Brain complexity: circadian controls (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, October 05, 2015, 00:04 (3338 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: But “research into the biochemistry of bacteria” has gone beyond studying the biochemistry. That is the point that you refuse to recognize.-> DAVID: I don't know what you are attempting to describe: " has gone beyond studying the biochemistry". I read the articles. All they can study is the biochemistry -> dhw: They also study behaviour, and just as you will deduce that your dog has intelligence of its own by the manner in which he responds to different situations, they deduce the same from their observation of these microorganisms.-But the so-called behavior of bacteria are simple reactions. Dogs are much more than that.
> 
> DAVID: The scientists you quote, supplied to you by me, can be refuted by Michael Egnor and many others who are on my side of the 50/50 coin toss.
> 
> dhw: Refutation is not possible for either side - you have said yourself that we have no way of knowing which hypothesis is correct. But the difference between us on this subject lies in the appeal I made to you in my post last Friday: “I only ask that their findings should be taken seriously, as should the possible implications of those findings.” .... If there is a 50/50 chance of a hypothesis being right, it seems to me that we should take it seriously, ... That is not an appeal for belief, but the good old agnostic plea for open-mindedness!-I have no way of proving which hypothesis is correct, but I have my own strong opinion, based on my knowledge of how single cells work at all levels of evolution, whether alone or as part of a multicellular organism. The white cells in my body repairing a wound or fighting infection have as amazingly purposeful reactions as anything Shapiro describes in the unicellular bacteria of his studies. All the same to me.