An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, August 10, 2018, 13:38 (381 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The 50/50 means the entire conclusion from the results of cellular research is fuzzy. Nothing is clear, and the cells aren't talking.

dhw: This is the first time I have heard anyone deny that cells communicate.

DAVID: To be clear, of course cells don't talk. The results of cellular research show molecular reactions to stimuli which I think are automatic and you think are some how intelligent. The odds are 50/50 as usual.

But they communicate, which is what I assumed you meant. I can’t recall any researcher arguing that they spoke a human language, if that is what you meant by “talk”. I already answered your second comment: "The 50/50 principle applies to most of our discussions, and the entire conclusion that there is a soul, there is an afterlife, there is a God, there is no soul, there is no afterlife, there is no God is fuzzy because nothing is clear. Welcome to the AgnosticWeb." 50/50 premises should be taken seriously, and not haughtily dismissed as “hyperbole” and “no way”.

DAVID: (under "ANT GROUP ACTIONS") … no thought involved, just receiving a stimulus and automatically responding.

dhw: So when humans have a problem and discuss it and come up with a solution, they think, and even animals and birds do the same, and maybe insects like ants do the same – though they’re a bit small, so I’m never sure whether you believe they think or not – but you know that bacteria don’t. They don’t have brains like ours and they’re much too small. A fine example of what Shapiro calls “Large organisms chauvinism”.

DAVID: Quoting Shapiro, whose work I applaud, proves nothing.

DHW Dismissals as “hyperbole”, “no way”, “no thought involved”, “just receiving a stimulus and automatically responding” also prove nothing. If you admire Shapiro’s work, then perhaps you should take it seriously, bearing in mind that he is not alone in drawing his conclusions.

We don't have to dismiss it. We can test it in the lab by seeing if it only happens 50% of the time, as you suggest. If it happens 100% of the time, as long as conditions are met, then it is not thought based, but entirely chemical reactivity. If it happens along some other distribution, and no other explanation fits, then we could consider it a 'choice' in the classical sense, and postulate that they had to think in order to make that choice.

What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum