Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: (under more miscellany”): [i]50/50 is an appraisal of possibility, nothing more. Pick your side from what you see as proof. You have none, but I show cell automaticity on many days, no thought involved.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]I keep pointing out that most cellular actions ARE automatic, and have to be if a system is to remain the same. It’s only origins and changing conditions that require intelligence (i.e. changes to what existed before).[/i]
> 
> Perhaps you could comment on this observation? 
> 
> [b]T cells:[/b]
> DAVID: [i]You cannot use human 'learning' to fit the language in biochemistry. When the T cell recognizes non-self and thereby discovers a foreign protein is present, it automatically invents an answer which identifies the invader, by attaching a protein marker, which allows it to be destroyed or neutralized. That is learning in biochemical speak!![/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]So if cells already have God-given “algorithms” to correct errors and to kill foreign invaders, how do you account for the fact that vast numbers of victims (from bacteria to humans) can die before a solution to each new problem is found?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Errors are still present, re theodicy.[/i]
> 
> But if all life forms have an algorithm to correct the errors, why doesn’t it work until thousands/millions have died?
> 
> The rest of this post is discussed under "Return to David’s Theory of Evolution".