Intelligent Design / Evolution

[Michael]

Are you joking? Unicellular organisms are not intelligent or aware.

Says who?

#71: Slime Molds Show Surprising Degree of Intelligence | Animal Intelligence | DISCOVER Magazine
'Intelligent' slime able to navigate its way out of maze - Telegraph
Amoebas Always Go for Balanced Diets - Softpedia

They do not make choices, they respond to biochemical stimuli along pathways selected for through evolution.

That rings a little hollow unless you can explain exactly which stimuli cause them to go out of their way to eat a balanced diet, predict the future based upon the past, and find their way through a maze.

 

[Trogool]

Says who?

Says physical reality. Unicellular organisms don't have any neural substrate. Chemical reactions aren't "intelligent".

That rings a little hollow unless you can explain exactly which stimuli cause them to go out of their way to eat a balanced diet,

Chemoception.

predict the future based upon the past, and find their way through a maze.

Again, chemoception.

 

[Michael]

Says physical reality. Unicellular organisms don't have any neural substrate. Chemical reactions aren't "intelligent".

From one of the articles you just handwaved at:

"Humans are not the only living things with information-processing abilities," he said. "Simple creatures can solve certain kinds of difficult puzzles. If you want to spotlight the essence of life or intelligence, it's easier to use these simple creatures."
........
"Computers are not so good at analysing the best routes that connect many base points because the volume of calculations becomes too large for them," he said.
"But slime moulds, without calculating all the possible options, can flow over areas in an impromptu manner and gradually find the best routes

Chemoception.

That accounts for its interest in the food, not the fact it solved the maze to get it.

Again, chemoception.

Again, HANDWAVE! That doesn't explain why it goes out of it's way to eat and acquire a balanced diet, solve mazes to reach food, etc. It's like pointing at a car battery, noting that the battery has chemical energy, and then claiming that chemical energy in the battery completely explains how the battery moved from one place to another, and solved the maze to find the charger!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

The term "conscious" is a bit too vague for my tastes. I tend to use the terms 'aware' and 'intelligent' but I suspect he means the same things I mean. Even single celled organisms act in an organized and intelligent manner and can "predict" future events, and change behaviors accordingly. They can select a balanced diet, etc. They exhibit behaviors that are not simple responses to simple stimuli.

It doesn't really seem to lose it's meaning to me. Any organism that can PREDICT future events based on past events, and even keep track of "time" as we understand it, seems relatively 'aware' and 'intelligent' to me. I suspect that Greg and I are pretty close to agreement although we tend to use somewhat different terms.

Single-celled organisms are not aware. If you and Greg are on the same page, I withdraw my pardon on your words. You completely misunderstand modern biology, much as you misunderstand modern physics.

Every single thing you've said is a consequence of "awareness" or "intelligence" is explained by biochemistry. You have absolutely no evidence that "awareness" is responsible for that cell's behavior, and the authors of the papers would not touch your conclusions with a ten foot pole.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

From one of the articles you just handwaved at:



That accounts for its interest in the food, not the fact it solved the maze to get it.

Again, HANDWAVE! That doesn't explain why it goes out of it's way to eat and acquire a balanced diet, solve mazes to reach food, etc. It's like pointing at a car battery, noting that the battery has chemical energy, and then claiming that chemical energy in the battery completely explains how the battery moved from one place to another, and solved the maze to find the charger!

You're using an argument from ignorance to claim that magic is the cause. But of course you don't find this as absurd as the rest of us.

 

[Michael]

I already have: chemoceptively stimulated chemotaxis.

That does not explain the behaviors seen in that paper. You're just handwaving away, PRETENDING to know what you're talking about. Let's look at what the real SCIENTISTS actual said, shall we?

Amoebae Anticipate Periodic Events

.....
Information processing is an interesting component of biological systems. Although the brain has evolved to perform this specific function, information processing is possible without a brain, and organisms as simple as amoebae are much more intelligent than generally thought. For example, the true slime mold Physarum polycephalum can solve a maze and certain geometrical puzzles, in order to satisfy its needs for efficient absorption of nutrients and intracellular communication [1–4]. Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, information processing by unicellular organisms might represent a simple precursor of brain dependent higher functions. Anticipating and recalling events are two such functions; however, the way in which they self-organize has so far remained unknown.

Emphasis mine. What made you an EXPERT again?

The fact that I understand basic biochemistry and you do not.

What a crock. You clearly don't understand SQUAT about the topic, nor did you even bother to read or intelligently respond to the paper in question!

 

[Michael]

Every single thing you've said is a consequence of "awareness" or "intelligence" is explained by biochemistry.

So what? So is HUMAN intelligence when we get right down to it. That doesn't negate the fact that it is an INTELLIGENT behavior and it's demonstrating signs of intelligence. I never suggested that biological process are not giving rise to AWARENESS, I simply noted that even single cells are in fact AWARE of their environment, and they are able to RESPOND to changes in that environment in an INTELLIGENT manner.

You have absolutely no evidence that "awareness" is responsible for that cell's behavior, and the authors of the papers would not touch your conclusions with a ten foot pole.

The authors had the audacity to actually use the words "intelligence". It's you folks that don't seem to want to touch their actual words and conclusions with a ten foot pole.

Get REAL! The mold RESPONDED intelligently according to the authors of that paper. Deny their findings all you like, but denial is simply denial.

 

[Zaius137]

Can complex behavior arise by any other means than programming?

Look at the Honey Bee for instance; it exhibits a complex dance to show other bees who are watching how to get to a pollen source. Two behaviors here had to evolve simultaneously one from the demonstrating bee the other from the observing bee. Along with this, the honeybee has had origins from 120 million years ago with the modern looking bee 35 million years ago (according to evolutionists).

To evolution, the honeybee is a complete anomaly…

“The dance-language controversy raises issues beyond how bees communicate. These include whether and when "evolutionary" arguments are useful, and to what extent Kuhn's scientific revolution paradign fits the dispute.”

http://www.mendeley.com/research/quarterly-review-biology-18/


Also, look at what Darwin stated about flowering plants. The odd thing is evolution has the same problems with them as it does with honeybees even today.

Flowering plants are among the most diverse organisms that have ever existed -- Charles Darwin called their origin and diversification an "abominable mystery."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209083342.htm

Another impossible problem for evolution but is right up Intelligent Designs alley.

 

[Blayz]

Can complex behavior arise by any other means than programming?

Sure it can

Look at the Honey Bee for instance

A prime example of complexity arising as emergent behaviour through a collection of simple rules, which has nothing to do with evolution and thus you are allowed to believe it.

To evolution, the honeybee is a complete anomaly…

No it really isn't. It's something we haven't explained yet. That doesn't make it an anomaly.

http://www.mendeley.com/research/quarterly-review-biology-18/

1 paper from 1976 doesn't really support your point. However, I get the feeling it is an interesting paper, but all I can find is the asbtract.

Also, look at what Darwin stated about flowering plants.

Good idea, an argument from a 150 year old authority that you yourself do not recognize. I lost count of the irony layers. Oh if only someone had looked at flowering plant evolution in the last 150 years.

Another impossible problem for evolution but is right up Intelligent Designs alley.

Yep, I bet the designer got right on the insects just after he intelligently designed virulence and disease factors for bacteria. What a great designer.

Quick question, which alley was the designer up creating the waggle dance for Apis species which recent research has shown is incredibly inefficient and largely ignored by the bees?

Mediocre design, at best

Informational conflicts created by the waggle dance
(this is what a link looks like that is younger than 34 years old Z, in case you were wondering)

 

[Trogool]

That does not explain the behaviors seen in that paper. You're just handwaving away, PRETENDING to know what you're talking about. Let's look at what the real SCIENTISTS actual said, shall we?

Emphasis mine. What made you an EXPERT again?

What a crock. You clearly don't understand SQUAT about the topic, nor did you even bother to read or intelligently respond to the paper in question!

Let me know when you quote an actual scientific paper asserting intelligence in slime mold and an actual mechanism.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

So what? So is HUMAN intelligence when we get right down to it. That doesn't negate the fact that it is an INTELLIGENT behavior and it's demonstrating signs of intelligence. I never suggested that biological process are not giving rise to AWARENESS, I simply noted that even single cells are in fact AWARE of their environment, and they are able to RESPOND to changes in that environment in an INTELLIGENT manner.

The authors had the audacity to actually use the words "intelligence". It's you folks that don't seem to want to touch their actual words and conclusions with a ten foot pole.

Get REAL! The mold RESPONDED intelligently according to the authors of that paper. Deny their findings all you like, but denial is simply denial.

The definitions are getting screwy here. Let's talk about the facts:

-The mold can problem solve

That's it. It's not self-aware, it's not thinking, it's not planning what it's going to do this weekend. It responds in extremely complicated ways to stimuli. That's it. So let's stop using loaded terms like "awareness" to equate amoeboid intelligence with the intelligence that is derived from a brain.

 

[Greg1234]

Greg appears to be the one arguing that single-celled organisms are conscious

And im not the only one noting conscious behavior. The Personality of Bacteria | Creation Moments

And plants. Again we see that no brain is required. New research opens a window on the minds of plants / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

 

[Blayz]

And im not the only one noting conscious behavior. The Personality of Bacteria | Creation Moments

I had trouble trying to work out which was the dumbest part of this article. In the end, it had to be this:

"Scientists have even found that younger bacteria learn better than older ones."

Bacteria reproduce by fission (splitting into 2) When food is plentiful, they can split every 20 minutes. I can see it now, those old timer bacteria that are 19 minutes old complaining about the attitude of the younger generation, before 1 minute later splitting into 2 and becoming the younger generation.

New research opens a window on the minds of plants / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Here's an idea, why not post research done by creationists, rather than evolutionists. Oh, that's right, there isn't any.

 

[DaneaFL]

And im not the only one noting conscious behavior. The Personality of Bacteria | Creation Moments

And plants. Again we see that no brain is required. New research opens a window on the minds of plants / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

I tried but I couldn't find anyone who ever cited the source material for that article "Pietsch, Paul. 1983. "The mind of a microbe." Science Digest, Oct. p. 103." other than a few creationist websites...

If it was of any scientific significance you'd think at least someone would cite it somewhere in a serious journal, but nope.

You see, this is why peer-review is so important. Most of us aren't experts in the field so we need people who know what they are talking about to check the facts to make sure we aren't just being lied to... and a good marker of an article's merit is how often it's cited in other articles... which is 0 in this case.

 

[Greg1234]

You see, this is why peer-review is so important.

So what you are saying is that if it were a Darwinian-reviewed article you would accept it?

 

[DaneaFL]

So what you are saying is that if it were a Darwinian-reviewed article you would accept it?

No, I'm saying if it was a serious article I'd accept it. It's not actually cited in any other scientific article... It might be linked to on a couple websites but that doesn't equal peer-review like you think it does.

 

[Greg1234]

I had trouble trying to work out which was the dumbest part of this article. In the end, it had to be this:

"Scientists have even found that younger bacteria learn better than older ones."

Bacteria reproduce by fission (splitting into 2) When food is plentiful, they can split every 20 minutes. I can see it now, those old timer bacteria that are 19 minutes old complaining about the attitude of the younger generation, before 1 minute later splitting into 2 and becoming the younger generation.

Here's an idea, why not post research done by creationists, rather than evolutionists. Oh, that's right, there isn't any.

Soo...?

 

[Zaius137]

A prime example of complexity arising as emergent behaviour through a collection of simple rules, which has nothing to do with evolution and thus you are allowed to believe it.

Hey, I see a candidate for a Nobel Prize here; now all you need to do is identify the “arising as emergent behavior “part.

I looked up some of the citations in your post.

Informational conflicts created by the waggle dance

The bees dance is undisputed amongst scientists…

Read this one… from 2005


The flight paths of honeybees recruited by the waggle... [Nature. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

I maintain such behavior is a product of programming and not an imaginary emergent quality. Now show me otherwise…

 

[Michael]

Again, we do not know if slime mold was intelligently designed or intelligent.

The authors of that first paper seem to disagree with your assessment. They specifically call them 'intelligent'. They have the ability to "anticipate" future events and they modify their "behavior" accordingly.

You are the one saying that they possess intelligence based on their collective behavior.

No, not me. They AUTHORS of that published paper said it. They clearly explained their experiments, their METHODS and their RESULTS and used terms like "intelligent". I'm simply the messenger in this scenario. You don't have to agree with them mind you, but if you disagree, you need to cite the flaw in their work. That's how "scientists' critique another scientists work.

If that behavior is not indicative of intelligence in other systems, intelligently designed or not, I would argue that it's not a diagnostic characteristic.

You'll need to argue with the authors by citing the flaw in their experiment, either with the methods or in the data itself.

These behaviors were not from single cells but were from networks of cells. I'm quite comfortable saying that networks of cells can produce intelligent behaviors, as that is what I hope the network of cells between my ears is doing at this moment (time will tell).

Hmmm. That's a middle ground I can definitely live with for the moment.

What do you mean by intelligence? Plants have more DNA, would that mean they are more intelligent?

I don't personally discount the possibility that plants can also act "intelligently" to changing environmental conditions. All I've been trying to point out is that awareness and intelligence, the ability to "anticipate" future events, and MODIFY BEHAVIOR does not require a 'brain'. As far as we know "awareness" is intrinsic to nature, and simply manifests itself in nature by manipulating DNA. For all I know the very first DNA "seeds of life" were in fact 'intelligently designed' since it's the one structure in the universe known to house 'intelligence' and it adapts to all sorts of environments. I see nothing "random" about it.

 

[Michael]

Let me know when you quote an actual scientific paper asserting intelligence in slime mold and an actual mechanism.

Been there, done that. The authors (real scientists) used the term "intelligence". They cited the mechanisms and the data that they used in their physical experiments to arrive at their conclusions too. They published their work in reputable journals related to this topic, which I handed to you on a silver platter!

You personally never even cited a single scientific flaw in their work, either in their methods or in their data. You never explained what makes you a "greater expert' on this topic than the authors that I cited, or why you disagree with *their* assessment of "intelligence". In short, you're sitting in PURE DENIAL OF PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT just so that you can protect your personal little circular feedback loop of a belief system. Yawn.

http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/33004/1/PhysRevLett_100_018101.pdf