Assuming this holds up, everywhere we look, more systems, more organization, and it all just sort of happened by magic, oops, Darwinism. One wonders, at what point will the inability to distinguish between Darwinism and magic lead to some sort of re-evaluation of the origin of complex specified information in life forms?
Also, here’s a 2017 Abstract from Nature, noting that “Our results expand the known repertoire of ‘eukaryote-specific’ proteins in Archaea, indicating that the archaeal host cell already contained many key components that govern eukaryotic cellular complexity.” Thus they had that complexity back then. Not so good for Darwinism unless Darwinism is magic.
We are “trained,” if you like, to expect certain discoveries (dark matter, for example). Then we learn something significant that really surprises us and allows for new thinking about, for example, ecology.
Re proteins: “They have their own language, and we don’t know how it works,” he says. “We don’t know what makes a silk protein a silk protein or what patterns reflect the functions found in an enzyme. We don’t know the code.”
The most likely explanation is that death is a process of shutting down, rather than an instant when everything stops. The genes to grow a spinal column, for example, resurfaced but maybe they had been suppressed because the deceased already had one. Still much to learn but that’s a good hypothesis to test.
Says Greg Johnson, a computer vision and machine learning researcher at the Allen Institute for Cell Science, on seeing inside living cells.
Amazing how often so many life forms have just gotten lucky and tumbled into exactly what they needed via pure randomness.
Nicholson: “The recent introduction of novel experimental techniques capable of tracking individual molecules within cells in real time is leading to the rapid accumulation of data that are inconsistent with an engineering view of the cell.” Cells are more than machines but that only makes any form of Darwinism less likely.
If researchers find cells in a really clear state of preservation, who will be surprised if it turns out that they are a lot like modern cells but somehow that fact doesn’t point to anything. Darwinism, after all, can just happen in the twinkling of an eye…
Do viruses think? Not in the human sense. As with plants, these communications are signals, not abstractions. But the signals raise an important question: If viruses seek to remain in an organized state, why are they not “alive”? If they are not “alive,” what are they?
Talbott: Every organism is an entity in which certain ideas and intentions are manifest — observably expressed and realized. We have to be willing to say, as everyone does say, “This cell is preparing to divide.” We would never say (as I mentioned earlier), “This planet is preparing to make another circuit of the sun.”
The crux we now face: If there is so much intelligent organization in nature that a body resembles a state with a complex government, if there is no design, consciousness itself must also be an evolved illusion., That is a view that many quietly hold. But then science has no defence against the raging Woke, demanding that their grievances be science. There is no way to escape the dilemma: design or chaos
Notes. See also: From Philip Cunningham: Darwinian Materialism Vs Quantum Biology Follow UD News at Twitter!
The first cell was “quite similar to a stem cell”? This sounds like a case for intelligent design, lacking only the career suicide of saying so.
It sounds like a scheme. But the big question isn’t how cells protect themselves by very complex mechanisms but why? Boulders don’t seek to avoid becoming sand. Something is different about life that mechanical explanations do not address.