Evolution is Fact

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird
1. Cell to cell communication based upon chemicals relations.
Results in multi-cellular organisms.

False. If I put two cells into a jar, it will NOT necessarily result in multi-cellular organisms. Strike one.

That;s just silly strike two...

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

No, it shows communication. when communication becomes cognition is an unknown,it is part of the evolutionary process however, therefore debatable.

okay, okay...

I think I see what's going on here.

Tbird, you have settled upon a very broad interpretation of "communication" that is generally not recognized. According to you, any chemical influence between two critters would be "communication". Say, the beta fish in my aquarium defecate, and their feces is eaten by a snail, then I presume that your viewpoint would be that the beta fish and the snail are engaging in "communication".

After all, has not information of a sort been exchanged? Does not the presence (or absence) of the fish feces affect the future survivability of the snail? Ergo, "communication".

From this overly broad definition, where the waste product of one organism can halt or sustain the viability of another, and THIS is deemed to be "inter-species cooperation" or "communication", then it would seem logical to conclude that evolution depends upon "communication".

Then, you quietly and subtly switch definitions of "communicate" from exchanging of information to intentional exchanging of information, which logically appears to lead to "cognitive directing of evolution".

But this is a huge leap of rationalization, like a 10-mile long suspension bridge, supported on a couple of pylons constructed of toothpicks. It may look good on paper, but that puppy just ain't gonna fly.

What is required here is a better definition of "communication". Or several carefully distinguished definitions would be even better. As long as you continue to muddle together several related but distinct treatments of that word, I'm afraid that confusion and disagreement are going to be the order of the day. You are at an impasse.

Please, correct me if I'm totally off-base here. But I would much rather be in agreement with you at the end of the day--and the only way I can see us doing that is by crafting better definitions of our terms.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird
3. Chemical, visual , and auditory communications that relay to potential mates genetic qualities, strong traits.

You ignore asexual reproduction. Strike three

The numbers represents evolutionary steps #3 is signifies a progression to animals that can.... peep.... peep.... you know like a frog "auditory" step one is single cell communication so I did not ignore it....... did I? strike three.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

That;s just silly strike two...

Ah. A well reasoned, highly cited, articulate response. Golly, dodobird, I stand corrected.


You know that you can't just make shit up and expect it to be taken as fact, right?

[Thunderbird]

Tbird, you have settled upon a very broad interpretation of "communication" that is generally not recognized. According to you, any chemical influence between two critters would be "communication". Say, the beta fish in my aquarium defecate, and their feces is eaten by a snail, then I presume that your viewpoint would be that the beta fish and the snail are engaging in "communication".

When a prokaryote finds food it will release chemicals to attract other cells. These are adaptive traits that helped the cells to survive in a hostile environment. Still to this day with our cognitive complex system in our brains its still cells communicating with one another.

Primitive or advanced it still has all its former beginnings contained within the system as a hierarchal layer. Cognition may not apply to cells communicating, but cognition would not be possible without it.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Cognition may not apply to cells communicating, but cognition would not be possible without it.

While it's speculation, I don't necessarily disagree with your premise.

However, that has what-all to do with evolution or the process it describes?!?

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

You know that you can't just make shit up and expect it to be taken as fact, right?

I think that was my point about your post. Two cells in a jar?

[InfiniteNow]

This is demented. You made an assertion. I provided a quick sentence/example which proved it wrong at a very fundamental level. Please stop derailing the thread.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

While it's speculation, I don't necessarily disagree with your premise.

However, that has what-all to do with evolution or the process it describes?!?

Because the primitive systems of the past are still part and parcel of the complexities of the present systems. one system built on another.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

This is demented. You made an assertion. I provided a quick sentence/example which proved it wrong at a very fundamental level. Please stop derailing the thread.

Demented ? derailing the thread ? I am trying to have an intelligent discussion. If you have a valid point on the role of communication in evolution please try to make it. From what you said..... you think it does not play an important roll? What is your view, be clear?.. .