Design inference News

Design theory fighting cancer

Spread the love

Here.

A recent discovery highlights the importance of viewing living things as purposeful and goal-oriented systems. Here, scientists at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center discover that breast cancer cells are in sophisticated communication with a whole array of physiological processes within the body from wound repair to immune response to metabolic homeostasis and the blood clotting cascade – all from the very earliest stages. We can detect these communications in the plasma proteome as nascent cancer cells seek strategies and suitable recruits to assist metastasis.

It’s sort of like studying terrorists by listening to their communications chatter as they try to recruit and plan their attack, as opposed to studying them by watching them blow up a disco.

UD News staff are all veterans of  mid-life cancer funerals. Go ahead, Telic: Blow the cancer to hell.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

7 Replies to “Design theory fighting cancer

  1. 1
    dmullenix says:

    Ah, one of the top flight Christians who followed the Emperor to Constantinople, not a descendent of the dregs left behind in Rome. Congratulations.

    I think a very old universe is pretty well established. The earth-moon system is ~ four billion years old and changing that age would mean changing several radioactive half-lives, which is very unlikely.

    There might be some room to play with the 14 billion year age of the universe. If some supernovas turned out to have a different brightness than we think they have it could be older or younger. And the newly discovered expansion of the universe might change things too. But I think the 4 billion year age of the earth is very secure and the universe is certainly older than that.

    When reading the various combinatorial criticisms coming from ID and creationist sources, bear in mind that those figures are only as good as the author’s understanding of what they’re trying to “mathify” and none of the ID/Creationist stars that I’ve read seem to be very good at story problems. e.g. Dembski and his search spaces that evolution doesn’t actually search. For that matter, he doesn’t seem to realize that every living thing is already in one of the spaces life is supposedly searching for.

    It looks to me like the greatest delay in getting really complex life on earth was waiting for the oxygen levels to build up to where they were possible.

  2. 2
    dmullenix says:

    Sorry, hit the “reply” button again instead of “Post Comment”. This should have gone to the “Astronomy, Hawking, and the Importance of Being Info” thread.

  3. 3
    dmullenix says:

    Since the scientists at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center were probably NOT thinking of cancer as purposeful or goal oriented, the good old scientific method probably did the job again.

  4. 4
    arkady967 says:

    dmullenix:

    I wonder how much the scientific method needs Darwin to do successful research in medical science.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    arkady967 as to:

    I wonder how much the scientific method needs Darwin to do successful research in medical science.

    This is a good article for answering that:

    Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations – Michael Egnor – neurosurgeon – June 2011
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47701.html

    further notes:

    Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution – Jonathan Wells – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    Philip S. Skell – Professor at Pennsylvania State University.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....40981.html

    Is evolution pseudoscience?
    Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other?pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many.
    http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience

    C.S. Lewis: creationist and anti-evolutionist
    Excerpt: “In 1951 C S Lewis wrote that evolution was “the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives” and modern civilization. Evolution, Lewis explained, is a picture of reality that has resulted from imagination and is “not the logical result of what is vaguely called ‘modern science’.”
    http://creation.com/c-s-lewis

  6. 6
    dmullenix says:

    More than ID, apparently.

  7. 7
    bloodymurderlive says:

    Is there an alternative link for that article on teleology? It seems the link is broken.
    🙁

Leave a Reply