sequences and repetitive sequences contribute to the hierarchical systemic organization of the genome. By virtue of nucleoprotein complexes, epigenetic modifications, and natural genetic engineering activities, the genome can serve as a read-write storage system.”
James A. Shapiro, Genome Informatics: The Role of DNA in Cellular Computations
What I see in your reply are selected quotes which would appear to agree with your assessment. I am pretty sure if I spent some time googling and could find some quote that disagree. We could have a fun game of quote ping pong. Quotes don’t provide demonstrable proof.
I don’t think you can “prove” this one way or the other. And I don’t think there’s a lot of value in watching the ping pong of opinions go back and forth.
What you can do is look at what cells, plants and animals actually do in real time and ask yourself, what is the most reasonable explanation?
I would simply suggest that you read with care and detail, Barbara McClintock’s paper “The Significance of Responses of the Genome to Challenge.”
See what her cells and plants did in real time in real experiments and decide for yourself. But in any case, look at the original data. It’s all out there for everyone to examine.
I would agree that some incredible things happen in cells. My problem is drawing a conclusion that can’t be proven. I also don’t like the suggestion to ‘decide for yourself’.
You might look at it and say it shows evidence on innate intelligence and that means a god put it there. I might look at it and say it’s evolved function and it only looks intelligent because we can’t see all the evolutionary steps that brought the illusion of intelligence.
How does one tell from that evidence if either of us is close to the right answer when what we are doing is deciding for ourselves? Deciding for ourselves tends to bring in our own biases. I would contend that what we should be doing is asking what the evidence suggests and then seek ways to confirm those suggestions.
I don’t think there is enough to be certain that intelligence is the answer. And you still need to make the link from that apparent intelligence to your specific god, which is whole other challenge and discussion.
For decades, “anthropomorphic language” has been forbidden in biology. (Except, of course, when talking about things like “selfish genes” – which really just shows you it’s impossible to avoid such language, even for people who are stark materialists.)
But the pendulum is swinging the other way now. So at the present time if you go searching all you’ll find is a lot of disagreement.
When I’ve tried to answer this question for myself, I go to two places: digital communication and genetic algorithms.
Genomes and cells are linguistic (see the paper “Linguistics of DNA” by Ji or Bonnie Bassler’s TED talk “How Bacteria Talk). And the genetic code is a proper code, and DNA transcription and translation are formal encoding and decoding systems. It’s digital communication.
The huge realization I had when I started this was the incredible parallels between DNA and Ethernet, because I had written an Ethernet book. The similarities were almost scary. Encoding, decoding, error detection, error correction, checksums, layers. On and on.
In digital data, information is always encoded top-down, and decoded bottom-up. When you send an email, your intent becomes words which are made of letters which are represented by bits. You press send, the bits go across, and it’s re-assembled in the opposite order.
The start of that process is your own conscious intent.
Even if a computer is automatically generating emails, they always originated from a conscious source.
I have never seen any exception to this.
So whenever I see communication taking place, I see a chain of intentionality that always leads me back to a conscious source.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…. well, I vote for cells being intelligent. At least in some sense.
The other clue is genetic algorithms.
Darwinists tell you that random copying errors and natural selection can evolve anything.
Well if that’s true, where are all the software companies that should allegedly be writing their software that way?
How come there aren’t any? Can you name even one?
How come Genetic Algorithms are little more than a footnote in the software development industry?
Why doesn’t Apple or Google have any use for programs like Tierra or Avida?
How come it usually takes more work to create a fitness function and develop systematic mutation flows for a Genetic Algorithm, than it does to simply sit down and write the code by hand?
If you could write software that evolves the way Darwinists say life evolves, Bill Gates wouldn’t need payroll. He could just buy a million servers and let Genetic Algorithms churn out the next version of Windows.
I’ve started two software companies in my career. I had equity in a hardware company that we sold to a NASDAQ firm for $18 million. And I’ve never seen software that writes itself, let alone develops without significant input from intelligent agents.
Yet cells demonstrably DO program and re-program themselves and evolve in real time. If we knew how cells do this, we could write incredible software.
But the funny thing is, if you read books by old-school Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and Bill Nye, for some reason they never tell you any of this stuff. Nary a word about transposition, symbiogenesis etc. Everything’s just natural selection, natural selection.
The last question I would ask myself is: “Which hypothesis is more likely to lead us to interesting discoveries, new hypotheses and interesting observations? A) the idea that cells are dumb machines created by a series of accidental mutations and selected for survival, or B) the idea that cells are intelligent agents that direct their own development?
Which premise would help you make better antibiotics? Which premise would help you fight cancer better? Under which premise would you be less likely to underestimate your opponent when combating disease?