AgnosticWeb.com
Log in
Register
Search:
Back to the entry by David Turell
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:
Introduction
The atheist delusion
Agnosticism
Evolution
The limitations of science
Origins
The nature of a 'Creator'
Where is it now?
Endings
Identity
Animals
Humans
Religion
Art
Politics
What should be taught in schools?
A mad world
General
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 (re leaf-biting): [i]You have your brain sitting in Miss Bee, but not acting as a human brain would have to act to see the relationship.[/i] > > > > [b][i]Axiom: two events separated in time cannot be accepted as related without multiple examples recorded (mentaly or written). This is how observational science works[/i][/b][/i]. > > > > TONY: [i]Quantum Physics undermines that axiom quite nicely, but at our scale of existence, sure[/i]. > > > > dhw: [i]It’s not my brain sitting in Miss Bee, and she is not an observational scientist! She simply noticed that a fortnight after she bit a leaf, the plant flowered. So she told her buddies, they tried it, and it worked! You seem to believe that in order to perform the trick, bees should think like humans, can’t do so, and therefore God had to do the thinking for them! [/i] > > > > TONY: [i]Except that we know the signaling and reception pathways in plants, bees, other insects, and even some birds had to be arise together or there would have been no reason for any of them to develop those pathways because there would have been no benefit. [/i] > > > > dhw: A similar problem to that of the chicken and the egg, perhaps. But you are assuming that the bees and the plants could not have survived without one another. This particular phenomenon is confined to just one species of bee. Why can’t an organism survive by other means, but when it encounters something new, change its behaviour accordingly? > > > > TONY: [i]Lastly, it [is] possible to have both a hard coded program and a set of rules that are not written directly in the program, but referenced by it. In programming this would be known a Rule Engine. What comprises that rule engine is a bit unknown, but given the fact that nature CLEARLY follows rules and laws, that 'rule engine' as it were, is definitely something.[/i] > > > > dhw: I am out of my comfort zone with your computer analogies, but may I suggest that in Nature all organisms follow the “rule” that the survival of their species depends on energy supply and reproduction? That would be the programme. And every different means of acquiring energy would be related to that programme. Once Miss Bee has bitten the leaf and seen the consequences, and [b]further bites confirm the benefits[/b], leaf-biting becomes a new “rule”. Too simple? > > Finally, back to my point. It takes a repeated observation and a mental analysis, the latter being your assumption as to how brainy bees can be. Bees may have waggle dances, but that doesn't prove God didn't help with both instincts.
OK - Submit
Preview