AgnosticWeb.com - Intelligence & Evolution: pea plant risk taking

Intelligence & Evolution: pea plant risk taking (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 17:38:52 +0000

dhw: I like your comment: “As usual the living organisms are very inventive in arranging for survival.” Yes, indeed. It may even be that your God does not need to "help" them, because he has given them the means to do the inventing for themselves. - Very possible, but since I think God maintains control. such inventing is programmed to follow his wishes.

Intelligence & Evolution: pea plant risk taking (reply)

dhw — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 11:23:47 +0000

QUOTE: "Efrat Dener, now a master's student at Ben Gurion University, Israel, and the study's first author, said: "Like most people, including even experienced farmers and gardeners, I used to look at plants as passive receivers of circumstances. This line of experiments illustrates how wrong that view is: living organisms are designed by natural selection to exploit their opportunities, and this often implies a great deal of flexibility."-David's comment: I'm not surprised at the findings. In the unpredictable pot at low concentration, more roots means more root searching for scant food, while at the higher level the plant is getting a satisfactory supply so extra root growth supplies more energy. All could be based on sensory programming. As usual the living organisms are very inventive in arranging for survival.-As always, I must thank you for the rich array of articles you are presenting to us. There isn't time to comment on all of them, and in many cases there is no need to do so anyway, but they really are appreciated. In this particular case, I cannot resist returning to the panpsychist view that all living organisms are possessed of some form of quasi-consciousness. I agree with the author that plants are not mere “passive receivers”, though I disagree that they are “designed by natural selection”. Natural selection never designed anything: it can only select from what is already in existence. I like your comment: “As usual the living organisms are very inventive in arranging for survival.” Yes, indeed. It may even be that your God does not need to "help" them, because he has given them the means to do the inventing for themselves.

Intelligence & Evolution: pea plant risk taking (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 01:18:19 +0000

If a pea plant has rooting choices it will chose to take a risk if the supply of nutrients is dice:-http://phys.org/news/2016-06-pea-ability-gamblea.html-"An international team of scientists from Oxford University, UK, and Tel-Hai College, Israel, has shown that pea plants can demonstrate sensitivity to risk - namely, that they can make adaptive choices that take into account environmental variance, an ability previously unknown outside the animal kingdom. -"In the study, published in the journal Current Biology, pea plants were grown with their roots split between two pots, thus facing the decision of which pot to prioritise.-"In a preliminary experiment, the researchers showed that the plants grew more roots in a pot endowed with higher levels of nutrients - an adaptive response similar to animals allocating greater foraging effort to richer food patches. In a series of follow-up experiments, they then split the roots of each plant between two pots that had equal average nutrient concentrations, but where one pot had a constant level and the other a variable level, asking whether plants would 'prefer' to grow more roots in one or the other.-"Based on theoretical analyses of how decision makers such as humans or animals respond to similar choices, the researchers predicted that plants might prefer the variable pot (ie be risk prone) when the average nutrient level was low, and the constant pot (ie be risk averse) when average nutrient level was high.-"This is because when the average nutrient level is below what is required for the plant to thrive, the variable option at least offers the chance to 'gamble' on a run of good luck. On the other hand, when average conditions are good, it makes sense to take the safe option.-"The researchers found that this is exactly what the pea plants did.-***-"'To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of an adaptive response to risk in an organism without a nervous system. We do not conclude that plants are intelligent in the sense used for humans or other animals, but rather that complex and interesting behaviours can theoretically be predicted as biological adaptations - and executed by organisms - on the basis of processes evolved to exploit natural opportunities efficiently.-"'We do not yet know how the plants' sense variance functions, or even if their physiology is specifically adapted to respond to risk, but the findings lead us to look even at pea plants as dynamic strategists and to model their decision processes just as one would model an intelligent agent."-***-"The pea plants were 'risk prone", meaning they grew more roots in the unpredictable pot, when the mean nutrient concentration of both pots was below 0.01g/L. They were 'risk averse", meaning they grew more roots in the constant pot, when the mean nutrient concentration was 0.15g/L or higher.-"Efrat Dener, now a master's student at Ben Gurion University, Israel, and the study's first author, said: "Like most people, including even experienced farmers and gardeners, I used to look at plants as passive receivers of circumstances. This line of experiments illustrates how wrong that view is: living organisms are designed by natural selection to exploit their opportunities, and this often implies a great deal of flexibility."-Comment: I'm not surprised at the findings. In the unpredictable pot at low concentration, more roots means more root searching for scant food, while at the higher level the plant is getting a satisfactory supply so extra root growth supplies more energy. All could be based on sensory programming. As usual the living organisms are very inventive in arranging for survival.

Duplicons: Intelligence & Evolution: (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:34:28 +0000

We share these mainly with early ancestor great apes, not as much in chimps or bonobos. They may have pushed the big brain development:-"The core duplicon anchors an architecturally complex stretch of DNA, acting as the focal point for a larger block of duplications. Although scientists aren't sure how, the core seems to sweep up neighboring segments of DNA, duplicating the entire stretch and inserting the new copy into a new location on the chromosome. "Then it picks up again and duplicates some of the sequence around it and moves to another new location," Eichler said. "It seems to be an extremely unstable genetic element that provides a template for evolutionary change." It is this process that appears to create new genes: When new duplications are inserted into the genome, they bring together two previously foreign pieces of DNA, which can lead to new functional components, such as proteins. This chaotic mix-and-match approach is different from the traditional model for the creation of a gene, in which an existing gene is duplicated and the copy is free to develop new functions. "This mechanism appears to be seminal in our evolution,"- https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140102-a-missing-genetic-link-in-human-evolution/

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:32:55 +0000

DAVID: No, I will never leave the point that cells operate under a plan that contains intelligently supplied information. It makes them seem independently intelligent. > > dhw: Turell says cells are automatons > That have an IQ of zero. > "No, they're intelligent," say Margulis, > Albrecht-Buehler, Shapiro. > > "Cells only seem intelligent," > Says Turell, as if he knew. > Ah well, perhaps we only seem > To be intelligent too.-Certainly true of some humans

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

dhw — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:52:06 +0000

DAVID: No, I will never leave the point that cells operate under a plan that contains intelligently supplied information. It makes them seem independently intelligent.-Turell says cells are automatons That have an IQ of zero. "No, they're intelligent," say Margulis, Albrecht-Buehler, Shapiro.-"Cells only seem intelligent," Says Turell, as if he knew. Ah well, perhaps we only seem To be intelligent too.

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 17:23:02 +0000

> dhw: Oh! So now we are back to "the cells seem intelligent". Let me try once more. Allowing for all the automatic processes that take place within ALL living organisms, including our highly intelligent selves, do you accept the possibility (I ask no more) that cells not only seem intelligent but actually are intelligent in their own right, as per Shapiro, Margulis, Albrecht-Buehler & Co., with your own proviso that God created the mechanism that gave them that intelligence?-No, I will never leave the point that cells operate under a plan that contains intelligently supplied information. It makes them seem independently intelligent.

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

dhw — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 16:58:20 +0000

Dhw: I am offering a hypothesis to explain the course of evolution. One possible explanation of the "intelligent cell" is that God created it, so that gives you your one First Cause.-DAVID: Fine, I accept that possibility. What you have been doing is conjuring up intelligent cells with no real explanation, while downgrading the chance mechanism of Darwin. I'll accept it gratefully. Now you sound like an IDer. -Dhw: As an agnostic, I am open to all options though believing in none. I gratefully accept your gracious acceptance that the intelligent cell offers a possible explanation for the course of evolution...-DAVID: All I have been trying to do is have you accept the theory that the way the cells seem intelligent is that they operate from intelligent instructions (information) in their genomes, with tightly controlled responses to stimuli. Otherwise cancer.-Oh! So now we are back to "the cells seem intelligent". Let me try once more. Allowing for all the automatic processes that take place within ALL living organisms, including our highly intelligent selves, do you accept the possibility (I ask no more) that cells not only seem intelligent but actually are intelligent in their own right, as per Shapiro, Margulis, Albrecht-Buehler & Co., with your own proviso that God created the mechanism that gave them that intelligence?

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:35:46 +0000

dhw: I will try to summarize our discussion, since David's last post offers some important concessions. > > We have been locked in battle for many weeks over the concept of the "intelligent cell" as a possible explanation for the course of evolution. David believes that cells behave automatically, and God has preprogrammed them or dabbled with them. However, he takes seriously the research carried out by Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler and others, who conclude that cells are indeed intelligent. In his previous post, still in the context of the intelligent cell, he again raised the question of First Cause. > > As an agnostic, I am open to all options though believing in none. I gratefully accept your gracious acceptance that the intelligent cell offers a possible explanation for the course of evolution, -All I have been trying to do is have you accept the theory that the way the cells seem intelligent is that they operate from intelligent instructions (information) in their genomes, with tightly controlled responses to stimuli. Otherwise cancer.

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

dhw — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:20:56 +0000

I will try to summarize our discussion, since David's last post offers some important concessions.-We have been locked in battle for many weeks over the concept of the "intelligent cell" as a possible explanation for the course of evolution. David believes that cells behave automatically, and God has preprogrammed them or dabbled with them. However, he takes seriously the research carried out by Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler and others, who conclude that cells are indeed intelligent. In his previous post, still in the context of the intelligent cell, he again raised the question of First Cause.-Dhw: I am offering a hypothesis to explain the course of evolution. One possible explanation of the "intelligent cell" is that God created it, so that gives you your one First Cause.-DAVID: Fine, I accept that possibility. What you have been doing is conjuring up intelligent cells with no real explanation, while downgrading the chance mechanism of Darwin. I'll accept it gratefully. Now you sound like an IDer.-As an agnostic, I am open to all options though believing in none. I gratefully accept your gracious acceptance that the intelligent cell offers a possible explanation for the course of evolution, and using the mental powers conferred on me by Professor Henry, I reach across the Atlantic to shake your mental hand.

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 21:21:48 +0000

dhw: I have no problem with your claim that your interpretation has as much weight as his [Shapiro]. My problem is your denial that his interpretation (and that of several others in this specialized field) has as much weight as yours.-They have a right to their own interpretations. All I am saying is what they provide as information are a series of automatic biochemcial reactions to stimuli. > > dhw:I have never doubted the honesty of your conclusions..... They are all unequivocal in their conclusion that cells are intelligent.-The cells follow intelligent plans. That is a different level of interpretation of the cells responses.-> DAVID: Autonomous intelligence requires a source mechanism. Please supply one. I think out of thin air is appropriate and acceptable. > > dhw: "Intelligence is a fractal property or/and an emergent property: ...Intelligent ecologies contain intelligent populations, which contain intelligent organisms, which contain intelligent cells, which contain intelligent compartments, which contain...and so forth." (Albrecht-Buehler). He thinks the source mechanism or "brain" is the centrosome.-Note the word "he thinks". I think also. Of course decisions are made inthe centrosome, but I think they are all automatic guided by the strength of the stimulous to pipck a planned response. Believe me, he cannot deny that thought. > > dhw; You say it has no basis in research because you are not prepared to take Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler and all the other researchers seriously.-Of course I take them seriously. I use their research to reach my conclusions.-> dhw: And yet you have failed to provide one single researcher who backs your zealous defence of your theory of billions of innovative, adaptive, strategic programmes divinely inserted into the first cells.-I've told you over and over all the ID folks feel like I do. Please take my word for it. I know what I have read. -> > dhw: But you keep telling us how you think the inventions were created: you insist that they were either preprogrammed billions of years ago, or God dabbled. And you refuse point blank to consider the possibility that your God might have created an intelligent mechanism that did its own inventing.-I've admitted that, when I point out how clever life is at coming up with natures wonders. > > dhw: Once again, you prefer to ignore the fact that I am offering a hypothesis to explain the course of evolution. One possible explanation of the "intelligent cell" is that God created it, so that gives you your one First Cause.-Fine, I accept that possibility. What you have been doing is conjuring up intelligent cells with no real explanation, while downgrading the chance mechanism of Darwin. I'll accept it gratefully. Now you sound like an IDer.

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

dhw — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 16:31:58 +0000

DAVID: As you can see from the pdf the biochemical processes are very complex molecular reactions. True neurons are a requirement for the emergence of true consciousness. The cells are not conscious, they are automaticaly reactive as shown by the diagrams. Shapiro says cells are sentient, not a word that gives you a conscious result. He describes automatic response mechanisms. My interpretation has as much weight as his. 1) No-one is denying the complexity of the biochemical processes involved in reactions. The issue is whether decisions are preprogrammed/dabbled with by your God, or worked out by the cells/cell communities themselves. 2) As usual, you prefer to use "conscious" instead of "intelligent", which enables you to equivocate over the meaning of "conscious". What is "true" consciousness? There are different levels of consciousness. 3) The diagrams CAN only show reactions. They can't show whether cellular decisions are taken automatically or intelligently. 4) You cling to "sentient" and ignore "very intelligent". Note that Shapiro calls them sentient beings, not sentient automatons. 5) I have no problem with your claim that your interpretation has as much weight as his. My problem is your denial that his interpretation (and that of several others in this specialized field) has as much weight as yours.-DAVID: Bias is as bias does. I've approached this with an open mind and my current bias is doe to honest conclusions. Popular science literature requires 'humanized' simplification. I have never doubted the honesty of your conclusions. Nor do I doubt the honesty of Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler and the rest, and I find it surprising that your open-mindedness should permit you to dismiss their many years of research as merely an attempt to gain popularity. They are all unequivocal in their conclusion that cells are intelligent.-dhw: The pdf explains how cells use chemistry to talk to each other, sense their environment, change their behaviour by exchanging data and coordinating, and make different decisions. It is purely a matter of interpretation whether these actions are controlled by an autonomous intelligence or an implanted programme. DAVID: Autonomous intelligence requires a source mechanism. Please supply one. I think out of thin air is appropriate and acceptable.-Certainly in the case of your God, "out of thin air" seems to be appropriate and acceptable. If intelligence "emerges" from interaction between cells, perhaps it can also emerge from interaction between the components of individual cells. "Intelligence is a fractal property or/and an emergent property: ...Intelligent ecologies contain intelligent populations, which contain intelligent organisms, which contain intelligent cells, which contain intelligent compartments, which contain...and so forth." (Albrecht-Buehler). He thinks the source mechanism or "brain" is the centrosome. dhw: I have offered three equally unlikely possibilities: God, chance and panpsychist evolution. The "intelligent cell" hypothesis can be applied to all three, and remember I have suggested it in order to explain the process of evolution. DAVID: Admirable effort, but no basis is research. Philosophy equal to the uselessness of the zeno paradox, but defended with the zeal of Dr. Henry.-You say it has no basis in research because you are not prepared to take Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler and all the other researchers seriously. And yet you have failed to provide one single researcher who backs your zealous defence of your theory of billions of innovative, adaptive, strategic programmes divinely inserted into the first cells.-dhw: And do please tell us whether you think God preprogrammed the raft strategy in the very first living cells, or did a dabble to save the ants, Noah-like, from the flood? DAVID: Stop flogging. I have admitted I have no way of telling. My point from Natures wonders is the inventiveness of living things. It doesn't tell us how the inventions are created.-But you keep telling us how you think the inventions were created: you insist that they were either preprogrammed billions of years ago, or God dabbled. And you refuse point blank to consider the possibility that your God might have created an intelligent mechanism that did its own inventing.-DHW: This would certainly explain Darwin-style evolution, although the process is very different from what he envisaged ... mutations intelligently engineered from within the cells themselves, and not random. The origin of the "intelligent cell" - if the hypothesis is true - remains a mystery (see the three options above), but Darwin's theory also avoids speculation on the origin of life itself. DAVID: OK, to avoid speculations, life arrives miraculously, cells are miraculously intelligently self-inventive, and it all started from a miraculous big bang. What is the formula for faith: x-times miracles = faith? Parsimony tells us only one First cause is needed.-Once again, you prefer to ignore the fact that I am offering a hypothesis to explain the course of evolution. One possible explanation of the "intelligent cell" is that God created it, so that gives you your one First Cause.

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:59:16 +0000

> dhw: We also sense and respond to stimuli by biochemical reactions. Diagrams can only illustrate the physical features of the cell/the ant/the human brain. You can't illustrate intelligence any more than you can illustrate God's programme for fire ant rafting....You say cells are set up to be automatic, whereas Shapiro, Margulis et al say they are intelligent. Why should your interpretation carry more weight than theirs? And you still haven't said why you think they are kidding us for the sake of popularity. -As you can see from the pdf the biochemical processes are very complex molecular reactions. True neurons are a requirement for the emergence of true consciousness. The cells are not conscious, they are automaticaly reactive as shown by the diagrams. Shapiro says cells are sentient, not a word that gives you a conscious result. He describes automatic response mechanisms. My interpretation has as much weight as his. Read Larry Moran on the subject of Shapiro's interpretations of evoltion. Bias is as bias does. I've approached this with an open mind and my current bias is doe to honest conclusions. Popular science literature requires 'humanized' simplification. Dawkins keeps reminding his readers, it only 'looks' designed. > > DAVID: The form of 'intellligence' they observe is shown in the pdf presented. How evolution did that by chance is very problematic. The systems look like implanted intelligent plans to me. > > dhw: The pdf explains how cells use chemistry to talk to each other, sense their environment, change their behaviour by exchanging data and coordinating, and make different decisions. It is purely a matter of interpretation whether these actions are controlled by an autonomous intelligence or an implanted programme.-Autonomous intelligence requires a source mechanism. Please supply one. I think out of thin air is appropriate and acceptable-> > dhw: You agree with their conclusion that cells were designed. But you seem to be out on your own with the hypothesis summarized above.... As for your attempt to turn the tables on me, I do not profess to have an answer, but I have offered three equally unlikely possibilities: God, chance and panpsychist evolution. The "intelligent cell" hypothesis can be applied to all three, and remember I have suggested it in order to explain the process of evolution.-Admirable effort, but no basis is research. Philosophy equal to the uselessness of the zeno paradox, but defended with the zeal of Dr. Henry.. > > dhw: And do please tell us whether you think God preprogrammed the raft strategy in the very first living cells, or did a dabble to save the ants, Noah-like, from the flood?-Stop flogging. I have admitted I have no way of telling. My point from Natures wonders is the inventiveness of living things. It doesn't tell us how the inventions are created. > > DHW: I love the stream of Nature's Wonders that you offer us, and they are an education in themselves. ... I am therefore inclined to believe that the vast variety of life produced by evolution can only have come through an inventive mechanism within the cells themselves (life itself doesn't invent) ... a mechanism permitting a huge range of combinations, very much dictated by the demands or opportunities presented by a randomly changing environment. This would certainly explain Darwin-style evolution, although the process is very different from what he envisaged ... mutations intelligently engineered from within the cells themselves, and not random. The origin of the "intelligent cell" - if the hypothesis is true - remains a mystery (see the three options above), but Darwin's theory also avoids speculation on the origin of life itself.-OK, to avoid speculations, life arrives miraculously, cells are miraculously intelligently self-inventive, and it all started from a miraculous big bang. What is the formula for faith: x-times miracles = faith? Parsimony tells us only one First cause is needed.

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

dhw — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:25:08 +0000

dhw: Is it not possible that as a result of their research they [Shapiro, Margulis, Albrecht-Buehler & Co) genuinely believe cells are intelligent?-DAVID: If you look at the following link you will see that cells sence and respond to stimuli by biochemical reactions. They are all set up to be automatic: Cell Biochemistry (N.B. Right hand mouse click to open link in a new tab or window)-We also sense and respond to stimuli by biochemical reactions. Diagrams can only illustrate the physical features of the cell/the ant/the human brain. You can't illustrate intelligence any more than you can illustrate God's programme for fire ant rafting. Albrecht-Buehler also illustrates his hypothesis, showing the centrosome and microtubules (subtitled "brain and nerves?"). If human intelligence "emerges" from the interaction of many parts, so might intelligence emerge from the interacting parts of the cell, and from interactions within cell communities. You say cells are set up to be automatic, whereas Shapiro, Margulis et al say they are intelligent. Why should your interpretation carry more weight than theirs? And you still haven't said why you think they are kidding us for the sake of popularity.-DAVID: The form of 'intellligence' they observe is shown in the pdf presented. How evolution did that by chance is very problematic. The systems look like implanted intelligent plans to me.-The pdf explains how cells use chemistry to talk to each other, sense their environment, change their behaviour by exchanging data and coordinating, and make different decisions. It is purely a matter of interpretation whether these actions are controlled by an autonomous intelligence or an implanted programme. You needn't keep flogging the dead horse of chance, as that is not an issue between us. (See below for origin of "the systems".)-dhw: If the whole of the ID community supports your hypothesis [...] why do you have to resort to subjectively interpreted "implications" instead of concrete references? DAVID: Because when they discuss this approach the pdf presented is the kind of evidence they give.-This kind of evidence shows only that the cell seems too complex not to have been designed. It has nothing to do with your hypothesis that God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on billions...oh well, see below.-dhw: Just give me one reference to an article explicitly arguing that God implanted billions of programmes into the very first cells, to ensure that billions of years later organisms would produce billions of innovations, adaptations, lifestyles and strategies, with God occasionally dabbling along the way. And please explain why if this is such a common hypothesis, you claimed that it was "entirely of your own making".-DAVID: Not my own making as I have explained. How about you tell me how the cells got so complicated to be the source of life, an emergent phenomenon. The ID folks have studied all of this and I agree with their consclusion.-You agree with their conclusion that cells were designed. But you seem to be out on your own with the hypothesis summarized above. I admire you for your individuality and your faith. As for your attempt to turn the tables on me, I do not profess to have an answer, but I have offered three equally unlikely possibilities: God, chance and panpsychist evolution. The "intelligent cell" hypothesis can be applied to all three, and remember I have suggested it in order to explain the process of evolution. dhw: And do please tell us whether you think God preprogrammed the raft strategy in the very first living cells, or did a dabble to save the ants, Noah-like, from the flood?-DAVID: All I can do is observe and my natures wonders stream of observations on this website show how inventive life is. Is each one a God dabble? Or did God create life to be very inventive on its own? Your choice. Since you stand back as the non-believer What do you think? All Darwin-style evolution?-I love the stream of Nature's Wonders that you offer us, and they are an education in themselves. The above alternatives have left out your God's preprogramming the first cells with all those billions of innovations etc. "Each one a God dabble" = Creationism, which I find just as difficult to swallow. I am therefore inclined to believe that the vast variety of life produced by evolution can only have come through an inventive mechanism within the cells themselves (life itself doesn't invent) ... a mechanism permitting a huge range of combinations, very much dictated by the demands or opportunities presented by a randomly changing environment. This would certainly explain Darwin-style evolution, although the process is very different from what he envisaged ... mutations intelligently engineered from within the cells themselves, and not random. The origin of the "intelligent cell" - if the hypothesis is true - remains a mystery (see the three options above), but Darwin's theory also avoids speculation on the origin of life itself.

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:11:56 +0000

> dhw: The quote was in answer to your claim that Shapiro did not describe the method of cooperation. He did, as do all the other scientists I have cited. Why would they all deliberately mislead the public? How will that make them popular? Is it not possible that as a result of their research they genuinely believe cells are intelligent?-If you look at the following link you will see that cells sence and respond to stimuli by biochemical reactions. They are all set up to be automatic: -Cell Biochemistry (N.B. Right hand mouse click and open link in a new tab or window) > > dhw:Nor do we know how independent intelligence works. We can observe it but have no idea of its origins. Many researchers have observed it in ants and cells,-The form of 'intellligence' they observe is shown in the pdf presented. How evolution did that by chance is very problematic. The systems look like implanted intelligent plans to me.- > dhw: If the whole of the ID community supports your hypothesis [...] why do you have to resort to subjectively interpreted "implications" instead of concrete references?-Because when they discuss this approach the pdf presented is the kind of evidence they give.- > dhw:Please don't subject me to a long search. Just give me one reference to an article explicitly arguing that God implanted billions of programmes into the very first cells, to ensure that billions of years later organisms would produce billions of innovations, adaptations, lifestyles and strategies, with God occasionally dabbling along the way. And please explain why if this is such a common hypothesis, you claimed that it was "entirely of your own making".-Not my own making as I have explained. How about you tell me how the cells got so complicated to be the source of life, an emergent phenomenon. The ID folks have studied all of this and I agree with their consclusion.-> > dhw: And do please tell us whether you think God preprogrammed the raft strategy in the very first living cells, or did a dabble to save the ants, Noah-like, from the flood?-All I can do is observe and my natures wonders stream of observations on this website show how inventive life is. Is each one a God dabble? Or did God create life to be very inventive on its own? Your choice. Since you stand back as the non-believer What do you think? All Darwin-style evolution?

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

dhw — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:31:26 +0000

SHAPIRO: "Contemporary research in many laboratories on cell-cell signaling, symbiosis and pathogenesis show that bacteria utilize sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication..." DAVID: I know all this. You can't make me change my inerpretation. To popularize his findings Shapiro was on Huntington Post with a series of articles I've followed, using anthropomorhized interpretive writings to sell his ideas to the reading public. So what.-The quote was in answer to your claim that Shapiro did not describe the method of cooperation. He did, as do all the other scientists I have cited. Why would they all deliberately mislead the public? How will that make them popular? Is it not possible that as a result of their research they genuinely believe cells are intelligent?-DAVID: The point is the art and science of instinct is a dead end. We don't know how it works. We can observe it but have no idea of its origins, planned or developed and how was it developed? Evolution can cover all of this and we can see body plan evolution in action but mental action is hidden from us.-Nor do we know how independent intelligence works. We can observe it but have no idea of its origins. Many researchers have observed it in ants and cells, but apparently they are all poppycockists, wooly liberals or popularity-seekers.-dhw: If the whole of the ID community supports your hypothesis [...] why do you have to resort to subjectively interpreted "implications" instead of concrete references? DAVID: Because there are constant concrete references in the website Uncommon Descent, open to everyone. Take a look.-Please don't subject me to a long search. Just give me one reference to an article explicitly arguing that God implanted billions of programmes into the very first cells, to ensure that billions of years later organisms would produce billions of innovations, adaptations, lifestyles and strategies, with God occasionally dabbling along the way. And please explain why if this is such a common hypothesis, you claimed that it was "entirely of your own making".-DAVID (referring to the fire ant raft): You are reading popular science reporting. It reads like ants are human. That is the way non-scientists like to get their science news. And the writers provide it that way. Of course ants are aware, and they cooperate, because they have to to achieve the goal of floating in a river. Their instinct drives each ant to do his part. But each ant has no idea why he is doing it. He simple knows what to do from his genome in the brain.-Nobody is claiming that ants are human. The claim is that they are aware, cognitive, sentient, able to process information, communicate and cooperate, take and implement decisions, work out strategies ... all of these being signs that they are "intelligent" in their own right. You now agree that they are aware, and in order to cooperate they must have means of communication and the means to process whatever is communicated, so how do you know they are unaware of what and why they are communicating? And do please tell us whether you think God preprogrammed the raft strategy in the very first living cells, or did a dabble to save the ants, Noah-like, from the flood?

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:37:10 +0000

> dhw: From the Shapiro article I quoted originally: "Contemporary research in many laboratories on cell-cell signaling, symbiosis and pathogenesis show that bacteria utilize sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication..." One of those laboratories came up with the expressions "bacterial twittering" and "chemical tweeting". Like the rest of us, cells use language (i.e. their own means of communication) as their method of cooperation.-I know all this. You can't make me change my inerpretation. To popularize his findings Shapiro was on Huntington Post with a series of articles I've followed, using anthropomorhized interpretive writings to sell his ideas to the reading public. So what. ] > > dhw: Perhaps that is because you like to use words like "think" and "plan", since they can encompass the sort of abstract thinking that only humans appear to be capable of. Then you can pounce and ridicule the idea of ants holding committee meetings. In the same way you like to pounce on "conscious" and identify the term with human self-awareness, so that cells and ants can be disqualified. Just stick to "intelligence".-The point is the art and science of instinct is a dead end. We don't know how it works. We can observe it but have no idea of its origins, planned or developed and how was it developed? Evolution can cover all of this and we can see body plan evolution in action but mental action is hidden from us. > > dhw: The ID community argues that cells are too complex not to have been designed. If the whole of the ID community supports your hypothesis that every single innovation, adaptation, strategy and lifestyle was either preprogrammed in the very first cells or the result of God's dabbling, why do you have to resort to subjectively interpreted "implications" instead of concrete references?-Because there are constant concrete references in the website Uncommon Descent, open to everyone. Take a look. > > DAVID: I've said all along that theistic evolution is either entirely preprogrammed or there is dabbling, and I can't tell which is correct. > > dhw: Read the conclusion to that article [ant rafts]: > "The idea of conceptualising a swarm of ants as a smart material is quite imaginative," says Scott Turner at Syracuse University in New York. "They were able to show how each of the units of the material are cognitive, aware of their surroundings and respond with a coordinated set of behaviours. This is opening the door to some really interesting questions." > > Interesting indeed. Each ant is cognitive, aware, and able to coordinate behaviours (=cooperate). ...According to you, though, this is not an option. ... Your ants don't have the slightest clue what they are doing. They are not individually cognitive or aware or cooperative, no matter what the researchers may say.-You are reading popular science reporting. It reads like ants are human. That is the way non-scientists like to get their science news. And the writers provide it that way. Of course ants are aware, and they cooperate, because they have to to achieve the goal of floating in a river. Their instinct drives each ant to do his part. But each ant has no idea why he is doing it. He simple knows what to do from his genome in the brain.

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

dhw — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:07:10 +0000

dhw: Dembski confirms that Shapiro sees cooperation between intelligent cells as a key factor in evolution. Doing their own engineering, reworking existing structures and all Shapiro's other "smart" examples take us far, far away from your theory of preprogrammed automatons. DAVID: In your view. The cooperation is all planned. Do Dembski or Shapiro describe the method of cooperation? No.-From the Shapiro article I quoted originally: "Contemporary research in many laboratories on cell-cell signaling, symbiosis and pathogenesis show that bacteria utilize sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication..." One of those laboratories came up with the expressions "bacterial twittering" and "chemical tweeting". Like the rest of us, cells use language (i.e. their own means of communication) as their method of cooperation.-dhw: You have so far dismissed the findings of all these different scientists as "metaphors", "poppycock", "kooky", and "woolly liberal". Is it not possible that during their many years of research they have seen something you haven't? DAVID: No. I've read most of their material and I still interpret your insistence on making it sould like they are really thinking and planning as overreaching.-Perhaps that is because you like to use words like "think" and "plan", since they can encompass the sort of abstract thinking that only humans appear to be capable of. Then you can pounce and ridicule the idea of ants holding committee meetings. In the same way you like to pounce on "conscious" and identify the term with human self-awareness, so that cells and ants can be disqualified. Just stick to "intelligence".-dhw: More authoritative statements, as if the cells' intelligent behaviour could not possibly be the result of them actually being intelligent...[Shapiro] concludes that they are very intelligent, sentient beings ... and I suspect you are the only person in the world who would take that to be a definition of automatons. As you say, though, your theory is entirely of your own making!-DAVID: The whole ID community interprets this as I do. you are misreading Dembski and Behe.-The ID community argues that cells are too complex not to have been designed. If the whole of the ID community supports your hypothesis that every single innovation, adaptation, strategy and lifestyle was either preprogrammed in the very first cells or the result of God's dabbling, why do you have to resort to subjectively interpreted "implications" instead of concrete references? DAVID: I've said all along that theistic evolution is either entirely preprogrammed or there is dabbling, and I can't tell which is correct.-Judging by the Catholic version, dabbling fits in with the ID approach. Your problem arises when you insist that God preprogrammed the very first cells to pass on billions of innovations etc. (i.e. the non-dabbling component of your hypothesis). The wonderful example you have given of fire ants organizing themselves into rafts illustrates the point. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24654-fire-ants-writhe-to-make-unsinkable-rafts.html-Read the conclusion to that article: "The idea of conceptualising a swarm of ants as a smart material is quite imaginative," says Scott Turner at Syracuse University in New York. "They were able to show how each of the units of the material are cognitive, aware of their surroundings and respond with a coordinated set of behaviours. This is opening the door to some really interesting questions."-Interesting indeed. Each ant is cognitive, aware, and able to coordinate behaviours (=cooperate). It conforms perfectly to the intelligent cell concept developed by Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler and various other modern scientists. According to you, though, this is not an option. There are only two possibilities: 1) Your God preprogrammed the very first automaton cells to pass on the raft concept, so that billions of years later (after billions of different innovations, adaptations, lifestyles, strategies) automaton fire ants would automatically carry out God's inbuilt instructions on how fire ants should deal with floods. 2) God peeped out from behind his quantum curtain, saw that the automaton ants were in trouble, and decided to give their little grey cells a tweak so that they would unconsciously, unthinkingly, automatically construct their rafts. Your ants don't have the slightest clue what they are doing. They are not individually cognitive or aware or cooperative, no matter what the researchers may say.

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:56:58 +0000

> dhw:You dismiss my statement as wrong but then confirm it, except to insist again that the mechanism for cellular processing, communicating and decision-making is all preprogrammed (whereas I said its origin was unknown). You go on to say that human consciousness and intelligent thought emerges SOMEHOW.......Nobody knows. He says we can learn a lot from cells about chemistry, physics and evolution, and he also says they are sentient, very intelligent beings. (That doesn't, of course, mean they are human!)-It also doesn't mean they can think and plan on their own-> > dhw: "Evolutionary programming", however, is a much vaguer concept than your preprogramming of the very first cells with billions of innovations to be passed down through billions of generations. Are you beginning to equivocate? The creation of an intelligent cell capable of innumerable combinations leading to innumerable forms of life could also be called evolutionary programming, it can be attributed to your God, and it allows for his dabbling.-I haven't changed. I've said all along that theistic evolution is either entirely preprogrammed or there is dabbling, and I can't tell which is correct.

Intelligence & Evolution (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:50:20 +0000

> dhw:I'm not implying anything ... I'm suggesting quite explicitly, along with Shapiro, Margulis, Albrecht-Buehler, Jacob, Becker, Levine et al that cells are intelligent in their own right, and use physics and chemistry to organize themselves and to take and implement their own decisions.-And I'm sticking to my interpretation that they are following and are controlled by automatic responses from the implanted intelligent information in their genomes.->dhw: Dembski confirms that Shapiro sees cooperation between intelligent cells as a key factor in evolution. Doing their own engineering, reworking existing structures and all Shapiro's other "smart" examples take us far, far away from your theory of preprogrammed automatons.-In your view. The cooperation is all planned. Do Dembski or Shapiro describe the method of cooperation? No. > > dhw:You have so far dismissed the findings of all these different scientists as "metaphors", "poppycock", "kooky", and "wooly liberal". Is it not possible that during their many years of research they have seen something you haven't?-No. I've read most of their material and I still interpret your insistence on making it sould like they are really thinking and planning as overreaching.- > shw: More authoritative statements, as if the cells' intelligent behaviour could not possibly be the result of them actually being intelligent. What do you mean by "championing their epigenetic abilities"? Shapiro goes through a whole list of bacterial "smarts" to show how "incredibly sophisticated they are at coordinating processes involving millions of individual events" and at "managing the biosphere's geochemical and thermodynamic transformations". He concludes that they are very intelligent, sentient beings ... and I suspect you are the only person in the world who would take that to be a definition of automatons. As you say, though, your theory is entirely of your own making!-The whole ID community interprets this as I do. you are misreading Dembski and Behe.