Are Natural Systems Smart

[biophilia]

I enjoyed reading your writing style on this subject. However, “It’s just earth systems theory or systems ecology ....” shrugs off the complexity of the Corol Holobiont. You addressed the heart of the discussion with three dots and just.

I

"Just" was a poor choice of words. I think the immense complexity of natural systems is incredibly awe-inspiring. Most especially those found in the reefs!

 

[Dr. Dendrostein]

I think it's amazing when a small bird is in flight and can sleep, while flying . Trying doing that.

 

[Subsea]

I think it's amazing when a small bird is in flight and can sleep, while fling. Trying doing that.

Please provide a link for that. Inquiring minds want to know.

I am considering writing a short article on the complexity of biochemistry, biology, chemistry and physics in our reef aquariums. and title it “Elegance in Simplicity”

Natural filtration is simplistic to the casual observer. After 47 years, it is easy to maintain marine tanks with natural filtration. A mature biofilter will remove > 65% of TOC (total organic carbon) while a protein skimmer will remove at best 25% of TOC. I think that the Chinese invented the Triton Method 2000 years ago. I emulate success and I have been a Triton fan for 35 years.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Having grown up in the Bible Belt of West Michigan, I’m pretty adept at sidestepping the divine creator/intelligent design conversation.

At this point, I don’t even want to know what or who put it into motion. Life needs a little mystery to it.

I don’t know that I would go so far as to say the reactions and relationships that drive organisms and ecosystems are intentional. I would just say that many reactions and relationships never got anywhere...but certain reactions worked, and certain relationships worked. In the cases where there was success, there was suddenly an advantage in that environment at that time. Those that had the advantages for that environment at that time had a greater probability of continuing.

The reality is that most of those stemmed from accidents. Maybe certain bacteria found a way to inhabit unicellular organisms and increase their chances of success. Maybe those unicellular organisms would have booted them, but discovered that the bacteria provided an energy source in ATP that helped the organism.

And it stuck and has endured through the eons. When a blueprint for success is formed in nature, it tends to not go anywhere.

I would imagine that early corals didn’t have photosynthetic symbionts. Somewhere along the way, some corals had some dinoflagellates find their way in, and the corals that had a built-in glucose factory were more successful than those that didn’t.

All of that building up over hundreds of millions of years to culminate in an Internet forum to discuss such matters.

 

[Dr. Dendrostein]

Please provide a link for that. Inquiring minds want to know.

I am considering writing a short article on the complexity of biochemistry, biology, chemistry and physics in our reef aquariums. and title it “Elegance in Simplicity”

Natural filtration is simplistic to the casual observer. After 47 years, it is easy to maintain marine tanks with natural filtration. A mature biofilter will remove > 65% of TOC (total organic carbon) while a protein skimmer will remove at best 25% of TOC. I think that the Chinese invented the Triton Method 2000 years ago. I emulate success and I have been a Triton fan for 35 years.

Scientists show Birds sleep during flight

https://weather.com/science/nature/video/scientists-show-birds-sleep-during-flight/

 

[Subsea]

Scientists show Birds sleep during flight

https://weather.com/science/nature/video/scientists-show-birds-sleep-during-flight/

Neat. I am fascinated with geese flying wing. Each bird on leading edge shields the next one down, so that the lead goose works the hardest and the last goose works the least. When the lead bird gets tired, he drops back to last place to rest up.

 

[Dr. Dendrostein]

Neat. I am fascinated with geese flying wing. Each bird on leading edge shields the next one down, so that the lead goose works the hardest and the last goose works the least. When the lead bird gets tired, he drops back to last place to rest up.

They figured out aerodynamics. Cool

 

[ReeferReefer]

“Not a single respected scientist.” Really?
Here’s 50: https://g.co/kgs/f69Qgx

Not a single one of them are respected in actual academic institutions. I know because I have been part of various academic institutions as a student and as faculty. Most of us just ignore the noise and continue with our research.

 

[ReeferReefer]

You have made the “theory of evolution” your religion. You need more faith to believe random selection as the origin of the species than I to believe Intelligent Design.

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Are you straight up ignoring the historical context of intelligent design on purpose or are you just naive?

The conclusion was already determined in intelligent design, to fit scripture. This is easily shown by the history of the people trying to push it down our throats.

When this article first went to press in 2002, the Ohio Board of Education was debating whether to mandate such a change. Prominent antievolutionists of the day, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial, admitted that they intended for intelligent-design theory to serve as a “wedge” for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

The 2005 the landmark legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover in Harrisburg, Pa., set binding precedent that the teaching of intelligent design in U.S. public schools is unconstitutional because the idea is fundamentally religious, not scientific.

In response, creationists have reinvented their movement and pressed on. When they lost the ability to claim that creationist ideas are valid science, they switched to arguing that they were only supporting “academic freedom.” Worse, to further obscure the religious roots of their resistance, they now push for “critical analysis” of climate change, cloning research and other scientific endeavors that they paint as culturally oppressive.

Essentially its only a small school of fundamentalist Christians who are clinging to this literal interpretation of scripture.

Next thing you are going to tell me that the Earth is only 6000 years old or some other insane idea that has been refuted by mainstream science over and over again. But I guess you and your friends are much smarter than the entire community of scientists.


At the end of the day you came onto a reef forum preach religious nonsense. I do not think it's appropriate.

 

[ReeferReefer]

Speak for yourself, you need to go to charm school. Hate to offend you. But I did.

To be fair the OPs post reads a bit like a bottle of Dr. Bonner's soap.

 

[Subsea]

Are you straight up ignoring the historical context of intelligent design on purpose or are you just naive?

The conclusion was already determined in intelligent design, to fit scripture. This is easily shown by the history of the people trying to push it down our throats.

When this article first went to press in 2002, the Ohio Board of Education was debating whether to mandate such a change. Prominent antievolutionists of the day, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial, admitted that they intended for intelligent-design theory to serve as a “wedge” for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

The 2005 the landmark legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover in Harrisburg, Pa., set binding precedent that the teaching of intelligent design in U.S. public schools is unconstitutional because the idea is fundamentally religious, not scientific.

In response, creationists have reinvented their movement and pressed on. When they lost the ability to claim that creationist ideas are valid science, they switched to arguing that they were only supporting “academic freedom.” Worse, to further obscure the religious roots of their resistance, they now push for “critical analysis” of climate change, cloning research and other scientific endeavors that they paint as culturally oppressive.

Essentially its only a small school of fundamentalist Christians who are clinging to this literal interpretation of scripture.

Next thing you are going to tell me that the Earth is only 6000 years old or some other insane idea that has been refuted by mainstream science over and over again. But I guess you and your friends are much smarter than the entire community of scientists.


At the end of the day you came onto a reef forum preach religious nonsense. I do not think it's appropriate.

You are projecting quite a bit of your bias onto this discussion and “I do not think it is appropriate”.

Who said anything about earth being 6000 years old beside you?

Who cares about the politics of Intelligent Design beside you?

 

[Paul B]

Have you ever seen anything other than humans worship?

Praying Mantis.

Scientists show Birds sleep during flight

I am sleeping now.

 

[Subsea]

Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.

Evolution is genetic mutation which produces change that is recorded in fossil records. The leap of faith that deduced evolution to explain the”orgin of the species” is where we do not agree.

The “Theory of Evolution” does not explain the “orgin of the species”.

 

[Todvod]

Not a single one of them are respected in actual academic institutions. I know because I have been part of various academic institutions as a student and as faculty. Most of us just ignore the noise and continue with our research.

Prejudice.

 

[Subsea]

"The only barrier to truth is the assumption that you already have it." -Chuck Missler

If the scientific community would not have agenda to protect their

Not a single one of them are respected in actual academic institutions. I know because I have been part of various academic institutions as a student and as faculty. Most of us just ignore the noise and continue with our research.

“Most of us just ignore the noise and continue with our research” illustrates an arrogance that contradicts scientific method. Because it disagrees with your theory, you ignore it.

You sir are an impediment to the truth.

“The only barrier to the truth is the assumption that you already have it”.

 

[NS Mike D]

“The only barrier to the truth is the assumption that you already have it”.

and vice versa, Einstein's self described "biggest blunder" was his failure to consider the universe was expanding when he introduced his cosmological constant to make his equation fit a "static universe". He didn't accept the validation of his equations until after Hubble's work. In effect, Einstein's barrier to truth in this case was the assumption that "he did not already have it." Ironically, and just to muck up this thread, I once read that his belief that the universe was static was based on religious teachings.

I am not particularly religious and intelligent design doesn't inspire my sense of logic, however my kindergarten understanding of quantum physics and the how energy and matter are interchangeable and that everything likely is made up of same harmonic strings, then it makes sense that IF the supreme being is actually all the energy of the universe that makes up everything, then we are in fact made in his/her/it's image. We are just so egoistical we assumed it is the image in which we perceive ourselves. And thus a religious concept that may appear on the surface totally opposite to logic and science may not be so far fetched when looked at from a different perspective and less limiting parameters of the connotations of the words that define faith based concepts.

IMO, Darwin was right, but that doesn't make the combinations over billions of years that have resulted in planet earth and our self awareness any less of a miracle than what I was taught in religious ed, and I am more that happy to be part of a single everything that returns my energy and matter to this one common beautiful and perfect entity, which also sounds a lot like the basic tenets of those classes at which this man in his youth scoffed as fairy tales.

And perhaps, this is why so much of my reef tank that I cannot see but have faith that it exists captures my interest. It's nothing less than a miracle, and on this, I believe I am in agreement with my friends of faith.

Thus, I most certainly agree that Natural Systems are smart. Perhaps not by design as you conclude, but equally appreciated as a miracle.



(which is why I pulled my skimmer, added a second fuge, refuse to get a UV, )

 

[ReeferReefer]

If the scientific community would not have agenda to protect their



“Most of us just ignore the noise and continue with our research” illustrates an arrogance that contradicts scientific method. Because it disagrees with your theory, you ignore it.

You sir are an impediment to the truth.

“The only barrier to the truth is the assumption that you already have it”.

lol. We have seen the evidence presented by creationists over and over. Nothing you have stated here is new information. It's easy to write off because I considered your evidence years ago already. I have had long conversations with creationists who have actually published their work and I have come to understand the points they were making.

That's why we just ignore the noise. Because at this point you are just repeating yourself.

As mentioned before though, there is no point to this conversation. You are not a scientist, you are a religious zealot. You already came up with your conclusion when you read the Bible.

I came up with my conclusion when I was conducting academic research on evolutionary processes and the fossil record.

 

[User1]

I came up with my conclusion when I was conducting academic research on evolutionary processes and the fossil record.

Because academia isn't biased, right?

 

[ReeferReefer]

Because academia isn't biased, right?

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.

You took an ancient book written by people who had slaves and tried to find evidence to support it. I took evidence and came to my own conclusion.

I was raised a creationist Btw, I just came to my own conclusions.

 

[User1]

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.

You took an ancient book written by people who had slaves and tried to find evidence to support it. I took evidence and came to my own conclusion.

I was raised a creationist Btw, I just came to my own conclusions.

I haven't posted in this thread prior to what you quoted me on but yet you already put me in a box or labeled me(by saying I took an ancient book). Thank you though for supporting comment. Everybody has an opinion and everyone is biased. What separates people apart though is when they themselves know this and can respectfully understand they can't change the other persons opinion, accept and understand the other side and say yeah, makes sense, or respectfully agree to disagree and still remain civil, friends, or loving and caring partners. Sadly everyone digs their heels in and quickly labels or calls names instead.

Typically I stay out of these threads for this very reason. No different than when with friends, family, or work and topics like this come up. Sometimes though there are little hidden gems tucked away like the birds bit.