Live data from Hacker News

The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

jsomers.net

131–140 of 225 posts

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#131
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution doesn't produce 1st part of the flagellum, second part of the flagellum, third part of the flagellum. It produces shitty flagellum, better flagellum, good flagellum. But the problem is we don't see the intermediate forms. So right now you might see a complicated flagellum that has a lot of highly specialized parts that all need eachother, but that is merely a refinement that took place after all the pieces…

It seems you may have misunderstood the original argument. The iterative approach suggests increments so minute at each step that they wouldn't significantly impact an organism's survival at any given time. Also given the extremely slow process of evolution and the relatively short number of iterations it is infeasible to suggest such a solution. If a person would like to create an iPhone it's easy to tell them to st…

> significantly

Why not? People think in such a short time and amount scale such that we cannot comprehend trillions of cells spending billions of years, iterating. Even a small change can be significant at those scales.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#132
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear here, are you talking about the 'left-brain, right-brain' thing? Because I thought that was pretty well debunked. Also, I think you are talking about the corpus callosum for the 'bus' right?

He's probably talking about split brain patients. Here's a video by CGP Grey about them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8

Yep.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#133

Imagine a microscopic, fully autonomous and self-replicating Roomba that is also able to adapts at the individual and population levels. We're still quite far from replicating this kind of tech.

> Imagine a microscopic, fully autonomous and self-replicating Roomba that is also able to adapts at the individual and population levels.

Well, if the Roomba could exchange genetic information with the surrounding population and adapting to a changing environment would give the appearance of intelligence and design.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny, because the creationists generally feel the exact same about evolutionists. Both are faith based responses to questions we cannot answer any other way. Getting caught up in absolutes thinking your interpretation is the gold standard is a sign of an unrefined critical thinking process.

God designing us in an emergent manner or through a static blueprint are the same thing. Someone had to create the laws, the genetic algorithm idea itself and all of these components and the environment for it to operate within never mind things like colors, matter etc. Evolutionists cant see the forest for the trees.

> Someone had to create the laws

This is unknown and a quite anthropomorphic view on the universe. Just because we can create things doesn't mean we ourselves were created, even in the way you're talking about in the First Mover argument.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#135
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As can be seen by the specializations between human brain hemispheres. There is a bus between them, but when that communication is cut, and you can see that a lot of what we perceive as a single thought process, is a bunch of independent computing entities with an OS layer on top creating the unity that doesn't really exist.

Just to be clear here, are you talking about the 'left-brain, right-brain' thing? Because I thought that was pretty well debunked. Also, I think you are talking about the corpus callosum for the 'bus' right?

AFAIK, the part that's been debunked is that there's a complete separation of concerns between the two hemispheres. From studies on split-brain patients, there does appear to be some specialization, but it's much fuzzier than "right brain does art, left brain does analysis" or anything like that.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds me of this paper from MIRI a few years ago discussing models which treat themselves as an explicit part of the environment. I think it's a very productive approach - https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09469

Wow, wish more papers were so well written and pleasing to read!

This is wild projection, but it reminds me of the good advice I got when writing undergrad philosophy papers – map out your tree of arguments (especially if they're logically complicated), and structure your writing around that; talk in as conversational prose as you can because it mercilessly exposes jargon; highlight when you introduce new concepts.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#137
post #50

> I never liked the way biology was taught in high school. It was too much about the names of things. A subject so vast is spoiled by a textbook, which can only point at the endless parade of stuff-there-is-to-know. Amen. You could easily teach quite intricate biology in grade school, if you focused on a fascinating example or two. How many more people would be inspired, rather than bored?

I cannot disagree more here.

Biology is just astoundingly complicated, especially micro-bio.

Lets look at the 'Central Dogma' of biology as a point to focus on a bit. It's the idea of 'information' transfer. DNA gets decoded into RNA which then gets decoded into Protiens, right? Easy peasy little discussion. You go into how DNA works a bit, it's structure, it's functions. Then you go a bit more into RNA and the various sub types, how the decoding proteins work, Slicer and Dicer, etc. You then talk about how three letter codons work to make amino acids, how you transport the mRNA out of the nucleus, etc. At each step you take a look at how the thing works and you mention some other launching off points for more research if the kids are interested. This is how a lot of education works, things like cooking, math, history, etc.

Except nearly none of what I just said about the 'Central Dogma' is considered true anymore. Sure, some of it is, but the vast majority of how proteins get made is not encompassed in it. Nearly the entirety of modern micro-biology is all about the 'exceptions' to the 'Central Dogma'. So much so that you can't really even say that there is any appreciable difference between RNA and proteins anymore. Every week, and I am not joking here, there is at least one new paper detailing some hybrid mess of RNA and proteins that has critical importance in how we understand how even the most common parts of a cell works. It's to the point that I would not call the 'Central Dogma' and outright lie, but more of a useful fiction.

Like saying that a 'for loop' is how the internet works. Yes, there are 'for loops' in the internet, yes they are critical, yes, you need to learn about them. But no, you cannot teach someone about the internet via a fascinating example or two about 'for loops'.

Understanding biology is Hard, it is the end result of 4+ billion years of literal life and death. It is not something that can be done in a few examples. Even an understanding at a 12 grade level does in fact take a full school year to get to, and even then, it's just the barest launching point into the wider field. The OP s wrong. Full Stop. You do need to learn the names of these things, you do need to get down and do the work of learning all the facts, you do need to fill your brain with these things that are going to affect you as the world gets more and more complicated, you do need to connect this incredibly vast amount of information together. It is going to affect you or the ones you love.

Edutaiment is not the way forward here. Hard work is.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#138
post #110
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution doesn't produce 1st part of the flagellum, second part of the flagellum, third part of the flagellum. It produces shitty flagellum, better flagellum, good flagellum. But the problem is we don't see the intermediate forms. So right now you might see a complicated flagellum that has a lot of highly specialized parts that all need eachother, but that is merely a refinement that took place after all the pieces…

I understand that, but it seems like even the MVP "shitty" flagellum would require many mutations that individually have no benefit. But I suppose with enough generations/parallelism you get enough stacking of useless mutations to reach the useful ones.

That's the thing most people have difficulty wrapping their head around. What you need to remember is it's not the structures evolving, it's the instructions evolving. If for example you have a small molecular pump that the cell uses to suck up sodium ions, and a mutation causes the part of the rotor sticking out of the cell to just be longer, which might be due to a single change to the gene controlling the length of the rotor, then congrats, you now have a shitty flagellum. The mutations don't even need to be useful for the eventual purpose. For example the highly dexterous fingers which enable complex tool use that humans used to conquer the world and with which I type this comment now started out as structural reinforcement for fish fins, absolutely useless for object manipulation. And those reinforcements in turn are just extremely bastardized version of a calcite growth which offered some protection to a soft body organism hundreds of millions of years before.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#139
post #50

> I never liked the way biology was taught in high school. It was too much about the names of things. A subject so vast is spoiled by a textbook, which can only point at the endless parade of stuff-there-is-to-know. Amen. You could easily teach quite intricate biology in grade school, if you focused on a fascinating example or two. How many more people would be inspired, rather than bored?

I cannot disagree more here. Biology is just astoundingly complicated, especially micro-bio. Lets look at the 'Central Dogma' of biology as a point to focus on a bit. It's the idea of 'information' transfer. DNA gets decoded into RNA which then gets decoded into Protiens, right? Easy peasy little discussion. You go into how DNA works a bit, it's structure, it's functions. Then you go a bit more into RNA and the vario…

So, just to simplify your argument, you're saying that grade school students should not be taught biology in a way that GP finds more engaging, because:

> You do need to learn the names of these things, you do need to get down and do the work of learning all the facts, you do need to fill your brain with these things that are going to affect you as the world gets more and more complicated, you do need to connect this incredibly vast amount of information together. It is going to affect you or the ones you love.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#140

God designing us in an emergent manner or through a static blueprint are the same thing. Someone had to create the laws, the genetic algorithm idea itself and all of these components and the environment for it to operate within never mind things like colors, matter etc. Evolutionists cant see the forest for the trees.

> “ God designing us in an emergent manner or through a static blueprint are the same thing.”

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but to me it seems like you have no argument with evolutionists. Your beliefs seem to permit evolution. I think your disagreement is actually with people that see evolution as evidence for atheism.

Post reply on HN