The Bacteria Whisperer

This article also poses a pretty great problem for evolutionists since communication is an intelligent act requiring symbolism.

Not in the least. It would simply require a concentration-dependent chemical reaction that gave its possessors an evolutionary advantage over those bacteria that didn't have it.

This "communication" ability sounds somewhat similar to the ability to detect smells. Does smelling require symbolism?

Psst. Don't tell him that there are some species of trees that are able to communicate with each other. It'll only confuse him further.

Those are the Ents, right?

Actually, you have a good point. I'd forgotten about tree communication. IIRC, tree chemical signals can alert neighbor trees to caterpillar attacks, etc., enabling them to start generating caterpillar toxins.

IIRC, tree chemical signals can alert neighbor trees to caterpillar attacks, etc., enabling them to start generating caterpillar toxins.

Exactly. And you probably recall how skilled trees are when it comes to abstract thought ;)

This article also poses a pretty great problem for evolutionists since communication is an intelligent act requiring symbolism.-me-
Not in the least. It would simply require a concentration-dependent chemical reaction that gave its possessors an evolutionary advantage over those bacteria that didn't have it.

This "communication" ability sounds somewhat similar to the ability to detect smells. Does smelling require symbolism?

You are wrong, very wrong. Communication does require symbolism. While it is true that smells can and probably do create chemical reactions in our glands, that does not constitute communication. Communication requires understanding the meaning of what our senses perceive. For that you need symbolism and understanding, something totally unexplainable by materialism.

What you do not understand is that our bodies, and those of higher organisms have a dual nature. On one hand they are run by proteins, on another hand they have a nervous system and a brain that runs on electrical impulses. What this means is that for the senses to communicate with the brain back and forth the information has to be translated into symbols which the other will understand. So yes, communication requires symbolism.

Communication requires understanding the meaning of what our senses perceive. For that you need symbolism and understanding, something totally unexplainable by materialism.

Your argument sounds like materialism to me. Here is a dictionary definition of materialism:

a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

What you do not understand is that our bodies, and those of higher organisms have a dual nature. On one hand they are run by proteins, on another hand they have a nervous system and a brain that runs on electrical impulses. -me-
Your argument sounds like materialism to me. Here is a dictionary definition of materialism:

a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality

No. Symbols are totally immaterial and without the non-material correlation of one thing with another life would be totally impossible. DNA itself is a symbol. It is an abstract language which is read in threes by DNA and interpreted as amino acids. Symbols are a sign of intelligence and a total disproof of materialism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.