Now we have amoeba farming bacteria!
> 
> 
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/the-worlds-smallest-farmers.html?ref=hp-I always loved slime molds. (All fungi, really...) Had I gone down the biology path I undoubtedly would have ended up a Mycologist. Yeah.. the must "Fun-Guy" on campus...

Perfectly adequate explanations of all these cases are to be found in the evolutionary literature. Indeed, Darwin's theory, together with its modern improvements, is the only adequate explanation of these phenomena. 
> 
> I understand why DT is scouring the literature for examples of strange adaptations, to try to support his thesis of design, but the same literature also offers explanations of these adaptations. They cannot be dismissed as he often does as "just so stories".-You missed my point entirely. Yes we know how many of these cooperative endevours work now. We do not know how they got that way. We know that birds migrate temendous distances by various guidances. We really don't know about penis and vagina, or baby head and mother's pelvic opening. Your guess or conjecture about the baby and mother is a good one, but we can only suppose it works that way. A simple statement 'evolution is the only explanation' begs the real question, and as dhw points out, it sounds like faith in Darwin's religion.-The following link is to Uncommon Descent, where Gould is quoted in regard to the green turtle's migration across the Atlantic from Brazil to Ascension Island. It is taken from the Panda's Thumb. He is willing to make a guess, like George did, but true science is not guesswork, or just-so stories.There are other problematic similar practices by animals discussed also. How did these things evolve. That they evolved I don't doubt. I just raise the challenge to find the true process: either natural evolution or designed evolution.- http://www.uncommondescent.com/

And I predict ill things in my future; Grad school after all, makes you dumber...
 
> http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=374-Very funny website. Definition of an expert: someone who knows more and more about less and less.


> > > I've admitted that all I can do is theorize that an intelligence has to be behind all this, because I don't think this universe or our life is all a sequence of accidents, the number of which approaches infinity. (Penrose guesses at 10^-300 just for the universe.)
> > 
> > 
> > As stated way earlier, both you and penrose misuse statistics in order to make those kinds of claims. You have to know everything about said system for that kind of knowledge. Inference can't get you there. 
> > 
> > We've never even been past our own moon!!!
> 
> Even if we go past the moon to Mars, we can never expect to leave the Milky Way. You must admit by your standards we will never know everything. We must extrapolate what we can know. And there is another set of close to infinite chance events: evolution, itself. So there are two distinct processes to account for, all by chance or by design, to account for us. Both require enormous series of chance events. And then there is the issue of a very complex code, that is only slightly different from Boolean Math. Invented by chance?; or by an intelligence? As I've said before, I've never seen a code that wasn't intelligently designed. Penrose is just one leg of my stool. And I haven't even mentioned consciousness. My stool is four-legged.-Remember, I'm more strict than most. If I wasn't, I would already be either on your side of the fence, or still with Dawkins. And let us also remember, that in either the atheist case or yours, statistics are ultimately a folly because you cannot claim statistics for events that we do not understand. We don't know how life began--and we cannot go farther than that without being dishonest. Any statistic you or Dawkins places on the "probability" or "improbability" of life is absolutely and positively specious without having actual knowledge about how life got here.-Inferences are fine as long as you recognize that all scientific models are just that; models. They are tenuous explanations. The inference you make is based on this data, and the inference is about something we can't see, feel, hear, taste, or touch--and is completely closed to study by the tools that generated the data your conclusion rests on. If we're talking in terms of "intellectual safety" here, I don't have a stool, I have a solid steel cube. It's admittedly less comfortable than a stool, but it certainly provides more support--especially in the realm of epistemology. And I predict ill things in my future; Grad school after all, makes you dumber...-http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=374


> > I've admitted that all I can do is theorize that an intelligence has to be behind all this, because I don't think this universe or our life is all a sequence of accidents, the number of which approaches infinity. (Penrose guesses at 10^-300 just for the universe.)
> 
> 
> As stated way earlier, both you and penrose misuse statistics in order to make those kinds of claims. You have to know everything about said system for that kind of knowledge. Inference can't get you there. 
> 
> We've never even been past our own moon!!!-Even if we go past the moon to Mars, we can never expect to leave the Milky Way. You must admit by your standards we will never know everything. We must extrapolate what we can know. And there is another set of close to infinite chance events: evolution, itself. So there are two distinct processes to account for, all by chance or by design, to account for us. Both require enormous series of chance events. And then there is the issue of a very complex code, that is only slightly different from Boolean Math. Invented by chance?; or by an intelligence? As I've said before, I've never seen a code that wasn't intelligently designed. Penrose is just one leg of my stool. And I haven't even mentioned consciousness. My stool is four-legged.


> > If THAT is true, then we're smarter than the creator. There are some biochemical processes that would give the same outputs with less energy and work. 
> 
> We don't know if that statement is true. Remember the argument over the design of the retina. Ours is backwards in its layers, but it has the advantage of better energy delivery. Perfect design is not optimal design. 
> > > 
> > > > I just can't find a teleology for life.
> 
> > 
> > Who or what then... is doing that willing? 
> 
> I've admitted that all I can do is theorize that an intelligence has to be behind all this, because I don't think this universe or our life is all a sequence of accidents, the number of which approaches infinity. (Penrose guesses at 10^-300 just for the universe.)-
As stated way earlier, both you and penrose misuse statistics in order to make those kinds of claims. You have to know everything about said system for that kind of knowledge. Inference can't get you there. -[EDIT] Our knowledge of the universe is based on a model constructed by a human language. We use the model to make guesses but for you or Penrose to be able to make those kinds of claims we need to have considerably more knowledge than we presently have available. We've never even been past our own moon!!!


> If THAT is true, then we're smarter than the creator. There are some biochemical processes that would give the same outputs with less energy and work. -We don't know if that statement is true. Remember the argument over the design of the retina. Ours is backwards in its layers, but it has the advantage of better energy delivery. Perfect design is not optimal design. 
> > 
> > > I just can't find a teleology for life.-> 
> Who or what then... is doing that willing? -I've admitted that all I can do is theorize that an intelligence has to be behind all this, because I don't think this universe or our life is all a sequence of accidents, the number of which approaches infinity. (Penrose guesses at 10^-300 just for the universe.)


> > What I find issue with here is how you would determine the difference between the pressure of selection and the driving of DNA. At what point can you say that evolution is happening by one process or the other? To me it seems it creates a chicken and egg scenario. In order for your idea to be tenable, you really need to be able to show that the process of speciation happens without some event to force the hand. 
> 
> I'm sure there are always challenges; they may not be obviously external but biochemically internal, finding better, more economical ways to do things. For example, our brain uses less energy to produce electricity than in squids.
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17773-brain-cells-slicker-than-we-thought.html-If THAT is true, then we're smarter than the creator. There are some biochemical processes that would give the same outputs with less energy and work. I'd have to dig into Pigliucci's book again, but he went over a few processes that can be designed better by us than by what nature has done. If we can do something--I would say anything--better than the creator, it speaks more for us than for it. -> 
> > I just can't find a teleology for life.
> 
> My guess is that we were created as a challenge to us. Can we figure out how the creator did it? Where do we get our driving inquisitiveness about everything? Look at me trying to guess where, if anywhere, I am going. )-Who or what then... is doing that willing? (Sorry... had to break that one out again...)


> What I find issue with here is how you would determine the difference between the pressure of selection and the driving of DNA. At what point can you say that evolution is happening by one process or the other? To me it seems it creates a chicken and egg scenario. In order for your idea to be tenable, you really need to be able to show that the process of speciation happens without some event to force the hand. -I'm sure there are always challenges; they may not be obviously external but biochemically internal, finding better, more economical ways to do things. For example, our brain uses less energy to produce electricity than in squids.-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17773-brain-cells-slicker-than-we-thought.html-> I just can't find a teleology for life.-My guess is that we were created as a challenge to us. Can we figure out how the creator did it? Where do we get our driving inquisitiveness about everything? Look at me trying to guess where, if anywhere, I am going. )

The only sticking point I might have is on the predation issue. If we see predators rapidly evolving alongside of prey, do you simply consign that to "correlation only?" 
> 
> You are absolutely right here. The 57 or so phyla in the Cambrian Explosion (CE) contained prey and preditors. They always evolve together and create a balance in nature. Ask the Australians about rabbits, or why Hawaiians keep out snakes.-I know about that aspect of conservation; a good chunk of why my grandfather sold an ungodly amount of land to Uncle Sam was to keep a "wild" area near the farm to keep the populations of local wildlife high. It also gave us wild choke cherries, as well as one helluva nearby hunting ground every season.-What I find issue with here is how you would determine the difference between the pressure of selection and the driving of DNA. At what point can you say that evolution is happening by one process or the other? To me it seems it creates a chicken and egg scenario. In order for your idea to be tenable, you really need to be able to show that the process of speciation happens without some event to force the hand. --> As an aside, cells die and are replaced. The process is called apoptosis. The dying cells call the garbage men by eluting chemicals that draw in the macrophages. Isn't life very complex and wonderful?
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7261/edsumm/e090910-13.html-No one will disagree with you there... I just can't find a teleology for life.

And how on earth am I supposed to know that it IS incorrect? Keep in mind this was a major source of info for me for quite some time. *You* know more about this stuff than I do. (Remember, paleontology is NOT anything I have any experience with whatsoever. You've spent much more time with it.)-I realize, now, in your 'past life' you have used shortcuts to gain knowledge, but I have the impression that you have always picked websites that agreed with your preconceived notions. Not a good way to research an area of new knowledge for you. You must look at both sides, and make up your own mind to be an independent thinker, and I know you know all of that. Moral: no shortcuts. For example, I don't agree with Kenneth Miller but I read his book. i've read atheist books, etc. I didn't make up my theories until I had digested both sides. I maintain a skepticism against popular ideas. ('Global warming' is a liberal farce attempting to give UN third-world more money and large governments more governing controls. Lets not debate this here, wrong website, just an example of my research conclusions)
 
> The only sticking point I might have is on the predation issue. If we see predators rapidly evolving alongside of prey, do you simply consign that to "correlation only?" -You are absolutely right here. The 57 or so phyla in the Cambrian Explosion (CE) contained prey and preditors. They always evolve together and create a balance in nature. Ask the Australians about rabbits, or why Hawaiians keep out snakes.
> Part of your argument also seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that evolution is much more internally directed than it is by environmental influences? Help me out by describing how this statement could be proven. -You are correct: I believe RNA drives evolution and epigenetics.-> If changes in phenotype happen epigenetically, but they are not passed on, then traditional evolution would still be safe. -But that is the point of current research. Lamark had the right idea, but the wrong result. Kammerer was on the right path. Epigenetic changes are passed on, moving evolution along.-As an aside, cells die and are replaced. The process is called apoptosis. The dying cells call the garbage men by eluting chemicals that draw in the macrophages. Isn't life very complex and wonderful?-http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7261/edsumm/e090910-13.html