Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Bacterian Intelligence and Self Programmed Legos

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bacterian Intelligence and Self Programmed Legos

    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st...View_Evol.html

    What are the implications of recognizing intelligence demonstrated at a microcellular level?

    Just wondering.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Pytharchimedes View Post
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st...View_Evol.html

    What are the implications of recognizing intelligence demonstrated at a microcellular level?

    Just wondering.

    I don't know that Shapiro is necessarily talking about "intelligence" as in "mind" as in what we think by the terms.

    I think he's more setting up a non-traditional view of evolution whereby organisms, even relatively simple ones, have evolved to a state whereby they can perform some type of natural genetic engineering.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rwatts View Post
      I don't know that Shapiro is necessarily talking about "intelligence" as in "mind" as in what we think by the terms.

      I think he's more setting up a non-traditional view of evolution whereby organisms, even relatively simple ones, have evolved to a state whereby they can perform some type of natural genetic engineering.
      It is evolution he is describing, how then can it be something else that placed an organism in its current position?

      The paper is about evolution, why then do you place evolution behind the state that he speaks of?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pytharchimedes View Post
        http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st...View_Evol.html

        What are the implications of recognizing intelligence demonstrated at a microcellular level?

        Just wondering.
        There is no reference here of intelligence found at the microcellular.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pytharchimedes View Post
          It is evolution he is describing, how then can it be something else that placed an organism in its current position?

          The paper is about evolution, why then do you place evolution behind the state that he speaks of?
          I really have no idea what you are getting at with your questions Pytharchimedes.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pytharchimedes View Post
            It is evolution he is describing, how then can it be something else that placed an organism in its current position?

            The paper is about evolution, why then do you place evolution behind the state that he speaks of?
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pytharchimedes View Post
              http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st...View_Evol.html

              What are the implications of recognizing intelligence demonstrated at a microcellular level?

              Just wondering.
              That will depend entirely on how "intelligence" is defined. FYI: "intelligence" plays a significant role in my work on information (presently being worked on) and, yes, I do recognize "intelligence" at microcellular and other levels. Lastly, I think Shapiro has something else in mind.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                a non-traditional view of evolution whereby organisms, even relatively simple ones, have evolved
                The paper explains the actual mechanism of evolution being natural genetic engineering. So your statement that this is what has evolved does not make sense in that respect. The natural genetic engineering is evolution itself, not a byproduct.

                I hope this clarifies my questions.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  That will depend entirely on how "intelligence" is defined. FYI: "intelligence" plays a significant role in my work on information (presently being worked on) and, yes, I do recognize "intelligence" at microcellular and other levels. Lastly, I think Shapiro has something else in mind.

                  Jorge
                  He wrote an interesting article on the concepts conveyed in the paper.

                  http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shap...7.ThirdWay.pdf

                  Only he knows what he had in mind, but we can all speculate.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    There is no reference here of intelligence found at the microcellular.
                    My question was not does the paper reference this intelligence, nor was it do you recognize it, rather it was what would be the implications of the recognition.
                    Last edited by Pytharchimedes; 04-15-2015, 06:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Pytharchimedes View Post
                      The paper explains the actual mechanism of evolution being natural genetic engineering. So your statement that this is what has evolved does not make sense in that respect. The natural genetic engineering is evolution itself, not a byproduct.

                      I hope this clarifies my questions.
                      Well there are some researchers who think that the ability to do this, could well be a product of evolution itself. For example, I think this book:-

                      http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Genome-.../dp/0071378227

                      - argues that position.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                        Well there are some researchers who think that the ability to do this, could well be a product of evolution itself. For example, I think this book:-

                        http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Genome-.../dp/0071378227

                        - argues that position.
                        Could you give me the reasoning relayed in the book?

                        A synopsis of sorts?

                        As I understand it, the mechanism that forms novel structures that make adaptation possible through natural genetic engineering is converse to the stochastic methods of the traditional idea of natural selection and random mutation.
                        Last edited by Pytharchimedes; 04-16-2015, 06:58 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Pytharchimedes View Post
                          Could you give me the reasoning relayed in the book?

                          A synopsis of sorts?
                          Not really. I read the book years ago, and only superficially at that. So exactly what her argument was, I cannot say. I have this terrible habit of often skimping great ideas when I come across them. I think part of the reason is that I don't concentrate for extended periods of time and think deeply about what is being described.

                          The dust cover flap says that the author is putting forward an idea that is "consistent with the basic Darwinian model". And "Simply put: not all mutations are 'random accidents.' In the struggle for survival - from pathogens to flowers, birds to orang-utans, baker's yeast to human beings - the fittest genomes are effective strategists, responding to, and in fact anticipating, challenges and opportunities in their environments".

                          But exactly how she builds her argument, it's best that I not attempt to describe for the reason I gave at the start.

                          One thing I will say, based on conventional wisdom - a few billion years of quadzillions of bacteria swapping genes all over the place in a thousand different environments may well have been enough to allow natural genetic engineering systems to have worked themselves out. That the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and life about 4 billion years old, with the Cambrian at about a mere half a billion years ago, suggests that those billions of years of bacterial evolution brought into existence the genes that allowed the 20-50 million year Cambrian explosion to occur.


                          Hence I don't think that an intelligent designer is needed, at least not at the level of explaining how life came to be complex.
                          Last edited by rwatts; 04-17-2015, 08:57 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                            Not really. I read the book years ago, and only superficially at that. So exactly what her argument was, I cannot say. I have this terrible habit of often skimping great ideas when I come across them. I think part of the reason is that I don't concentrate for extended periods of time and think deeply about what is being described.

                            The dust cover flap says that the author is putting forward an idea that is "consistent with the basic Darwinian model". And "Simply put: not all mutations are 'random accidents.' In the struggle for survival - from pathogens to flowers, birds to orang-utans, baker's yeast to human beings - the fittest genomes are effective strategists, responding to, and in fact anticipating, challenges and opportunities in their environments".

                            But exactly how she builds her argument, it's best that I not attempt to describe for the reason I gave at the start.

                            One thing I will say, based on conventional wisdom - a few billion years of quadzillions of bacteria swapping genes all over the place in a thousand different environments may well have been enough to allow natural genetic engineering systems to have worked themselves out. That the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and life about 4 billion years old, with the Cambrian at about a mere half a billion years ago, suggests that those billions of years of bacterial evolution brought into existence the genes that allowed the 20-50 million year Cambrian explosion to occur.


                            Hence I don't think that an intelligent designer is needed, at least not at the level of explaining how life came to be complex.
                            Fair enough.

                            Although, I am not speaking about an intelligent designer. The intelligence I am noticing is going on within the cellular activity, hence my question; what would be the implications of intelligent bacteria?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Pytharchimedes View Post
                              .... what would be the implications of intelligent bacteria?
                              What kind of intelligence are you suggesting, and how intelligent are you thinking of?

                              That is a very, very broad question you ask.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                              2 responses
                              28 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              5 responses
                              50 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              5 responses
                              74 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X