Scientists find quantum mechanics at work in photosynthesis

"Nature" is casually credited with the ability to gather experiences, deduce and optimize system using concepts we barely understand, and implement design changes that require manipulations of all manner of energies, particles and atomic structures we just now are beginning to discern. Yet we dare NOT call it God!

Of course Nature takes advantage of quantum mechanics!

Nature has been researching life for billions of years in an untold number of biochemical reactors, all squarely in the quantum realm. I expect it to not only take advantage of QM but to transcend QM and use mechanism which we don't even think exist yet.

Just sweep aside the recognition of potential upgrading, the analysis of available options to secure a better niche, and the implementation of appropriate changes necessary???

"Nature" is casually credited with the ability to gather experiences, deduce and optimize system using concepts we barely understand, and implement design changes that require manipulations of all manner of energies, particles and atomic structures we just now are beginning to discern. Yet we dare NOT call it God!

That these systems appear in so many species, seems to suggest, if not a design, certainly a learning/retentative process.

Happy accidents leave large trails of failures... where are they?

I'm just saying, lets be more perspicacious. Our vantage point is tiny, with abilities to match. I get a little crazy reading posts, and even watching Discovery, where they incessantly speak as though butterflies are designing their wing patterns, and complex systems,(like the eustation tube(sp?) mysteriously appears within the ear,(not accidently in the eye or lung) via a helter-skelter process! That these systems appear in so many species, seems to suggest, if not a design, certainly a learning/retentative process. Happy accidents leave large trails of failures... where are they?

Happy accidents leave large trails of failures... where are they?

What about the larger number of "nonsensical useless random modifications" that do NOT cause death? This is the "elephant" no one wants to address.

It would be far more surprising to learn that nature avoided using something in its own toolbox.

Any physical property that can be used by nature, will be used.

That's one of the ways "the fittest" out-compete the others.

It would be far more surprising to learn that nature avoided using something in its own toolbox.

It would be far more surprising to learn that nature avoided using something in its own toolbox.

So you are telling me that Nature makes conscious choices. I agree. Now we just have to get past the label!

Conciousness is a result of evolution

What a remarkable statement to assert!

Simply put, The First Cause is.

The evidence of consciousness is obvious.

Conciousness is a result of evolution

What a remarkable statement to assert! Do you have ANY data to support it?

Simply put, The First Cause is.

Simply put, The First Cause is.

There's no logical argument that can be made for any "first cause". In fact, logic leads one to conclude that no "first cause" is possible: time must be just as infinite as space, with no beginning, and no end. You can see this rather simply, by considering the notion of "existence": to exist, one needs context -- but then does the context exist?

Just like it's obvious that the Sun moves around on the sky, while the Earth stands still. You're projecting, and rather naively at that. Grow up. The universe is not made in your image, and it doesn't need you, nor any of your qualities. Your metaphysical views are both obviously anthropogenic, and painfully anthropomorphic.[/]
Again, a straw man argument. Perception is all any of us have. Through out history, the scientists of the day strutted and pontificated on one side, while the religionists did likewise on the other. No one has any absolute proofs of anything. My point in all this is that no matter the subject, actual reality is always much greater than the knowledge available, and for that matter understandable.
And please, stop with the rather unsophisticated "grow up" nonsense. I've spent 70 years participating in life and many levels in formulating my understanding. It sounds like you have just begun.

There's mountains of evidence -- structural, functional, fossil, genetic, biochemical -- for the former.

For the latter, all you need to do to convince yourself, is get drunk, or take some drugs, or have someone poke electrodes in your brain and stimulate random areas: then observe the effects upon your consciousness. Etc., etc.

Just like it's obvious that the Sun moves around on the sky, while the Earth stands still. You're projecting, and rather naively at that. Grow up. The universe is not made in your image, and it doesn't need you, nor any of your qualities. Your metaphysical views are both obviously anthropogenic, and painfully anthropomorphic.

My point in all this is that no matter the subject, actual reality is always much greater than the knowledge available, and for that matter understandable.

And please, stop with the rather unsophisticated "grow up" nonsense.

So you argue that damaging the physical mechanism, the “radio receiver” if you will, you have damaged the unseen “radio station”?

My point in all this is that no matter the subject, actual reality is always much greater than the knowledge available, and for that matter understandable.

And please, stop with the rather unsophisticated "grow up" nonsense.
People who live in glass houses... To wit: "Your characterization of "God" is childish..."

There's mountains of evidence -- structural, functional, fossil, genetic, biochemical -- for the former.

Fossils of consciousness? Really?

The "logic" we use, is pretty much a human creation. If quantum physics teaches us nothing else, it should knock us off our high horses about what is "logical".

It was, because everyone I know, believes in consciousness, no matter their individual interpretation.

The characterization was indeed how a child might describe God.

Conciousness is another term for being self aware.

That's an over-simplification. There are many degrees of self-awareness. And it can be argued that human consciousness is qualitatively much more sophisticated than the consciousness of a fish.