Intelligence & Evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, November 27, 2013, 18:37 (3803 days ago) @ dhw


> 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.