A colony of bacteria

Richard Dawkins once claimed in "The Richard Dimbleby Lecture: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder (1996):

For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria.

Hm, "each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria"? Sorry, I couldn't leave this glaringly inept bit unchallenged. I'll try to keep it short and only say a couple of things for now:

1. What does Dawkins mean by "each one"?

   a. For starters, "each one" of our cells is a single cell, not a "colony" of cells (let alone bacterial cells). But maybe Dawkins simply expressed himself poorly here.

   b. Or does Dawkins mean all the constituent parts of a cell within a single cell are themselves "a colony of bacteria"? If so, then that's just dumb. Are the constituent parts of a bacterial cell likewise "a colony of bacteria" within a single bacterial cell such that we have an infinite regress of "colonies of bacteria"? It's turtles (or bacteria) all the way down!

2. By the phrase "each one of our trillions of cells," I presume Dawkins is referring to a group of the same type of cells within the human body. Say brain cells like neurons. But how are neurons equivalent to "a colony of bacteria"?

   a. Does Dawkins mean neurons are literally "a colony of bacteria" residing in our brains? If so, there are several problems. For one, it fails to distinguish between self and non-self. If neurons are indeed "a colony of bacteria" in humans, then wouldn't we expect our immune system to recognize them as such and deal with them accordingly? (Or are they like gut flora, which if so would raise other issues which would appear to contradict established medical science?)

   b. Does Dawkins mean evolutionarily speaking neurons originated from "a colony of bacteria"? If so, that's a pretty big ask. And of course there are many arguments against neo-Darwinian theory as a whole (such as from the ID community).

As an aside, if we are "a colony of bacteria," does that make the Earth a Petri dish (or at least the appearance of a Petri dish)? :-)

I, robot

Richard Dawkins once said:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Imagine a genius inventor is able to manufacture a human android. Say an android like David 8 in Ridley Scott's Prometheus. But far better (e.g. sans white colored blood, etc.). Indistinguishable from an actual human being.

Of course, one could ask, is David a "living" organism? But given the beliefs and worldview of someone like Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne (e.g. atheism, materialism, reductionism, neo-Darwinism), would there be a substantial difference between David and a living, breathing human being like Dawkins?

If so, what would it be?

If not, then how would an evolutionist like Dawkins differentiate between a "living" human being which evolved and David who is an artificial creation? Say the inventor is the only other who knows and he's not telling! Neither is David.

After all, both appear designed. But real humans (e.g. Dawkins) have come to appear designed due to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas artificial humans like David have come to appear designed due to the guided and purposeful intelligence of a genius inventor. That is, real humans have the appearance of design, while artificial humans have in fact been designed.

This scenario may sound far-fetched to many people; it's in the realm of science fiction, naught else. Maybe so. But given Dawkins' worldview, why not...someday? Indeed, Craig Venter "created" artificial life not too long ago. Apparently Venter had even placed a genetic signature or watermark in his synthetic life in order to make it known it was his creation. Not unlike, perhaps, Mr. Weyland placing "W" on the fingertip of his creation David in Prometheus:

So, short of some sort of a watermark or signature in the cell, if it's not possible to distinguish between a real human being and an artificially designed human being, then how could we tell one did indeed evolve according to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas the other was intelligently designed?

If we can't, then an outsider might as well conclude David evolved according to evolutionary theory, whereas Dawkins was designed by a genius inventor. But we don't really know because we can't distinguish between the two.

As such, on what grounds could Dawkins aka the Dawkbot say humans merely have the "appearance" of design rather than actual design? Couldn't it go either way? If so, then Dawkins shouldn't be so quick to pronounce the appearance of design over actual intelligent design.