RE: DNA Proves Existence of a Designer
November 24, 2018 at 11:34 pm
(This post was last modified: November 24, 2018 at 11:37 pm by Everena.)
(November 24, 2018 at 11:09 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:(November 24, 2018 at 11:01 pm)Everena Wrote: And by that you mean you were completely wrong on all counts again. Yes, and thanks for playing.
All counts?
Your link is from a pop-science site that reviewed Penrose and Hameroff's review. It's doubly digested with no dissenting view. That's the equivalent of the National Enquirer.
Even there title was: "Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness" Note the quotes around microtubules and the word controversial.
Go find some real science.
It's real science. You just don't like that it doesn't agree with your twisted illogical worldview so you pretend it's not. Pathetic.
(November 24, 2018 at 11:33 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:Neurobiology is not neuroscience(November 24, 2018 at 11:18 pm)Everena Wrote: That is just a list of people who have worked in neuroscience. The argument is about the decades they spent ignoring the subject of consciousness (which I already proved to you a lot of posts ago) Why you think this means anything I do not know. You are not even ever paying attention to what we are even discussing.
Well, there's the Journal of Neuroscience. It's been publishing on this topic for nearly half a century. Probably a few dozen similar journals that couldn't get that name.
Here's a link to the Google Scholar search for "Neural Correlates Consciousness" that calls bullshit on your assertion. Here's a lovely publication called "Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness" from 1990.
But please, keep telling us how nobody else was working on this subject. It gets funnier with every retelling.