Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]Bacteria are conscious in the sense that they can receive stimuli and react to them. I still think it is all automatic.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]And by “automatic” I presume you mean your God preprogrammed all their problems and solutions 3.8 billion years ago, or he pops in to do a dabble whenever there’s a problem he hadn’t solved for them 3.8 billion years ago.
> Same issue under "4-D DNA neighborhood controls”:[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Same answer. They are programmed for automatic responses.[/i]
> 
> Which is a high-falutin way of glossing over the extraordinary implications described in my comment above.
> 
> DAVID: [i]The fact that DNA can rearrange itself so quickly to respond as necessary indicates there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood. It looks as if DNA can think, but that is beyond possibility. The complexity of the underlying organization it presents demands that the system is designed. Not by chance.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]A materialist might say the fact that we can think indicates that “there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood”. 
> DNA is one part of the cell. If Margulis, McLintock, Buehler and Shapiro are right, cells can think. Certainly not “beyond possibility”.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Listing the names expresses their opinions, not anything more. I could name Wells, Meyer, Behe, but I never bother.[/i]
> 
> The very fact that there is no consensus among the experts should make it clear to you that neither hypothesis is “beyond possibility”.