Researchers: Living Cells’ Cognition Drives Evolution

This proposed natural cognition in cells is a failed idea from the start and even incoherent because it is not a natural conscious intelligence capable of the design of the countless irreducibly complex biological mechanisms found in life. In fact, it would seem that the complicated cellular cognition mechanism they are proposing would have to itself be irreducibly complex.

Is the argument here that the cells, if unable to have the intelligence to figure out the best future forms to select for, lack the "top down" view of what they would be trying to complete?

To put it another way, even if each cell is an intelligent puzzle piece,  they still lack the the "top down" view of recognizing what the final picture of the completed puzzle?

I feel like my view is somewhere in the middle here. If certain bodily systems - say the eye or heart - need to be completed to be of use then it does seem you'd need a top-down designer.

OTOH, if there are top-down designers, shouldn't we see more interventions even in the present day? Why is there even evolution if the designers can shape biological forms?

Because of the above I can't help but think of procedural generation with some tweaking. This isn't to say the universe is a genuine virtual reality simulation, just that it seems there was perhaps some teleological causation placed into the nature of the universe's stuff but when it seemed natural selection was failing to produce correct forms there were points of intervention.

Is the argument here that the cells, if unable to have the intelligence to figure out the best future forms to select for, lack the "top down" view of what they would be trying to complete?

Yes

To put it another way, even if each cell is an intelligent puzzle piece,  they still lack the the "top down" view of recognizing what the final picture of the completed puzzle?

Yes

I feel like my view is somewhere in the middle here. If certain bodily systems - say the eye or heart - need to be completed to be of use then it does seem you'd need a top-down designer.

OTOH, if there are top-down designers, shouldn't we see more interventions even in the present day? Why is there even evolution if the designers can shape biological forms?

ID does recognize RM+NS as a definite agent in evolution, but only working to the extent of "micro-evolution" or a sort of fine tuning of adaptations once the heavy design work of new innovative organ systems and body plans has been accomplished. This is not macroevolution which is the core of evolution, consisting of major innovations including irreducibly complex biological systems. Macroevolution requires an intelligent designer.

Microevolution via RM+NS is a natural result of the physical world of biology with its genetic codes, mutations and other random genetic changes, and natural selection. In addition to fine tuning major innovations, RM+NS microevolution also has the major downside of an automatic genetic degradation or breaking of genes. This last does have what may be a positive effect, namely the impermanence of species, which have a definite lifetime, dying out generally after a few million years. This appears to be necessary for the entire process.

Because of the above I can't help but think of procedural generation with some tweaking. This isn't to say the universe is a genuine virtual reality simulation, just that it seems there was perhaps some teleological causation placed into the nature of the universe's stuff but when it seemed natural selection was failing to produce correct forms there were points of intervention.

ID does recognize RM+NS as a definite agent in evolution, but only working to the extent of "micro-evolution" or a sort of fine tuning of adaptations once the heavy design work of new innovative organ systems and body plans has been accomplished. This is not macroevolution which is the core of evolution, consisting of major innovations including irreducibly complex biological systems. Macroevolution requires an intelligent designer.

So how do irreducibly complex organ systems appear in the evolutionary process?

If there are interventions that result in a sudden appearance of said organ systems, why don't we see something like this now? Shouldn't there be X-men of sorts born to normal humans? Or did the designers leave us to our own devices after intervening here and there across the span of millennia?

I can better understand the Deist position of someone who thinks the Cosmic Fine Tuning was the first and last act of intervention, but it's more difficult to see why Designers associated with ID - whether they are the same as the Cosmic Fine Tuners or not - periodically intervened in the past but not in the present.

So how do irreducibly complex organ systems appear in the evolutionary process?

As I mentioned, IC of biological mechanisms and systems directly inexorably implies Intelligent Design, and RM+NS and other related attempted explanations like "cooption" are ruled out. The fossil record indicates that ID events occur as infrequent interventions.

If there are interventions that result in a sudden appearance of said organ systems, why don't we see something like this now? Shouldn't there be X-men of sorts born to normal humans? Or did the designers leave us to our own devices after intervening here and there across the span of millennia?

These ID interventions are sudden, abrupt and infrequent in evolutionary time, meaning they appear to happen at intervals of tens of millions of years up to a hundred million years or so. That means they are extremely unlikely to occur in our timeframe.

I can better understand the Deist position of someone who thinks the Cosmic Fine Tuning was the first and last act of intervention, but it's more difficult to see why Designers associated with ID - whether they are the same as the Cosmic Fine Tuners or not - periodically intervened in the past but not in the present.

As I mentioned, IC of biological mechanisms and systems directly inexorably implies Intelligent Design, and RM+NS and other related attempted explanations like "cooption" are ruled out. The fossil record indicates that ID events occur as infrequent interventions.

How does the fossil record indicate that ID events occur? Because there is a lack of gradual forms?

This seems like an argument from the absence of evidence, more than an argument from evidence?

These ID interventions are sudden, abrupt and infrequent in evolutionary time, meaning they appear to happen at intervals of tens of millions of years up to a hundred million years or so. That means they are extremely unlikely to occur in our timeframe.

So the Designers are watching all the events happening now but are content to not intervene? Even though we could theoretically cause nuclear annihilation of existing biomes?

This isn't to say it's impossible for there to have been interventions. And I think the "a priori" case for such a thing is good, given that there do seem to be spirits, PK IMO is real, and causality - IMO at least - is best explained as being mental causation in all cases. There's also a clearer case for Design in Cosmic Fine Tuning, so there does seem to be at least one Mind with power over the Physical.

But having a good a priori case, IMO, isn't the same thing as proving something is actual. Why I still hesitate to co-sign the idea of interventions in Natural Selection even if I'm pretty convinced there was design in the setting up [of] life-bearing constants for this universe.

How does the fossil record indicate that ID events occur? Because there is a lack of gradual forms?

Yes, in part. Also because of the suddenness of the bursts of innovation, the abrupt explosions of new biological functionality/complexity (in evolutionary time), and even more importantly, that the sudden increases in functional complexity involve irreducibly complex animal and/or plant organs, body plans, etc. that absolutely required conscious intelligent designer(s) from outside the natural system to produce.

Some examples of the sudden innovative bursts of bodily complexity and adaptive functionality (almost all being irreducibly complex systems/mechanisms) that turn out to be quite frequent over the long haul of evolutionary time:
The Cambrian Explosion of new animal body plans
The Carboniferous Explosion of Winged Insects
The Sudden Appearance of Crocodilians in the Triassic Fossil Record
The Biological Big Bang of the Origin of Snakes
The Abrupt Appearance of Flowering Plants

This seems like an argument from the absence of evidence, more than an argument from evidence?

Not so. Starting with Darwin himself, neo-Darwinists have struggled to try to explain these quick bursts of innovation which are far shorter in time than the long ages of slow gradual change predicted by their theory. Out of desperation the neo-Darwinists long claimed that the major instances of Darwinistically inexplicable massive quick "jumps" in evolution (such as the Cambrian explosion and the appearance of flowering plants) are just due to the sparseness of the fossil record and the chance presence of geological features and types of deposits that prevented fossilization. But since the early days, the number of fossils recovered has drastically increased, and studies have shown that there is now a reasonably complete record over these periods of the diversity of different organisms. Secondly, the excuse that there just happened to be no fossil-bearing types of rock layers in the periods of concern has been invalidated by further geological research. For instance, most of the early, middle and late Pre-Cambrian periods leading into the Cambrian from the Ediacaran have been shown to have exactly the same fossil preservation properties and types of rock layers as the Cambrian itself. 

So the Designers are watching all the events happening now but are content to not intervene? Even though we could theoretically cause nuclear annihilation of existing biomes?

ID theory concentrates on and sticks to finding incontrovertible evidence for design, and scrupulously avoids speculation on the nature and motivations and supposed morality of the Designer(s). 

This isn't to say it's impossible for there to have been interventions. And I think the "a priori" case for such a thing is good, given that there do seem to be spirits, PK IMO is real, and causality - IMO at least - is best explained as being mental causation in all cases. There's also a clearer case for Design in Cosmic Fine Tuning, so there does seem to be at least one Mind with power over the Physical.

But having a good a priori case, IMO, isn't the same thing as proving something is actual. Why I still hesitate to co-sign the idea of interventions in Natural Selection even if I'm pretty convinced there was design in the setting up [of] life-bearing constants for this universe.