That would be refreshing.
You are telling us you suddenly found Jesus?
I believe you need to work on your reading comprehension. No, that's not what I'm "telling" you.
Or is it more like you see another threat to your evo-religion.
Evolution is not a religion, no matter how many times you mislabel it one, and I fail to see how the hypothesis in this thread would be a "threat" to it, even if it were true. So no, that's not my reason for doubting that this particular hypothesis is an "impressive work" which will "change the face of science forever".
My reason, as I believe I made clear enough to most readers, if not to you, is that this is just a vaguely stated retread of dozens of other hand-waving non-explanatory "explanations" of consciousness/thought/soul/etc. which have been made by over-enthusiastic folks for ages.
So since you've got such a poor track record at it, perhaps you should stop trying to speculate about my "ulterior motives" and instead concentrate just a tad more on what I've actually written.
You should embrace all science,
I do.
and if you really were interested in true science,
I am.
you would be ecstatic to see your theory of choice be subjected to any and all falsifications.
I am.
History is strewn with beard tugging scoffers that held up the progress of humanity because they were so entrenched in their own industry they viewed anything else as a threat.
True enough, but I suspect that my list of who qualifies as such is going to be considerably different than yours.
That ain't science, bud.
Absolutely, which is why I have raised objections in the past when you've viewed actual science as "a threat" to your own "entrenched" preconceptions.
But there are plenty of threads where that discussion is already ongoing, it's poor behavior for you to try to drag it into this one (in violation of the FreeRepublic posting guidelines, FYI), and if you want to pick a fight on it, choose another thread, this one should be reserved specifically for the issue that Betty Boop wishes to discuss, which contrary to your presumptions is only very peripherally related to the topic of evolution, if at all, since the "brain structures" that allegedly allow the brain to tap into the postulated UTF/PTF could have evolved to do so, for all we know. So this isn't the "challenge" to evolution you seem to want it to be.
Speaking of which, since you took the liberty to question my own motives, you shouldn't mind me returning the favor. It looks to me, from here and your past behavior, as if you're less interested in doing actual science or uncovering answers about the universe than you are in grasping at anything which you hope could challenge "orthodox" science. You frequently reject well-established and well-supported theories, while at the same time cheerfully swallowing any out-of-the-blue fringe idea without a shred of supporting research or evidence just because it's in defiance of established theories. You seem to get a kick out of trying to shake up those you conspiratorially see as wicked "establishment" scientists protecting the status quo, which you've got a real antipathy for. Contrary to your pretenses of caring about following the scientific method, you're actually gleeful about anything that assails it.
Now, why don't we get back to discussing Betty Boop's actual topic?