The whole article is based on a false premise - behaviour of unicellular organisms is now understood very well by biologists and it is clear they are nothing mo

The whole article is based on a false premise - behaviour of unicellular organisms is now understood very well by biologists and it is clear they are nothing more than automatons, basically. A simple explanation of amoebas behaviour can be found here[1], for example: When an amoeba encounters a chemical that attracts it, the chemoattractant binds to receptors on the amoeba's surface. The receptor then activates a protein called a G-protein, which activates a protein called PLC. The PLC modifies other molecules to create short-lived messengers that will activate other pathways necessary for movement by the cell. The story is pretty similar for any other behaviour they exhibit, its just a simple chain of chemical reactions triggered by an impulse from an environment. In contrast to many more complicated organisms where we hypothetically know the same to be the case (like humans?), in unicellular organisms we actually traced many of such pathways. People very emotionally cling to their beliefs about intelligence, and this blinds them to simple logic. This is the same thing at operation that caused the backslash against evolution theory. In the end I don't see why such determinism would sadden anyone, our everyday experience is what it is and its nature is not changed by learning that we react, in the end, somewhat automatically. [1] http://www.ehow.com/info_8517923_ways-amoeba-sees-responds.html http://www.ehow.com/info_8517923_ways-amoeba-sees-responds.h...