Cell biology Intelligent Design Physics

From the Intelligent Design Academy: Quantum mechanic communication in cells – A paradigm shift in biology

Spread the love

Quantum biology is where physics meets biology. Both classical physics and quantum mechanics may be operational in cell communication. Each living cell “talks” with other cells with incredible precision and accuracy to maintain synchrony, unity of purpose, and health. Each cell may be envisioned as communicating intelligence. The vehicle for cell signaling and passing information is either chemical reaction, electromagnetic wave or by quantum transfer, or all of the above. Data communication of unbelievable complexity occurs within each cell millions of times a second and among nearby cells and cells at a distance. The speed of communication may be of light for bio-photons or faster or even instantaneous for quantum transfer…

14 Replies to “From the Intelligent Design Academy: Quantum mechanic communication in cells – A paradigm shift in biology

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Particles are an unnecessary and confusing entity. Waves are all you need for communication. Magnetic and static fields do the job, inside the cell and between cells and between organisms.

  2. 2
    William J Murray says:

    There aren’t many worldviews that will survive quantum physics. In fact, most worldviews represented here at UD are already dead ontologies walking.

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    Polistra,
    The amazing thing about the “waves” in quantum mechanics is that they aren’t electromagnetic energy. They are mathematical probability waves with constructive and destructive interference. Entanglement is even more mysterious!

    -Q

  4. 4
    relatd says:

    I hate the word “paradigm.”

    It’s clear that cells communicate at levels of complexity previously unknown. All of the known atomic and sub-atomic components are involved. There is only electromagnetic energy – nothing else. So communications would involve particles, waves and quantum states. It appears that in the realm of quantum mechanics, a certain state is dependent on observation, suggesting an all-encompassing ‘sensing’ environment, at the sub-atomic level. That is only now beginning to be clarified.

  5. 5
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    🙂 Quantum doesn’t answer the questions just muddy the water and give to materialists another “black box ” to play with. Cell activity was a “black box” until recent decades when started to became more and more “open box”(genetics) and we see now that the coded information controls the chemistry and forms complex systems . Materialists have to retreat in quantum mechanic because they have no logical answer to coded functional information that exists in the cell.

    The cell works because of the codes (at the molecular level) and quantum mecanics can’t explain these codes .

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    Relatd @4,

    There is only electromagnetic energy – nothing else.

    You’re not familiar with quantum mechanics, correct?

    Lieutenant Commander Data @5,
    Quantum mechanics is intertwined with information and its propagation, probabilities, and conscious observation. Nothing else is more fundamental or “real” except perhaps the source of the information, wavefunctions, and the fields of their expression.

    Materialists work hard to create theories and paradigms to try to rescue deterministic materialism despite the experimental in QM to the contrary. So, quantum mechanics is not really a good place of retreat since QM is all about information. But I agree with you that quantum mechanics is used as a black box similar to Darwinists’ use of the black box of deep time.

    -Q

  7. 7
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Querius
    Quantum mechanics is intertwined with information and its propagation, and conscious observation.

    Did I miss the word code(symbol,language,meaning) in your Quantum mechanics definition ?

  8. 8
    Querius says:

    Lieutenant Commander Data @7,

    Did I miss the word code(symbol,language,meaning) in your Quantum mechanics definition ?

    No, I don’t think you did. Words such as code, symbol, language including syntax and semantics, meaning, states, properties, relationships such as generalized in equations, programming, and so on are all included in the word, information.

    All of these are included in the complexities of a cell. And I haven’t mentioned temporary structures, signals, error checking, repair mechanisms, growth, and more!

    -Q

  9. 9
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Querius
    Words such as code, symbol, language including syntax and semantics, meaning, states, properties, relationships such as generalized in equations, programming, and so on are all included in the word, information.

    Except we talk about 2 very different worlds of information. Chemistry has a kind of behaviour outside the cell and a totally different behaviour inside the cell. Outside the cell chemistry listen to the universal laws (that act as “information”) while inside the cell -chemistry- listen to the functional information rules that have nothing to do with the universal laws.
    Quantum physics is also a kind of universal law that like chemistry obey to the functional information while inside the cell and have different manifestations outside the cell when is not under influence of functional information .

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    Lieutenant Commander Data,

    A physical chemist once explained to me how chemistry is fundamentally physics–involving bonds, the shapes of molecules, and how they can fit together. Molecular simulation is a good way of observing this at various temperatures.

    Chemical cycles such as what’s observed in cells are far more complex. For example, the ADT-ATP cycle required for storing and using energy or a chemical cycle involved in vision are profoundly more complex than, let’s say, the oxidation of aluminum–so much so, that it shouts intelligent design.

    I don’t know of any evidence that the chemistry inside a cell is of a fundamentally different kind of chemistry than the chemistry outside a cell. But the insanely complex synthesis and arrangements of molecules is where the information is embedded through a code that propagates the information used in the coding.

    Do you know of any evidence to the contrary?

    -Q

  11. 11
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Querius
    Do you know of any evidence to the contrary?

    “Genes and proteins, in short, are assembled by molecular robots on the basis of outside instructions. They are manufactured molecules, as different from ordinary
    molecules as artificial objects are from natural ones. Indeed, if we accept the commonsense view that molecules are natural when their structure is determined from within and artificial when it is determined from without, then genes and proteins can truly be referred to as artificial molecules, as artifacts made by molecular machines. This in turn implies that all biological objects are artifacts, and we arrive at the
    general conclusion that life is artifact-making.

    Marcello Barbieri :“Biosemiotics: A New Understanding of Life”

    Even if Marcello Barbieri is an evolutionist he has some unbelievable insights about coding information that place him very close to truth .

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5487617_Biosemiotics_A_new_understanding_of_life

  12. 12
    Querius says:

    Lieutenant Commander Data @11,

    Thanks for the link to Barbieri’s paper. So far it, does seem primarily philosophical. Of course, Barbieri does say biosemiotics is a paradigm, and as such it does seem to point to higher levels of abstraction, including meaning.

    Of course, life is not discrete–they don’t simply appear and disappear, but part of a long, uninterrupted chain of life. And this chain of life conveys the information, and presumably, meaning.

    There are human many technologies that of necessity rely on levels of abstraction, including communication protocols, so why shouldn’t nature?

    Yes, I agree that Barbieri has some great insights. In his paradigm of code, he’s very close to ID.

    -Q

  13. 13
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Querius
    Thanks for the link to Barbieri’s paper. So far it, does seem primarily philosophical.

    All ideas are primarily philosophical . I think that the paradigm of code is the only true paradigm . We do it wrong if we look at a cell and we see chemistry. There is no chemistry in the cell, it’s just code (acting on chemistry ).

    The darwinian view : analyzing a book from the point of view of chemistry involved( chemical composition of pages, ink ,glue ) and deduce the letters are produced by chemistry without any external intervention.

    The biosemiotics view: analyzing the meaning of the letters (chemistry is just a medium for information ) trying to figure out how in the world the meaning landed amidst atoms. 🙂 . Of course life is much more complex than a book , because in the cell the information (not just sit in the page like letters on a page waiting to be decoded) is active building molecular machines that in turn build ,maintain, repair, verify many different systems , that work together for a purpose(that is something abstract ).

  14. 14
    Querius says:

    Lieutenant Commander Data @13,

    Yep. And I like your book analogy.

    Materialists focus on how the book coulda/mighta been spawned naturally . . . wood compressed between strata, ink from carbon deposits or frightened squid, binding glue from decomposing fish.

    But they ignore the information content in the code used to program the epigenetic response to environmental changes.

    Did the code program itself? For example, could C++ create itself from random bits? Note that random changes to the lowest-level program (native machine code) breaks things.

    For those who disagree, try this. Randomly change some bits in an executable file on your computer. Run it and delete the versions that crash. Only keep the code that creates new and better features.

    Create an executive program that does this millions of times a minute simulating billions of years of computer “evolution.”

    -Q

Leave a Reply