The Ant and the Blade of Grass
 

Daniel C. Dennett likes to tell the story about an ant crawling to the top of a blade of grass. It turn out that the ant's brain can be invaded by a parasitic worm, which need to get into the belly of a cow for survival. Thus (as Dennett puts it), it drives the ant like an all terrain vehicle up the blade of grass so a cow can digest it.

Well, I certainly have a healthy respect for evolution, but just how on earth did this worm evolve to know not only to invade the brain of the ant, but to then have an exact effect on the brain that causes it to climb up the blade of grass? That just seems too big of a stretch for me. Too wide of a gap to be passed on. Btw- I understand the worm doesn't actually "know" anything, but I'm not sure what DOES know. The DNA of the worm?

I have similar questions regarding the behavior of insects... How many times have you seen a spider crawing on the wall and when you went to kill it, it froze. Now I understand that it freezes, because movement makes it more noticable to a predator. Better to freeze. I can somewhat understand a deer or antelope doing this when sensing a lion in it's presence, but only because they have probably seen other deer and antelope (their parents), do it. Even if this was built into their brain through evolution, I could somewhat understand it.

I get how a wing, or spots, or tails evolve (even bi-pedal mammals). It is a gradual yet, beneficial change that gets passed on. But I cannot see how evolution could've hard wired this freezing behavior into an insect's brain. Insects that didn't freeze were eaten. Those that did, survived, but... How did those that survived pass this trait onto their offspring? Maybe I don't understand it, because I'm under estimating an insects intelligence?

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel C. Dennett likes to tell the story about an ant crawling to the top of a blade of grass. It turn out that the ant's brain can be invaded by a parasitic worm, which need to get into the belly of a cow for survival. Thus (as Dennett puts it), it drives the ant like an all terrain vehicle up the blade of grass so a cow can digest it.

Well, I certainly have a healthy respect for evolution, but just how on earth did this worm evolve to know not only to invade the brain of the ant, but to then have an exact effect on the brain that causes it to climb up the blade of grass?

[/ QUOTE ]
(Insert usual "I wouldnt really have a clue but..." disclaimer here)

It would seem more plausible to me that it first evolved to live in an ant's brain. An unexpected side effect was that sometimes the ant got driven up the blade of grass, because of where the worm was nestled. Consequently a lot of them got eaten by cows. A few worm larvae or whatever happened to survive. Repeat many times. Gradually, the "living in a cow for a while" bit becomes essential (which would then provide an evolutionary advantage to those ants which happened to live near the "climb a blade of grass" part of the ants' brain)....

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
I get how a wing, or spots, or tails evolve (even bi-pedal mammals). It is a gradual yet, beneficial change that gets passed on. But I cannot see how evolution could've hard wired this freezing behavior into an insect's brain. Insects that didn't freeze were eaten. Those that did, survived, but... How did those that survived pass this trait onto their offspring? Maybe I don't understand it, because I'm under estimating an insects intelligence?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm unclear on what's not to get. How could those that survived NOT pass on the trait to their offspring?

One point of confusion might be "nature vs. nurture", i.e., which part of an animal's behavior is driven by genes and instinct, and which is driven by learning and culture. I think the behavior you're describing, especially in insects, is completely driven by instinct, and therefore completely heritable and subject to natural selection. Perhaps more complicated with the deer freezing when the lion comes along, but I'd be surprised if there was any evidence to suggest that this behavior was learned through observing other deer, rather than completely instinctive.

Another possible point of confusion might be your perception that this trait is somehow black and white, i.e., all or nothing, i.e., "freeze" or "don't freeze". It's probably more helpful (and accurate) to think of it as a continuum, in conjunction with lots of other factors, that results in small differences in the tendencies of different spiders to do slightly different things when confronted with the perception of movement.

In other words, the evolution of behavioral traits like these can be just as gradual as the physical structures you are more familiar with. All that's needed is a small variation (derived from some genetic difference) that confers the slightest benefit (relative to competitors) and we're off and running.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

Thanks. Your explanation helps. I'm not sure I even understand what I'm asking, so it's hard for me to pose the question correctly. I think you helped with this too....

<font color="blue"> I'm unclear on what's not to get. How could those that survived NOT pass on the trait to their offspring? </font>

Passing on a Trait. That's seems to be it. A physical trait gets passed on, because offspring fair better with the change. So it's retained, right? So I can see how you inherit a physical trait. I can also see how beneficial behavioral traits can be inherited. But...

Freezing, is a behavioral trait that occurs in mid-life. Unlike beneficial mid-life physical traits (like waiting to a certain age to become reproductive), this behavioral trait is presumably "learned" in adulthood. After the fact, so to speak.

I can see how a salmon "learns" to swim upstream at the end of its life, because it completes a purpose. A purpose that generations of salmon have completed before him. Freezing, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily complete any meaningful purpose. In fact, if a spider were never put into a position to have to freeze, it wouldn't. It only freezes under certain conditions. How does it learn what those conditions are is what I want to know. Remember, we are talking about an almost zero level of intelligence. Insects are pretty much automatons from what I understand. I could understand a gazelle learning something later in life from its herd. I can't understand how this ocurrs with spiders.

I know I'm very ignorant here, so I request people have patience with me.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Daniel C. Dennett likes to tell the story about an ant crawling to the top of a blade of grass. It turn out that the ant's brain can be invaded by a parasitic worm, which need to get into the belly of a cow for survival. Thus (as Dennett puts it), it drives the ant like an all terrain vehicle up the blade of grass so a cow can digest it.

Well, I certainly have a healthy respect for evolution, but just how on earth did this worm evolve to know not only to invade the brain of the ant, but to then have an exact effect on the brain that causes it to climb up the blade of grass?

[/ QUOTE ]
(Insert usual "I wouldnt really have a clue but..." disclaimer here)

It would seem more plausible to me that it first evolved to live in an ant's brain. An unexpected side effect was that sometimes the ant got driven up the blade of grass, because of where the worm was nestled. Consequently a lot of them got eaten by cows. A few worm larvae or whatever happened to survive. Repeat many times. Gradually, the "living in a cow for a while" bit becomes essential (which would then provide an evolutionary advantage to those ants which happened to live near the "climb a blade of grass" part of the ants' brain)....

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very good at reverse engineering! I didn't think of that. Dennett simply states that the worm "needs" to get into the belly of a cow. So I assumed this preceded all, and that evolution somehow figured out the best way for for the worm to achieve this. But yes, if the cow came afterward, it makes much more sense.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Daniel C. Dennett likes to tell the story about an ant crawling to the top of a blade of grass. It turn out that the ant's brain can be invaded by a parasitic worm, which need to get into the belly of a cow for survival. Thus (as Dennett puts it), it drives the ant like an all terrain vehicle up the blade of grass so a cow can digest it.

Well, I certainly have a healthy respect for evolution, but just how on earth did this worm evolve to know not only to invade the brain of the ant, but to then have an exact effect on the brain that causes it to climb up the blade of grass?

[/ QUOTE ]
(Insert usual "I wouldnt really have a clue but..." disclaimer here)

It would seem more plausible to me that it first evolved to live in an ant's brain. An unexpected side effect was that sometimes the ant got driven up the blade of grass, because of where the worm was nestled. Consequently a lot of them got eaten by cows. A few worm larvae or whatever happened to survive. Repeat many times. Gradually, the "living in a cow for a while" bit becomes essential (which would then provide an evolutionary advantage to those ants which happened to live near the "climb a blade of grass" part of the ants' brain)....

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very good at reverse engineering! I didn't think of that. Dennett simply states that the worm "needs" to get into the belly of a cow. So I assumed this preceded all, and that evolution somehow figured out the best way for for the worm to achieve this. But yes, if the cow came afterward, it makes much more sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a common problem in discussing topics in evolution, this anthropomorphizing of the process, attributing intent, things like that. The reason is, it makes it easier to describe something by saying stuff like "Ok, so the worm needs to get here, so evolution creates this mechanism." It ends up being misleading and is obviously entirely incorrect, but it makes it more approachable. Dennett is probably the worst culprit of this, although I think Gould does it often and Dawkins also, to a lesser degree. Certainly, it is something that is RAMPANT in science textbooks and popular scientific writing. I always cringe a little bit when I read anyone talking about the goals or tactics or strategies that evolution uses to do things, but I also cringe when I read a general chemistry textbook and they talk about electrons in orbits and such. Its a balance, the writer tries his best, and you must consider the audience. Lestat, by posting here on SMP and reading the evolution debate in a very special context, you have a different perspective than the vast majority of readers. You know enough to cringe when you hear agency bestowed upon mindless processes (mindless added for NRs benefit) but perhaps don't have the experience or the repetition needed to translate those pop-speak phrases into what they really mean.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

And to answer your OP, I really don't know, but I'd imagine it was very complex and took a long, long time. It has the hallmarks of a scaffolding-type scenario.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, if a spider were never put into a position to have to freeze, it wouldn't. It only freezes under certain conditions. How does it learn what those conditions are is what I want to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. Avoiding detection is a major'trick' used to avoid danger. There is no evolutionary difference between being speckled and being still. Ancestors that didn't freeze under those conditions didn't leave many offspring, just as the ones without camoflage.

Sometimes it hard to appreciate how far back in the chain some of the behaviors or traits can trace their origins. I have no idea if it's true but it wouldn't surprise me to discover that single cells in a pond may have evolved to stop cillating when pressure waves of a certain mix are sensed.

Millions of generations passing through the selection filters can pull of some neat stuff.

luckyme

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

You can look at any sufficiently complex behavior/situation/process and befuddle yourself trying to figure it out. This is pretty much the antecedent of every religion ever.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

<font color="blue">There is no evolutionary difference between being speckled and being still. Ancestors that didn't freeze under those conditions didn't leave many offspring, just as the ones without camoflage. </font>

Thanks luckyme. I understand that, I just don't think I'm explaining my question properly. One of the things I'm trying to understand is what direction evolution works from. For instance:

Through a random mutation a species of beetle devolops some spots, which it passes to it's offspring. These spots make it harder for a predator to detect, so they become more likely to survive as those without spots start disappearing, because they are now more likely to be the ones eaten. If that's close, then good enough. I have some understanding of how a physical trait is born. We can replace spots with webbed feet, wings, etc. Now let's move on to "freezing".

When the first spider froze at the sight of a predator, it presumably survied because of this. Since this is NOT a random mutation, I don't get how it is first got passed down and evolves. Unlike the the physical characteristic of spots, I don't see how a behavioral characteristic such as freezing is passed down for the firs time. Freezing seems to be a "learned" behavior. I understand how a wildebeast teaches its offspring to freeze at the sight of a lion, and I can even see how this might eventually become hard wired into future generations of wildebeasts. But insects don't possess the intellect to learn from watched behavior of parents (at least I didn't think so).

So exactly how does behavior in insects evolve?

I'm STILL not asking the question the way I want, but hopefully this is close enough.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
When the first spider froze at the sight of a predator, it presumably survied because of this. Since this is NOT a random mutation, I don't get how it is first got passed down and evolves. Unlike the the physical characteristic of spots, I don't see how a behavioral characteristic such as freezing is passed down for the firs time. Freezing seems to be a "learned" behavior. I understand how a wildebeast teaches its offspring to freeze at the sight of a lion, and I can even see how this might eventually become hard wired into future generations of wildebeasts. But insects don't possess the intellect to learn from watched behavior of parents (at least I didn't think so).

So exactly how does behavior in insects evolve?

I'm STILL not asking the question the way I want, but hopefully this is close enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the bolded part is your error - presumably the "freezing" is the manifestation of some hormonal (or equivalent if spiders dont have hormones) event in the spider's brain (or equivalent, again). Why should this be any less likely to occur than a random change to a beetle's coloration?

I dont see that you're justified to conclude it is a learned behaviour rather than an instinct.

EDIT: Similar to luckyme's motionless amoeba - very primitive animals could accidentally develop a whole host of instincts like that. The later generations who have a developed enough brain to learn would more be adding to their inherited instincts, rather than supplanting them. Most animals are born able to walk - we have to learn. If there can be an instinct for walking, why not for staying still when you sense movement?

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]

You know enough to cringe when you hear agency bestowed upon mindless processes (mindless added for NRs benefit)


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't cringe when anthropomorphism dominates evolutionist literature. I love it. I especially love the way mindless evolution designs complicated mechanisms when the genius of man can't even understand how. Chance beats purpose every time.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You know enough to cringe when you hear agency bestowed upon mindless processes (mindless added for NRs benefit)


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't cringe when anthropomorphism dominates evolutionist literature. I love it. I especially love the way mindless evolution designs complicated mechanisms when the genius of man can't even understand how. Chance beats purpose every time.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you understood it, you might discover that the world is actually more wondrous, not less, without the petty homosexual slayer and child drowner interpretation that you put on God.

Evolution doesn't design anything. A trillion trillion trillion trials parallel trials performed over billions of years will gradually select for the fittest in ways incomprehensible to the human mind. You really do your God a disservice - his majesty is far greater as a creator and nurturer of a vast cosmic experiment than as homoslayer, the creator of Super Special NotReady on his Super Special Earth. Do you see why?

-----

As for the OP - I'm not sure why insect freezing is so amazing. They do have brains and nerves centers. The ant story is quite interesting - there are probably simple triggers. It reminds me of toxoplasmosis which causes mice to lose their fear of cats and seek out cat urine, which is advantageous to the parasite breeding cycle. They infect human brains too - a scary read. I guess homoslayer thought that was a good idea?

Re: The Ant and the Blade of Grass
 

As was told by an earlier poster on this thread, of course, the worms that accidentally develops the right chemical to make the ant climb a blade of grass is definitely gaining a evolutionary advantage. You only, in fact, need one such an accident and a high reproduction rate and you are home, Jose!

Of course, it may be even better if it only succeed in senile ants or ants that have no reproduction capabilities.


I mean, I feel sorry, for the ant, but that seems to exemplify once more the sadistic leanings of the designer of nature. Of course, rather than imputing such a malignant designer, I feel much happier and comfortable attributing it just to a chance/random event.

Re: The Ant and the Blade of Grass
 

Lestat,

You have to understand that the behavior that the freezing behavior
that an insect or spider exhibits doesn't just occur to it in midlife.
Its hardwired into it. Some spider, the child of spiders that didn't freeze,
was born with a mutation that caused it to behave this way. It survived,
and its kids were better at surviving, and now its DNA has taken over the
spider population.

Actually thats probably not even true. More likely this behavior evolved millions of
years before spiders evolved on land. Spiders are descendents of critters that lived
in the ocean 500+ million years ago. About 543 million yeas ago, during the Cambrian
explosion, the first creatures with proper vision evolved. These were probably primitive
trilobytes. These creatures, and their descendants are the ancestors of vertebrates
and of arthropods, of which spiders are a part. During this time, early arthropods
developed vision. This new development caused creatures to evolve evasive behaviors
like the ones youve seen in spiders. For more on this, see Andrew Parker's
book "In The Blink of an Eye".

Perhaps spiders do have some ability to rewire their brains and learn like a
mouse can. But it doesnt have to learn this behavior at all. Most, if not all,
of it's behavior is dictated by its genes. The layout of its brain and and the
connections of the neurons that control its muscles is probably all laid out
by its DNA. The spider's brain probably doesnt get rewired the way a mouse's does.
Natural selection hasn't given it this ability because it has no need of it.
Spiders live in fairly static environments, and they tend to spend their lives in
one spot, so they can live and reproduce with a limited set of behaviors.

Re: The Ant and the Blade of Grass
 

The fluke worm is a tougher puzzle. The difficulty is twofold. The first question is
did the lancet fluke invade the ant first and then move on to invading the cow?
Or was it alread invading the cow before natural selection stumbled upon the fast track
to the cow's body through the ant? I dont know enough about the situation to know which,
but considering how many other worms and stuff infect cows intestines, I would hazard that
it was infecting cows first.

If we assume that the fluke first infected cows, then the second question is: how did the
worm take over the ants brain? Natural selection cannot have just stumbled upon the answer
on the first try. It had to have been infecting the ant or otherwise been riding along
with the ant profitably before evolving the ability to change the ants behavior. What was this
advantage? I dont know the answer, but my guess is that some expert can find a related fluke, midway
through the same evolutionary pathway that our worm did, and infecting the ant without affecting its
behavior.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]

without the petty homosexual slayer and child drowner interpretation that you put on God.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're a big fat ignorant jerk - so there.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

Hey, you claim the bible has never been shown to be false, so these things MUST be true. They're in the book you choose to believe. You can't have it both ways.

Sorry for the off topic rant, interesting thread.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

Don't apologize, Phil. Your first post in this thread was spot on. I am always in awe of the amazing diversity on the branches of the evolutionary tree. The worm in the OP is a great example of the myriad ways life finds to continue. And FWIW, I went after a spider the other day and that bastard was quick. Evidently, he was hardwired for speed.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
When the first spider froze at the sight of a predator, it presumably survied because of this. Since this is NOT a random mutation, I don't get how it is first got passed down and evolves. Unlike the the physical characteristic of spots, I don't see how a behavioral characteristic such as freezing is passed down for the firs time. Freezing seems to be a "learned" behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for clarifying.

One problem point seems to be your affinity for brain. By similar reasoning, sunflowers can't turn to the sun. 'we can understand them being yellow, but how do they KNOW to turn at the right time? After all, it occurs in midlife and the seed didn't so it must be a learned behavior.'

Even if there were a 'first spider to freeze', ( which I very much doubt, danger avoidance is ubiquitous) surely there would be something in it's system that caused it and therefore the survival improvement would be the result of a random mutation.

The learning you mention occurs at the evolutionary level not at individual spider level. It's the spiders genetic code that 'learns' but yet it doesn't 'know' it in the sense you're using it, it learns it and knows it the same way it knows to be speckled.

luckyme

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
Freezing, is a behavioral trait that occurs in mid-life. Unlike beneficial mid-life physical traits (like waiting to a certain age to become reproductive), this behavioral trait is presumably "learned" in adulthood. After the fact, so to speak.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're making an artificial distinction between physical traits, which you understand to be genetic, and behavioral traits, which you presume to be learned.

But you've answered your own question by stating that insects are, to the first approximation, purely dumb automatons, incapable of learning. Therefore the behavior must be driven by genetic factors.

The expression of genes as physical structures is no less complex than the expression of genes as behaviors.

[ QUOTE ]
Freezing, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily complete any meaningful purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
In this context, I'd say staying alive is the most meaningful purpose there is.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

From what I can tell, your refering to instinctual behavior and how this could come about. Of course the genetic code is brought up along with environment to a lesser extent. If these were true I'd like to know the source of this "intelligence" in nature which knows how to change the gene then change the behavior. I will not accept the "G" word as an answer but would certainly like to hear the explanation. Also I would like to not accept the "R" word for it just puts the question into another sphere.

Perhaps a consideration of the mineral realm might shed light on instinctual behavior. The basic equation of an acid-base reaction is:

Acid + Base= Salt + Water + Warmth

Example: HCl + NaOH= NaCl + HOH + Warmth

This is the basic understanding of the reaction as found in nature/laboratory. Measurements are made,etc. and the above has common agreement.

The question again is: What is it that causes the parts and pieces of the reactants to form an entirely new resultant plus the water plus the warmth? Is there a genetic code here? Is there some intrinsic part of the elements which say: do this! when such and such happens? Please no "G" word or "R" word allowed.

Thanx in advance.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
Chance beats purpose every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement betrays your lack of understanding. It is selection pressure that drives evolution, chance simply provides the variation.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]

It is selection pressure that drives evolution


[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Mindless selection pressure beats human intelligence every time. Much better.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is selection pressure that drives evolution


[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Mindless selection pressure beats human intelligence every time. Much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Once Allah or the Great Raven created the weak force, the strong force, gravitrons, etc, ( or even merely the precursors to those) he could pretty much dust his hands and walk away. Mindless processes will take over from there.

luckyme

Re: The Ant and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I certainly have a healthy respect for evolution, but just how on earth did this worm evolve to know not only to invade the brain of the ant, but to then have an exact effect on the brain that causes it to climb up the blade of grass?

[/ QUOTE ]

I had this exact discussion with a friend yesterday night.

First, the worm likely starts in the belly of a cow/sheep or similar. Then through stools or maybe urine ants are contaminated, and some of them return to cows's bellies or whatever by the ant accidentally being ingested by these animals. Or perhaps the worm starts in ants and goes the other way around.

In any case, once this cycle gets started, mutations that increase the chance of the ant getting eaten by a cow or sheep get selected for. I doubt the mechanism by which the parasite gets the ant to climb up the blade of grass is very complex. It's probably the case that all the parasite does is hijacking something already in the ants brain and alter it just slightly, so as to induce this compulsive behaviour.

I guess the accidental ingestion of an ant by a cow or sheep must be more than just accidental for this sort of thing to develop. It should happen quite often. But I don't see why that would be far fetched.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You know enough to cringe when you hear agency bestowed upon mindless processes (mindless added for NRs benefit)


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't cringe when anthropomorphism dominates evolutionist literature. I love it. I especially love the way mindless evolution designs complicated mechanisms when the genius of man can't even understand how. Chance beats purpose every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I was talking about Lestat, someone who presumably reads this stuff to learn, honestly, about things he doesn't understand. IOW...not you.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]

Right, I was talking about Lestat, someone who presumably reads this stuff to learn, honestly, about things he doesn't understand. IOW...not you.


[/ QUOTE ]

So why bring me into it - how is that honest?

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

think about the experiment with human babies and heights. scientists have placed babies on glass tabletops. they start out on a solid opaque surface and in front of them is a glass table with nothing beneath. babies even at 6 months, WILL NOT CLIMB ONTO THE GLASS. even if their mother calls them. even if they are shown toys. why? did they learn the hard way by falling and injuring themselves? (Ill never do that again!) no. its hardwired in to the brain.
someone above said that they would find it hard to believe that there was a first spider to freeze at a threat. would it be difficult to believe that there was a first baby to fear heights? maybe the truth is somewhere in between. perhaps our infant ancestors were born with a few hardwired behavioral choices.
1. ignore heights altogether
2. be cautious of heights, but explore your surroundings
3. be fearful of heights and cling to anything solid for your life!
same thing with the spider
when confronted with a looming threat you can:
1. do nothing and keep moving
2. keep moving but slow down
3. FREEZE!
perhaps in both cases the creature could have been equally inclined to all 3 choices. but any creature that had a tendency to go toward choice 3 would be more likely to survive and reproduce

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Right, I was talking about Lestat, someone who presumably reads this stuff to learn, honestly, about things he doesn't understand. IOW...not you.


[/ QUOTE ]

So why bring me into it - how is that honest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now. I was pretty explicit for why I 'brought you into it.' I am trying to use mindless as often as possible in as many contexts as possible, since you seem to think that only evil atheists use it as a means of disproving God. I plan on referring to gravity, tides, climate and everything else as mindless, whenever I can remember to.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
I plan on referring to gravity, tides, climate and everything else as mindless, whenever I can remember to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously you haven't heard of Intelligent Falling, Intelligent Waving or Intelligent Heating/Cooling yet.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]

Obviously you haven't heard of Intelligent Falling, Intelligent Waving or Intelligent Heating/Cooling yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or Intelligent Posting.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Obviously you haven't heard of Intelligent Falling, Intelligent Waving or Intelligent Heating/Cooling yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or Intelligent Posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sick burn!

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Obviously you haven't heard of Intelligent Falling, Intelligent Waving or Intelligent Heating/Cooling yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or Intelligent Posting.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Obviously you haven't heard of Intelligent Falling, Intelligent Waving or Intelligent Heating/Cooling yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or Intelligent Posting.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol. I admit that was a good one. (I think you were trying to be mean though [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] )

Even though my point might be unintelligent, I will ask anyway: why doesn't the theory of gravity come under the same level of scrutiny that the theory of evolution does?

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]

(I think you were trying to be mean though )


[/ QUOTE ]

Self defense.

[ QUOTE ]

why doesn't the theory of gravity come under the same level of scrutiny that the theory of evolution does?


[/ QUOTE ]

Other natural laws haven't been offered as proof that God doesn't exist. Also, evolution deals with human origins which brings a lot more into play that just the alleged arrogance of Christians who think they're special. You're telling us that we, our spouses, our heroes, our children and Christ Himself all come from apes(or even some one celled bug crawling in the muck) - with no proof.

But for me it isn't just evolution. The Bible says Adam was created from the dust of the earth so from a physical standpoint that isn't really a whole lot more elevating than coming from a bug. For me it's the Godless part that matters. God may well have created us through evolution, making the first bug from primordial mud, which would agree with the Bible, and then guiding natural processes until we popped up. But it didn't happen by accident. Dennett notwithstanding, God can't be killed(again).

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Obviously you haven't heard of Intelligent Falling, Intelligent Waving or Intelligent Heating/Cooling yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or Intelligent Posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zing!

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're telling us that we, our spouses, our heroes, our children and Christ Himself all come from apes(or even some one celled bug crawling in the muck) - with no proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this one of your clever word games where you purposefully used the word "proof" instead of "evidence"?

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're telling us that we, our spouses, our heroes, our children and Christ Himself all come from apes(or even some one celled bug crawling in the muck) - with no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

No proof? Right we haven't found a mountain of fossil evidence in favor of evolution. And we haven't found a mountain of evidence through comparative biology in favor of evolution. Whatever you say.

OK so I'm being sarcastic. You say it takes faith to believe in evolution? I disagree. True I trust the scientists of the world in their abilities and conclusions. But if I wanted to, and had the time and money, I could examine all this physical evidence myself. Can you say that about the case for god's existence? No, because there is no evidence to examine, just hearsay.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is this one of your clever word games where you purposefully used the word "proof" instead of "evidence"?


[/ QUOTE ]

I promise you I debated which word to use. But I knew it didn't matter, either would draw fire. I chose proof as a stronger word than evidence because I can't say there's absolutely zero evidence.

Re: The And and the Blade of Grass
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is this one of your clever word games where you purposefully used the word "proof" instead of "evidence"?

[/ QUOTE ]


It cuts both ways. You expect us to believe there is some omniscient omnipotent being that created everything, and yet has nothing better to do than play coy games with hapless beings on some little planet in an unremakable galaxy in some tiny corner of the universe, revealing his presence to some, and expecting all the others to believe on their word alone, or be punished for all eternity - all with no proof.