DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[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.