From: Chris Taylor (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue 08 Nov 2005 - 10:22:30 GMT
>> As I've already pointed out, we're not talking about a gap here. We're
>> talking, literally, about the *whole* picture. Even regarding a single
>> cell, you can't explain the whole, only bits and pieces,
> But the bits and pieces get more and more extensive every year, every
> week, every day. Your God-of-the-gaps argument relies on claiming that
> the bits and pieces are of trivial size compared to the whole, so you
> have a large gap to point to and shout "God", or rather "field" in your
> case. Your assessment of the size of that gap is based on an absense of
> knowledge of modern biology and what it has achieved over the last decades.
The issue of the fact that cells are _never created from
scratch_ has still not been addressed here. There is no need to
create a cell from bits as cells beget cells by fission. The
only way, going right back to catalytic hypercycles and
self-assembling blobs of fatty acids (i.e. protocells, which btw
would have had _no genetic material per se_). So there is only
(in a sense) one LUCA-cell, which has no real ancestor. No need for influence as nothing is ever made anew, and as for maintenance, see the next point.
>> wherever a
>> mechanical process happens to take place within it. You can't explain
>> the order of a cell follows from the order of its components. You've
>> been able to explain this, and you never will. No progress will ever be
>> made toward explaining this for the very simple reason that the
>> of a cell are not ordered.
> But they are. Hans Krebs, among others, knew by the 1930s that this was
> the case. I'm continually surprised by your 19th century view of almost
And I would suggest you consider something like this:
Cells are ordered and managed to a degree that _almost_ baffles
the imagination. No need for influence.
> [In termites]
>> > By hearing I mean sensistivity to vibration.
>> Of course. As I said, this possibility has already been ruled out.
> The pheromones must be getting though the plate then. (Actually I
> dispute that the sound hypothesis has been ruled out. Where did you
> read that?)
I covered this one already! It is really straightforward, based
on actors following rule sets applied to _local_ stimuli without
need of intermediate-range signalling of any kind whether
chemical or vibrational knee-hearing or whatever.
The plate was as you said _inserted_ implying that the mound's
development was already well underway, setting up a set of basic
conditions before intervention (point one). The actors continue
to follow _local_ rules of the form 'if you are confronted with
X, do Y' (point two). And incidentally, wrt the plate, they
would essentially ignore it as they have no programmed response
to the smell/feel of the plate. All you would see is a
(predicatable given sufficient [reductionist-produced] knowledge) minor distortion at the interface of the mound and the plate -- correct?
It all works just fine and such systems are extremely robust
against even the grossest of perturbations. There _is no issue
here_. Next case.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 08 Nov 2005 - 10:42:30 GMT