Thunderbird Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Nothing in your quote shows any cognitive communication.....No, it shows communication. when communication becomes cognition is an unknown,it is part of the evolutionary process however, therefore debatable. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 I have to agree with T-Bird, communication doesn't necessarily mean cognition just a transfer of information of some sort, it can be genetic information or pheromones or flashes of color but communication is at the heart of it. I well realize what communication is but T-Bird is the one that claimed that this communication of information is cognitive... I took a little semantic license, my bad, The total sum cognitive direction of a species though time as a whole. Human kind, rabbit kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 sexual reproduction is a direct evolutionary result of single cell cooperation. read my post again.It doesn't matter how many times we read it. It's still false. 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. 2. Species to species sexual communication based upon chemical and visual signals for higher species.Species, by definition, cannot reproduce with each other. Strike two. 3. Chemical, visual , and auditory communications that relay to potential mates genetic qualities, strong traits.You ignore asexual reproduction. Strike three. I'm not even going to bother with the rest, because you're first three axioms were already false, so you're out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 No, it shows communication. when communication becomes cognition is an unknown,it is part of the evolutionary process however, therefore debatable. You haven't proven that it ever becomes part of the process. There is no evidence that any communication is the result of any conscious intellectual activity, cognition. Now if you say that it is part of the evolutionary process prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Originally Posted by Thunderbird sexual reproduction is a direct evolutionary result of single cell cooperation. read my post again. It doesn't matter how many times we read it. It's still false. How do you think multi-cellular life got to be multi-cellular... communication..Strike one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 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 **** up and expect it to be taken as fact, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 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?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 You know that you can't just make **** up and expect it to be taken as fact, right? I think that was my point about your post. Two cells in a jar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 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?!? :cup: Because the primitive systems of the past are still part and parcel of the complexities of the present systems. one system built on another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 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?.. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 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/group/research~/sarc/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, (:cup: this capability is an inherent attribute of normal cells but may be modified by neoplastic transformation, and © the process can be ascribed (at least in part) to “cooperative communication”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Not to be a hard ***, 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.