We’re not sure. From ScienceDaily:
As cells divide to form tissues and organs in multicell organisms, they move to where they belong, informed by a series of cues that scientists have yet to observe or fully understand.
These collective movements traditionally have been studied in the context of biochemical recognition between cell types. For example, the protein cadherin (found in, and named for, calcium dependent adhesions) is one element responsible for cells’ ability to recognize one another, with various types of cadherin occurring at different sites in the organism. These cadherin receptors enable like cells to combine with each other to build specific types of tissue; for example, E-cadherin is so named because it is found in epithelial cells.
“Cadherins provide an initial signal for the ‘handshake’ between cells, but they are not the primary keeper of the connection,” says UC Santa Barbara professor and mechanical engineer Beth Pruitt, who studies mechanobiology and is working to gain a greater understanding of how cells combine to form tissues and maintain their integrity under the normal loads they experience …
As cells slide past each other while migrating toward their destinations during development or wound healing, they exert shear forces. Exactly how these local in-plane shear forces are spread throughout a tissue — important in collective tissue behavior — is not understood, in part because it is difficult to apply direct, localized shear within a tissue…
“Through observing these oscillations and measuring overall forces, as enabled by the inline spring, we were able to put forward a mechanical model that includes a mechanical signal-storage-and-relay element for simulating epithelial cell monolayers,” Pruitt explained. “This element, in parallel with the cells’ well-known viscoelastic property, can account for the collective behavior we observed. Cells might utilize this behavior following a shear-induced force imbalance to maintain tension homeostasis within a developing tissue.” Paper. (open access) – Ehsan Sadeghipour, Miguel A Garcia, William James Nelson, Beth L Pruitt. Shear-induced damped oscillations in an epithelium depend on actomyosin contraction and E-cadherin cell adhesion. eLife, 2018; 7 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.39640 More.
While the researchers don’t, of course, come right out and say this, massive communications exist within each cell, whether of a mouse, a grapevine, or a human. And we really don’t know very much about it at all. Yet many presume to insist that such structures arose randomly as a result of natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism), which cannot possibly be true. If it were, strange things would be happening all over the place. Yet they are not.
Is it just imagination or do people increasingly write in such a way as to simply abandon the pretense without wanting to discuss it?
See also: Researchers A Kill Cancer Code Is Embedded in Every Cell
How Do Cells Interpret The “Dizzying” Communications Pathways In Multicellular Life Forms?
and
Cell atlases reveal extreme complexity at biology’s frontiers
Follow UD News at Twitter!
As to:
And as they admit,,
Not only do they not know, nobody knows, “How Do Cells In A Body Know Where They Are Supposed To Be?”
In the following video at the 1:00 minute mark, molecular-biologist Doug Axe states, “We have no idea how a single cell produces an adult.”
And in the following video at the 7:25 minute mark, Alexander Tsiaras states, “The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension..”
It is safe to say nobody really knows how an organism achieves its basic form. In the following article, Michael Denton remarks that, ‘to date the form of no individual cell has been shown to be specified in detail in a genomic blueprint.’
And in the following article entitled ‘how do rod-like bacteria control their geometry?’, in the concluding paragraph, the authors conceded that, ‘We are still far from unravelling the fundamental “engineering” challenges that biology has to overcome in shaping single cells as well as multi-cellular tissues.,,,’
In short, molecular biologists don’t even understand how a single cell might achieve its basic form, much less do they understand how a multicellular organism might achieve its basic form.
This failure of Darwinian evolution, particularly the failure of the reductive materialism on which Darwinian evolution is based, to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself.
In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
Despite the fact that nobody has a clue how one cell might become a multicellular creature, and despite the fact that we have clear evidence that we will never derive “macroscopic properties from a (complete) microscopic description”, none-the-less Darwinists still confidently teach that it is possible to transform one creature into another creature by mutations to DNA alone.
Yet, as Jonathan Wells states in the following article, Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.
In the following video, at the 5:55 minute mark, Stephen Meyer states that ‘you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan.’
And here is a excellent powerpoint presentation by Dr. Jonathan Wells, starting around the 15:00 minute mark, showing that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.
Shoot, DNA does not even control its own shape much less does it control the shape of the organism that it resides in. As the following study found, “Our results demonstrate that the spatial organization of genomes is tissue-specific and point to a role for tissue-specific spatial genome organization in the formation of recurrent chromosome arrangements among tissues.”
To further drive the point home that the sequences in DNA cannot explain how any particular kind of organism achieves its basic form, in the following article Dr. Jonathan Wells states, “I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
Moreover, this, what can be termed, positional information, which is not reducible to DNA sequences and which specifies the three-dimensional arrangement of the molecular components of the cell and of the organism, is found to be enormous. Much greater than the sequential information, as great as that sequential information is, that is encoded on DNA.
As Dr. Doug Axe states in the following video at the 1 hour 16 minute mark,
In fact, the information content that is found to be in a one cell bacterium, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be 10 to the 12 bits,,,
Which is equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
In the following video, it is noted that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.
The following video states that “There are 10^28 atoms in the human body.,, The amount of data contained in the whole human,, is 3.02 x 10^32 gigabytes of information. Using a high bandwidth transfer, that data would take about 4.5 x 10^18 years to teleport 1 time. That is 350,000 times the age of the universe.”
Moreover, we have fairly strong evidence indicating that this enormous amount of positional information, that is telling all these atoms of the developing embryo exactly where to be, is somehow coming into the developing embryo from outside the material realm.
For instance, at about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Wells, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that, during embryological development, information must somehow be added to the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method.
The following article adds weight to Dr Wells assessment and states: “the process of development should be thought of as being controlled by an “algebraic structure outside space-time itself”
To provide further evidence for information coming into the developing embryo from ‘outside space-time itself’, it is important to note that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,,,
And these quantum correlations which somehow arise from outside spacetime, are now found in molecular biology on a massive scale. In every DNA and Protein molecule,,,
Moreover, the following article points out that the unresolved enigma of protein folding, that is to say, the unresolved enigma for how a protein might achieve its basic 3-dimensional form, can be easily explained if the process of folding is a quantum affair.
Thus in conclusion, the ‘bottom up’ reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution is found to be grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form. Moreover, to state what should be glaringly obvious, since neo-Darwinian explanations are grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality.
Whereas, on the other hand, Theism, especially with these recent breakthroughs in quantum biology that strongly indicate that information is somehow coming into the developing embryo from outside space-time,,,
,,,Theism on the other hand is found to be very well supported in its claim that God has formed each of us in our mother’s womb.
OK. This will be my last plea for a “read more” option for comments. Mine included.
Ed, if you don’t like scrolling past long comments, you could start your own blog with that “feature”.
Of related interest to the question of ‘How Do Cells In A Body Know Where They Are Supposed To Be?” is the following, “”When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo.”
As Dr. Hunter states, “The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face.”
Moreover, altering the bio-electric field without altering the underlying molecules affects the three-dimensional shape of the developing embryo.
In the case of frog embryos, “artificially setting other somatic cells to the eye-specific voltage range resulted in formation of eyes in aberrant locations, including tissues that are not in the normal anterior ectoderm lineage: eyes could be formed in the gut, on the tail, or in the lateral plate mesoderm.
To date, no one knows how the bioelectric code is ‘supposedly’ encoded within the developing embryo:
,,, To say that all of this is antagonistic towards Darwinian presuppositions and favorable towards ID presuppositions would be an understatement.
Didn’t Meyer say in his book that there were instructions that were in the cell wall and there was a different information system completely unlike DNA etc. What happened to that? Has it been debunked? It was a different form of epigenetic information. He mentioned something called the sugar code.
He had a chapter on the Origin of Body Plans in Darwin’s Doubt followed by one on Epigenetic effects.
One thought was if you are going to make major changes in an organism it would have to be in what generated body plans and it would have to act early in the gestation process. But early changes are most likely to cause organism failure if a mutation happens.