N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
So you are telling Chemicat that the answers to his questions
| Quote | | Please list the "certain features" that you claim need "intelligence" to explain. Identify this "intelligence" outside of the already listed features i.e. symphonies, poetry, buildings vehicles etc. List the features that DO NOT require "intelligence" as an explanation. Then link it to your Not-science "theory". |
can be found in your chapter on "Features of the Universe and Of Living Things". In case anyone doubt's NoName's assessment, let's take a look.
| Quote | | Wherever biological life/intelligence such as ours establishes itself on a planet |
No other cases are known. You mean “Life like ours would presumably make itself detectable from space by atmospheres that are out of equilibrium.”
| Quote | | “relatively unreactive CO2 atmosphere (of a lifeless planet)” |
CO2 atmospheres are not unreactive if there is liquid water. You are more seriously wrong in that plenty of presumably lifeless planets have atmospheres without CO2: “The giant outer planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have extremely thick atmospheres of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. Titan, the moon of Saturn also has a methane-ammonia atmosphere.” (http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/rbc/a1/lec29n.html)
Jupiter, 89.8% H2, 10.2% He, 0.3% CH4, 0.026% NH3
Saturn, 96.3% H2, 3.25% He,
Uranus, 82.5% H2, 15.2% He, 2.3% CH4,
Neptune, 80.0% H2, 19.0% He, 1.5% CH4,
| Quote | | “The culprit of firestorms which are visible from outer space and other cataclysms is the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere, from the presence of intelligent living things,” |
Well, no. That’s “Cause of “ or “culprit in”. And in what other cataclysms? All of them? Landslides? Earthquakes and volcanoes? Hurricanes? How about “no other cataclysms”? (Unless you mean firestorms visible from other cataclysms like hurricanes?) Oxygen is present due to cyanobacteria and plants (including algae), none of which have been demonstrated to be intelligent. All the intelligent life that we know of CONSUMES oxygen.
| Quote | | “Where it was much greater entire pollen/cottonwood filled forest regions (and piney vegetation) can more than burn there can become an ignition chain-reaction producing a dispersed-fuel “grain silo” type explosion that with a spark goes off all at once, with explosive force.” |
Where exactly is this interesting place with much more than 20.946% oxygen? Regardless, that’s a hideous sentence, grammatically.
| Quote | | “In this way the founding forms of intelligence make it possible for a planet like this to in time support other more complex levels of intelligence including multicellular intelligence such as ourselves, humans.” Assuming facts not in evidence. |
| Quote | | “While plants, some bacteria and single cell animals only adsorb light” |
Well, now, that’s not true. There are also bioluminescent bacteria, algae, and fungi.
| Quote | | From outside our solar system it’s possible to tell how far our light generation technology has advanced from unique spectral signatures of more efficient types of lighting to match the spectral range of our vision. |
That’s not true either: we don’t emit enough light for it to be seen from outside the solar system.
| Quote | | The need for additional lighting to see at night can indicate eye designs that can resolve fine detail in bright light, as opposed to nocturnal eye designs that see little detail but work well in near darkness. |
I don’t know what that “indicate” is supposed to mean, but many nocturnal terrestrial and aerial predators see very well in low light (e.g. owls, cats).
| Quote | | At closer range human architectural designs reflect a cumulative culture (includes science, religion, art and folklore) that acts as a collective memory to go from generation to generation, necessary for there to be this level of visible technology. |
Yet another hideous sentence.
| Quote | | Throughout the universe intelligent living things can be the cause of profound changes to the features of their planet, environment, weather, even the electromagnetic emissions radiated by their solar system. |
Assuming facts not in evidence: although this is likely, you are arguing from a grand total of one case, so this is groundless pomposity.
| Quote | | The radio waves we now transmit for TV and radio communication is |
That’s “are”
| Quote | | Also from space, giant beaver dams are visible |
No, they aren’t. The lakes are, but not the dams.
| Quote | | Beavers build their homes/lodges in the resulting pond. These lodges have underwater entrances to restrict entry by other animals, but beavers have been filmed sharing their home with smaller muskrats who have similar lodge building habits. |
Muskrats do not have “similar lodge-building habits” to beavers. They and beavers may burrow into stream banks, and they may occupy beaver lodges (especially abandoned ones), and they build nests and push-ups, but those are much simpler than beaver lodges and muskrats primarily use marsh vegetation, rather than gnawing down trees and dragging in wood. There is not much to a muskrat structure below the waterline ( http://bobarnebeck.com/muskrat....ats.htm ). Regardless, this is a red herring to a red herring to a red herring to a red herring on a wild goose chase, so why are you talking about it? If beaver lodges are the "features of the universe" that are designed, then your claim is trivial: we already stipulated that beaver dams and bowerbird bower could be called "intelligently designed" with only a moderate out stretching of either word, but neither makes your case for intelligence outside of the generally accepted range for fairly smart animals.
| Quote | | Without knowledge of the male bowerbird’s skills a paleoanthropologist can easily assume that their aesthetically optimized shelter is a human shrine to a deity who lives in an adorned little hut. Or conclude that there were once such tiny humans. |
BS. No anthropologist, paleo or otherwise, has ever made such a mistake, and bowerbird bowers, while amazing, are not that substantial.
| Quote | | but where thought to be a doll-house built by an early human craftsman might be scaled up by scientists to show what an early human dwelling looked like. |
That needs to be rewritten, otherwise you are proposing to scale up craftsmen to see what a dwelling looked like. But again, you are making a stupid and unjustified argument, even when you get the grammar sorted out.
| Quote | | Intelligent behavior of living things determines where they want to live, who or what they partner with, feed on, or hide from. And teamwork of living things has led to complex social populations who together are very successful at controlling their environments. Others around them can quickly be forced to find a new behavioral strategy, in response to theirs. At all levels of complexity living things profoundly change each other and environment in response to each other’s behavior in ways that make it impossible to explain the origin of one without including all other living things around them. |
More egregious grammatical problems aside for the moment, that’s piling up a bunch of non-sequiturs in order to leap onto a house of cards. Sure, organisms affect their habitats and the ecosystems in which they live, and this is true at all levels of life. This does not mean that all the influences are intentional, nor is it impossible to explain complex ecosystems and ecological networks. You are smuggling in your desired conclusion with successful, control, and find.
| Quote | | There is a three way reciprocal causation whereby the persons (or living things), their behaviors, and the environment all have an influence on each other (A influences B and B influences A). |
Putting “causation” for “influence” right after a gratuitous reference to “origins” is pandering to your conclusions and does not justify your arguments.
| Quote | | What grazes in an intelligence produced pasture depends on what kind of living thing the intelligent farmers are. ..... For single celled social amoebas (slime mold) the livestock it raises is a special kind of bacteria. When unfavorable conditions produce famine instead of eating them all they save some to store as seed (spores) inside a protective capsule they construct so at least some in the colony survive to reestablish itself again later. |
First, amoebas .... it ...... them all they ..... they .... in the colony ...... itself. For gosh sake, sort out your pronouns. Second, ok, we make pastures that were produced intelligently. That does not mean that culturing by slime moulds indicates intelligence at work.
| Quote | | A dog (possibly wolf) with controlling (of other animals) behavior.... |
Egads, that’s painful to read.
| Quote | | Where it is unhappy with living conditions the dog may run off to another human settlement where conditions are better, then another human group benefits from the dog’s presence. What could outrun a human might not outrun their dog. Here there is a partnership not even of the same species but since both are highly social animals each still sees each other as “part of the family” or as the dog would see it “part of the (wolf) pack”. Sneaking up on the team while they are sleeping is virtually impossible where one barks at the least sign of trouble. Early pioneers of the US knew it was a good idea to make one a priority to have with the family when out in the wilderness. So our arms and hands may not be good for running ....... |
You might try organizing your thoughts so that they present a coherent argument, because this isn’t working for you.
| Quote | | Taking away the ability for a living thing to find a stable environment where they belong is harmful to it personally and over time to its entire breed/species. At the molecular and cellular scale intelligence inherently optimizes what it can control therefore convergence on a near optimal biological design for conditions is expected, predicted. |
That’s a complete non sequitur. You still have not demonstrated molecular and cellular scale intelligence. Such a prediction is not entailed by anything that you have said.
| Quote | | Each design is suited for the environment it's for. The cephalopod (octopus, squid, cuttlefish) eye is well designed for a cephalopod. Our eye is well designed for us. |
Actually, no in both cases, and we can add in the rhinoceros to boot. They suffice (particularly for us now that we have invented glasses), but they are clearly not well designed for all that we might use them for if they were as half good as some other eyes that are out there in the natural world.
| Quote | | The extinction of the long enduring dinosaurs may have mostly been caused by design limitations that made it impossible for them to forever keep up with optimization of insects and pathogens. |
Neither of those are plausible causes of the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. Also, you are arguing a fallacy: “dinosaurs” (without restriction to non-avian dinosaurs) aren’t extinct, and many birds have quite clearly “kept up” with insects, given that the latter constitute the diet of so many of the former.
| Quote | | Asteroids falling or not, given their possible vulnerabilities to pathogens the extinction of dinosaurs might be predictable, as well as the emergence of better adapted to pathogens biological designs such as ourselves to in time becoming a significant feature of a planet such as this. |
No, that’s not an implication. You have zero evidence that we are better adapted to pathogens than dinosaurs, just a bit of silly speculation that is almost certainly wrong (plagues can kill off a lot of a species, but by drastically decreasing population densities plagues make it impossible for them to wipe out an entire population). So you can't build upon groundless speculation.
| Quote | | Living things change each other in response to each other’s behavior in ways that make it hard to explain the origin of features of one without including features of all living intelligent things around them, |
That’s the second time you have said that, and you still haven’t supported it with any actual evidence. It remains an unsupported assertion.
| Quote | | Without this life-giving interconnected intelligent causation from nonrandom behavior of matter the planet would likely be just another lifeless carbon dioxide world |
You have not supported your assertion of intelligent causation, nor “from nonrandom behavior of matter”, and you remain wrong that lifeless worlds are necessarily rich in CO2.
So in short, no, you haven’t said much that answers Chemicat's questions, beyond a few very poorly written platitudes, a bunch of unsupported assertions, and your usual plenitude of misstatements of fact.
|
