Does current trends in evolutionary theory explain functional actions of organisms?

[heycroc]

---

i see some ambiguity in your citings "The_Kid". Specifically in the examples that you have laid down. Only unicellular organisms such as eukaryotes can make a choice for their cellular wellness as they have a simple mind whereas leukocytes are part of a bigger organism where each cellular function is dictated upon by their mitochondrial DNA. But if your query would refer to the actions made by a unicellular organism with a distinct mind and simple intelligence of its own then basically it is mainly a reaction or a chemical response to the outside environment.

To my second point regarding the theory of evolution, i guess one cannot discount the factor of the outside intelligence (refering to the brain.....unless you meant some other intelligence) as the theory was basically postulated based on the organism and not on a cellular aspect unless the organism is unicellular.

[Code Talker]

na nosebleed ko boss. sa akong na hinumduman sa biology sa una. Response to stimuli man kuno na.

[alcajita]

Actually, leukocytes respond to infection because of the presence of chemotactic substances.

[Bears Grill]

I'm not a scientist, but I think some understanding on the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection can help answer your question.

Instinctively, when we see leukocytes rush to the site of infection, we tend to think of these cells (leukocytes are white blood cells) as having a mind of their own and that they're capable of making choices. From an evolutionary standpoint, we have to think about the steps an organism or a cell must've taken to reach its current form. We have to think about the selection pressures that these things must've faced, so that what eventually dominates an environment are those that are most fit for those pressures. After all, organisms that didn't have these leukocytes to fight infections would die off if the organism was exposed to viral/bacterial attacks. Natural selection answers these questions of adaptability very well.

Intelligent Design is indeed religiously appealing, but it's not science. The reason why it's not a scientific hypothesis (let alone a theory) is because it answers the question of the origin of species with a mystery. By postulating a supernatural agent as the answer, you're actually answering a mystery with a mystery. You'll get nowhere with that, if you're conducting a scientific inquiry.

[Xian120]

we assign external intelligent stimuli to cases we dont understand, or lack thereof,. If you read Dawkin's book "the selfish gene" you will come to an understanding that our body, strange as it may seem is not entirely a a single entity but a genetic enterprise, each cell in our body are codependently programmed to do a certain task. Now how is that, one may ask,. remember that we started out as single celled organisms from the beginning, our genetic make-up was simple back then, as our environment changed so did our gene pool, inorder to survive our genes found a way to better adapt to the environment for survival, they grouped each other, thus multi-cellular organisms came into being..

so leukocytes or white blood cells are not at all mindless body parts controlled by some intelligent mediator, but a codependent genetic army programmed to do certain tasks for the survival of the whole genetic enterprise..

[blakrabit]

nosebleed ko but ang nahibaw.an nako sa evolution ni Darwin based sa natural selection is that when an organism is exposed to harsh environement, they are forced to adapt by evolving. The weak will die and kanang mga nahabilin pasabot na nindot ilang genetic make-up kay naka-survive man sila. So ang mga strong mao na sila ang mag-tapok tapok para ang offsprings nila same sa genetic make-up nila na maka survive sa usa ka type na environment.

mao na uso sa animal kingdom ang mating rituals. Mag-away ang male nya ang victor mao na siya ang pilion sa female.

[Xian120]

blakrabit your explanation is spot-on.. but do you have any thoughts about the leukocytes?