Defining sentient cells: Cell receptors (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, April 15, 2018, 18:36 (2414 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Interesting response. Like Dawkins and Shapiro I've followed biochemistry all my life. I didn't stop thinking after med school. All I said was I expect further research to prove my point, and I agree you, that you Dawkins and Shapiro all have a right to your current position to which I disagree.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps then you would stop pretending that examples of automatic behaviour somehow prove that there is no such thing as autonomous behaviour in small organisms. Of course the influence of cellular intelligence on evolution (as opposed to your divine preprogramming and dabbling) remains a hypothesis, since nobody “knows” how evolutionary innovation came about, but you cannot claim that science disproves it, and you certainly cannot claim that science offers support for your own hypothesis.

DAVID: I certainly can make the claim when I see a research paper that shows a series of automatic molecular reactions to a specific stimulus.

dhw: You only pick examples of automatic molecular reactions, and choose to ignore the research that demonstrates decision-making or concludes that small organisms are intelligent. I’m sorry, but having agreed on 10 April that the views of such scientists are as valid as your own, you cannot then claim that science disproves their views or supports yours.

I can only pick automatic reactions, because every time a reaction is studied it turns out to be automatic. Since not all reactions are as yet elucidated, I can only predict that when they all are studied I will found to be right. This is all I have actually stated in the past.