It makes sense if you think in terms of recycling. A recent Nature Molecular Cell Biology paper prompts this reflection:
Cells are environmentally “green” — they are experts at recycling. Why let all those amino acids, sugars, and other building blocks go to waste? While living, the cell keeps its lysosomes and proteasomes (molecular machines that recycle substrates) busy dismantling spent proteins and sending the components to recycling centers. Eventually, the whole cell’s work is done, or worse, has become infected and needs to commit hara-kiri. There’s an app for that. Apoptosis, programmed cell death, is a suite of tools and operations. Cells contain self-destruction kits, like spies with poison pills for use if captured. The poison pills consist primarily of the caspase family of proteins. Numbered caspase-1 through -14, these enzymes cut through (“cleave”) molecules like buzz saws. They are stored in an inactivated form for safety, like chain saws with covers and batteries removed. There’s more to the kit than that, though. …
Numerous actors come onto the stage when the apoptosis signal is triggered. In a sequence of steps, caspase-3 activates two other enzymes that create “find-me” signals that are sent out to attract wandering macrophages. A macrophage (a type of white blood cell in the immune system) knows how to engulf a target, which might be a pathogenic invader or a dying cell. The find-me signal is more than a beacon. It can even modify the macrophage’s behavior depending on the situation.
Evolution News, “In Cell Death, a Stunning Display of Intelligent Design” at Evolution News and Science Today
Paper. (paywall)
According to Darwinians, it all arose randomly, just like the highway systems of North America.
“According to Darwinians, it all arose randomly”
Of course, it’s obvious!
How else could it be?
🙂
Actually they say that natural selection is NOT random. The mutations that fuel the variation are random but not all variations have the same probability of being eliminated. That, they say, makes natural selection non-random.
However once you look behind the curtain you see that natural selection is nothing more than contingent serendipity
Again nothing to see here this is totally consistent with evolution
AaronS1978 @3:
Please, can you explain how scientist could make a system like that?
BTW, you may want to get ready for traveling soon, and work on your acceptance speech, because your explanation could lead you to Stockholm to receive a very prestigious and coveted prize in science. Congratulations in advance! 🙂
It’s not the unknown, but the known that points to information processing systems that could only be the product of conscious design.
AaronS1978 quips,
But, of course, Aaron is kidding. The fact of the matter is that this, i.e. programmed cell death, is totally inconsistent with Darwin’s theory. As Darwin himself stated,
Programmed cell death, especially the type of cell death featuring “enzymes (that) cut through (“cleave”) molecules like buzz saws” is clearly a falsification of this ‘non-injurious’ prediction by Charles Darwin for his theory. As Dr. Cornelius Hunter noted,
Of course this suicide mechanism in the cell is a altruistic behavior. i.e. Some cells die off to save others. Yet, such altruistic behavior within the cell is simply completely antithetical to entire ‘survival of the fittest’ mechanism that was held, by Darwin himself, to be the main driving force behind the evolution of all life on earth.
It directly follows that If evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’, would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive.
The logic of Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking is nicely summed up here in this Richard Dawkins’ video:
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for? As Charles Darwin himself stated.
Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, programmed cell death, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and/or altruistic behavior, etc… etc.. all would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view of things, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it would obviously slow down the primary criteria of successful reproduction.
In fact, Darwin himself also offered the following as a falsification criteria of his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
And yet, in one example that falsifies that prediction from Darwin, “in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”
In another example that falsifies this prediction by Charles Darwin, the following researchers comment that ‘survival of the friendliest’ outweighs ‘survival of the fittest’,,,
As well, the following researchers commented that they were quote unquote, ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found,,,
Moreover, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the entire notion that a single cell somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism.
As Stephen Meyer documented in his book, “Darwin’s Doubt”, on the Cambrian Explosion, Darwinists simply have no clue how a single cell became multicellular creatures composed of tens of trillions cells capable of sexual reproduction.
In fact, such extensive mutual cooperation of the tens of trillions of cells in our body for the ‘exclusive good’ of the organism as a whole is simply completely antithetical to the entire ‘survival of the fittest’ logic that underpins Darwin’s theory. To repeat Charles Darwin’s own logic,
If fact, to think such a high level of extensive interactive and integrated cooperation and complexity can possibly be the result of “survival of the fittest” Darwinian evolution is simply insane. As Jay Homnick commented in 2005, “Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
Thus in conclusion, and once again, since Darwinists simply refuse to accept such experimental falsifications of their theory, Darwin’s theory is not even a testable scientific theory in any reasonable sense of the term ‘scientific theory’, but is, in fact, to be more realistically classified as a pseudoscience, even classified as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science.
Verse:
to AaronS1978 “Again nothing to see here this is totally consistent with evolution”
you and the other Darwinian clowns …
sure nothing inconsistent with Darwinism to see,
because you don’t know a thing about apoptosis – directed/controlled/programmed cell death.
i bet, this is the first time you heard about apoptosis…
Apoptosis – directed/controlled/programmed cell death…
Apoptosis – just another undeniable proof of designed cell. I would also like to mention another undeniable proof of designed cell – DNA proofreading/repair.
Both systems are watching to keep cell healthy and intact.
Darwinian clowns often claim, that ID theory can’t make any predictions. Along with DNA proofreading/repair systems, the existence of Apoptosis is exactly what would ID theory predict.
The four minute video is very much worth watching. University of Dundee. We are indeed wonderfully made. I will sit back and wait to see if the usual suspects attack the University of Dundee as an ID hotspot. Perhaps the University will be cancelled or blocked.