Intelligent Design

Programmers Only Need Apply

Spread the love

In the latest issue of Nature, a team of researchers report that using RNA interference techniques to re-activate a tumor suppressor, p53, they were able to induce a “cellular senescence program that was associated with differentiation and the upregulation of inflammatory cytokines.”

The use of the word “program” highlights that proponents of NDE have an even sterner task at hand: explaining how the logical loop of a “program” can be built up using NDE mechanisms. There is a ring of “irreducibility” to the idea of a “program”, since each part of a “program” is indispensable and likewise an integral part of the program’s intended output. Genetics is looking everyday to be more and more like an exercise in computer programming–just as IDists have predicted. Behe and Snoke’s paper shows the huge improbability of placing two amino acids side-by-side via gene duplication and random mutation. Now NDE must do much more than that. When can we expect them to give up?

Here’s the link:

From the abstract:
This program, although producing only cell cycle arrest in vitro, also triggered an innate immune response that targeted the tumour cells in vivo, thereby contributing to tumour clearance. Our study indicates that p53 loss can be required for the maintenance of aggressive carcinomas, and illustrates how the cellular senescence program can act together with the innate immune system to potently limit tumour growth.

7 Replies to “Programmers Only Need Apply

  1. 1
    shaner74 says:

    “Now NDE must do much more than that. When can we expect them to give up?”

    um….never. True believers never give up. Every time I hear hardcore Darwinists speak, they remind me of the high priest in “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” I watched that movie the other day and laughed almost all the way through because of the similarities. As a programmer, I’m continuously amazed that true believers can so easily deny the obvious and claim life is a lucky accident – rubbish. I’ve spent countless hours debugging intelligently designed code, and to even suggest that something like DNA can come about through an unguided process and keep working for eons is just plain bizarre.

  2. 2
    PaV says:

    I’ll date myself, but I remember taking a class in Fortran back in the 1970’s. Anyone who has ever attempted to write a program knows that code doesn’t happen by chance. In those days, if you had all the right cards punched with all the right parameters, but put the first two cards out of order, nothing happened. It’s a highly complex thing to do….and to do it by chance? This is the ID Rule #1 of evolution: the reasonableness of NDE mechanisms and the degree that “programs” are present in DNA are inversely proportional.

    Rule #2: Every evolutionary biologist must take a class in computer programming.

  3. 3
    jpark320 says:

    I wonder if we could show if certain traits as having absolutely no significance (okay a little) for survival, rather just very cleverly created pieces of biology.

    I’m not simply talking about vestigial organs, but like the squamous-columnar junction of the cervix or the same type of junction at the esophagus and stomach (though this one is more apt for NDE “selection”… ie harder to argue).

    Basically, squamous cells are “tougher” and hence the external os of the cervix is lined by squamous epithelium, where as the inner part is columnar which is apt for mucous secretion. I don’t see tremendous life altering significance of the external cervix being squamous, but if it was designed, its fully understandable why that little variation is there.

    This is just very good programming.

    Go God!

  4. 4
    gpuccio says:

    Our awareness of the complexity of regulatory programs in living beings has grown esponentially in the last few decades, and I believe that’s one of the strongest reasons why ID is become so increasingly popular. And if more people understood the details of what is known today, that process would be incredibly faster. Just think of a few examples:

    1) The way cells are regulated in multicellular organisms through slight modifications of the concentrations of specific “transmitter” molecules in the extracellular fluid, finely detected by specific receptors on the cell membrane. While a few decades ago that model was restricted to hormonal interactions, a relatively “simple” system which could “reasonably” be explained by feedback mechanisms, today we know thousands of “cytokines” ehicj act that way, a very sophisticated and complex regulatory system, working with incredible precision and flexibility at enormous distance (cellularly speaking), through a common medium (extracellular fluid), on extremely diversified targets (the different kinds of cell receptors in different cell types), and whose guiding principles we still can’t understand (if you are interested, just look at one of the many good sites about cytokines, like this:

    2) The astounding network of biochemical pathways through which the “signals” received by the cell membrane (point 1) are transmitted to the nucleus. Many of these pathways are quite well known, whle the general scenario will certainly become more complex in the next few years. The interesting thing is that this system is very complex, redundant, and finely controlled: many different pathways can transmit different stimuli from the cell membrane to the nucleus, each of them consist of a different cascade of proteins (usually many proteins), each pathway interacts with the others, the same stimulus can be transmitted by different pathways, the same pathway can transmit very different stimuli, and so on. Another interesting point is that such a complex network has purely regulatory functions: none of these transmitting cascades has, as far as we know, any other purpose than to transmit the signals and regulate them. The only real “effect” takes place in the nucleus.

    3) The much more complex, and very poorly understood, system of regulation of transcription in the nucleus by the network of “transcription factors”. This is the final effect of the networks in point 1 and 2. But it is simply so complex that we practically still don’t understand anything about its structure and working, except for a few unconnected details. This is, indeed, the system that controls everything, transforming a generic genome, common to billions of different cells, in the specific transcriptome which defines what a specific cell is and does.

    4) The RNA messenger maturation network: very important and very poorly understood: it should explain why and how the same gene can produce a range of different proteins, in different situations.

    5) The protein synthesis and protein maturation network: again in cytoplasm, a further fine regulation is operated on the products of points 3 and 4.

    6) The global regulation network which controls cell status and cell destiny, regulating cell cycle and continuously operating very high “choices” between reproduction, cell stasis, cell death (apoptosis), DNA check, and so on. This network works through all the above mentioned points, but its “judgements take place at a very high, meta-level, and decide moment by moment the final destiny of each individual cells.

    7) And, finally, the above points are always working in all the cell of every multicellular organism, even the “simplest” cells. But, obviously, there are examples of higher organization in specific compartments, such as the immunitary system and the nervous system, whose adaptive complexity is so high that we are still in complete ignorance of how they really work at the regulatory level, although we have discovered so many details about them.

  5. 5
    Big Dog says:

    To get back to basics
    The belief in naturalism keeps the masses away from God. A neutral ground for satanism to breed. Everything in nature has an opposite side. water-fire, air-earth, good-bad, God-satan, creationism-darwinism. We seem to be trying to make a point to an ingenious fabrication.
    The world as we know it is being destroyed by a secret design. Hooray to all those out there “exposing” (what darwinians hypocritically call the wolf in sheeps clothing) the truth……..

  6. 6
    PaV says:

    To ‘gpuccio’:

    Your last post was excellent. I, for one, think you should be given posting privileges here at UD. I hope the powers to be are taking notice. I always enjoy your posts. (Anche io sono italiano–Ischitano, i miei genitori eranno da vicino di Barano d’Ischia)

  7. 7
    gpuccio says:


    Ciao, e grazie. I enjoy your posts too…

Leave a Reply