In the the "theory of intelligent design" thread, the OP posted an interesting link to research by Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Ph.D. called Cell Intelligence.
http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/FRAME.HTM

Here's Albrecht-Buehler's definition.

An intelligent cell contains a compartment, which is capable of collecting and integrating a variety of physically different and unforeseeable signals as the basis of problem-solving decisions.

I have read the intro and quite a few sections and from what I understand, he's not an IDer and attributes cell intelligence to evolution. I don't have the science background to know if he's stretching the data and definitions to meet what he's looking to find or erring in the science. To me, it seems that he at least lays out the evidence of his findings for verification (instead of simply making assertions). I am curious if this is a legit study to continue reading.

The problem with ideas like this is to define "intelligence". When does a chemical and/or mechanical reflex become intelligent?. Taking as an example ( I haven't read the link yet) the reactions of a single celled animal like an amoeba to light or food are these intelligent? Or go to some of the posts by some multi-celluar animals on this forum the same observation applies.

Spearthrower wrote:There may be a variety of unforseeable signals,

That's what I was thinking. A sceince article in Esquire came to mind when I was reading this, it's about scientist Erik Schadt and the work he's doing on uncovering networks of genes and proteins that until recently have been invisible. There may exist an invisible network that would provide the answer Albrecht-Buehler is looking for.

Link to Esquire article
http://www.esquire.com/features/eric-schadt-0411?click=main_sr

Albrecht-Buehler's paper is still interesting to me, because of the details of his experiments. If cells behave the way he describes them, that is if his science is correct about how a cell reacts to its environment, then I will have learned something new. I can easily attribute the parts where he talks about forces or chemistry being too weak to cause an action to a limitation in our technology to uncover these forces. But if his science about how cells work is obviously wrong I would prefer to not read it.

ramseyoptom wrote:The problem with ideas like this is to define "intelligence". When does a chemical and/or mechanical reflex become intelligent?. Taking as an example ( I haven't read the link yet) the reactions of a single celled animal like an amoeba to light or food are these intelligent? Or go to some of the posts by some multi-celluar animals on this forum the same observation applies.

From what I gather, he's saying that the cell has the ability to react to its environment beyond its mechanics. I don't have to accept that he is right about this. For a laymen like me, his paper is easy and entertaining to read and I feel if I can learn about how cells work it is worth the read.