Evolution Intelligent Design

Who Designed This?

Spread the love

Darwinists want to argue that natural selection is teleological. That cellular systems are able to ‘find’ solutions to life’s challenges because of the cell’s ability to reproduce. Using an analogy to mathematical problem solving, this is, in reality, no more than implementing an iterative process. And, as such, the question to be asked is: do we, even now, have a computer powerful enough, and a scientific sophistication capable enough, to find the kinds of solutions nature has found? Article after article are now appearing that tell us the answer is ‘no’.

But, prescinding from this question, let’s look at the latest such article, one dealing with ‘microtubules’. Microtubules form the very structure of cells; they give cells their 3-dimensional character. Cells couldn’t reproduce without microtubules. And what is it we see now? Microtubules represent an engineering skill that is completely beyond anything humans have been able to do so far. But, if microtubules are essential to cell reproduction, then how could this possibly be the result of an ‘iterative’ process? Who engineered this miracle of design? This is more than just a challenge for abiogenesis advocates. If ‘iterative’ processes are completely unable to explain what we see here, what does this say about our confidence in invoking them when it comes to other engineering marvels we find in Nature?


“We found that the microtubules grow stiffer as they grow longer, a very unusual and surprising result,” said Ernst-Ludwig Florin, assistant professor with the Center of Nonlinear Dynamics at The University of Texas at Austin. “This will have a big impact on our understanding of how microtubules function in the cell and on advancing materials research.

“To my knowledge, no manmade material has this property–to become stiffer as it elongates,” said Florin. “This research could lead to the design of novel materials based on this biological structure.”

12 Replies to “Who Designed This?

  1. 1
    SCheesman says:

    Well, I can guess the response:

    1. Microtubules were originally much simpler than at present, but still adequate to allow cells to reproduce.
    2. Through RM/NS (*a miracle occurs*) some cells developed the properties found here.
    3. Natural selection ensured this superior solution is what remains around today.

    I think a better approach would be to determine the list of essential components, proteins etc required in the construction of a microtubule and add it to the list of irreducibly complex structures, should it fit the bill.

  2. 2
    DaveScot says:

    This is another example why the controversy isn’t at the level of how eyes and wings and feathers and immune systems and flagella could have evolved. The specification for all these things and much, much more are contained in single microscopic cells. That’s why the ballyhooed 150 years of acceptance of Darwinian evolution is irrelevent – it was based on vastly incomplete knowledge of the nanometer scale machinery and information that drives all of life. Even today we have barely scratched the surface of this nanotechnology marvel that is the DNA based living cell. All previous bets are off. The modern synthesis can best be described as obsolete – a patchwork quilt of ad hoc hypotheses propping up a failed theory worse than the epicycles used to keep alive the theory that the earth was the center of the universe.

  3. 3
    sagebrush gardener says:

    In a similar story, a microbiologist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington has discovered that “a microbe which transforms toxic metals can sprout tiny electrically conductive wires from its cell membrane. A colleague … later reported that he, too, was able to coax nanowires from another so-called metal-reducing bacteria species and further suggested the wires, called pili, could be used to bioengineer electrical devices.”


  4. 4
    jerry says:

    This is not related to microtubles but indicates that exquisitely designed organs are only a short time away when it become necessary to have them. Namely, the eye.

    Wikipedia has added a new page in the last couple weeks called “Evolution of the Eye” which makes the claim that ID has abandoned claiming the eye is irreducibly complex “because of the relatively thorough understanding of its evolutionary origins biologists now have”


    They then make the further interesting claim that “As certain organisms benefited from the dramatic advantages given by full-fledged eyes, many other organisms were forced to evolve similarly advanced eyes in order to compete. As a result, the majority of major developments in eyes are thought to have occurred over the span of only a few million years.”

    A new variation of a “just so story”, the competition made me do it.

    One of Darwin’s laments was that ‘older’ scientists just didn’t have enough imagination to accept his theory. His hope was with the younger–and presumably more imaginative–generation. You have to admit these Darwinists sure have some kind of imagination!

    Hahahaha – the competition made me do it. Good one! 😆 -ds

  5. 5
    Charlie says:

    Davescot, you are exactly right.
    At MacNeill’s blog he is trying to determine exactly what Behe is arguing against in DBB, and exactly what is left of Darwinism if we admit that Behe is right.

    This is exactly why I initiated the discussion that I did: creationists and IDers use Behe’s book (but not the arguments he actually presents between its covers) to undermine ALL of evolutionary theory (that’s why I included the comments from the back cover; because they illustrate precisely this point). And that’s why evolutionary biologists attach his book so vigorously: because Behe “slides” back and forth between a limited attack against the spontaneous origin of life and selected biochemical pathways and an implication that this somehow undermines the whole of evolutionary theory.

    We generally agreed last night (including all but one of the ID supporters) that Darwinian “descent with modification” would be left entirely untouched even if Behe’s arguments were accepted without modification. Do you agree?

    Descent with modification, is irrelevant. If ‘Darwinism’ doesn’t apply at the molecular scale, if IC is truly an impediment, then Darwinism does not apply, period.
    Evidence of common descent and the the efficacy of natural selection at the organismal level matter not the least when the very molecules constituting the organism refute the idea of incremental adaptations each beneficial and selectable.

    As Darwin said, “”if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1988), p. 154)
    Once broken who cares about the remaining pieces?

  6. 6
    kjk says:

    Cheers all,

    I am aware that ID is not monolithic, but I was pretty sure that all or nearly all ID advocates still regard the eye as irreducibly complex. Is that not still true?

    Ken Kelly

  7. 7
    idadvisors says:

    Their saying matter knows how to find solutions to lifes challenges. This notion couldn’t be more wrong. The essential point is intelligence imposed on matter–mind knows how to attain ends. Nucleotide bases and protiens are the means or preconditions which are satisfied. Eric Peterson

  8. 8
    JGuy says:

    What will be the kicker is when it is discovered that microtubules are one essential key in defining an organisms morphology, and not exclusively the genes. (irt: Dr. Jonothan Wells’ chapter in the book “Signs of Intelligence”)

    Then not only, without the microtubules, would a cell not replicate, it wouldn’t form any complex multicellular organisms.

  9. 9
    Bob OH says:

    Darwinists want to argue that natural selection is teleological.

    That needs a “not” in there.


    “As certain organisms benefited from the dramatic advantages given by full-fledged eyes, many other organisms were forced to evolve similarly advanced eyes in order to compete. As a result, the majority of major developments in eyes are thought to have occurred over the span of only a few million years.”

    The competition (natural selection) forced animals to develop eyes very quickly to better compete isn’t teleological? Bullcrap. Maybe you should look up the definition first. This is on a teleological par with a writer getting a computer so he can better compete. Sheesh. You church burnin’ ebola boys can’t help yourselves. You can’t guard your language well enough to keep references to teleology and design out of your discussions of biology. That should tell you something but evidently it doesn’t. In any case it’s really funny from my perspective.

    Looky here

    For example, naturalism would say that a person has sight simply because they have eyes. In other words, function follows form (eyesight follows from having eyes). Teleology is the reverse of this position: a person has eyes because they have the need of eyesight. In this case, form follows function (eyes follow from having the need for eyesight).


  10. 10
    idadvisors says:

    Bob OH, critical problems still remain with Darwinism. Accordingly, then, an organism develops eyes(means) for the sake of competing better(end). We know dna instructs/directs the construction of eyes; yet Darwinists argue the cause is purposeless. I’m lost. Specific goals require specific causes. Not so for Darwinians. Unspecified causes(RM) are responsible for rotory flagellar motors? This type of senselessness not only lacks intellectual integrity, but also is dangerous. It’s like Darwin arguing with a programmer of a shipyard cnc mill that makes propellers–“random machining events will produce the propellor we need.” How long would DARWIN SHIPYARDS be in business.

  11. 11
    idadvisors says:

    It’s like Mr. Ed winning the Kentucky Derby.(from an excellent UD blog)

  12. 12
    idadvisors says:

    To William,

    I, Eric Peterson, herein propose a thread listing possible business, safety and legal casualties which could occur if Darwin ran a shipyard. “Our ships never sink after launch, they sink during launch.”(Darwin)

Leave a Reply