N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Let's try to follow here:
Your model insect has antennae, which are used for sensing. This is standard knowledge.
Cells sense the environment around them and communicate with other cells. Again, this is standard, old, information that is not new or unique to your model, so no points for you here.
Scientists have been determining over the past 15 years that cells use their primary cilia to sense the environment and communicate (and that serious things go wrong when the primary cilia don't work). Your model says that cells communicate, but this is neither new nor unique to you, so no points for you. Your model doesn't include primary cilia. You never discussed functions of "primary cilia" or made predictions about them.
Scientists trying to get their results across to the public say that sensing and communication functions of cilia make them sorta like antennas. You used the word antenna in your study (again, for entirely different structures) and you like to harp on self-similarity at multiple levels, so you apparently think that this finding gives you a measure of success. It doesn't. Primary cilia are not the same as insect antennas, nor are they similar things at a smaller scale.
Claims that cells sense the environment and send signals to other cells is not evidence of intelligence in action or "intelligent causation". (Also, note that contrary to your version of intelligence, no "motors", active movement, or muscles are involved with nonmotile primary cilia - they lack dynein and the key central pair of microtubules: http://www.nature.com/scitabl....28249.)
And again, how are you not in the boat as Bob Berenz and Edgar Postrado?
|
