Explaining natural wonders (Animals)

by dhw, Tuesday, May 02, 2017, 11:40 (2761 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I simply find it illogical to argue that God specifically designed the weaverbird’s nest in order to provide food so that evolution could continue “until humans arrived”.
DAVID: The simple logic is the weaverbird fits into an eco-niche that helps feed life.

No disagreement. And yet you keep rattling on about energy supply (coming up in a moment) as if it somehow supported your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans, and everything else was related to that.

dhw: according to you God designed these natural wonders because the organisms did not have the ability to work such things out for themselves, and they were all essential to keep evolution going until, with his limitless powers, he could finally design the only thing he wanted to design. And your only explanation for this weird logic is that this was the way your God chose.
DAVID: The logic has to do with an energy supply. God decided to take His time. the time scales tell us that is a distinct possibility. Why not accept it?

And there you go again! We all know that life needs energy, and evolution takes time. Nothing whatsoever to do with your God’s one and only purpose being to produce humans.

dhw: […] what we find is that bacteria respond to environmental change (sentience), adapt their behaviour to changing circumstances, communicate and cooperate with one another, solve problems, take decisions. Please tell me what other attributes you would consider necessary before you apply the term “intelligent”.
DAVID: Your attributes are correct. They are simply following an intelligently given algorithm. From the outside it looks just the same as what you imagine their intelligent actions seem.

Your usual answer. If their actions conform to your own criteria for intelligence, why do you insist that they are automatons? The subject is controversial, but since you agree with these criteria, a degree of open-mindedness might not come amiss!

dhw: I have on several occasions drawn your attention to the work of G. Albrecht-Buehler, who has spent a lifetime studying cellular biology.
G. Albrecht-Buehler’s Cell Intelligence Website
www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/cellint0.htm

DAVID: I have re-read his website. Nothing in it changes my interpretation that automatic processing is happening. What I find interesting is what you are following is over 20 years old. Have you found any advances by followers in his research which covered 30 years? Remember all looks the same from the outside.

Nothing will change your opinion because you have made up your mind to dismiss any research that suggests you are wrong. As I keep pointing out, the argument that all look the same from the outside can be used to support determinism, which you rigorously oppose (and which I certainly don’t support). As for modern research, Shapiro is still active in the field, and this Wikipedia article mentions Eshel Ben-Jacob’s team of researchers.
Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence

Perhaps you would now name some modern scientists who have proved that bacteria are NOT intelligent but have been given personal tuition or preprogrammed by your God to solve virtually every problem thrown at them.