Summations Only

You really need to have some very basic science classes I think. Do you know anything about chemistry?It seems you just did a web search for anything that remotely supported what Zi Ko is proposing.

Are you assuming that Peter Swain is a complete idiot? Read the web SITE and then read his papers CITED on the website.
You are basically in denial about any new advances in evolutionary studies. Getting tired of your negative posts. You should read about new advances and get out of the 20th century thinking.

Shadow, please, that's enough quoting other people as your only argument. The Internet's a big place. You will always be able to find someone to quote. Here at this discussion board you're expected to make your own arguments. If you want to promote Swain's views that's fine, but you'll have to do it using your own words, not his, and you'll have to do it at this website, not by sending people to Swain's website. Use other websites only as supporting references.I'm a participant in this thread, not a moderator, but I'm going to act as moderator in your case because you're exhibiting the precise same behavior I cautioned you about in other threads.

I was just posting a scientist who basically disagrees with all posters on this board who say information in cells is nonesense.
And I posted his website in response to a request to do so. Getting tired of your postion that only a qualflied scientist can post on this board.
A qualifed scientist can be quoted to show his/her disagreement wtih posters on this board who belive they are qualfiled scientists.
A lay person can quote these experts to show that the scientists on this board may be wrong.Your insistence that I use my own words are really silly. I use the words of the experts in the field.
Your logic leads to the position that only qualified scientists can post opinions on this board.
I have written thousands of legal briefs where I quote from precedent to support my position.

Please explain Mr. Swain's studies and his conclusions. You have shown no understanding about any evolutionary studies.

Hi Shadow,This is rule 5 from the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

When people don't make arguments in their own words it's almost always because they don't understand the subject, and you have conceded on several occasions that you don't understand the science. If argument-via-quote is effective for you in a legal brief then I'm happy for you, but this is not a legal brief. This is a discussion.Look at it this way. You've written your brief to the Supreme Court, you've made your oral arguments, and now the justices are asking you questions. You cannot tell the justices to go look something up.You can't do it here, either.You're way over quota on the quotes. You're welcome to argue anyone's views you like, but from now on no more quotes, just presentations and explanations of those views in your own words.Please, no replies to this message in this thread.

At least show where Swain suggests "Nature's innate Intelligence".

Theoderic did not in fact deny any of Swain's results, which are apparently not in fact about evolution.What he is, I believe, objecting to, is whatever innacurate gloss or misinterpretation you or zi ko may wish to put on Swain's work.

Have you read any of the published articles on Peter Swains site? Maybe you can identify particular articles so we know where best to start to understand your position. This would be more helpful than simply quoting the opening blurb on his home page, which comes across like you really haven't read any of the articles.
For example, we can look at the article titled The scaffold protein Ste5 directly controls a switch-like mating decision in yeast which describes the decision making process of yeast in choosing a mating strategy. The scaffold protein Ste5 mentioned in the title is a key part of the signalling pathway which determines which sexual form the yeast takes. This protein is influenced by two other proteins which compete with each other for binding to Ste5, and which are in turn influenced by pheromones in the environment produced by neighbouring yeast cells.
That probably doesn't make it much clearer, but what it's basically explaining is that this 'decision-making' process is nothing more than a series of protein-protein or protein-gene interactions governed by biochemical properties, intelligence not included. This also gives us insight into what he refers to on the homepage when he talks about how cells 'decide an appropriate cellular response'.

I didn't know definition of words was exclusive right of hard core defendants ( well known as not at least ojective) of current theory. Iam sorry.Fortunatly for me there are others as well using the same definition.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Wow, an argument from anonymous authority. Kudos for improving on one of the more popular fallacies.If there are true authorities out there who believe as you do that everything is intelligent then study up on how they support their position, bring those arguments here to this thread, win the debate handily, and be carried off into the sunset on the throngs of a cheering crowd.Or perhaps you would prefer to switch to Swain's description of cellular processes in terms of information processing as your definition of intelligence?Of course, it wouldn't change anything. Whether the position is that everything is intelligent or cells are intelligent, it's just a relabeling of what nature does as intelligent. Since what nature does is, by definition, innate to nature, then by your definition of intelligent nature's innate intelligence does indeed exist. Who'd a thought?Or I could just define all cars as Lamborghinis, and what do you know, I own a Lamborghini!But I'm sure all the other participants in this thread would prefer that you offer a definition of intelligent that isn't specious or ridiculous. I don't know why it isn't clear to you that you're just playing semantic games. Simply declaring that everything in nature is intelligent by definition makes no more sense than declaring all cars to be Lamborghinis.--Percy

I'm sure you did not use cites without some summary of the legal principle involved along with an explanation of how that principle applied to your case. I'm also certain that when you cited precedent you were capable of reading and understanding that precedent.Most of us who post here are not scientists. I'm a patent attorney/engineer. But I don't cite references that I don't understand and then whine like a toddler when I'm asked tough questions about those references by those who are scientists. You've been caught over and over misrepresenting scientific references to the point where I don't even bother to look at those references anymore.

Isn't it closely my definition of intelligence? There is not only human or supernatural intelligence. There is also rudimentary basic life intelligence and thinking, based on biochemical forces and to my opinion inorganic matter intelligence expressed by universal laws..--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fallacious analogy. The right woul be: If all cars are "intelligent" Laborginis are also "intelligent". You accuse me i play semantic games, but it is you which avoids to face the real issue and state if you see or not any intelligence (according to my own definition) in nature. I am waiting.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

So don't you think it would be usefull if , instead of arguing about semantics and accusing others of doing so, you could answer the topic question (according to my own definition of inelligence)?