The house mouse, stickleback fish and honey bee appear to have little in common, but at the genetic level these creatures respond in strikingly similar ways to danger, researchers report. When any of these animals confronts an intruder, the researchers found, many of the same genes and brain gene networks gear up or down in response.
This discovery, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that distantly related organisms share some key genetic mechanisms that help them respond to threats, said University of Illinois cell and developmental biology professor Lisa Stubbs, who led the research with animal biology professor Alison Bell and entomology professor and Institute for Genomic Biology director Gene Robinson. More.
Hat tip: Timothy Kershner
Follow UD News at Twitter!
“Obviously due to common descent.”
“Obviously due to common design.”
At least it’s obvious.
Common design would predict like systems for like needs.
I got a hunch this will become the norm in the future as more and netter research is done.
The paper looks good, even though all the “evo” words did not help explain how the system works:
In the theory I have the intelligent cause is explained as:
What the paper is explaining was predicted to exist by the ID theory. It’s excellent to see progress being made in this emerging area of scientific research.
Gary, Multicellular Intelligence completes a trinity. But at what level would you put Conscious Intelligence? The intelligence that can design and build a battleship. Would it be level 4 in the framework? Or are there steps in between?
Also, so far we have matter then life then consciousness. ID would predict “something” beyond consciousness. NeoDarwinism would not. They call that “woo” I believe. Or “Bronze Age Myths”.
Good questions ppolish:
Although at this time there is no known way to test my hypothesis: the theory suggests that consciousness exists at all three of the biological intelligence levels and is emergent from behavior of matter (which does not need to learn its behaviors like we do and its model qualifies as all-knowing).
There are no steps in between. Adding a fourth level of intelligence would be the result of something like human intelligence designing intelligent self-replicating biological systems to live inside while colonizing our solar system and others. It would be more than just writing an Artificial Intelligence program for a computer, our intelligence would have to create a new form of intelligent life that a macrocosm of human intelligence collectively develops into. Technology could be a part of it but I’m not talking about machines, it would be an extension of biology and itself be biological (at a level that is not yet even imaginable but sci-fi writers will likely try).
For the sake of theory I must avoid speculations about things that are not yet testable. It is assumed that human multicellular intelligence is conscious, but what else may be conscious is not yet reliably known.
It’s possible that all “life” is somewhat conscious, or at least conscious enough for the levels that sum to become human intelligence to be the cause of the consciousness that we experience. There is nothing “woo” about that, at all.
Regardless of what is in the future discovered about consciousness the logical construct/framework of the theory remains the same. We just have more added detail about each level, to better answer the big-questions with.
In regards to the (capital T) Trinity from religion the (small t) trinity of intelligence levels evidenced by the scientific theory were all caused by a “behavioral cause” making four behavior levels, where the first does not need to necessarily be intelligent to be the source of consciousness. This makes the behavior of matter the cause of the other two levels causing the third intelligence level (from human brains). If it is assumed that what was there “in the beginning” (God) is intelligent then we get a paradox from questioning where this intelligence (God) slowly learned everything there is to know to become “all-knowing” of everything in the universe? Intelligence learns over time or it’s not intelligence. Therefore did God go to a university for Gods, slowly learn everything on their own, or is “all-knowing” something more than that and was already there too? The only way for everything to make sense according to religion is how the scientific theory turned out for all available reliable scientific evidence to make sense.
I can also add that “behavior of matter” is from subatomic forces that are invisible to our eyes, which is not exactly visible “material” and it is not in this case scientifically precise to say “matter” alone.
Materialism is where it is taken on faith that matter-didit. Naturalism adds to that to make big-questions seem beyond science to ever answer. The ID theory sorts out what is now scientifically known in a way that something either exists or it does not, period. There is then no barrier to what we can ultimately better understand. No big-questions are left scientifically unanswerable, including those pertaining to afterlife and/or futurelife.
What do you mean? Can you ‘see’ forces which you think are ‘larger’ – like gravity ? (In fact it is the weakest force)