Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Single-celled protista have complex behavior that shows they are able to think. But, their single-celled nature doesn't allow them to have a brain, which current science believes is the thinking organ. They also appear to have a "group mind" and all other species appear to have their own group mind too.
How does evolution account for this phenomenon which seems to be a physical impossibility?[/quote]1. Custance hasn't demonstrated any of the phenonmenon he claims. He quote mines but doesn't present any of the original data or reference the original papers.
2. Custance is talking about complex behavior, not "consciousness". A lot of what is talked about is projection from the researchers.
To demonstrate #1 and #2 let's see what Custance says about the amoeba:
"Indeed, Jennings drew the conclusion that if an amoeba were as large as a dog we would undoubtedly ascribe to it all the mental states which we ascribe to dogs, such as fear, anger, and courage." Now, where is the data to justify assigning these emotions to an amoeba? Not given.
"Numerous investigators have reported similar findings for the humble little amoeba. Thus Wilhelm Seifriz believed that the amoeba is capable of making decisions. (24) When it is prodded by a needle it may retreat as fast as it can or contract into a ball. In one experiment he held down the edge of an amoeba with a needle. The amoeba pinched off this portion of flesh and escaped, just as a fox might bite off a leg caught in a trap in order to get free."
Now, we finally get two partially described experiments. Both can be described be chemical reactions. Prodding with a needle distorts the cell membrane. This changes the length of actin molecules attached to it. Actin is a protein that acts as a "ropes" and "girder" that give cells their shapes. Changing the length of some actins causes a chain reaction that changes actins in other parts of the cell: resulting in movement or change of shape to a ball. This has been extensively studied in human cells, particularly smooth muscle cells and endothelial cells, which change shape in blood vessels depending on the mechanical forces exerted on the cells by the pressure of the blood in the vessel.
In the "trap", keeping part of the cytoplasm from moving means immobilizing the cell membrane. Both chemical and biochemical reactions would be to rearrange the cell membrane and cytoplasm -- again by actins -- such that a new membrane would be made that bridged the gap at the cell side of the "pinned" ameoba.
Not a brain, but biochemistry.
Last edited by lucaspa; 30th August 2004 at 01:19 PM.
Single-celled protista have complex behavior that shows they are able to think. But, their single-celled nature doesn't allow them to have a brain, which current science believes is the thinking organ. They also appear to have a "group mind" and all other species appear to have their own group mind too.
How does evolution account for this phenomenon which seems to be a physical impossibility?
I'm sure a lot of guys think with other parts of their bodies ...that article was probably written by a woman
__________________ "History is an illusion caused by the passage
of time, and time is an illusion caused by the passage of
history."
anyway, chemical interactions can lead to many of these sorts of behaviours, you don't need a brain for alot of things.
I won't use the funny response I have for that....
But what good are chemical reactions to cause behaviors when there is nothing to interpret them? If you say these behaviors are only cause by chemical reactions, then what about the behavior of dogs, or that of people? Where does the boundary exist where the blame, so to speak, shifts from chemicals to brains? After all, the brain structure is powered by nothing but chemical interactions. If you say you ascribe emotions to the protista, then do you not also ascribe emotions to dogs, and other animals, and even people? If we ascribe emotions to ourselves, do we really have them, or are they just chemical interactions?
Last edited by Motus; 30th August 2004 at 05:12 AM.
I won't use the funny response I have for that....
But what good are chemical reactions to cause behaviors when there is nothing to interpret them? If you say these behaviors are only cause by chemical reactions, then what about the behavior of dogs, or that of people? Where does the boundary exist where the blame, so to speak, shifts from chemicals to brains? After all, the brain structure is powered by nothing but chemical interactions. If you say you ascribe emotions to the protista, then do you not also ascribe emotions to dogs, and other animals, and even people? If we ascribe emotions to ourselves, do we really have them, or are they just chemical interactions?
well technically our emotions are just chemical reactions (which people often manipulate with drugs, to demonstrate the point, and can also be stimulated by poking electrodes into the brain), but what you have to remember is the complexity of the system. our system is of sufficient complexity and organisation that it is capable of having emotion - not all systems, such as the protists, are. just like the sand on the beach is not capable of processing power as the CPU in your computer is, nor are protists capable of emotion.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
well technically our emotions are just chemical reactions (which people often manipulate with drugs, to demonstrate the point, and can also be stimulated by poking electrodes into the brain), but what you have to remember is the complexity of the system. our system is of sufficient complexity and organisation that it is capable of having emotion - not all systems, such as the protists, are. just like the sand on the beach is not capable of processing power as the CPU in your computer is, nor are protists capable of emotion.
The article put forth quite clearly that protista do demonstrate emotion, despite their lack of complexity. Though I do see your point about high complexity in a system==emergent behavior, such as in a chess game. There is perhaps another level of complexity which we cannot percieve, that is behind the apparent emotion of protista.
The article put forth quite clearly that protista do demonstrate emotion, despite their lack of complexity. Though I do see your point about high complexity in a system==emergent behavior, such as in a chess game. There is perhaps another level of complexity which we cannot percieve, that is behind the apparent emotion of protista.
I fail to see how protista display emotion. they are reactions to the environment, but I wouldn't ascribe emotion to them. perhaps you can quote from the article to underline what you mean.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
I fail to see how protista display emotion. they are reactions to the environment, but I wouldn't ascribe emotion to them. perhaps you can quote from the article to underline what you mean.
Here is the passage I refer to:
A very low form of life, the fresh-water planarian, has been a favorite subject of experimentation in this connection, because it can be chopped up into pieces in innumerable ways and each piece (except under a few clearly specifiable conditions) will regenerate itself into a whole animal complete with a brain. In his Lectures on Developmental Physiology, Alfred Kuhn (28) diagrammed some of these planarian mutilations and showed how extraordinary is this little animal's regenerative power. It is not necessary that some part of the brain itself be allotted to each fragment in order to provide the nucleus of a regenerated and complete new brain. Apparently the animal can build an effective brain for itself out of other parts of its own body.
Even more extraordinary is the finding that these newly regenerated parts are not merely reacting things with some kind of nervous system that is electro-chemically responsive to stimuli applied externally. The fact is that once these fragments have reconstituted themselves into whole animals they are capable of showing all kinds of reactions which, if they were witnessed in larger animals, or when they are witnessed under a microscope with sufficient magnification, could only be interpreted by the viewer as expressions of quite refined consciousness. Jay B. Best found that these exceedingly simple little bits of protoplasm seemed to be experiencing "boredom, interest, conflict, decision, frustration, rebellion, anxiety, learning and cognitive awareness." (29) In short, they demonstrate not merely consciousness but mindedness.
Of course thought doesn't come from the brain, its a useless organ, it comes from the heart. The egyptians figured that out thousands of years ago. Atheistic science just tries to hide the truth to keep its materialistic view in schools.
Ok, seriously, here is an example of complicated movement based on a very simple algorithm, http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html
I also would like to see a paper a bit newer than the turn of the century. We know today that many things can "react" to stimuli. A plant will grow towards water, and towards light, but that doesn't mean it has a brain that is "deciding" to grow towards light.
...that article was probably written by a woman 
Linear Mode
