Convergence or divergence? (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Monday, July 22, 2013, 15:09 (4143 days ago)
Gould always claimed that if the tape of life were rerun we would get diffrent results in evolution. Latest research says no it would be the same:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130719104931.htm
Convergence or divergence?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 22, 2013, 22:35 (4142 days ago) @ David Turell
This is kind of a shot in the foot for evolutionary theory. If the species evolve within a set of tight parameters, as this study shows(and as I have repeatedly predicted they would show), then that really serves to nix the concept of divergence, and by extension speciation via evolution. The fact that they developed nearly identical traits to deal with nearly identical environments(also something I have predicted repeatedly) speaks more in favor of design than evolution. Common solutions to common problems built right into the code, and not deviating from those solutions beyond the pre-programmed parameters.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 01:01 (4142 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: The fact that they developed nearly identical traits to deal with nearly identical environments(also something I have predicted repeatedly) speaks more in favor of design than evolution. Common solutions to common problems built right into the code, and not deviating from those solutions beyond the pre-programmed parameters.-Simon Conway Morris is probably the main champion of convergence. He has a website primarily devoted to it. You are right. It points to design and intellect behind the whole of life's code.
Convergence or divergence?
DAVID: Gould always claimed that if the tape of life were rerun we would get diffrent results in evolution. Latest research says no it would be the same:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130719104931.htm-That would probably depend on whether the rerun environment would be the same. In my view, this is a totally pointless conjecture! TONY: This is kind of a shot in the foot for evolutionary theory. If the species evolve within a set of tight parameters, as this study shows(and as I have repeatedly predicted they would show), then that really serves to nix the concept of divergence, and by extension speciation via evolution. The fact that they developed nearly identical traits to deal with nearly identical environments(also something I have predicted repeatedly) speaks more in favor of design than evolution. Common solutions to common problems built right into the code, and not deviating from those solutions beyond the pre-programmed parameters.-DAVID: Simon Conway Morris is probably the main champion of convergence. He has a website primarily devoted to it. You are right. It points to design and intellect behind the whole of life's code.-We all know that life must be able to cope with its environment or perish. The fact that similar organisms are found in similar environments is therefore hardly surprising if all life has sprung from a common source. If "the intelligent cell/genome" meets the same problem in Africa as it does in Asia, why would it not come up with the same solution? Convergence makes perfect sense. But that does not exclude divergence! If there are new problems, there must be new solutions ... though I would go one step further: a new environment will allow for new forms of life, and the "intelligent cell/genome" can innovate as well as adapt. "More in favor of design than evolution" suggests that the two are incompatible. They are not. Plenty of people believe in both. Unless you think your God created every single new organ and organism by mumbling some magic formula, or by zillions of acts of psychokinesis, you will surely have to subscribe to the theory that he created a mechanism capable of adapting and innovating without his direct intervention. Atheists can believe in the same mechanism, and claim that it fashioned itself by chance. Either way, evolution through the selfsame mechanism progresses by design (as opposed to Darwin's random mutations). Only the origin of the mechanism is then at issue. If you accept the "intelligent cell/genome" hypothesis, you will get convergence, divergence, and a solution to all the mysteries of evolution with the exception of how it started!
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 15:22 (4142 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw;"More in favor of design than evolution" suggests that the two are incompatible. They are not. Plenty of people believe in both. Unless you think your God created every single new organ and organism by mumbling some magic formula, or by zillions of acts of psychokinesis, you will surely have to subscribe to the theory that he created a mechanism capable of adapting and innovating without his direct intervention. Atheists can believe in the same mechanism, and claim that it fashioned itself by chance. Either way, evolution through the selfsame mechanism progresses by design (as opposed to Darwin's random mutations). Only the origin of the mechanism is then at issue. If you accept the "intelligent cell/genome" hypothesis, you will get convergence, divergence, and a solution to all the mysteries of evolution with the exception of how it started!-You skip the same old problem: the intelligence cell/genome did not arise by chance, by your own statement that you do not trust chance to achieve it. I do subscribe to the theory that generally God's evolutionary process handles everything in its stride, and requires only an occasional dabble. That is what convergence shows. Divergence is almost always a twist on an established pattern.
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 16:01 (4142 days ago) @ David Turell
Evolution may require groups of beneficial mutations to advance:-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-07-evolution-hitchhikers.html
Convergence or divergence?
dhw;"More in favor of design than evolution" suggests that the two are incompatible. They are not. Plenty of people believe in both. Unless you think your God created every single new organ and organism by mumbling some magic formula, or by zillions of acts of psychokinesis, you will surely have to subscribe to the theory that he created a mechanism capable of adapting and innovating without his direct intervention. Atheists can believe in the same mechanism, and claim that it fashioned itself by chance. Either way, evolution through the selfsame mechanism progresses by design (as opposed to Darwin's random mutations). Only the origin of the mechanism is then at issue. If you accept the "intelligent cell/genome" hypothesis, you will get convergence, divergence, and a solution to all the mysteries of evolution with the exception of how it started!-DAVID: You skip the same old problem: the intelligence cell/genome did not arise by chance, by your own statement that you do not trust chance to achieve it. I do subscribe to the theory that generally God's evolutionary process handles everything in its stride, and requires only an occasional dabble. That is what convergence shows. Divergence is almost always a twist on an established pattern.-I have not skipped it. I have mentioned it explicitly, but as always you prefer to focus on your theory of the divine when I am only trying to understand the process by which evolution works. I am in good company, since Darwin did the same! Divergence is only "a twist on an established pattern" once an innovation has "caught on". It's innovation that leads to new organs and new species, and that is where the "intelligent cell/genome" really comes into its own. Your God wouldn't even need to dabble if it weren't for your lumbering him with your anthropocentric view of the universe! But we don't need to go into that again, do we?-DAVID: Evolution may require groups of beneficial mutations to advance:-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-07-evolution-hitchhikers.html-Since any mutation would have to link up with the rest of the organism, doesn't it stand to reason that there would have to be more than one change? It all points to cooperation between intelligent cells.
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 14:58 (4141 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: You skip the same old problem: the intelligence cell/genome did not arise by chance, by your own statement that you do not trust chance to achieve it. > dhw: I have not skipped it. I have mentioned it explicitly, but as always you prefer to focus on your theory of the divine when I am only trying to understand the process by which evolution works.-No, you are skipping. You don't believe in chance. Where did the underlying intelligence in the cell come from? Don't give me the pat answer that since energy always existed it conjured up intelligence from amorphous energy. I can help you. Kastner pointd out the seething mass of uncertainty at the quantum level. That reduces the odds for chance to fail. First cause is perhaps best conceived as quantum energy.
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Thursday, July 25, 2013, 15:30 (4140 days ago) @ David Turell
> David: No, you are skipping. You don't believe in chance. Where did the underlying intelligence in the cell come from? Don't give me the pat answer that since energy always existed it conjured up intelligence from amorphous energy. -Another analysis of the need for intellgence to get biologically functional information:-http://powertochange.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/A-Scientific-Case-for-Intelligent-Design.pdf
Convergence or divergence?
DAVID: You skip the same old problem: the intelligence cell/genome did not arise by chance, by your own statement that you do not trust chance to achieve it. -dhw: I have not skipped it. I have mentioned it explicitly, but as always you prefer to focus on your theory of the divine when I am only trying to understand the process by which evolution works.-DAVID: No, you are skipping. You don't believe in chance. Where did the underlying intelligence in the cell come from? Don't give me the pat answer that since energy always existed it conjured up intelligence from amorphous energy. -I have never given you that pat answer. I have offered you three possible answers: your God, chance, and panpsychist evolution, NONE of which I believe in. Nor do I dismiss any of them, since one of them must be close to the truth. That is the nature of agnosticism.-DAVID: I can help you. Kastner pointd out the seething mass of uncertainty at the quantum level. That reduces the odds for chance to fail. First cause is perhaps best conceived as quantum energy.-A "seething mass of uncertainty" sounds like a pretty good description of everything connected with the origin of life and consciousness. I much prefer that term to specific explanations like "God", "chance" and "panpsychist evolution". A seething mass of uncertainty...yep, another excellent justification for agnosticism. Thank you.
Convergence or divergence?
by BBella , Thursday, July 25, 2013, 18:10 (4139 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I can help you. Kastner pointd out the seething mass of uncertainty at the quantum level. That reduces the odds for chance to fail. First cause is perhaps best conceived as quantum energy. > > A "seething mass of uncertainty" sounds like a pretty good description of everything connected with the origin of life and consciousness. I much prefer that term to specific explanations like "God", "chance" and "panpsychist evolution". A seething mass of uncertainty...yep, another excellent justification for agnosticism. Thank you.-Seems to me it be better described as a seething mass of possibility?
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Thursday, July 25, 2013, 19:07 (4139 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella: Seems to me it be better described as a seething mass of possibility?-Actually both uncertainty and possibility
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Friday, September 06, 2013, 05:39 (4097 days ago) @ David Turell
More evidence of convergence in the genome of various animals. Convergence is highly suggestive of design. Simon Conway Morris is well known. Why are people so surprised at his favorite theory?-http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679
Convergence or divergence?
DAVID: More evidence of convergence in the genome of various animals. Convergence is highly suggestive of design. Simon Conway Morris is well known. Why are people so surprised at his favorite theory?-http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679-The fact that different organisms come up with similar solutions to the same problems is not in the least surprising once you accept that there is a form of intelligence at work in every case. We see a similar phenomenon in many of our human activities, as different minds working separately on the same issues come up with similar ideas. But I don't see why it's convergence that is "highly suggestive of design". Two intelligences thinking alike are no more suggestive of design than one intelligence doing its thinking. Whether intelligence per se is the product of inexplicable design, inexplicable chance, or inexplicable "panpsychist" evolution is of course the question we never stop asking.
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Saturday, September 07, 2013, 02:39 (4096 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The fact that different organisms come up with similar solutions to the same problems is not in the least surprising once you accept that there is a form of intelligence at work in every case. -Universal intelligence as far as I am concerned.-> dhw:We see a similar phenomenon in many of our human activities, as different minds working separately on the same issues come up with similar ideas. But I don't see why it's convergence that is "highly suggestive of design".-When you see the example of six different types of eyes created by living matter it strongly suggests there is planning hidden in DNA- > dhw: Two intelligences thinking alike are no more suggestive of design than one intelligence doing its thinking. Whether intelligence per se is the product of inexplicable design, inexplicable chance, or inexplicable "panpsychist" evolution is of course the question we never stop asking. -It is really the issue that those are questions that you never stop asking. I'm very satisfied where I am in my theories.
Convergence or divergence?
dhw: The fact that different organisms come up with similar solutions to the same problems is not in the least surprising once you accept that there is a form of intelligence at work in every case. -DAVID: Universal intelligence as far as I am concerned.-I was referring to our theory of the "intelligent cell". Convergence involves individual organisms coming up with similar solutions. That can only mean each organism has its OWN intelligence, regardless of whether there is a UI that designed the intelligence in the first place.-dhw: We see a similar phenomenon in many of our human activities, as different minds working separately on the same issues come up with similar ideas. But I don't see why it's convergence that is "highly suggestive of design".-DAVID: When you see the example of six different types of eyes created by living matter it strongly suggests there is planning hidden in DNA.-Each eye suggests an intelligent invention. Six different eyes suggest six intelligent inventions by six "converging" intelligences. They all strongly suggest intelligence within the DNA. If that is what you mean by "planning", I agree, but I suspect you are referring to a single universal planner who is mysteriously both within and without DNA. That's different.-dhw: Two intelligences thinking alike are no more suggestive of design than one intelligence doing its thinking. Whether intelligence per se is the product of inexplicable design, inexplicable chance, or inexplicable "panpsychist" evolution is of course the question we never stop asking. -DAVID: It is really the issue that those are questions that you never stop asking. I'm very satisfied where I am in my theories.-Dawkins is also very satisfied where he is in his theories. I am not satisfied with either form of satisfaction, which is why this website is devoted to discussion and not mutual backslapping!
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Saturday, September 07, 2013, 18:06 (4095 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Universal intelligence as far as I am concerned. > > dhw:I was referring to our theory of the "intelligent cell". Convergence involves individual organisms coming up with similar solutions. That can only mean each organism has its OWN intelligence, regardless of whether there is a UI that designed the intelligence in the first place.-It is YOUR intelligent cell. I view the cell as containing information which it is programmed to use intelligently with automatic chemical responses, controlled by tight feed-back loops. > > dhw: But I don't see why it's convergence that is "highly suggestive of design".[/i]-Because of the similar responses life comes up with in very different species. The human eye and the octopus eye are amazingly similar. Even the retinas are the same except for the layer configuration, ours allowing more energy to be received by the retinal cells. > > dhw:Each eye suggests an intelligent invention. Six different eyes suggest six intelligent inventions by six "converging" intelligences. They all strongly suggest intelligence within the DNA. If that is what you mean by "planning", I agree, but I suspect you are referring to a single universal planner who is mysteriously both within and without DNA. That's different.-That is where we differ: as stated above I do not agree that the cells are independently intelligent. It is how they are organized to use their information and how they respond attests to the intelligence that creaeted them. > > dhw: Two intelligences thinking alike are no more suggestive of design than one intelligence doing its thinking. Whether intelligence per se is the product of inexplicable design, inexplicable chance, or inexplicable "panpsychist" evolution is of course the question we never stop asking.-We interpret what we know about cells differently > dhw:Dawkins is also very satisfied where he is in his theories. I am not satisfied with either form of satisfaction, which is why this website is devoted to discussion and not mutual backslapping!-I agree. Full discussion with genteel and curteous flavor
Convergence or divergence?
by BBella , Saturday, September 07, 2013, 21:56 (4095 days ago) @ David Turell
> > DAVID: Universal intelligence as far as I am concerned. > > > > dhw:I was referring to our theory of the "intelligent cell". Convergence involves individual organisms coming up with similar solutions. That can only mean each organism has its OWN intelligence, regardless of whether there is a UI that designed the intelligence in the first place. > > It is YOUR intelligent cell. I view the cell as containing information which it is programmed to use intelligently with automatic chemical responses, controlled by tight feed-back loops.-> > dhw: But I don't see why it's convergence that is "highly suggestive of design".[/i] > > Because of the similar responses life comes up with in very different species. The human eye and the octopus eye are amazingly similar. Even the retinas are the same except for the layer configuration, ours allowing more energy to be received by the retinal cells. > > > > dhw:Each eye suggests an intelligent invention. Six different eyes suggest six intelligent inventions by six "converging" intelligences. They all strongly suggest intelligence within the DNA. If that is what you mean by "planning", I agree, but I suspect you are referring to a single universal planner who is mysteriously both within and without DNA. That's different. > > That is where we differ: as stated above I do not agree that the cells are independently intelligent. It is how they are organized to use their information and how they respond attests to the intelligence that creaeted them. > > > > dhw: Two intelligences thinking alike are no more suggestive of design than one intelligence doing its thinking. Whether intelligence per se is the product of inexplicable design, inexplicable chance, or inexplicable "panpsychist" evolution is of course the question we never stop asking. > > We interpret what we know about cells differently > -David, why is it, from your view, pre-programming is more likely to be the "man behind the curtain" or causation of similarities within differing species than say, something like Sheldrake's Morphic Field's?
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Saturday, September 07, 2013, 23:01 (4095 days ago) @ BBella
> >bbella: David, why is it, from your view, pre-programming is more likely to be the "man behind the curtain" or causation of similarities within differing species than say, something like Sheldrake's Morphic Field's?-Because the fields are a result of the 'man-behind-the-curtain's actions. I think Sheldrake is right on about species consciousness, but I think DNA guidance is more important that possible field formation.
Convergence or divergence?
DAVID: Universal intelligence as far as I am concerned.-dhw: I was referring to our theory of the "intelligent cell". Convergence involves individual organisms coming up with similar solutions. That can only mean each organism has its OWN intelligence, regardless of whether there is a UI that designed the intelligence in the first place.-DAVID: It is YOUR intelligent cell. I view the cell as containing information which it is programmed to use intelligently with automatic chemical responses, controlled by tight feed-back loops.-It seems to me that any organism which uses information intelligently can be called intelligent. We talk of man-made machines as artificial intelligence, and their organic equivalent as natural intelligence. Whether it has been divinely designed or has evolved without outside intervention makes no difference: natural intelligence is intelligence. -dhw: Each eye suggests an intelligent invention. Six different eyes suggest six intelligent inventions by six "converging" intelligences. They all strongly suggest intelligence within the DNA. If that is what you mean by "planning", I agree, but I suspect you are referring to a single universal planner who is mysteriously both within and without DNA. That's different.-DAVID: That is where we differ: as stated above I do not agree that the cells are independently intelligent. It is how they are organized to use their information and how they respond attests to the intelligence that created them.-For any theist, human intelligence also "attests" to the intelligence that created it. That doesn't make humans into automated robots, even though most if not all our internal cell communities ... heart, liver, blood, lungs, kidneys etc. ... work independently of our control. There has to be an additional mechanism that enables humans as well as cells and cell communities to innovate and to adapt their behaviour. You seem to be suggesting that your God preprogrammed six different sets of cells to produce six different types of eye. But in that case, if cells are incapable of independent intelligent action, your God must have preprogrammed or directly created every single innovation, variation and adaptation you can think of. Believe that if you will, but if you don't, your only alternative is to believe that six different sets of cells acted independently and intelligently, whether God created their intelligence or not.
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Sunday, September 08, 2013, 18:56 (4094 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You seem to be suggesting that your God preprogrammed six different sets of cells to produce six different types of eye.-You are assuming too much. DNA has the ability to solve problems, such as producing useful sight, and in different organisms, depending on their environment, produces different results. My view of God is tahat He does not intervene much.-> dhw: , your only alternative is to believe that six different sets of cells acted independently and intelligently, whether God created their intelligence or not.-Again, no. God put information into the DNA so it can take needed action. The intelligence is at the level of God. The new epigenetic findings show this.
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Monday, September 09, 2013, 14:51 (4094 days ago) @ David Turell
Echolocating is found in bats; I've heard their sonar on the Grand Canyon trips. Dolphins use it also. This is a prime example of convergence, and it requires over 200 changes in DNA to get there:-"To search for genes that evolved convergently in echolocating animals, the researchers lined up the genomes of 22 mammalian species, only some of which echolocate. The species included the bottlenose dolphin and four bat species whose genomes the researchers sequenced for the study: three bats that echolocate and one that doesn't. The researchers then used a computer simulation to scroll through the genomes and correlate mutations with ability to echolocate. The researchers report September 4 in Nature that nearly 200 genetic regions stood out as evolving together ... far more than the researchers had expected. -"This highly specialized life trait is affecting vast portions of the genetic makeup of the organism, not just one or two genes," Parker says. "- http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/353025/description/Many_genes_in_dolphins_and_bats__evolved_in_the_same_way_to_allow_echolocation-My conclusion is still that DNA had this information in its program. And therefore represents pre-planning by Guess Who.
Convergence or divergence?
dhw: You seem to be suggesting that your God preprogrammed six different sets of cells to produce six different types of eye.-DAVID: You are assuming too much. DNA has the ability to solve problems, such as producing useful sight, and in different organisms, depending on their environment, produces different results. My view of God is that He does not intervene much.-I am not assuming anything. I'm trying to understand why you think the ability to solve problems, invent useful organs, adapt to different environments and different challenges, shows that the cells and cell communities concerned have no intelligence of their own. -dhw: ...your only alternative is to believe that six different sets of cells acted independently and intelligently, whether God created their intelligence or not.-DAVID: Again, no. God put information into the DNA so it can take needed action. The intelligence is at the level of God. The new epigenetic findings show this.-I suspect that this does not mean quite what it says. Do new epigenetic findings really show that God put information into DNA? Or could it be that "you are assuming too much", and in fact new epigenetic findings only show that DNA acts intelligently?
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Monday, September 09, 2013, 20:53 (4093 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I'm trying to understand why you think the ability to solve problems, invent useful organs, adapt to different environments and different challenges, shows that the cells and cell communities concerned have no intelligence of their own. -They have planted information in the DNA which allows them to follow certain paths. They know to use information. They do not initially develop the information.- > > DAVID: Again, no. God put information into the DNA so it can take needed action. The intelligence is at the level of God. The new epigenetic findings show this. > > dhw; I suspect that this does not mean quite what it says. Do new epigenetic findings really show that God put information into DNA? Or could it be that "you are assuming too much", and in fact new epigenetic findings only show that DNA acts intelligently?-You are correct. My answer is above. DNA follows the information it has.
Convergence or divergence?
dhw: I'm trying to understand why you think the ability to solve problems, invent useful organs, adapt to different environments and different challenges, shows that the cells and cell communities concerned have no intelligence of their own. -DAVID: They have planted information in the DNA which allows them to follow certain paths. They know to use information. They do not initially develop the information.-I also have information in my DNA which I inherited (i.e. I did not "initially develop it"). It came from Mummy and Daddy, who got it from their Mummies and Daddies and so on. It allows me to follow certain paths, but not to follow others. I can't fly or breathe underwater or live in an ant colony. But I know how to use the information I have, and that is why I am able to solve (some) problems, invent (a few) things, (sometimes) adapt to different environments and challenges. If I do so, I'm regarded as intelligent (at least by me), but if cells and ants do it, apparently they're not. *****-Thank you for the lovely guppy article. It's generous of you to allow me a point, but let me reciprocate by twisting the above argument. If cells are preprogrammed, so are humans. In other words, "Casanovas are liars" because their cells are preprogrammed to make them do whatever it takes to get the girl!
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 10, 2013, 22:05 (4092 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I also have information in my DNA which I inherited (i.e. I did not "initially develop it"). ...... But I know how to use the information I have, and that is why I am able to solve (some) problems, invent (a few) things, (sometimes) adapt to different environments and challenges. If I do so, I'm regarded as intelligent (at least by me), but if cells and ants do it, apparently they're not.-Apples and oranges. You can solve problems, plan, think through inventions. the ants and cells are not working at your level. You can't equate the levels.
Convergence or divergence?
dhw: I also have information in my DNA which I inherited (i.e. I did not "initially develop it"). ...... But I know how to use the information I have, and that is why I am able to solve (some) problems, invent (a few) things, (sometimes) adapt to different environments and challenges. If I do so, I'm regarded as intelligent (at least by me), but if cells and ants do it, apparently they're not.-DAVID: Apples and oranges. You can solve problems, plan, think through inventions. the ants and cells are not working at your level. You can't equate the levels.-I'm not equating the levels. Of course ants and cells don't have the many layers of consciousness that we have ... that is evident from the vast range of our technologies and cultures. But intelligence is not an absolute. (Margulis: "Bacterial awareness is more limited than that of the human mind" but, still talking about bacteria, "the idea that only people are conscious makes me laugh.") You cannot deny that cells and ants solve problems, plan, invent, adapt, but you say: "It is my assumption that 99.9% of their activity is controlled by instinct". I'm challenging your assumption, and note that you continue to ignore my questions about why one large ant decided to block the jaws of the mantis, and how other ants devised and implemented the strategy to decapitate the attacker. My point is that any organism that can solve problems, plan, innovate, adapt to different environments and situations has to be intelligent. That doesn't mean every organism has the same level or kind of intelligence as a human being!-The hypothesis of the intelligent cell (whether invented by your God or not) as the driving force of evolution seems to me to explain all the problems thrown up by Darwin's theory. You yourself have actually accepted the concept several times, with the proviso that your God invented it and sometimes guided it. But although you can find no rational argument to dismiss it, you still keep trying to do so. I wonder why.
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 11, 2013, 17:21 (4091 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: note that you continue to ignore my questions about why one large ant decided to block the jaws of the mantis, and how other ants devised and implemented the strategy to decapitate the attacker. My point is that any organism that can solve problems, plan, innovate, adapt to different environments and situations has to be intelligent. That doesn't mean every organism has the same level or kind of intelligence as a human being!-It doesn't mean inteligence. It means the DNA has information given to it by intelligence. the cells and the ants use information. How thatmantis scenario developed I have no idea,but it falls under the subset of Natures Wonders forwhich i have gvien many examples, but not explanation. The point is life's forms can do wonders, and we should wonder why. How did they get that smart or were they given smarts. > > dhw: The hypothesis of the intelligent cell (whether invented by your God or not) as the driving force of evolution seems to me to explain all the problems thrown up by Darwin's theory. You yourself have actually accepted the concept several times, with the proviso that your God invented it and sometimes guided it. But although you can find no rational argument to dismiss it, you still keep trying to do so. I wonder why.-The difference between us remains. I agree the cells act intelligently because they have been initially given information to use to solve problems. The issue is still where does the information come from? They do not develop that information on their own.
Convergence or divergence?
dhw: ...note that you continue to ignore my questions about why one large ant decided to block the jaws of the mantis, and how other ants devised and implemented the strategy to decapitate the attacker. My point is that any organism that can solve problems, plan, innovate, adapt to different environments and situations has to be intelligent. That doesn't mean every organism has the same level or kind of intelligence as a human being!-DAVID: It doesn't mean inteligence. It means the DNA has information given to it by intelligence. the cells and the ants use information. How thatmantis scenario developed I have no idea,but it falls under the subset of Natures Wonders forwhich i have gvien many examples, but not explanation. The point is life's forms can do wonders, and we should wonder why. How did they get that smart or were they given smarts.-So ants use information intelligently, but they are not intelligent. You have no idea how ants can make decisions and plan and implement strategies, but they are not intelligent. They are just wonderful. And smart. But smart does not mean intelligent. dhw: The hypothesis of the intelligent cell (whether invented by your God or not) as the driving force of evolution seems to me to explain all the problems thrown up by Darwin's theory. You yourself have actually accepted the concept several times, with the proviso that your God invented it and sometimes guided it. But although you can find no rational argument to dismiss it, you still keep trying to do so. I wonder why.-DAVID: The difference between us remains. I agree the cells act intelligently because they have been initially given information to use to solve problems. The issue is still where does the information come from? They do not develop that information on their own.-But they do have the information which gives them the ability to solve problems, plan, adapt, communicate, invent etc. (not a bad definition of intelligence, is it?). So does this mean that cells act intelligently but are not intelligent? Or are they intelligent, but we don't know where their intelligence came from? If it's the latter, please reread what I wrote above about your "proviso", and then you can stop disagreeing!
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Thursday, September 12, 2013, 21:11 (4090 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw; So ants use information intelligently, but they are not intelligent. You have no idea how ants can make decisions and plan and implement strategies, but they are not intelligent. They are just wonderful. And smart. But smart does not mean intelligent.-Their built in responses are guided by existing intelligence in their DNA > > dhw: But they do have the information which gives them the ability to solve problems, plan, adapt, communicate, invent etc. (not a bad definition of intelligence, is it?). -Automatically. Let me admit that I do not understand how instinct works, and neither does anyone else. When a newborn foal is born, it gets up on its feet and suckles within an hour. It can barely see but it finds a teat. I have no idea how DNA tells it to do that. Ants work at that same level. They are intelligently programmed. Nothing more.
Convergence or divergence?
dhw; So ants use information intelligently, but they are not intelligent. You have no idea how ants can make decisions and plan and implement strategies, but they are not intelligent. They are just wonderful. And smart. But smart does not mean intelligent.-DAVID: Their built in responses are guided by existing intelligence in their DNA.-Are there any organisms in the animal kingdom (including humans) whose responses are not guided by existing intelligence within the cells? Why is existing intelligence not to be called intelligence ... allowing for the fact that there are clearly different types and degrees of it?-dhw: But they do have the information which gives them the ability to solve problems, plan, adapt, communicate, invent etc. (not a bad definition of intelligence, is it?). DAVID: Automatically. Let me admit that I do not understand how instinct works, and neither does anyone else. When a newborn foal is born, it gets up on its feet and suckles within an hour. It can barely see but it finds a teat. I have no idea how DNA tells it to do that. Ants work at that same level. They are intelligently programmed. Nothing more.-Once again you state an assumption ("Automatically") as if it were a fact. Nobody knows how instinct works, and nobody knows how intelligence/ consciousness works, and nobody knows precisely where "built in responses" (instinct) end and conscious decision-making begins. That applies as much to humans as to other organisms. But I don't think it's that difficult to distinguish between the instinct of suckling and the actions of planning and implementing strategies, communicating meaningfully, solving problems, innovating, all of which are generally regarded as signs of intelligence. So let me ask you again whether you would accept that cells (and ants) are intelligent, with the proviso that your God invented their intelligence and occasionally guides it.
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Friday, September 13, 2013, 22:16 (4089 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: So let me ask you again whether you would accept that cells (and ants) are intelligent, with the proviso that your God invented their intelligence and occasionally guides it.-To repeat: God gave the cells and ants information and generally automatic responses to received information. This is not really intelligence. The ant looks for landmarks to find his way home to the nest. This has been shown. Does he automatically respond to the landmark or does he proceed with some thought? My guess is it is all automatic. He processed a memory of landmarks and responded to them to return. This is not intelligence. On the other hand, reported in the last couple days, orangutans appear to plan out the next day's travel. Higher organisms have a degree of intelligence, no doubt.
Convergence or divergence?
dhw: So let me ask you again whether you would accept that cells (and ants) are intelligent, with the proviso that your God invented their intelligence and occasionally guides it.-DAVID: To repeat: God gave the cells and ants information and generally automatic responses to received information. This is not really intelligence. The ant looks for landmarks to find his way home to the nest. This has been shown. Does he automatically respond to the landmark or does he proceed with some thought? My guess is it is all automatic. He processed a memory of landmarks and responded to them to return. This is not intelligence. -Information means nothing without a mechanism that processes and uses it. I have cited the ants' complex strategy to kill the invading mantis as an example of planning, solving problems, meaningful communication, adapting to changing situations ... all of which suggest intelligent use of information. You have dismissed that example as one of Nature's inexplicable wonders. You prefer to draw on an obvious example of instinctive use of information (the foal suckling), and now a borderline one of direction finding, which would also apply just as much to humans as to ants. As someone who, in the words of my wife, "couldn't find his way out of a paper bag", I too would prefer not to think of direction finding as a matter of intelligence! There is a glimmer of hope in your qualification "generally automatic responses" and "not really intelligence". My focus lies on those responses (like the mantis episode) that are not automatic and which have the attributes of "real" intelligence listed above. For further examples of ant intelligence, please read:- http://quotations.hubpages.com/hub/Intelligent_Ants-DAVID: On the other hand, reported in the last couple days, orangutans appear to plan out the next day's travel. Higher organisms have a degree of intelligence, no doubt.-We have long since agreed on that. And I am suggesting that ants and ... of vital importance to the history of evolution ... cells also have the ability (no doubt on a different scale) to plan, solve problems etc. Why do you refuse to call this ability intelligence, even with the proviso that God invented it? Ah, such stubbornness! Won't you at least adopt an agnostic stance on the subject rather than keep repeating baseless assumptions?
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Saturday, September 14, 2013, 20:04 (4088 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: For further examples of ant intelligence, please read: > > http://quotations.hubpages.com/hub/Intelligent_Ants-I've seen most of this ant work in action, and I still think it is all instinct.-> dhw: Won't you at least adopt an agnostic stance on the subject rather than keep repeating baseless assumptions?-Not baseless. you are ignoring my example of the newborn foal. No thought involved in suckling.
Convergence or divergence?
dhw: You have dismissed that example [the mantis attack] as one of Nature's inexplicable wonders. You prefer to draw on an obvious example of instinctive use of information (the foal suckling). [...]For further examples of ant intelligence, please read:-http://quotations.hubpages.com/hub/Intelligent_Ants-DAVID: I've seen most of this ant work in action, and I still think it is all instinct.-dhw: Won't you at least adopt an agnostic stance on the subject rather than keep repeating baseless assumptions?-DAVID: Not baseless. you are ignoring my example of the newborn foal. No thought involved in suckling.-Not ignored (see above). I simply cannot see how a newborn foal instinctively standing and sucking its mother's teat proves that despite their plans and strategies, their engineering skills, their inventions, their meaningful communications etc., ants are not intelligent. There's no connection! Human babies also act instinctively (and a lot of our adult actions remain instinctive), so does this prove that human plans and strategies, engineering skills, inventions and meaningful communications are "all instinct"?
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Sunday, September 15, 2013, 17:36 (4087 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Human babies also act instinctively (and a lot of our adult actions remain instinctive), so does this prove that human plans and strategies, engineering skills, inventions and meaningful communications are "all instinct"?-Human babies suckle instinctively. What does that prove? Your further discussion avoids our enormous intellect and consciousness. Very little of what we humans do after early childhood is instinct.
Convergence or divergence?
Dhw: I simply cannot see how a newborn foal instinctively standing and sucking its mother's teat proves that despite their plans and strategies, their engineering skills, their inventions, their meaningful communications etc., ants are not intelligent! Human babies also act instinctively (and a lot of our adult actions remain instinctive), so does this prove that human plans and strategies, engineering skills, inventions and meaningful communications are all instinct? DAVID: Human babies suckle instinctively. What does that prove? Your further discussion avoids our enormous intellect and consciousness. Very little of what we humans do after early childhood is instinct.-You have asked me the same question that I have asked you. The fact that human babies suckle instinctively proves absolutely nothing about our intelligence, just as the foal suckling instinctively proves absolutely nothing about ant intelligence. You simply cannot compare these automatic actions to the planned strategies, complex engineering, inventiveness, efficient communications etc. that characterize both ant and human societies.
Convergence or divergence?
by David Turell , Sunday, September 15, 2013, 22:08 (4087 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You simply cannot compare these automatic actions to the planned strategies, complex engineering, inventiveness, efficient communications etc. that characterize both ant and human societies.-I'm simply showing you the power of unreasoned instinct. The ants are pure instinct.