Tufts biologist asks, where is anatomy coded in living systems?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 25, 2022

Biology, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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:

Comments

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:
Biologists don't love to think about goal directed processes, the idea is, there supposed to be emergence and kind of emergent complexity, but this idea that things are working towards a goal the way that any navigational system fundamentally does, is really not something that is very comfortable certainly for molecular biology ...
:)))))))))))martin_r_{December 25, 2022
December
12
Dec
25
25
2022
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

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."
On the problem of biological form - Marta Linde-Medina (2020) Excerpt: 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. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-020-00317-3
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."
Between Sapientia and Scientia — Michael Aeschliman’s Profound Interpretation -James Le Fanu – September 9, 2019 Excerpt: The ability to spell out the full sequence of genes should reveal, it was reasonable to assume, the distinctive genetic instructions that determine the diverse forms of the millions of species, so readily distinguishable one from the other. Biologists were thus understandably disconcerted to discover precisely the reverse to be the case. Contrary to all expectations, many DNA sequences involved in embryo development are remarkably similar across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimeter-long worm to ourselves.7 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. So we have moved in the very recent past from supposing we might know the principles of genetic inheritance to recognizing we have no realistic conception of what they might be. As Phillip Gell, professor of genetics at the University of Birmingham, observed, “This gap in our knowledge is not merely unbridged, but in principle unbridgeable and our ignorance will remain ineluctable.”8 https://evolutionnews.org/2019/09/between-sapientia-and-scientia-michael-aeschlimans-profound-interpretation/
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.,,,"
Genes and Organisms: Improvising the Dance of Life - Stephen L. Talbott - Nov. 10, 2015 Excerpt: The performances of countless cells in your body are redirected and coordinated as part of a global narrative for which no localized controller exists. This redirection and coordination includes a unique choreography of gene expression in each individual cell. Hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences move (or are moved) within vast numbers of cell nuclei, and are subjected to extraordinarily nuanced, locally modulated chemical activity so as to contribute appropriately to bodily requirements that are nowhere codified — least of all in those DNA sequences.,,, http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2015/genes_29.htm
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."
Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. 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. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html
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."
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
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."
Intelligent Design and the Advancement of Science - Brian Miller - December 11, 2017 Excerpt: DNA was expected to be the primary source of causality behind the operation and development of life. Such beliefs have previously raised concerns from leading scientists and mathematicians. For instance, physicist Walter Elsasser argued that the unfathomable complexity of the chemical and physically processes in life was “transcomputational” — beyond the realm of any theoretical means of computation. Moreover, the development of the embryo is not solely directed by DNA. Instead, it requires new “biotonic” principles. As a result, life cannot be reduced to chemistry and physics. An unbridgeable gap separates life from non-life. Similarly, mathematician René Thom argued that the 3D patterns of tissues in an organism’s development from egg to birth and their continuous transformation cannot be understood in terms of isolating the individual proteins generated by DNA and other molecules produced in cells. The problem is that the individual “parts” composing tissues and organs only take on the right form and function in the environment of those tissues and organs. More recent work by Denis Noble further has elucidated how every level of the biological hierarchy affects every other level, from DNA to tissues to the entire organism. Based partly on these insights, Thom concluded in his book Structural Stability and Morphogenesis that the process of development should be thought of as being controlled by an “algebraic structure outside space-time itself” (p. 119). Likewise, Robert Rosen argued that life can only be understood as a mathematical abstraction consisting of functional relationships, irreducible to mechanistic processes. He observed that life is fundamentally different from simple physics and chemistry. It embodies the Aristotelian category of final causation, which is closely related to the idea of purpose. The conclusions of these scholars challenge materialistic philosophy at its core. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/intelligent-design-and-the-advancement-of-science/
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?
Psalm 139:13 For You formed my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
Supplemental note:
Oct. 2022 - So since Darwinian Atheists, as a foundational presupposition of their materialistic philosophy, (and not from any compelling scientific evidence mind you), deny the existence of souls, (and since the materialist’s denial of souls, (and God), has led (via atheistic tyrants) to so much catastrophic disaster on human societies in the 20th century), then it is VERY important to ‘scientifically’ establish the existence of these ‘souls’ that are of incalculable worth, and that are equal, before God. https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/what-must-we-do-when-the-foundations-are-being-destroyed/#comment-768496 Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77_{December 25, 2022
December
12
Dec
25
25
2022
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply