DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Bucky Ball]

False. You have no idea what type of signal we are even receiving, so you have no valid argument.

Neither do you, and until they can demonstrate there is a "signal", a SENDER, and a replicable mechanism of production in the brain, all you have is a big nothing.
You have nothing.
Woo. Nothing but woo.

[Anomalocaris]

Some minds boggle more easily than others.

[Everena]

It is a theory and one that has been partially proven. 

The theory, called "orchestrated objective reduction" ('Orch OR'), was first put forward in the mid-1990s by eminent mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, FRS, Mathematical Institute and Wadham College, University of Oxford, and prominent anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, MD, Anesthesiology, Psychology and Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson. They suggested that quantum vibrational computations in microtubules were "orchestrated" ("Orch") by synaptic inputs and memory stored in microtubules, and terminated by Penrose "objective reduction" ('OR'), hence "Orch OR." Microtubules are major components of the cell structural skeleton.

Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes.. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules. The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."


After 20 years of skeptical criticism, "the evidence now clearly supports Orch OR," continue Hameroff and Penrose. "Our new paper updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or "qubits," as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 -- of these, six are confirmed and none refuted."



https://www.journals.elsevier.com/physic...vibrations

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24070914

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/welcome

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11349432

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...085105.htm

Interestingly, if you had bothered to read the articles to which I had referred you to, including the related links, with the idea of understanding them you would have learned that your pet hypothesis (not "theory") has been seriously been called into question, if not entirely refuted, by legitimate peer review. Clearly, you do not understand how the scientific method works.

This is not the first time you have rejected bona fide scientific evidence with a wave of the hand because it does not support your beliefs. Here is another example of your intellectual dishonesty. You are grasping at straws and committing the dishonest practice of cherry-picking the evidence to support your views. Nothing in the articles you have linked us to above prove your points. They simply confirm the need for more study.

Scientific hypotheses are not validated by being "partially" proven. They either pass peer review or they do not. Hameroff and Penrose's hypotheses have not. And until they do, and until you can rationally reconcile them with your claims, your beliefs have no standing or merit.

Wrong. They were only criticized prior to 2014 when they proved the most important part of their theory. And their critics were proven wrong. Perhaps read and learn something rather than just making stuff up based on old news.

---

False. You have no idea what type of signal we are even receiving, so you have no valid argument.

Neither do you, and until they can demonstrate there is a "signal", a SENDER, and a replicable mechanism of production in the brain, all you have is a big nothing.
You have nothing.
Woo. Nothing but woo.

It's as a good a guess as any other and now we know that it is possible.

[Bucky Ball]

Actually it's not even a "guess", and none of your linked articles says anything about a sender or a receiver. 
You have MIS-characterized (yet again) the linked articles. 


You *claimed* your rubbish is "partially proven". You lied. You are a liar. 

You have nothing. 
You can't even say (exactly) what *it* is, that you're claiming is possible.

[Gwaithmir]

Interestingly, if you had bothered to read the articles to which I had referred you to, including the related links, with the idea of understanding them you would have learned that your pet hypothesis (not "theory") has been seriously been called into question, if not entirely refuted, by legitimate peer review. Clearly, you do not understand how the scientific method works.

This is not the first time you have rejected bona fide scientific evidence with a wave of the hand because it does not support your beliefs. Here is another example of your intellectual dishonesty. You are grasping at straws and committing the dishonest practice of cherry-picking the evidence to support your views. Nothing in the articles you have linked us to above prove your points. They simply confirm the need for more study.

Scientific hypotheses are not validated by being "partially" proven. They either pass peer review or they do not. Hameroff and Penrose's hypotheses have not. And until they do, and until you can rationally reconcile them with your claims, your beliefs have no standing or merit.

Wrong. They were only criticized prior to 2014 when they proved the most important part of their theory. And their critics were proven wrong. Perhaps read and learn something rather than just making stuff up based on old news.

---

Nope! To wit:

Hameroff speculated that visual photons in the retina are detected directly by the cones and rods instead of decohering and subsequently connect with the retinal glia cells via gap junctions,[41] but this too was falsified.[72]

Other biology-based criticisms have been offered.[73] Papers by Georgiev[20][63] point to problems with Hameroff's proposals, including a lack of explanation for the probabilistic release of neurotransmitter from presynaptic axon terminals[74][75][76] and an error in the calculated number of the tubulin dimers per cortical neuron.[64] Hameroff insisted in a 2013 interview that those falsifications were invalid, but did not provide any explanation where the falsifications fail.[77]

You're still grasping at straws.

[Paleophyte]

Life likely began as a relatively simple self-replicator. An auto-catalytic chemical reaction that makes more of itself from molecules present in the early oceans. We've produced self-replicating molecules in the lab and they exhibit both mutation and heredity. DNA and DNA were likely evolved later as more robust molecule for information storage.

Why and how would that ever possibly even happen without any intelligence involved? What you're saying is just like saying a large rock in your front yard created all life one day with no information, intelligence or purpose. NOPE NOT POSSIBLE.

(1) In case nobody ever mentioned, using all caps on the interweb is the equivalent of SHOUTING and is considered rude.

(2) It's entirely possible once you jettison the notion that anything was "created". A simple self-replicator occurs by chance and evolves into more complex self-replicators that could not easily arise spontaneously.

The information in your genome comes from the environment.

What part of the environment contains information and how exactly did this information get in to the environment? You cannot have information without intelligence by the way. AGAIN, not possible.

You most certainly can have information without intelligence. The amount of information that is stored in a single zircon grain, crystallized without one shred of intellect, is startling.

Information exists in everything. That big rock in my front yard contains the information "Here is a rock!" Further examination will reveal a whole host of other information, e.g.: "Here is a 1.278 tonne block of sandstone, a sedimentary rock formed near the surface of the Earth's crust..." No thought required until you want to get that information out.

Mutation adds random noise to your genetic material. Usually this is useless or detrimental. Rarely it helps you survive just a little bit better. Natural selection removes the detrimental mutations, leaving behind information that helps you survive.
We've watched this happen. God didn't make nylon-eating bacteria and he didn't turn lizards on an island into vegetarians.

God sure did create everything and everything happens for a reason.

Prove it.

[CDF47]

Some minds boggle more easily than others.

Scientific discoveries over the decades is just unreal.  That is what boggles the mind.

[Everena]

Actually it's not even a "guess", and none of your linked articles says anything about a sender or a receiver. 
You have MIS-characterized (yet again) the linked articles. 


You *claimed* your rubbish is "partially proven". You lied. You are a liar. 

You have nothing. 
You can't even say (exactly) what *it* is, that you're claiming is possible.

Yes, the articles do say that the theory accomodates spiritual approaches and Hameroff says it all the time. Last time. Here is the interview with Stuart Hameroff where he explains and spells it right out for you. It is in the very first part so you don't even have to watch the whole thing. But watch it and then I refuse to discuss this topic with you anymore because all you do is lie about me, read nothing, and say completely ignorant things, none of which are accurate.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEATDhaZyVA

[Bucky Ball]

They were only criticized prior to 2014 when they proved the most important part of their theory. And their critics were proven wrong. Perhaps read and learn something rather than just making stuff up based on old news.

They are still considered crackpots.
Research on consciousness continues in many centers, and their clap-trap is not even thought important enough to reference.
They are dismissed as amateur dabblers.

[Everena]

Wrong. They were only criticized prior to 2014 when they proved the most important part of their theory. And their critics were proven wrong. Perhaps read and learn something rather than just making stuff up based on old news.

---

Nope! To wit:

Hameroff speculated that visual photons in the retina are detected directly by the cones and rods instead of decohering and subsequently connect with the retinal glia cells via gap junctions,[41] but this too was falsified.[72]

Everena: Who cares? That has not one thing to do with what we are discussing and what are you claiming the too for? Sorry, ignorant one but they proved what they set out to prove whether you like it or not.


Other biology-based criticisms have been offered.[73] Papers by Georgiev[20][63] point to problems with Hameroff's proposals, including a lack of explanation for the probabilistic release of neurotransmitter from presynaptic axon terminals[74][75][76] and an error in the calculated number of the tubulin dimers per cortical neuron.[64] Hameroff insisted in a 2013 interview that those falsifications were invalid, but did not provide any explanation where the falsifications fail.[77]

You're still grasping at straws.

Everena: No, you are and just so you know 2013 is before their theory was proven in 2014. 20 testable predictions of Orch Or and 6 have been proven and corroborated and NONE of their remaining hypotheses are refuted. They listened to all constructive criticism along the way and made adjustments when necessary because that is how science works genius.