Clever bacteria

[Teleological]

Spoken language is a subset of language per se.

We are not the only species that communicates, we are not even the only species that communicates verbally.

The oldest human proto language is believed to survive in India where ancient chants passed on orally, generation by generation, appear to have little association with any of today's languages

I'm not a linguist, but as I understand it many human languages bear very little ressemblance to one another, in either structure or sound. (indeed some languages are literally impossible to pronounce properly unless you grew up learning them.

Historically Languages have evolved, some have died, some have transformed, superceded by their "offspring", & some have become increasingly isolated.

English is perhaps the most robust human language, it's larger by far than any other, spoken (as first or second language) by more people across the globe than any other. English is however also a very splintered tongue, with some dialects almost classed as being languages on their own.

There are to my knowledge two languages which have been designed. Esperanto and Klingon, though even Klingon can be said to have evolved to meet a changing need.

Only the origins of what you have said is still disputed.

No.

So the various systems and machinery of life are not intelligent? Apoptosis and other forms of programmed cell death, DNA repair, cell cycle control, signal transduction etc...
Is the machinery and software system in and on your computer non-intelligent? better tell the software engineers to get off their asses and THINK, or better yet, pop an idea into an evolution simulator let i evolve better intelligent systems.

Cellular machinery intelligence:
Conscious knowledge: No
Problem solving: Yes (quantum computing, see above and consciousness)
Reasoning: No
Unconscious knowledge: Perhaps? Don't know.
Planning: Yes, see post #1
Learning: Yes, see post #1
Communication: Yes, signal transduction happens in a controlled manner
Perception: Yes, cells communicate with the environment through surface receptors and relays information through signal transduction which in turn affects gene expression and protein activity.
Social intelligence: Yes, even bacteria interact with other bacteria and can even mimic a multicellular organism through quorum sensing.
Creativity: Perhaps? Harnessing random variation and selection to adapt?

So these systems are non-intelligent to you? Amazing.

So you exclude all other types of man made rockets?

In principal a rocket is something propelled by exhausting internally stored propellant rearwards. (throwing mass behind yourself)

You can do this by farting in a swimming pool.

I was specific in giving my example in the last post. Burning gases... carry on with the question.
Here:
Given enough constraints (or none), evolution can be used to sample the given environment and end up with an even improved mechanism. Do you think evolution is capable of this?. Why? If yes, then this is false:

Design, as I said before, tends to copy, or emulate the evolved. The reverse is not true.

If no. Why, is evolution under intrinsic control?

Evolution happens, it's not a featured to be plugged in or switched off. I suggest you be specific about the mechanisms of evolution you're talking about here.

Switch off a living biological cell, no evolution. Switch off a computer, no evolutionary computation. Any other place or system were you witness evolution?

It's not, that's your baseless supposition.

Baseless? Hardly.

In an infinite multiverse with infinite time anything is posible.

Do you believe in multiverses?

It can't be irrespective of the embedder. If you can't identify and examine the supposed embeddor then the conclusion of embedding must be in error.

Even if clear signs of embedding is discovered... scientifically? Don't limit science by your preconceptions of what science can and can't do.

It's "machinery" and "software" which shows clear signs of having evolved.

Through pure stochastic processes without agency? Lol. Software evolves through our conscious improvement. The first machinery of life? There is no explanation for it... Read up...

 

[alloytoo]

Only the origins of what you have said is still disputed.

Well, as I indicated, I'm not a lingust, and I was painting broad strokes, what in general do you dispute.

So the various systems and machinery of life are not intelligent? Apoptosis and other forms of programmed cell death, DNA repair, cell cycle control, signal transduction etc...

You've failed to define intelligence in this context.

Those mechanisms are functional and serve purposes. They are clearly the most (overall) successful solutions.

Is the machinery and software system in and on your computer non-intelligent? better tell the software engineers to get off their asses and THINK, or better yet, pop an idea into an evolution simulator let i evolve better intelligent systems.

*Sigh*

Cellular machinery intelligence:
Conscious knowledge: No
Problem solving: Yes (quantum computing, see above and consciousness)

problem solving much in principle like a bubblesort routine

Reasoning: No
Unconscious knowledge: Perhaps? Don't know.
Planning: Yes, see post #1
Learning: Yes, see post #1
Communication: Yes, signal transduction happens in a controlled manner
Perception: Yes, cells communicate with the environment through surface receptors and relays information through signal transduction which in turn affects gene expression and protein activity.
Social intelligence: Yes, even bacteria interact with other bacteria and can even mimic a multicellular organism through quorum sensing.
Creativity: Perhaps? Harnessing random variation and selection to adapt?

Rewrite this in english. I'm not responding to gibberish.

So these systems are non-intelligent to you? Amazing.

You really do seem to be practising literary masterbation here.

I was very specific in the last post. Burning gases... carry on with the question.

You were being especially childish, nothing more.

Switch off a living biological cell, no evolution. Switch off a computer, no evolutionary computation.

and your point?

Do you believe in multiverses?

I believe in the posibility of multiverses.

Even if clear signs of embedding is discovered... scientifically? Don't limit science by your preconceptions of what science can and can't do.

Then science will examine the embedder.

Through pure stochastic processes without agency? Lol. Software evolves through our conscious improvement. The machinery of life? There is no explanation for it... Read up...

Unfortunately the biggest flaw in your software argument is that there are breaks in software evolution.

Every living thing carries within it's DNA an evolutionary history. This places it in context within the phylogenetic tree.

Software doesn't exhibit this, it's written and created in isolation, and while it may evolve for a period, it's also periodically chucked out and started a fresh.

The hallmark of design would not be the "apparentness" or obviousness of it, the hallmark of design is the creation of something unique without tracible origins.

So instead of trying to decern design, try to decern uniqueness.

 

[Teleological]

This is were it breaks down EVERY TIME.
To those following the thread other than alloytoo, should name calling and snarky remarks be part of any thread (I don't mind, I can dish it out to)?
Please tell me what went wrong and I will try and correct it.
I will restart the thread as soon as alloytoo decides to fix his behavior and I will gladly accept any suggestions to make the thread more reader friendly.

 

[cerebus]

decern = discern.

 

[alloytoo]

This is were it breaks down EVERY TIME.
To those following the thread other than alloytoo, should name calling be part of any thread (I don't mind, I can dish it out to)?
Please tell me what went wrong and I will try and correct it.
I will restart the thread as soon as alloytoo decides to fix his behavior and I will gladly accept any suggestions to make the thread more reader friendly.

Here's a suggestion (or two).

Learn to summarise and make points with substance. (PLEASE NOTE HYPERLINKS ARE NOT summaries)

Don't post points off like bullets at random, because I'm going to request you reformat them.

Address the questions put to you requesting simple clarity.

Try to have conclusions that have at least a causal link to what is being discussed, and don't consist of your personal wishes.

and try to answer the following unanswered questions.

1) What in general do you dispute about my little language essay?

2) Define the context in which you are using intelligence.

In the programming context the intellegence eminates from the programmers, the programme itself is simply a series of instructions.

The programme itself is not intelligent.

3) There is a principle to rocket science, that principle is the is something propelled by exhausting internally stored propellant rearwards. (throwing mass behind yourself). Farting in the pool does the same thing. I'm sorry if nature has yet to reproduce an exact specification of an Apollo launcher.

4) What if, What if? Any attribution of any First cause, embedder, prime programmer, creator god etc demands that be examine said First cause, embedder, prime programmer, creator god etc. You're not going to get a different answer no matter how many times and ways you ask the question.

5) Primary evidence of design isn't going to come from any dubious miss or wishful interpretation of evolutions science data. It's going to come from the discover of something with the true hallmark of design: uniqueness, nothing that ties this discovery to our current organic reality.

That's how we gauge human design, we should use the same yard stick in supposed celestial design.

6)For the record, you established insults and name calling as accepted modus operanti a few threads ago, so don't whine about it now.

 

[alloytoo]

decern = discern.

Only human.

 

[Teleological]

Fair enough.
Here are a few suggestions from me:
1) Do spell check. If there is a little red line under word, try and figure out why. My spelling has gone down the drain because of this (hence the profuse editing), but it is there for a purpose.
2) Put more structure in your replies, after a while the replies become increasingly difficult to follow. I will try the same.
3) Please answer a question when asked and do not inject insults or snarky remarks.
For example:
Me:

The rocket engine? I shouldv'e been more specific, my apologies. I was referring to something like this, burning of gases to produce propulsion. Please don't reply with your usual snotty remarks like "mmm you shouldv'e been more specific now shouldn't you" and leave the original question alone.
Here:
Given enough constraints (or none), evolution can be used to sample the given environment and end up with an even improved mechanism. Do you think evolution is capable of this?. Why? If yes, then this is false:

Design, as I said before, tends to copy, or emulate the evolved. The reverse is not true.

If no. Why, is evolution under intrinsic control?

You

So you exclude all other types of man made rockets?
In principal a rocket is something propelled by exhausting internally stored propellant rearwards. (throwing mass behind yourself)
You can do this by farting in a swimming pool.

You decide to lecture me on what propulsion is like I do not know and decide to bring in the “farting in a swimming pool” analogy. I was thinking more along the lines of squid propulsion. I mentioned I was being more specific and this is what I get?

You

You were being especially childish, nothing more.

You decided to bring in the farting analogy in the first place yet accuse me of being childish. And why don’t you answer the question directly? So I will ask you the question again (later on-topic)…

4) As for the insults and snarky remarks. I never condoned it and I have tried to stay away from it. Also, show me where I was the initiator and I will apologize? Besides, why do you feel the need to act that way in this thread anyway? State your grievances.

5) Be more clear on what exactly you want clarity on.

Ok, back on-topic.
I’m going to ignore post #22 as you summarized your grievances in post #25.

1) Alloytoo: What in general do you dispute about my little language essay?
Answer: You explain the evolution of communication, I am not disputing it, I am disputing the origins of communication and specifically the alphabet. I also do not see the relevance of discussing the evolution of language and communication in this thread. K, we leave this for another thread. You are welcome to make it.

2) Alloytoo: Define the context in which you are using intelligence.
Answer: I used the example of wiki for AI. Sincere apologies for not mentioning it, I also see the lay-out was confusing.

While there is no universally accepted definition of intelligence, AI researchers have studied several traits that are considered essential.

Including:
1) Deduction, reasoning, problem solving
2) Knowledge representation
3) Planning
4) Learning
5) Natural language processing
6) Motion and manipulation
7) Perception
8) Social intelligence
9) Creativity
10) General intelligence

3) Alloytoo: There is a principle to rocket science, that principle is the is something propelled by exhausting internally stored propellant rearwards. (throwing mass behind yourself). Farting in the pool does the same thing. I'm sorry if nature has yet to reproduce an exact specification of an Apollo launcher.

Thank you for the lecture again. You said:
Alloytoo: Design, as I said before, tends to copy, or emulate the evolved. The reverse is not true.
Thus, I provide you the specific example of propulsion through the combustion of gasses in a living organism. It is quite easy to imagine such thing to be possible. E.g.: An enamel encased combustion chamber and nozzle with methane as fuel and oxygen as the oxidizer.
Question: NBNBNBNB
Given enough constraints (or none), evolution can be used to sample the given environment and end up with a similar or even an even improved mechanism. Do you think evolution is capable of this? Why?
If yes, then your above statement is false.
If no. Why, is evolution under intrinsic control?

4) Alloytoo: What if, What if? Any attribution of any First cause, embedder, prime programmer, creator god etc demands that be examine said First cause, embedder, prime programmer, creator god etc. You're not going to get a different answer no matter how many times and ways you ask the question.
Me: Don’t worry, even if it can be empirically demonstrated that life is the product of agency, you can still believe it was the product of biological design and not divine design.

5) Alloytoo: Primary evidence of design isn't going to come from any dubious miss or wishful interpretation of evolutions science data. It's going to come from the discover of something with the true hallmark of design: uniqueness, nothing that ties this discovery to our current organic reality.
Me: Is life and the mechanisms controlling it not unique enough? It is the only system described in terms of our own engineering that is not ascribed to an engineer. Nuclear fusion is not described in engineering terms. The process of fusion in the sun is not controlled by hydrogen nuclei or electrons or quarks etc. There are no small machines governing the process. Once initiated the process carries on and follows the deterministic laws of physics and happens. DNA replication does not happen spontaneously and the speed and fidelity is elegantly controlled by intelligent systems of proteins to ensure the fidelity of the process. It is the ingeniousness of the processes controlling life that gives rise to awe in scientists. Abiogenesis has a lot to explain.

So I’ll ask you again. Do you think the systems and machinery within cells are intelligent in the light of what we do know about intelligence (please read the wiki link) and compare it to any intelligent AI system.
1) Deduction, reasoning, problem solving
Cells:
Deduction: No
Reasoning: No
Problem solving: Yes. E.g. (from Nature;Vol 446;12 April 2007: Quantum path to photosynthesis)

Elsewhere in this issue, Engel et al. (page 782) take a close look at how nature, in the form of the green sulphur bacterium Chlorobium tepidum, manages to transfer and trap light’s energy so effectively. The key might be a clever quantum computation built into the photosynthetic algorithm.

The process is analogous to Grover’s algorithm in quantum computing, which has been proved to provide the fastest possible search of an unsorted information database.

And in the same issue: Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems

When viewed in this way, the system is essentially performing a single quantum computation, sensing many states simultaneously and selecting the correct answer, as indicated by the efficiency of the energy transfer.

AI:
Deduction: No
Reasoning: No
Problem solving: Yes. (not quantum mechanically)

2) Knowledge representation
Cells:
Default reasoning and the qualification problem: No?
Unconscious knowledge: Perhaps. Stored in any or all of the cellular codes?
The breadth of common sense knowledge: No.
AI:
Default reasoning and the qualification problem: No
Unconscious knowledge: Yes. The software contains the stored information
The breadth of common sense knowledge: No


3) Planning
Cells: Yes (See pos #1)
AI: Yes if instructed to.

4) Learning
Cells: Yes (see post #1)
AI: Yes, certain artificial neural networks are capable of this.

5) Natural language processing
Cells: Yes and no. Yes because cells are able to communicate and process information from themselves and other cells (autocrine, paracrine, endocrine etc). No, cells do not consciously talk
AI: Yes and no. Yes because certain programs can interpret human language and systems of various platforms can communicate (Linux to Mac etc). No, AI does not consciously talk.

6) Motion and manipulation
Cells: Yes, with the possibility that tubulin and other structural components of cells acting as quantum computers, motion and manipulation is directed, not stochastic, in even the simplest organisms.
Movement of organisms without a nervous system.
AI: Yes

7) Perception
Cells: Yes, cells communicate with the environment through surface receptors and relays information through signal transduction which in turn affects gene expression and protein activity.
AI: Yes

8) Social intelligence
Cells: Yes, even bacteria interact with other bacteria and can even mimic a multicellular organism through quorum sensing.
AI: Perhaps? AI neural networks?

9) Creativity
Cells: Perhaps? Harnessing random variation and selection to adapt?
AI: Perhaps? An example?

10) General intelligence
Cells: No (Only in humans so far)
AI: No

When compared to our own engineered AI, even the simplest lifeforms' machinery outperforms it hands down.

 

[Teleological]

Not sure where I put a virus. They are pretty unlike any other life forms and some scientists dont even believe they fit the criteria for life. Either a very interesting adaption, or a very interesting design.

They seem very alien to the the rest of life.

Cool, thanks for the input!

Ribosome in action

 

[alloytoo]

Fair enough.
Here are a few suggestions from me:

1) So childish as to not bother with.

2) Put more structure in your replies, after a while the replies become increasingly difficult to follow. I will try the same.

How about some content, especially to your thread starters.

3) Please answer a question when asked and do not inject insults or snarky remarks.

For example:

You decide to lecture me on what propulsion is like I do not know and decide to bring in the “farting in a swimming pool” analogy. I was thinking more along the lines of squid propulsion. I mentioned I was being more specific and this is what I get?

You You decided to bring in the farting analogy in the first place yet accuse me of being childish. And why don’t you answer the question directly? So I will ask you the question again (later on-topic)…[/quote]
[/quote]

You got a valid example based on the principles of rocketry. I'm sorry if the example offends your sensibilities. Explosive seed dispersion might also be a valid example.

Squid cannot be used as an example, as they employ a form of Jet propulsion.

4) As for the insults and snarky remarks. I never condoned it and I have tried to stay away from it. Also, show me where I was the initiator and I will apologize? Besides, why do you feel the need to act that way in this thread anyway? State your grievances.

Can the rightious indignation, you lost that privilage when you decided to quotemine Richard Dawkins.

"..." ring any bells.

You pretty much showed your hand ethically there, to misquote the Bard.

"Methinks thou dost protest too much."

1) Alloytoo: What in general do you dispute about my little language essay?
Answer: You explain the evolution of communication, I am not disputing it, I am disputing the origins of communication and specifically the alphabet.

What specifically about the origins of communication, and what specifically about the alphabet (and indeed which alphabet, there are a few)

I also do not see the relevance of discussing the evolution of language and communication in this thread. K, we leave this for another thread. You are welcome to make it.

Then don't raise subjects your don't want to discuss.

3) Alloytoo: There is a principle to rocket science, that principle is the is something propelled by exhausting internally stored propellant rearwards. (throwing mass behind yourself). Farting in the pool does the same thing. I'm sorry if nature has yet to reproduce an exact specification of an Apollo launcher.

Thank you for the lecture again. You said:
Alloytoo: Design, as I said before, tends to copy, or emulate the evolved. The reverse is not true.
Thus, I provide you the specific example of propulsion through the combustion of gasses in a living organism. It is quite easy to imagine such thing to be possible. E.g.: An enamel encased combustion chamber and nozzle with methane as fuel and oxygen as the oxidizer.

*sigh* to what end, the internal workings of any given rocket don't define it as a rocket. The "throwing mass behind you" bit defines a rocket.

Question: NBNBNBNB
Given enough constraints (or none), evolution can be used to sample the given environment and end up with a similar or even an even improved mechanism. Do you think evolution is capable of this? Why?

No, evolution does not "sample" the environment. Evolution produces variation which may be suited to a given environment. If it is suited to a given environment then it may be successful.

If yes, then your above statement is false.
If no. Why, is evolution under intrinsic control?

These options are intrinsically flawed.

4) Alloytoo: What if, What if? Any attribution of any First cause, embedder, prime programmer, creator god etc demands that be examine said First cause, embedder, prime programmer, creator god etc. You're not going to get a different answer no matter how many times and ways you ask the question.
Me: Don’t worry, even if it can be empirically demonstrated that life is the product of agency, you can still believe it was the product of biological design and not divine design.

*sigh* Once again, empirical evidence of agency, would open the agency to empirical investigation, and regressive questions about the origin of said agency.

5) Alloytoo: Primary evidence of design isn't going to come from any dubious miss or wishful interpretation of evolutions science data. It's going to come from the discover of something with the true hallmark of design: uniqueness, nothing that ties this discovery to our current organic reality.
Me: Is life and the mechanisms controlling it not unique enough? It is the only system described in terms of our own engineering that is not ascribed to an engineer. Nuclear fusion is not described in engineering terms. The process of fusion in the sun is not controlled by hydrogen nuclei or electrons or quarks etc. There are no small machines governing the process. Once initiated the process carries on and follows the deterministic laws of physics and happens. DNA replication does not happen spontaneously and the speed and fidelity is elegantly controlled by intelligent systems of proteins to ensure the fidelity of the process. It is the ingeniousness of the processes controlling life that gives rise to awe in scientists. Abiogenesis has a lot to explain. [/quote]

Once again, you're missing or ignoring the point. If you want to establish a designer you need to establish the key hallmark of design: Uniqueness.

To falsify TOE you need to "undo" the common ancestry of all life on earth and give an example of something which is demonstratively historically part of the ecosystem, but biologically unique.

So I’ll ask you again. Do you think the systems and machinery within cells are intelligent in the light of what we do know about intelligence (please read the wiki link) and compare it to any intelligent AI system.
1) Deduction, reasoning, problem solving
Cells:
Deduction: No
Reasoning: No
Problem solving:

No I don't.

I think they demonstrate evolved traits which historically proved successful. (however complicated and sophisticated those traits may be).

I personally think irrational immotive responses are the hallmark of true "intelligence". But thats just my opinion.

 

[Teleological]

Structure please.

 

[Teleological]

Structure please.

I am not really surprised (even after 19 days) your fellow toadies (cyghost comes to mind) did not point out your inconstancies.

For example:​

• You: Design, as I said before, tends to copy, or emulate the evolved. The reverse is not true.
• Me: Humans designed the rocket engine. Why can't evolution design a similar mechanism? (notice I mentioned the rocket engine not the jet engine of propulsion)
• You: It has.
• Me: The rocket engine? I shouldv'e been more specific, my apologies. I was referring to something like this, burning of gases to produce propulsion.
• You: So you exclude all other types of man made rockets? (Me: Off course not, I was however specific) In principal a rocket is something propelled by exhausting internally stored propellant rearwards. (throwing mass behind yourself). You can do this by farting in a swimming pool.
• Me: I was specific in giving my example in the last post. Burning gases... carry on with the question. Here: Given enough constraints (or none), evolution can be used to sample the given environment and end up with an even improved mechanism. Do you think evolution is capable of this?

From here the communication broke down with you ending:

• You: Squid cannot be used as an example, as they employ a form of Jet propulsion.

Uhm, your farting analogy is also an example of jet propulsion which you failed to notice at the beginning, but we were talking about rocket propulsion (burnig gases), and still we do not have an answer from your side.


So, for the last time:
Given enough constraints (or none), evolution can be used to sample the given environment and end up with a similar or even an even improved mechanism. Do you think evolution is capable of this? Why?
If yes, then your above statement is false.
If no. Why, is evolution under intrinsic control?[/B]

PS: the word sample can be interpreted in a passive way. Meaning NS and RV (no foresight), and a given environment allows for such an adaptation to be successful.

Another example of your inconsistency:​

• Me: I also do not see the relevance of discussing the evolution of language and communication in this thread. K, we leave this for another thread. You are welcome to make it.
• You: Then don't raise subjects your don't want to discuss.

Uhm, alloytoo, you were the one that introduced the evolution of language into the discussion, YOU raised the subject, not me.

Specific replies:​

1)​

1)
Once again, you're missing or ignoring the point. If you want to establish a designer you need to establish the key hallmark of design: Uniqueness.

Is uniqueness a key hallmark of design? Why isn't variety an even greater hallmark of design? Life is unique btw.

2)​

To falsify TOE you need to "undo" the common ancestry of all life on earth and give an example of something which is demonstratively historically part of the ecosystem, but biologically unique.

I don't want to falsify the ToE.

3)​

No I don't.

This was in reply to the question whether the intracellular systems are intelligent (based on what we do know about AI) systems. Well it is better than our best designed AI systems by far. So what I say, it does not prove anything, however I still think it is obvious that the systems are intelligent irrespective of their origins.

4)​

I think they demonstrate evolved traits which historically proved successful. (however complicated and sophisticated those traits may be).

According to that logic, your neural set up and consciousness also only demonstrate evolved traits which historically proved successful. Not disputing it, however does that mean your system is not intelligent? Mmmm...

5)​

I personally think irrational immotive responses are the hallmark of true "intelligence". But thats just my opinion.

Provide us with an irrational immotive response to display your "evolved traits which historically proved successful".

 

[alloytoo]

A troll bumping post

It's good to see that you've used your 19 days to good use.

I see you're back to school yesterday like my sister.

 

[Phronesis]

New Way That Bacteria Evolve Into Something That Can Make You Sick

ScienceDaily (Feb. 17, 2009) — Researchers of the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research have discovered a new way that bacteria evolve into something that can make you sick.

The finding, published in the Feb. 16 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has implications for how scientists identify and assign risk to emerging diseases in the environment.

The researchers found that bacteria can develop into illness-causing pathogens by rewiring regulatory DNA, the genetic material that controls disease-causing genes in a body. Previously, disease evolution was thought to occur mainly through the addition or deletion of genes.

Brian Coombes, an assistant professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, was the lead investigator of the study which involved researchers at McMaster University, the University of Melbourne, Australia and the University of Illinois at Chicago, USA.

"Bacterial cells contain about 5,000 different genes, but only a fraction of them are used at any given time," Coombes said. "The difference between being able to cause disease, or not cause disease, lies in where, when and what genes in this collection are turned on. We've discovered how bacteria evolve to turn on just the right combination of genes in order to cause disease in a host. It's similar to playing a musical instrument – you have to play the right keys in the right order to make music."

With infectious diseases on the rise, the McMaster finding has implications on how new pathogens are identified in the environment. Scientists currently monitor the risk of new diseases by assessing the gene content of bacteria found in water, food and animals.

"This opens up significant new challenges for us as we move forward with this idea of assigning risk to new pathogens," Coombes said. "Because now, we know it's not just gene content – it is gene content plus regulation of those genes."

An active search of random space and rewiring of genetic circuits to solve a problem. Sounds like an intelligent strategy. Bacteria can do it...

 

[alloytoo]

An active search of random space and rewiring of genetic circuits to solve a problem. Sounds like an intelligent strategy. Bacteria can do it...

Sounds like horse manure.

Using the term "active" to imply that the solution is an intentional object to the bacteria.

Evolution, Thank God bacteria have done it.

 

[Phronesis]

Sounds like horse manure.

Using the term "active" to imply that the solution is an intentional object to the bacteria.

You can read the article not? you do understand induced mutation? You do understand rewiring regulatory DNA don't you?

 

[alloytoo]

You can read the article not? you do understand induced mutation? You do understand rewiring regulatory DNA don't you?

Do you understand intentionality?

 

[Phronesis]

Do you understand intentionality?

Guess you really are not interested to stay on topic here . Yet again, same old same old....

BTW, topic was induced mutation in response to various stimuli and rewiring of regulatory DNA. Carried out by those simple bacterial creatures.

 

[alloytoo]

Guess you really are not interested to stay on topic here . Yet again, same old same old....

BTW, topic was induced mutation in response to various stimuli and rewiring of regulatory DNA. Carried out by those simple bacterial creatures.

Which is really really cool without your sly dishonest teleological intimations.

 

[Phronesis]

Sly, dishonest? Your slander and mud slinging are not going unnoticed.
Could you perhaps differentiate between intentionality and nano-intentionality? Also, could you differentiate between nano-intentionality and "molecular autonomous agents?
Please address these questions in the correct thread here!
Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[alloytoo]

Sly, dishonest? Your slander and mud slinging are not going unnoticed.

It's only slander if it's not true.

Could you perhaps differentiate between intentionality and nano-intentionality? Also, could you differentiate between nano-intentionality and "molecular autonomous agents?
Please address these questions in the correct thread here!
Thank you for your cooperation.

You're attempting attribute planning, the use of intentional objects to something which doesn't have a brain.

I not going to engage in the ridiculous fiction that the generic designer they posit is anything other than God) programmed in all of the genetic information necessary for later developments in to the first cell. Michael Behe famously proposed this in Darwin's Black Box: