Kurieuo wrote:Audie wrote:What "enormous odds"?
Probability of two species needing each other proliferating into existence at the same time.
Consider the symbiotic mutualism between an ant, a plant and fungus:
- The well-studied, ancient and highly evolved mutualism between fungus-growing ants and their fungi has become a model system in the study of symbiosis1, 5. Although it is thought at present to involve only two symbionts, associated with each other in near isolation from other organisms1, 5, the fungal gardens of attine ants are in fact host to a specialized and virulent parasitic fungus of the genus Escovopsis (Ascomycotina)6. Because the ants and their fungi are mutually dependent, the maintenance of stable fungal monocultures in the presence of weeds or parasites is critical to the survival of both organisms. Here we describe a new, third mutualist in this symbiosis, a filamentous bacterium (actinomycete) of the genus Streptomyces that produces antibiotics specifically targeted to suppress the growth of the specialized garden-parasite Escovopsis. This third mutualist is associated with all species of fungus-growing ants studied, is carried upon regions of the ants' cuticle that are genus specific, is transmitted vertically (from parent to offspring colonies), and has the capacity to promote the growth of the fungal mutualist, indicating that the association of Streptomyces with attine ants is both highly evolved and of ancient origin. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 701a0.html)
Several entomologists explain in detail this relationship, and explain that there are actually five known symbionts:
- The fungus-growing ant symbiosis is a model system for studying the ecology and evolution of symbiotic interactions. The symbiosis currently contains five identified and characterized symbionts:
1) Attine ants,
2) the fungi that they cultivate for food,
3) cultivar-attacking microfungi in the genus Escovopsis,
4) antibiotic-producing bacteria in the genus Pseudonocardia, and
5) a black yeast parasitizing the ant Pseudonocardia-mutualism.
The diversity of interactions in this model system provides a wealth of opportunity for scientific inquiry, particularly beyond bipartite interactions.
(Insect Symbioses: A Case Study of Past, Present, and Future Fungus-growing Ant Research (numbering mine; highly recommend)
RTB summarises this relationship plainly:
- (1) the ants cut waxy leaves from the plant, chew them into a pulp, and lay down the pulp on a substrate for the mushrooms;
(2) the mushrooms that grow from the pulp-lined substrate produce structures called gongylidia, which the ants then harvest for food;
(3) a micro-fungus in the ants’ gut enables the ants to digest the gongylidia.
Neither the ants nor the mushrooms can feed on the leaves directly. The leaves contain biochemical toxins (insecticide) dangerous to the ants and are covered with a waxy coating the mushrooms cannot penetrate. The ants remove the waxy coating for the benefit of the mushrooms. The mushrooms "process" the chemical toxins so that the ants, with crucial assistance from gut micro-fungi, can then digest their food.
Endosymbiosis (where one of the symbiotic organisms lives inside the other) is quite pervasive and foundational in anthropods (i.e., insects).
When you have scientific articles titles like:
Extraordinarily widespread and fantastically complex: comparative biology of endosymbiotic bacterial and fungal mutualists of insects... Really... did they really mean
extraordinary? I agree.
Audie wrote:I cant figure out if God -belief is scientific or not.
Is that a response to my question, "
Do you consider belief in God as more unscientific to no belief in God?"
"Belief in God", having "no belief in God" or "believing God doesn't exist" are philosophical positions.
Therefore they are no more or less scientific than the other. However, Naturalism (belief that the physical or natural world exists without any "super" natural being/s) is often equivocated with (what I call "smuggled in") as science. It's not as easy to pick up on as God belief, since science obviously studies the natural order of the world so a trade on "nature/naturalism" is easier to do.
The point I wanted to make is that when performing science, these personal beliefs might help shape the interest of science being down, but these positions are no more or less scientific than each other. The question I asked purposefully commits a category error to try make this point. By category error, it's like my asking, "is blue rounder than red?"
Therefore belief or no belief in God is no more or less scientific. But, if someone believes otherwise, then they are mixing their personal philosophical beliefs in with their science. I feel it is important to understand that.
Because we see some Christians mix in their beliefs in God and call it a science (e.g., ACB's Gappism), but such mistakes often go unnoticed when Atheists mix in their Naturalistic beliefs that exclude God and call it science (e.g.,
Naturalistic Evolution, not to be confused for natural evolution).
I'm not sure if that's making sense to you. I'm trying my best to explain as I feel it is highly important.
But, "Naturalistic Evolution" would presuppose God does not exist (or any other "super" natural beings for that matter).
This is very different from just "natural evolution", where one might assume natural evolutionary laws and processes are solely responsible for the diversity of life that we see. Theistic Evolution and Naturalistic Evolution are both philosophical positions that support "natural evolution" to these extremes.
So I was trying to get at these points, by asking a question.
The point of my question is that Naturalism is no more scientific than Theism is or vice-versa.
One's beliefs in God and one's beliefs that no God exists are not of a "scientific" category.
Hope I made sense.
Audie wrote:Symbiosis, convergent and parallel evolution seem to be to be an obvious and
inevitable aspect of evolution. I wonder what you find odd about it.
What is odd? The improbability.
I mean, with symbiosis, when you have mutualism that requires two a more species to exist
along side each other. The odds are greatly stacked against such naturally occurring. It seems more like someone planned the nature and intricacies of how such symbiotic relationships would work, thought it would be good to create such dependencies, and then "created" the symbionts together.
How would this be an inevitable aspect of evolution? You might have some species coming later that draws from a previously evolved species (a parasitic relationship perhaps), but to have them both needing each other for survival at the same time... that's quite an extraordinary feat. And the more symbionts in the relationship that mutually require each other to live, the more extraordinary.
Or convergent evolution the probability of some complex biological structure randomly coming into being once, is well, contingent on a great deal of randomly improbable factors. So to see the same structure "evolving" over and over again -- well now it looks like someone is stacking the deck. Wouldn't you think?
Audie wrote:If naturalism is about precluding a god, then Im not that. And as Im obsessive about avoiding a tan at the beach, thats also a sign that Im not a Naturalist.
Yes, hopefully my more detailed explanation above helps to clarify.
I must say that you surprise me here -- not precluding God's existence (or "a god" even).
Maybe you've changed slightly, or maybe I've just not understood you.
I've always considered you to strongly deny that such exists?
Really do think it is an all-so important point to understand the difference between just examining natural laws and Naturalism (a philosophy that presupposes God or "super" natural beings do not exist). Then perhaps the raw science of evolutionary theory, and just bare facts in nature, can be discussed more neutrally and separately from one's philosophy (whether that is Theism or Naturalism).
At the end of the day, I find studies submitted to journals so interesting.
For me, it helps to better understand how God designed the world to work.
For someone else, it might be better understanding what randomly unfolded in nature devoid of any purposeful design.
Both these views of the world still produce that feeling of awe one might get while camping out in nature and looking up at the stars?
These personal beliefs are what help to inspire, leave us in awe and want to learn more.
It is therefore a shame that people often murky physical sciences, strongly asserting what one can/can't believe in regarding their more personal philosophy or beliefs.