Philip Cunningham writes to say (and quote),
Michael Levin, a Distinguished Professor in the Biology department at Tufts, after giving several examples of top-down ‘biological form’, not bottom-up ’emergence’, being the ruling factor in embryological development, states that…
“OK, so one very canonical example of this that we discovered a few years ago is this. So here’s a tadpole, the gut, the brain, the nostrils, and the eyes here. This tadpole needs to become a frog. In order for a tadpole face to become a frog face, things have to move. So the jaw has to move, the eyes have to move forward, everything has to move. And it used to be thought that this process was hardwired because if you are a standard tadpole and you want to be a standard frog, all you have to remember is which direction and by how much every piece of the face moves. We suspected that there was more intelligence to this process than that, and so we did an experiment. We created so-called “Picasso’ frogs. So these are tadpoles in which everything is messed up. The eyes are on the side of the head, the jaws are off to the side, the nostrils are too far back. I mean everything is in the wrong position. And we found that these animals still, largely, make pretty normal frogs. Because all of these pieces will move in novel paths, sometimes they go too far and have to double back, to give you a normal frog.
“So what the genetics give you is not some hardwired system that always moves in the same way. What it specifies is a really interesting error minimization machine that, however you start it off, obviously within some limits, will try to minimize the error and get to the correct final shape. If we had a robotic swarm, a collection of robots that was able to do this we would call this a prize winning example of collective intelligence, but we don’t have such technology yet.
“So we started trying to understand this process. How does all this work? And so to this standard feed-forward, kind of open, process of developmental biology that you would read about in class, where there are genes, they make proteins… there’s some physics and chemistry, and then there is this ’emergent’ outcome (i.e. of the ‘anatomy’). Add to these feedback loops, whereby this is actually a homeostatic system. If that anatomy is disrupted in some way, by injury, by mutations, by teratogens, by parasites, whatever, then these feedback loops will kick in and try to minimize error. The cells will do what they can to try to get back to the correct shape. It’s a thing about your thermostat. It is a basic homeostatic circuit. Now, on the one hand, this is pretty expected. Biologists know all about feedback loops and so on. On the other hand, there are two kinds of weird and unusual things here. The first is that every homeostatic process has to have a set point. So, if you are going to try to get back to where you need to be, you need to remember where the right position is. You have to store a set point. We are used to thinking about scalars, single numbers, as set points, temperature, PH, things like that, but in this case the set point is some sort of a large scale geometry, It is a coarse grain descriptor of some kind of anatomy. A complex data structure. And, in general, biologists don’t love to think about goal directed processes. The idea is that there is supposed to be emergence (of anatomy), and that kind of emergent complexity, but this idea that things are working towards a goal, as any navigational system fundamentally does, is not something that is very comfortable, certainly for molecular biology.
“So how would something like this work? How could we have a navigating system that can have goals in anatomical space?” — Michael Levin – Where is Anatomy Encoded in Living Systems? – 11:33 minute mark
Well, when science is not comfortable with the evidence, either something is wrong with the science or something is wrong with the evidence. One solution is to ignore — or deprecate — the evidence. There is another solution but it’s controversial just now…
Merry Christmas to all, especially those stranded by bad weather! This is for you:
As “Picasso” frogs give ample evidence of, Darwinists, with their ‘bottom-up’ reductive materialistic framework, are simply at a complete loss to explain how ‘biological form’ can supposedly ’emerge’ from ‘bottom-up’ materialistic processes during embryological development.
In fact, as the following article notes, “Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis, (neo-Darwinism) as irrelevant.,,, At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.”
Contrary to popular belief, there is simply nothing within DNA which can be said to be the ‘blueprint’ for what final form an organism may take.
As James Le Fan succinctly put it, “There is, in short, nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly should have six legs, a pair of wings, and a dot-sized brain and we should have two arms, two legs, and a mind capable of comprehending that overarching history of our universe.”
DNA does not even control itself, much less can it possibly dictate what final form an organism may take. As Talbott put it, “The performances of countless cells in your body are redirected and coordinated as part of a global narrative for which no localized controller exists.,,, Hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences move (or are moved) within vast numbers of cell nuclei,,,, that are nowhere codified — least of all in those DNA sequences.,,,”
And as Jonathan Wells noted, “I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
Moreover, this failure of the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinists to be able to explain, via DNA, what macroscopic form an organism may take occurs at a much lower level than DNA itself.
In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
Of related interest to the fact that the final macroscopic form of an organism is irreducible to DNA, in the following article Brian Miller notes that “life was “transcomputational” — beyond the realm of any theoretical means of computation” and that, “the process of development should be thought of as being controlled by an “algebraic structure outside space-time itself”, and that, “life can only be understood as a mathematical abstraction consisting of functional relationships, irreducible to mechanistic processes.”
In short, and in conclusion, and as “Picasso” frogs, in and of themselves, give ample evidence of, in order to give an adequate explanation for what final macroscopic form an organism may take, we are forced to ditch the reductive materialistic, DNA-centered, explanations of Darwinists and appeal to a cause that is beyond space and time.
Might I suggest the ‘top-down’ cause of God?
Supplemental note:
I strongly recommend to anyone to watch this lecture … ( It was published a week ago, it is very new)
Especially our atheist-friends (Seversky, ChuckD, Sir Giles, Alan Fox and Co.) should watch it …
Professor Levin is a mainstream Darwinian researcher, obviously, he believes in evolution, he is mentioning evolution all the time, but he sounds like an ID proponent …
His breakthrough-research is another nail to Darwinian-theory-of-evolution coffin … and he just started …
I like the final moments of this lecture, where he is explaining:
:)))))))))))
Where Is Anatomy Coded In Living Systems?
Silence will fall when the question is asked. Once I asked Professor Moran, who holds that most of our DNA is junk, where the body plan is encoded. His astonishing answer: “… experts do not see a need to encode body plans and brain in our genome.”
What I appreciate is Professor Levin’s insights and candor. He doesn’t seem motivated by covering for any particular narrative–unlike many Darwinists.
He points out the gaps that are normally spackled over with Magical Musta ™ thinking, which basically stops science with Darwin-of-the-gaps rationalizations or denial such as Professor Moran’s pathetic appeal to authority.
To find out the true source of such rationalizations, let’s assume the following:
1. In 13.8 billion years, it’s not unlikely that many advanced civilizations arose in the universe.
2. Many of those civilizations probably collapsed, perhaps due to global war or environmental disasters.
3. A few of them were able to create biological life and were capable of seeding earth-like planets.
4. Considering the EVIDENCE that we currently have available for a 4.5 billion year time frame, it seems MORE LIKELY at this point that life on earth was seeded than emerged due to some completely unknown process.
5. However, prominent people in the scientific establishment are dead set against any such scenario, EVEN THOUGH IT’S A MORE LIKELY CAUSE.
Gosh, I wonder why . . .
-Q
Bornagain77/1
Developmental biology is less at a loss than Intelligent Design/Creationism which has no explanation at all of how other than to gesture vaguely towards the sky and mutter about “top down”.
The “blueprint” metaphor is yet another analogy from engineering that is found to be somewhat less than informative. The recipe is usually offered as a better alternative, as I’m sure you’re aware.
James Le Fanu is a retired British general practitioner and journalist not a geneticist or developmental biologist.
And anyone who doubts the role of the genome in the formation of living organisms is invited to look up gene knockout experiments or the thalidomide disaster or teratology.
Brian Miller’s educational background is physics and engineering. Why am I not surprised?
If “something” exists outside space and time and is not comprised of matter/energy then what is it? How is it different from nothing? How can it be said to exist at all?
You can suggest anything you like but God “poofing” stuff into existence has less evidence to support it than developmental biology.
Wow. Just wow.
Thank you, News, for the article. And thank you BA77 for the supplemental information.
It is one thing to code for proteins. It is another to position and purpose those proteins.
The materialist says: “We do not yet understand. Scientists will learn given more time.”
But it is 2022. Human intelligence cannot answer these questions and yet supposedly random processes acting upon primordial soup (good ol’ “Pond Scum”) somehow produced all this? I say, let us all give Pond Scum a tip of the hat, perhaps a round of applause, insofar as Pond Scum appears more knowledgeable and capable than our best and brightest. Pond Scum needs to stop withholding information from our researchers. Perhaps Pond Scum can start sharing his findings in our better peer reviewed journals.
Perhaps the committees in Norway should award Pond Scum a Nobel prize.
Or perhaps we could all be smart enough to realize that these things could not and did not make themselves.
Merry Christmas to all (yes, you, too, Seversky)! But hold that thought until January 6 or 7 if you are Eastern Orthodox.
Blastus @6,
Heh, indeed!
It’s simply amazing how an unknown and non-repeatable random process supposedly obviates any and all alternatives, including that life began elsewhere and seeded biological life on earth.
But rather than a Nobel prize, how about an award of the “Lebon prize” for hindering scientific progress on a heroic scale?
And why should even a naturalistic alternative be unthinkable? After all, NASA publishes a list of degrees programs in astrobiology:
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/careers-employment-courses/
So, what are the odds that life on earth is the most advanced in the entire universe? Doesn’t the principle of parsimony suggest the simplest and most likely explanation?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/parsimony-principle
-Q
Seversky,
first of all, I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
you wrote:
first, you have to ask yourself, why biologists use engineers’ jargon all the time … you know, “machines … sensors … design … blueprint …etc. ” or, my favorite ones, “GENETIC ENGINEERING” … “SYSTEM BIOLOGY” :)))))))
Second, you suggest to call it “a recipe” instead of “a blueprint” …
Are you saying, that to create a recipe, you don’t need an engineer ? :)))))))
Are you saying, that a recipe was not engineered ?
Are you saying, that e.g. a cook who invents/designs new foods is not a food engineer ? :)))))
What is he then ?
Sev states, “And anyone who doubts the role of the genome in the formation of living organisms is invited to look up gene knockout experiments or the thalidomide disaster or teratology.”
Apparently birth defects, which are, by definition, deformations of an organism’s form, are proof, in and of themselves, for Seversky that the an organism’s form can be reduced to DNA?
Yet the argument is NOT that mutations, and/or disruptions, to DNA cannot have detrimental effects that mar what final form an organism may take. Shoot, everybody knows that random mutations to DNA are overwhelmingly detrimental in their effects on an organism. (Which is a empirical fact, in and of itself, that falsifies Darwinism, see Behe, “Darwin Devolves”), the argument, as “Picasso” frogs give ample evidence of, is that DNA cannot possibly be the ‘master controller’ that dictates what final form an organism may take. As Denis Noble once put it, “DNA is an organ of the cell, not its dictator”.
Darwinists simply have no evidence that mutations to DNA can specify what basic form an organism may take. As Jonathan Wells states in the following article, Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.
Again Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic, DNA centered, framework, are simply at a complete loss to explain how an organism might achieve its final form during embryological development. Appealling to mutations, or disruptions, to DNA, as Seversky did, only further accentuates the fact that Darwinists are at a complete loss to explain how an organism might achieve its final form.
Seversky then goes on to state, “If “something” exists outside space and time and is not comprised of matter/energy then what is it? How is it different from nothing? How can it be said to exist at all?”
And this is the key, and fatal, flaw in the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic framework. If something is not composed of matter and energy, it simply does not exist for reductive materialists.
Yet, as Sedgwick scolded Charles Darwin himself, “There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly”
In fact, both ‘persons’ and mathematics, since they are not reducible to matter and energy, simply don’t exist for the Darwinian materialist.
In fact, the thing that makes us “more different from apes than apes are from viruses” is the fact that we can think ‘abstractly’. Which is to say, we can think ‘immaterially’.
Moreover, it is not as if we do not have abundant empirical evidence that immaterial entities, (such as mathematics, logic, and mind), can have pronounced effects on the material realm.
The computer sitting right in front of Seversky’s face is undeniable proof that the immaterial realms of mathematic, logic, and mind, can have pronounced ‘top-down’ effects on the material realm,
Indeed, much of modern day technology simply would not exist if ‘abstract’, i.e. immaterial, mathematics did not have pronounced effects on the matter/energy realm.
As well, since Seversky holds that if something is not composed of matter and energy then it simply does not exist at all, then Seversky is also forced to hold that non-local quantum information, and/or entanglement, does not exist at all since it is, ‘notoriously’, not reducible to his simplistic “everything is matter/energy” explanations.
As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
And as Anton Zeilinger stated at the end of his recent Nobel prize lecture, “These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,,”
Thus Seversky can deny that anything ‘immaterial’ exists beyond his reductive materialistic, i.e. ‘matter/energy’, framework all he wants, but the fact remains that his computer sitting right in front of his face would not exist, shoot Seversky himself would not even exist, and even science itself would be impossible, if the immaterial entities of information, mathematics, logic, and minds, did not have pronounced ‘top-down’ causal effects on the material realm.
Of supplemental note,
Notice that there is no assertion that there is a solution to gestation organization. Only that ID is fantasy.
Just, a complete diversion to something irrelevant. This is the typical objection to ID. It just could not have happened.
It is the begging the question fallacy, the most common fallacy of the anti ID commenter. In other words there is no real objection, just rhetoric to divert.
From a comment made last night.
Maybe this should be looked at in more detail.
My understanding is that thalidomide interfered with gene expression. This is very different from cell type placement. No one is arguing that DNA is not important in the body. What is being argued is that the detailed instructions for cell type designation and placement is not in DNA.
What cause not only gene expression to massively change by cell type but where to precisely place these very different cell types. Maybe an analogy is a tool box vs a detailed plan on how to use the tools where and when.
Blastus
exactly … and then, we will learn that:
“…current concepts are reviewed…”
“…uprooting current thinking….”
“…latest findings contradict the current dogma….”
“… it challenges a long-held theory…”
“… it upends a common view…”
“… in contrast to the decades-long dogma …”
“… it needs a rethink … ”
“… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ”
“… it shakes up the dogma … ”
“… earlier than thought…”
“… younger than thought….”
“… smarter than thought ….”
“… more complex than thought ….”
“… a fossil defies textbook explanation …”
“… a fossil overturns more than a century of knowledge”
“… fossils upends conventional wisdom….”
“… it challenges central principle in biology…”
“…it casts doubt in Established Evolution Beliefs….”
“… new discovery puts into question existing models…”
Seversky at 5,
You don’t get it, do you? Evolution – as NASA and a bunch of speculators – will tell you, relies on poof creation. Inorganic matter poofs into something alive. Don’t know how or when but the speculators have unlimited faith that it happened. And the public believes it. Why should they? Because scientists – given millions of years and virtually unlimited combinations of chemicals – have put their faith – not their science, their faith in poof, it was inorganic and dead one minute and alive the next.
I hope you get it now.
Relatd @14,
Not a chance, and here’s why. It’s because the ideological implications are too disturbing to consider. Thus, science becomes limited to rigid doctrine. There are no exceptions. All must be approved by the priests, bishops, and cardinals of the science-fantasy religion of Darwinism.
It’s a safe, mechanistic world for their true believers.
-Q
Querius at 15,
If ID is accepted by the public, it means the collapse of the unguided evolution fantasy. People will realize that the designer is God. That means a return to religious orthodoxy. That cannot be allowed to happen. So, in order to convince the public that evolution still has some merit, some post here as if ID does not exist. Or should not be accepted.
Martin_r/8
And the same to you!
Because it’s a handy vocabulary that can be co-opted for use in biology. Now, ask yourself, how many of those in the life sciences who use such language do so because they belief life was created by a Supreme Engineer?
You can stretch the meaning of “engineering” to include cookery if you want but I don’t see any advantage unless you are trying to elevate engineering to some sort of theory of everything.
Bornagain77/9
Not proof but certainly evidence.
In which case, you are conceding that genes do affect the physical form of an organism.
Also, as you’ve ben told many times before, the current position is that the majority of mutations are neutral or nearly neutral in effect, a much smaller number are detrimental and a much smaller number still are beneficial. And whether or not a mutation is detrimental or beneficial depends on the environment in which it occurs.
In other words, mutating embryonic DNA can have an observable effect on the form of the fruit fly but the knowledge and mutagenetic tools available to science at this point are too crude to affect the form any more precisely and predictably.
In which case, if you want to persuade us that this immaterial realm exists in any meaningful sense you should give us some idea of what and how.
“Persons” and even “mathematics” are concepts that exist in our mental model of reality but that doesn’t mean they have any existence beyond that. The Lord of the Rings exists in our mental model but is not held to exist anywhere beyond that.
What makes you – or Egnor – think that other apes cannot think abstractly at least to some extent?
How can an immaterial entity have any effect on the physical realm of matter/energy?
Relatd/14
It sounds like you are confusing several issues.
The theory of evolution does not say anything about the origins of life.
Abiogenesis is the field that investigates how life might have arisen from non-living matter. You’re right that there is no well-established theory of abiogenesis yet
A lot of the public reject both evolution and abiogenesis which concerns me but should please you.
So we have a choice between some form of abiogenesis or some form of Designer/Creator as to which is the more “poofy”. How would you suggest we decide between them?
Frankly Seversky, seeing as you, basically, wildly waved your hands around without presenting any actual evidence, I am quite glad to let my post stand as stated. As “Picasso” frogs give ample evidence of, DNA does not, and cannot, dictate the final form of an organism.
Seversky at 19,
This is not my first encounter with the uncrossable barrier between the first life and evolution. Face it – no first life, no evolution.
I choose God – Jesus Christ – through Him all things were made.
John 1:3
“All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Ba77 at 20,
What does dictate the final forms of humans, insects and fish?
Sev/19
Dueling pistols at twenty paces. I just hope you are a good shot, Seversky. The entire weight of western civilization is on your shoulders. But hey, no pressure……
The Creator is + 20 million to dodge. There goes Seversky…
“What does dictate the final forms of humans, insects and fish?”
per post 1
Of related interest is the ‘top-down’ fossil record,:
Here is Linnaeus’s ‘top down’ classification scheme which is still in use today:
Ba77 at 25,
My question has to do with the instructions that result in a human embryo, a fish embryo, etc. What are these instructions? Where are they stored?
Perhaps you should have read my post at 1 that I referenced?,, for instance this part, “the process of development should be thought of as being controlled by an “algebraic structure outside space-time itself”, and that, “life can only be understood as a mathematical abstraction consisting of functional relationships, irreducible to mechanistic processes.”
In other words, there is no material medium, DNA or otherwise, in an embryonic cell to which a reductive materialist can point and say, “AHA, and that is where the final form of an organism is stored!”
The ‘final form’ of an organism is forever beyond any possible reductive materialistic explanation, and as such, a ‘top-down’ non-material cause must be sought, hence my comment, ,,, “Might I suggest the ‘top-down’ cause of God?”
Supplemental note:
Seversky
but engineering is the theory of everything …
This is what most people including biologists don’t get.
Without engineers, there would be nothing … PERIOD.
Seversky
So you insist, that a cook is not an engineer.
How else would you describe the process of inventing/designing new foods/food recipes ?
Does it mean, that such a person, has to have an university degree or some certificate that he is an engineer ?
Wasn’t a caveman an engineer when he designed the first stone/wood axe ?
In regards engineers’ jargon you wrote:
So why don’t they use cooks’ jargon ? you know, the recipe-thing ? Or any other jargon ? why engineers’ jargon all the time ?
Martin_r @29,
As you wish! 🙂
LIFE ON EARTH RECIPE
Serves at least 8 billion or more.
INGREDIENTS
• 2.68 x 10^21 kg water
https://www.space.com/27256-earth-water-older-than-sun.html
• 5.5 x 10^18 kg Nickle-iron alloy of at least 90% iron
• Generous amounts of K40, U235, U238, and Th232 radioactive seeds and spices
https://www.livescience.com/radioactive-meteorites-seeded-life-on-earth
• About 6 × 10^24 kg minerals
• 5 x 10^18 kg gases, mostly Nitrogen (78%), Oxygen (21%)
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/
DIRECTIONS
1. Form the Nickle-iron alloy into a tight ball of around 1000 km in diameter.
2. Take HALF the water and mix it together with the dry minerals.
3. Knead the water-soaked minerals together with the radioactive seeds and spices.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133963-theres-as-much-water-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/
4. Form the mixture around the core into a ball of about 12.7 x 10^3 km in diameter and cover with the rest of the water (about 1.34 x 10^21 kg).
5. Season liberally with rocky meteorites and during baking. Form any leftovers into a smaller ball called “the moon.”
6. Bake in the solar system for about 4 billion years until a delicious crust forms that bubbles and steams from the radioactive seeds and spices inside. The green fuzzy stuff that covers the crust and floats around in the water is called “life” should soon form spontaneously by itself. If nothing happens, try sprinkling it with more meteorites, static electricity, gamma rays, and everything else you can think of. If you get stuck, call the Tour Group: https://www.jmtour.com/
7. Rest. You deserve it!
Enjoy!
-Q
P.S. It’s also interesting to note that the earth is the densest planet in the solar system and that the average density of Jupiter is close to that of corn syrup.
Form determines content.