Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

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:

> >  > dhws: As I keep repeating, most of our own immediate responses to stimuli are chemical, but how we adapt our actions and create something new is a different process. You assume that chemical is synonymous with automatic, but you take seriously the suggestion that human intelligence emerges from chemical interactions between billions of cells.-Because you have invented a nebulous intelligence so as to avoid choosing between chance and design. -> dhw: Maybe there is an unknown control mechanism (Albrecht-Buehler&apos;s "centrosome") in all cells and cell communities. -I&apos;m sure there are based  on plans in DNA-> dhw: And you also take seriously the possibility that the intelligence which emerges is NOT dependent on chemical reactions, because it is able to survive death. Biochemists frequently talk of bacterial/microbial intelligence, and collective intelligence, but they don&apos;t know its source, any more than they know the source of our own. According to you, however, 90% of them are atheists, which leaves 90% presumably believing that cells have some form of intelligence that is not preprogrammed by your God. And who knows what the other 10% would think of your theory? -That is the worst stretch or reasoning I&apos;ve ever seen. I don&apos;t presume that atheists would think cells have intelligence-> dhw: Nobody knows how cells managed to produce our organs. You wrote earlier: "[i]At least my speculations have a basis in reality[/i]". I asked you what basis, but you have not responded to my question, so I&apos;ll repeat it: "[i]Please tell me which biology reference book provides scientific evidence that an unknown and unknowable power preprogrammed the first cells to pass on to their descendants all the programmes needed to produce countless innovations, that this same power also preprogrammed choices to create minor variations, and that this same power directed evolution so that it would end up with humans. Your speculations have no more basis in reality than mine. Still level pegging!"[/i]-Because I start with biochemical reality and look at the results of evolution and extrapolate from there to reach a reasonable explanation. At least I choose a resaonble answer. With you it is all picket fence.