Summations Only

Okay, at least that's the beginning of an argument. Your arguing that we can't explain instincts, or the gap between somatic and germ cells, or the facts of micro and macroevolution, or geological findings, but that these are all explained if we assume an innate intelligence in nature for which we as yet have no evidence.Larni has already mentioned instinct, asking why you reject evolution as an explanation? I would ask how nature's innate intelligence explains instinct, assuming that the explanation isn't the same as "God did it" but with "nature's innate intelligence" replacing God.I'm also wondering what is the gap between somatic and germ cells that you think is missing an explanation.--Percy

God was mentioned only to make clear that saying "Nature's innate intelligence did it" is as worthless as saying "God did it."--Percy

Instinct evolves in the same way that all characteristics of life evolve, through genomic change driven by the remixing of existing alleles (via conjugation in asexual species) and by mutations, all filtered by natural selection.A long-term domestication experiment with foxes in the Soviet Union revealed that over just a few generations wild foxes will become tame and and much more dog-like in their behavior, even wagging their tails. It apparently doesn't take very much selection to change instinctual behavior. I never said you did. The point was that claiming that "the innate intelligence of nature did it" is an empty claim, just as empty as "Pixies did it." There is no evidence that evolution is driven by neural systems. You've descended into fanciful speculation based not upon observations of nature but upon your own wishful thinking. If you started this thread to see if there are others out there who share your thinking, then the answer is, "Not many here." If you started this thread to see if you could convince anyone to your point of view, then the answer is, "No." With no evidence you haven't a prayer. Have you considered the possibility that you misunderstood WK? Perhaps attempting to describe this gap you can't explain in your own words might reveal this misunderstanding to you.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi Zi Ko,I was offline for a few days when this was posted, so I'm only responding now. You're asking questions about how evidence evolution affects instinct, yet you've already concluded that evolution poorly explains instinct? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse?You wanted to know how instinct evolves, I told you. If you want specific details then I suggest you look them up instead of asking others to do your research for you, research that must precede the drawing of conclusions. Except that there wasn't any learning going on, see the Wikipedia article on the Domesticated Silver Fox. The foxes weren't being taught to behave in a domestic fashion. Rather, foxes were selected for breeding on the basis of qualities associated with domesticity, and in this way successive generations of foxes became increasingly domesticated. Learning had nothing to do with it.It would indeed be wonderful if we were born knowing what had been learned by our parents, but what is learned by one generation is not inherited by the next. DNA is the vehicle of inheritance, and anything not committed to DNA is not passed on. What we learn is stored in our brain, not our DNA. What is learned during any organism's life time is lost when it dies. There is no evidence that evolution is driven by neural systems.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Hi Zi Ko,You're going in circles with your definitions of intelligence. First you offered a definition in your opening post, which was rather vague. Then during discussion you became more specific and said that everything in the universe has intelligence. Then later you endorsed Swain's definition as quoted in Message 194. And now you're back to your original vague definition again.This thread does not have much longer to run, this is no time to reset to square zero. If you have any useful and unambiguous definition of intelligence to offer, tell us now.--Percy

Your ability to misinterpret plain English and read into a passage what you want to see is amazing and incredible. It isn't like the passage you quoted is ambiguous. I can't explain it any better than Wikipedia and won't try.Any progress on that definition of intelligence? You're running out of time.--Percy

Yes, it is insane. And a waste of time, too. This is yet more evidence that lack of competence highly correlates with inflated estimations of said competence. All you've done is employed lack of comprehension as a debate tool.--Percy

Science is not advanced by someone who begins by saying, "I don't understand the science," nor by making up new word definitions. Your efforts are forever doomed because you are driven by a need to find support for what you want to believe instead of by what the evidence tells you.Until you make learning as much as you can about the science your highest goal you'll continue to just entertain your fantasies while wasting our time.--Percy