Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (4658)	5/11/2010 12:55:15 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

and you're statement "you'd be wrong"... is in fact what is wrong. No, what I posted is correct - your embrace of ID makes you a scientific heretic and I cited scientific insitutions to support that: U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (Kitzmiller) ruled that intelligent design is not science and is a religious and creationist position. The National Academy of Sciences says it isn't scientific. The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. ------------------------------------------------------- <You're 100 or 200 years behind... ie. "bags of water".> The point is, neither do scientists any more... Nobody knowledgeable thinks that anymore. Though many biology textbooks do a poor job of teaching that cells aren't just filled mostly with a batch of chemicals in solution. Thats per what I've seen. ------------------------------------------------ Re-read... the point was nobody considers cells bags of water any more but highly intelligent... which you disputed. First off, its not a choice between being "bags of water" and being "highly intelligent". Second, there's an enormous amount of information, which implies intelligence, within cells. However, using the phrase "highly intelligent" implies the cells are reasoning or thinking. I think thats offbase. I know cells respond to stimuli, move toward food, light, away from threats .... etc ... but if you have evidence of intelligent reasoning by cells, lets hear it. --------------------------------------------------- <However, I get the impression you think cells are contemplating and reasoning .... as if they're thinking - gee, how will I build this protein and then thinking through the problem and coming up with a solution.> We know all sorts of cell activity (not just building proteins, but that is cool) is not only non-random but can be observed to change based on it's environment... ie. it is reacting to environmental changes. Of course, cells respond to environmental changes as do more involved things like plants. But let's not imply they're consciously reasoning. Unless you have evidence of that. ------------------------------------------------- That's why one needs to discuss/define, etc. terms like "intelligence", "mind", "intentional", and all sorts of other terms when speaking about living systems. <No, the intelligence involved is designed into their encoded DNA.> But how does it all work? There must be an interface between the "plan" or "design" and cell metabolism? For example, you aren't just a robot are you? How that interface works is very complicated and is a subject for much more study. No I don't think I'm (or other conscious beings) a robot. Cells, otoh, maybe they do fit the robot paradigm better. If you have evidence otherwise, I'm open to it.