Cell death as intelligent design

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. Blastus

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. martin_r

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... martin_r

AaronS1978 quips,

nothing to see here this is totally consistent with evolution

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,

"On the other hand, we may feel sure that any (biological) variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection." - Charles Darwin - page 81 "Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor." - Charles Darwin - page 201

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,

"But today we have many examples of injurious behavior that falsify Darwin’s prediction that natural selection “will never produce in a being any structure more injurious than beneficial to that being.” https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/cell-death

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.

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species - page 266

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 Natural Selection - graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308

The logic of Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' thinking is nicely summed up here in this Richard Dawkins' video:

Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video?Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?"?http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html

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.

“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;" - Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - pg. 66

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.”

“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. 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.” - Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - page 241

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."

Plant Galls and Evolution How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017 Excerpt: 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. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf

In another example that falsifies this prediction by Charles Darwin, the following researchers comment that 'survival of the friendliest' outweighs 'survival of the fittest’,,,

Friendly bacteria collaborate to survive - 10 October 2019 Excerpt: New microbial research at the University of Copenhagen suggests that 'survival of the friendliest' outweighs 'survival of the fittest’ for groups of bacteria. Bacteria make space for one another and sacrifice properties if it benefits the bacterial community as a whole. The discovery is a major step towards understanding complex bacteria interactions and the development of new treatment models for a wide range of human diseases and new green technologies. https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2019/10/friendly-bacteria-collaborate-to-survive/

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,,,

Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists - April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin's hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin's theory — at least in one case. "It was completely unexpected," says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan's school of natural resources & environment. "When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?" The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. "We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists," Cardinale says. "When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn't right, we were completely baffled.",,, Darwin "was obsessed with competition," Cardinale says. "He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don't grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. ",,, Maybe Darwin's presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong." http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html

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.

One Body – animation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4

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.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD talks about the Case for Intelligent Design – video (excellent lecture on the Cambrian Explosion – Oct. 2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl802lHAk5Y Oct 18, 2015 - Trinity Classical Academy’s Speaker Series welcomes Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, author of the New York Times® Bestseller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, and Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, which won “Book of the Year” by The Times of London Literary Supplement.

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,

“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species;" - Darwin

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.”

"It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. 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.” - Jay Homnick - American Spectator - 2005:

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:

Psalms 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

bornagain77

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. jawa

Again nothing to see here this is totally consistent with evolution AaronS1978

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 ET

“According to Darwinians, it all arose randomly” Of course, it’s obvious! How else could it be? :) jawa