Evolution is Fact

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Doesn't this kind of ignore competition?

Also, I'd challenge you to support this assertion with a reference. Please cite where it's been shown that "cooperation is manifested at every taxonomic level of the animal kingdom."

All one needs to do in order to prove such an assertion wrong is to show ONE place where there isn't cooperation.

http://http://www.huntsmancancer.org...c/cellCell.jsp

Cooperation is manifested at every taxonomic level of the animal kingdom, from bacteria to social mammals. One requirement essential for the evolution of cooperative behavior is the ability for conspecifics to communicate, a tenet equally valid at the l "" level. In metazoan organisms, for example, the formation of epithelial layers relies heavily on cell-cell communication via secreted ligands. Furthermore, it has been noted that one reputed function of osteocyte-osteocyte communication may be in sensing and modulating signals that control osteoblastic and osteoclastic activity. A number of signaling modalities have evolved which facilitate cell-cell communication, including gap junctions, chemical synapses, and tunneling nanotubes. Recent studies involving irradiation of cell populations in vitro with low energy alpha-particles demonstrated cell-cell communication enhanced the magnitude of cell-kill beyond that predicted. This enhanced mortality phenomenon, labeled the “bystander effect”, has translated into anti-cancer “suicide gene therapy”. Conversely, cell-cell interactions can also promote cell survival. Naïve “recipient” cells prove less susceptible to treatment-induced damage if the recipient cells are allowed to interact with a previously-exposed (primed) subpopulation prior to treatment of the mixed population. We hypothesized (a) damaged cells can influence communal survival by communicating with unaffected neighboring cells, (b) this capability is an inherent attribute of normal cells but may be modified by neoplastic transformation, and (c) the process can be ascribed (at least in part) to “cooperative communication”.

[InfiniteNow]

Not to be a hard ass, but their research had nothing to do with the taxonomy of the animal kingdom, nor communication applicability to all of it. It was simply a quote in the intro of their cancer research.

SARC Lab :: Cooperative Cell-Cell Communication


Try again.

I also encourage you to look more closely at the certainty levels in the study you've referenced, especially the heavy use of the words "could" and "might."

This study investigates how cell-cell communication promotes tissue homeostasis and whether transformation influences this process. Clinically, identification of the signaling pathway(s) responsible for cooperative communication could provide potential therapeutic targets for new anti-cancer agents. The elimination of “warning” signals emitted by cells might ensure uniform vulnerability of an entire tumor population, thus allowing for fewer chemotherapy treatments with lower doses. Conversely, induction or amplification of signals directed toward normal cells located in proximity to a tumor (or throughout the body) might reduce the level of “collateral damage” associated with systemic chemotherapy.

You have yet to support your assertion that evolution (the process of change) is cognitive and communicative. I see the point you're making with transfer of information, but that's yet to be adequately defined and parameterized in any of your posts.

[Thunderbird]

Tell me how evolution takes place without “cooperative communication” ?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Tell me how evolution takes place without “cooperative communication” ?

Allelic drift, mutations, etc...

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Allelic drift, mutations, etc...

Don't forget environmental insults such as ecological collapse.

Also, those evolutionary changes we label as "negative" are still part of the process, and have zero, squat, null, nada, nottin' to do with cooperative communication.


Own up, Thunderbird. You're arguing conclusions which are the result of a false premise.


Is information involved? Sure. Is the sharing of information involved? Sure. Your assertions are still false, even when I grant the two maxims above.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Don't forget environmental insults such as ecological collapse.

Also, those evolutionary changes we label as "negative" are still part of the process, and have zero, squat, null, nada, nottin' to do with cooperative communication.


Own up, Thunderbird. You're arguing conclusions which are the result of a false premise.


Is information involved? Sure. Is the sharing of information involved? Sure. Your assertions are still false, even when I grant the two maxims above.

Own up to what? information is "involved", what do you call that? Information that gets transfered? is that what you mean? Information is for communicating with? What we are do here is the same as life has allways done.

Biological Evolution
With the origin of life on earth, other types of processes are called into play. The connection between macro- and microworld is primarily ensured by the evolutionary ultracycles which have been discussed in the preceding chapter. At first, they become effective in coarse-grain, one-sided action, such as the transformation of the earth's surface and its atmosphere by the prokaryotes. This, however, facilitates the more finely tuned, continuously acting epigenetic processes in the eukaryotic organization of life's microevolution. Metabolic communication plays the major role in this second major phase of evolution. The results of this co-evolution, however, are no longer transferred directly in the form of matter, but enter in the form of information a process of true phylogeny. What evolves in phylogenetic development to higher complexity, is organization - an organization which, in principle, may be realized independently of time and space, as long as the environment is favourable....

Erich Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe - Scientific and Human Implications of the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution, New York: Pergamon. 1980, pp.209-210

More at Kheper - metamorphosis and evolution....

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Own up to what? information is "involved", what do you call that? Information that gets transfered? is that what you mean? Information is for communicating with? What we are do here is the same as life has allways done.

Hang in there T-Bird, I agree with you, the exchange and passing of information both inter and intra cellular is what life does. It might be subtle but it's always there. As long as you don't require any intelligence or cognition I don't see any way around the exchange of information, life at it's most basic is information passed on and built on by chemical processes.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Hang in there T-Bird, I agree with you, the exchange and passing of information both inter and intra cellular is what life does. It might be subtle but it's always there. As long as you don't require any intelligence or cognition I don't see any way around the exchange of information, life at it's most basic is information passed on and built on by chemical processes.

I agree with that. I had a problem with the word "cooperative". Can you explain what you mean by this a bit more TBird?

[C1ay]

There is no doubt that the passing of DNA is a passing of information. There is no evidence to show that it's directed in any way by any inherent intelligent cause that can be shown or proven to be responsible for the resulting mutation and adaptation.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by C1ay

There is no doubt that the passing of DNA is a passing of information. There is no evidence to show that it's directed in any way by any inherent intelligent cause that can be shown or proven to be responsible for the resulting mutation and adaptation.

The ole creation accusation, *explitive deleted*, I'm done.