(March 30, 2016 at 9:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(March 30, 2016 at 8:05 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen...telligence
DNA has an ability to perceive information, eg that an error has occurred in the process of replication. It retains this knowledge through subsequent generations. It also uses this retained knowledge to make adaptive behaviours, ie to conduct very complex, multi-stage repair processes. How is it that this does not qualify as intelligent?
So we're finally just down to the bald assertion phase of theistic argumentation, are we? No interest in demonstrating that DNA "perceives" anything- rather than it just being a case of all those permutations of DNA that couldn't repair died out- nor any interest in demonstrating that it "knows" anything, just a hugely tortured argument from analogy fallacy without a shred of evidence?
Are you backed into a corner, or is this just a lazy, lazy fuckin' day for you?
I gave you a a perfectly reasonable definition of intelligence and showed you how perfectly DNA fits the definition. You then completely avoided the question, "How is it that this does not qualify as intelligent?" I would like an answer to this please.
I presume you know that DNA senses errors, retains the knowledge of what is correct and what is incorrect sequencing and conducts complex repair procedures. If this is not the case, I can point you to any one of hundreds of papers laying it out for you.