Joined: June 2006
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,23:08)|
|Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 27 2012,00:21)|
|Why then do you use the active voice, as in "Bacteria can (self-)modify their genes."? If it's not a choice, why introduce "intelligence"?|
It is a known fact that bacterial genomes change over time. And unless you have a Flying Natural Selection Monster shuffling their nucleotides around with its noodley appendages then it is something that the bacterial genomes (its molecular intelligence) hence the bacteria are themselves capable of.
Wait, what? Now a bacterial genome is its "molecular intelligence"?
See, it's phrasing like this that makes me think you believe bacteria have the will or intent to modify their genomes. It's as if I said "Volcanoes have the ability to modify their internal pressure by erupting."
And when you say "bacterial genomes change over time", are you referring to an individual organism or a reproducing colony? If the former, do you mean HGT, or are you saying an individual can modify its own genome? Okay, maybe I could accept that, in a single-celled organism, but again, you have not shown that this modification is designed to increase survival advantage in an individual rather than just a complex chemical reaction.
Maybe you can give an example, as in "when exposed to X for the first time ever, this individual bacterium produced Y for the first time ever, by modifying its genome thus, which increased its survival advantage".
I suspect that what you are calling "guesses" are what the rest of the world calls "variation". And you are still not clear about whether, in each instance, you are referring to an individual organism's genome or the colony's gene pool.
What about higher life forms? Where does the ability of an organism to "modify its own genome" end? Are you saying we have the ability to change our gametes in response to the environment?
And I introduced "intelligence" because it is there.
Where, exactly? How are you defining "intelligence" if not "the ability to make decisions"? It looks to me like all you have is stimulus/response, and I don't believe you have shown that the response is -- what, geared? calculated? designed? -- to increase survival advantage. Maybe you can give me an example that cannot be explained by the current paradigm.
|That is why animals as complex as humans now exist. If there is no genetic ability to "self-learn" then humans could not exist.[/i]|
So... bacteria don't make the choice to modify their genomes, but they have "the genetic ability to self-learn"? I'm having a hard time understanding what that means, exactly. Do you mean they respond to external stimuli? Well of course they do. See above re stimulus/response.
|Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 27 2012,00:21)|
|Nature is sloppy (which is, I think, what really sticks your craw).|
What really sticks my craw are condescending noodle-heads who think they know-it-all. The least you can do is use the proper phrasing "molecular intelligence" or "cellular intelligence" instead of the usual grade school generalizations that make me wonder if I'm talking to children.
(shrug) I never claimed to know it all, I'm just asking questions.
Why would I use "molecular intelligence" or "cellular intelligence" when I have no idea what you mean by these terms, and have a hard time believing they exist? It's just sounds like stuff you made up, like some physics... maverick, let's say... talking about "the speed of time".
I don't use the term "holy spirit" when I'm talking to religious fanatics, either. It's vacuous nonsense.
To which "grade school generalizations" are you referring? Are you saying that imperfect replication is not a factor in genetic variation? That nature is not sloppy, that all genetic variation is guided? How would you show this? And you have not answered my question about "bad" mutations.
Yes, I suspect you're out to lunch, but I want to be sure I understand your position more completely before I give up.
Like James Caan observing Matthew in "NewsRadio".
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory
"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G