If This is Intelligence . . .

[Loudmouth]

In another thread, someone offered this blog post (excerpt) as a reference for how bacteria are intelligent.

If a chemical binds to an MCP outside the cell, how does the inside of the cell get the message? When chemicals bind to an MCP or stop binding to it, it slightly changes the structure of the MCP. It is thought association or dissociation of chemicals to MCPs causes a rotation like a slight turn of a door knob. Depending on if the MCPs are rotated or not changes the activity of another enzyme that interacts with MCPs, a protein called CheA (pronounced, ‘key A’). When CheA is active, it converts two other proteins into an active form, CheB and CheY. Confused yet? When CheY is in its active form, it interacts with the base of the flagellum and causes the flagellum to switch direction of rotation and causes the bacterium to change the direction it is moving. The take home message for the mechanism is this: when the MCPs are not interacting with chemicals (nutrients), CheA and CheY are active, and the flagellum switches rotation to make the cell go in a different direction. Hopefully for the cell, the new direction it is traveling will have more nutrients that will interact with the MCPs and block more changes in direction by CheA/CheY activity.
Loop | How Do Bacteria Make Decisions?
​

We could look at this from many directions, but let's just accept this description as an example of decision making. What does that mean?

Every step in that pathway is a deterministic chemical interaction, either through covalent bonding or through other processes such as hydrophobic and hydrophillic interactions. These reactions are as deteminstic as water flowing downhill or oxygen reacting with hydrogen to make water.

If this is the definition of intelligence and decision making that ID/creationists want to use, then intelligence has been present since the first electron moved about an atomic nuclei. It is a question of quantum physics in single atoms at that point, and not a question of how abiogenesis or evolution could produce intelligence.

 

[selfinflikted]

I do not agree that chemical interactions are "intelligent" ones. I know this post isn't directed at me, this is just for the record.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not agree that chemical interactions are "intelligent" ones. I know this post isn't directed at me, this is just for the record.

You can couch your comments with, "If we consider the interactions in bacteri to be intellgent, then . . ."

What I am discussing is the ramifications of defining bacteria as intelligent as it pertains to other things being intelligent or non-intelligent.

 

[selfinflikted]

You can couch your comments with, "If we consider the interactions in bacteri to be intellgent, then . . ."

What I am discussing is the ramifications of defining bacteria as intelligent as it pertains to other things being intelligent or non-intelligent.

Well, if that's the basis for intelligence, we have essentially an entire universe full of "intelligent" life, do we not?

It's a bit of a silly argument to make.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, if that's the basis for intelligence, we have essentially an entire universe full of "intelligent" life, do we not?

It's a bit of a silly argument to make.

We will see if everyone thinks it is as silly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bacteria may not have brains, but they are intelligent. So says Lynn Margulis, co-author of Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Microbial Evolution.
The conundrum for science is in spite of all our high tech and all the images we have of the brain and as much as we now understand molecular interactions (we only knew one tenth as much a few years ago), we still don't know enough. And we still don't fully understand how learning is accomplished beyond the firing of neurons and how axons and dendrites react to electrical stimulation and signal transduction.
Maybe we're looking in all the wrong places? Maybe we need to be looking at those bacteria we share our bodies with - which make up a lot more of bodies than we do and have 90% more cells than the mere 10% belonging to us. So who rules, bacteria or us? There are 100 trillion bacterial cells with bacterial DNA in our body to only 10 trillion cells with our DNA in our bodies.
The gene is the basic building block for life ON THIS PLANET. We have no idea what it would be elsewhere. Maybe it won't be carbon based? We don't know. We know a lot about genes and comparative genomics and gene sequencing has provided unimpeachable proof of evolution and the connectiveness of all life on this planet.



Smart Bacteria

 

[Loudmouth]

Bacteria may not have brains, but they are intelligent. So says Lynn Margulis, co-author of Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Microbial Evolution.
The conundrum for science is in spite of all our high tech and all the images we have of the brain and as much as we now understand molecular interactions (we only knew one tenth as much a few years ago), we still don't know enough. And we still don't fully understand how learning is accomplished beyond the firing of neurons and how axons and dendrites react to electrical stimulation and signal transduction.
Maybe we're looking in all the wrong places? Maybe we need to be looking at those bacteria we share our bodies with - which make up a lot more of bodies than we do and have 90% more cells than the mere 10% belonging to us. So who rules, bacteria or us? There are 100 trillion bacterial cells with bacterial DNA in our body to only 10 trillion cells with our DNA in our bodies.
The gene is the basic building block for life ON THIS PLANET. We have no idea what it would be elsewhere. Maybe it won't be carbon based? We don't know. We know a lot about genes and comparative genomics and gene sequencing has provided unimpeachable proof of evolution and the connectiveness of all life on this planet.



Smart Bacteria

What makes them intelligent? Be sepcific.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bacteria can distinguish “self” from “other,” and between their relatives and strangers. They can communicate, prey in packs, and have social intelligence. Are microbes far more sentient than we give them credit for? Miller-McCune writes:

Strictly by the numbers, the vast majority — estimated by many scientists at 90 percent — of the cells in what you think of as your body are actually bacteria, not human cells. In fact, most of the life on the planet is probably composed of bacteria.
​

- See more at: Are Bacteria Far More Intelligent Than We Realize? - disinformation

 

[Loudmouth]

Bacteria can distinguish “self” from “other,” and between their relatives and strangers.

How do they do that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What makes them intelligent? Be sepcific.

Can you explain how you view bacteria as being intelligent?

M: If you look up consciousness in the dictionary, it says, "awareness of the world around you," and that’s because you lose it somehow when you become unconscious, right? Well, you can show that microorganisms, or bacteria, are certainly conscious. They will orient themselves, they will work together to make structures. They’ll do a lot of things. This ability to respond specifically to the environment and to act creatively, in the sense that that precise action has never been taken before, is a property of life. Of course, it has to be moving life, or you can’t tell. You can’t tell if a plant is thinking, but in organisms that move, you can tell their intelligence.

Bacterial Intelligence - Astrobiology Magazine
- See more at: Bacterial Intelligence - Astrobiology Magazine

The foraminifera fossil record. Because of the abundance and diversity of the marine fossil record, many scientists many scientists now look to foraminifera rather than dinosaurs and other land animals to record the rate of extinction at the K-T boundary.
Credit: UC Berkeley Astrobiology Magazine: In Microcosmos, you talk about bacterial intelligence. A lot of people have trouble with that concept because –
Lynn Margulis: – Well, they haven’t been to parties with adolescents -
AM: – they tend to think intelligence comes from brains.
LM: I know they do. They’re wrong.
AM: Can you explain how you view bacteria as being intelligent?
LM: If you look up consciousness in the dictionary, it says, "awareness of the world around you," and that’s because you lose it somehow when you become unconscious, right? Well, you can show that microorganisms, or bacteria, are certainly conscious. They will orient themselves, they will work together to make structures. They’ll do a lot of things. This ability to respond specifically to the environment and to act creatively, in the sense that that precise action has never been taken before, is a property of life. Of course, it has to be moving life, or you can’t tell. You can’t tell if a plant is thinking, but in organisms that move, you can tell their intelligence.






- See more at: Bacterial Intelligence - Astrobiology Magazine

 

[Oncedeceived]

What makes them intelligent? Be sepcific.

Can you explain how you view bacteria as being intelligent?

M: If you look up consciousness in the dictionary, it says, "awareness of the world around you," and that’s because you lose it somehow when you become unconscious, right? Well, you can show that microorganisms, or bacteria, are certainly conscious. They will orient themselves, they will work together to make structures. They’ll do a lot of things. This ability to respond specifically to the environment and to act creatively, in the sense that that precise action has never been taken before, is a property of life. Of course, it has to be moving life, or you can’t tell. You can’t tell if a plant is thinking, but in organisms that move, you can tell their intelligence.

Bacterial Intelligence - Astrobiology Magazine
The foraminifera fossil record. Because of the abundance and diversity of the marine fossil record, many scientists many scientists now look to foraminifera rather than dinosaurs and other land animals to record the rate of extinction at the K-T boundary.
Credit: UC Berkeley Astrobiology Magazine: In Microcosmos, you talk about bacterial intelligence. A lot of people have trouble with that concept because –
Lynn Margulis: – Well, they haven’t been to parties with adolescents -
AM: – they tend to think intelligence comes from brains.
LM: I know they do. They’re wrong.
AM: Can you explain how you view bacteria as being intelligent?
LM: If you look up consciousness in the dictionary, it says, "awareness of the world around you," and that’s because you lose it somehow when you become unconscious, right? Well, you can show that microorganisms, or bacteria, are certainly conscious. They will orient themselves, they will work together to make structures. They’ll do a lot of things. This ability to respond specifically to the environment and to act creatively, in the sense that that precise action has never been taken before, is a property of life. Of course, it has to be moving life, or you can’t tell. You can’t tell if a plant is thinking, but in organisms that move, you can tell their intelligence.






- See more at: Bacterial Intelligence - Astrobiology Magazine

 

[florida2]

Bacteria can distinguish “self” from “other,” and between their relatives and strangers. They can communicate, prey in packs, and have social intelligence. Are microbes far more sentient than we give them credit for? Miller-McCune writes:

Strictly by the numbers, the vast majority — estimated by many scientists at 90 percent — of the cells in what you think of as your body are actually bacteria, not human cells. In fact, most of the life on the planet is probably composed of bacteria.
​

- See more at: Are Bacteria Far More Intelligent Than We Realize? - disinformation

That 90% number can be a bit misleading.

Yes, it's 90% is purely numerical terms. However, bacterial cells are much much smaller than human cells. In terms of mass, only a pound or two of you is bacteria.

 

[SteveB28]

Ms Margulis' claim is tenuous at best, but more likely unfounded.

To claim that bacteria display intelligence because they 'consciously' respond to their environment, is tantamount to claiming that, because crystals will grow and multiply in a copper sulphate solution, they are somehow also 'consciously' responding to their environment.

Such a line of thought smacks of absolute desperation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That 90% number can be a bit misleading.

Yes, it's 90% is purely numerical terms. However, bacterial cells are much much smaller than human cells. In terms of mass, only a pound or two of you is bacteria.

I don't feel she was trying to mislead.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ms Margulis' claim is tenuous at best, but more likely unfounded.

To claim that bacteria display intelligence because they 'consciously' respond to their environment, is tantamount to claiming that, because crystals will grow and multiply in a copper sulphate solution, they are somehow also 'consciously' responding to their environment.

Such a line of thought smacks of absolute desperation.

Where would this desperation come from?

 

[SteveB28]

Where would this desperation come from?

From those who would employ her claims as justification in their futile attempts to posit a supernatural explanation for reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

From those who would employ her claims as justification in their futile attempts to posit a supernatural explanation for reality.

Originally Posted by SteveB28

Ms Margulis' claim is tenuous at best, but more likely unfounded.

To claim that bacteria display intelligence because they 'consciously' respond to their environment, is tantamount to claiming that, because crystals will grow and multiply in a copper sulphate solution, they are somehow also 'consciously' responding to their environment.

Such a line of thought smacks of absolute desperation.

Where would this desperation come from?

You were not talking about "those who employ her claims" you were referring to her and I think you have realized your mistake. I think you didn't recognize her name and concluded in error that she was a creationist. Is that not the reality of the situation?

 

[SteveB28]

You were not talking about "those who employ her claims" you were referring to her and I think you have realized your mistake. I think you didn't recognize her name and concluded in error that she was a creationist. Is that not the reality of the situation?

No, not at all. I should have taken more care in my expression. What I intended to convey was that desperate people might choose to claim her statements as support for their own.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, not at all. I should have taken more care in my expression. What I intended to convey was that desperate people might choose to claim her statements as support for their own.

You seem to be being dishonest, you accuse others but it seems as if you are the one that is being dishonest here. You claimed her claims were unfounded. You claimed her conclusions were the same as claiming crystals were conscious. Those are claims against her not me.

 

[SteveB28]

You seem to be being dishonest, you accuse others but it seems as if you are the one that is being dishonest here. You claimed her claims were unfounded. You claimed her conclusions were the same as claiming crystals were conscious. Those are claims against her not me.

Please indicate where I have accused anyone here of dishonesty

I have explained my error. I should have expressed myself more clearly. I disagree with Ms Margulus, however I also think that anyone who wishes to use her erroneous thinking to support their idea of supernatural forces is revealing the desperation of their argument.

I am aware that it is not Ms Margulus that is attempting such a link - it is you.