Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > DAVID: [i]I've agreed ants can alter their DNA and behavior through epigenetic coding. But that doesn't get around the fact that whatever behavior exists at any given time is due to the DNA that exists at that time.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: We are not talking about the behaviour at any given time, but about the changes that are made to existing behaviour! Here the scientists changed ant behaviour by messing about with existing DNA. You agree, however, that new behaviour can change DNA. I suggest that if some ants are required by a particular situation to change their behaviour, it is likely that the change of behaviour will change the DNA rather than the DNA forcing them to change their behaviour. 
> 
> You know I accept epigenetic abilities. 
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]And I repeat, each individual ant does his programmed individual thing as previously shown.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]You have not previously shown any such thing.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Reread this website presented on Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:44[/i]
> > https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-simple-algorithm-that-ants-use-to-build-bridges-2018...
> > 
> > dhw: If it were true that the article opted for divine preprogramming, I would say it is another example of confirmation/conclusion bias, but it even leaves open the possibility that ants are not confined to robotic behaviour. You obviously haven't read the conclusion (my bold)> 
> > 
> > QUOTE: [i]A second [challenge] is that it’s very possible [b]there’s more governing army ant behavior than two simple rules.[/b]
> 
> > “We describe army ants as simple, but we don’t even understand what they’re doing. Yes, they’re simple, but [b]maybe they’re not as simple as people think[/b],” said Melvin Gauci, a researcher at Harvard University working on swarm robotics.[/i]
> 
> I agree that we don not fully understand them but all the article showed were individuals we programmed to have their own individual responses once the activity started. I realize there had to be an ant who decided to start the bridge when at the lead of the column. His decision could very well be automatic or either/or: straight on or go arou  nd.
> >
> > DAVID: [i]We've covered this many times. God is in control with pre-programming/ and or dabbling. Each stage of evolution has a set of rules to follow. They carry instructions for future steps but aren't privy to it.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: When I asked if the warty comb jelly’s disappearing anus was dabbled or preprogrammed, or designed by its own cell community, you replied: “[i]How could I answer or know?[/i]” But here we go again, with your rigid beliefs stated as if they were facts. How can you know that bridge-building ants have been preprogrammed or taught by your God and, when they first started bridge-building, did not combine their intelligences and pass on the information?  And let me repeat my request on the “genome complexity” thread: please tell us how ant-evolving and bridge-building instructions could have been passed on from the first living cells, if unicellular life forms only contained a library of instructions for themselves. I look forward to your explanation.
> 
> Explained elsewhere today. As for the come and go anus, it may well be designed as a simple molecular reaction. Your reliance on built in intelligence is used as a substitute for God  and re mains totally theoretical, while as research advances, more an more reactions are seen as automatic. My expectation is my view will prevail.