Cell biology Intelligent Design

Sit down. Cells have signaling circuit boards. Only much more advanced than ours

Spread the love
Scientists discover signalling circuit boards inside body's cells
images of cell-wide web/U Edinburgh

We are told that that fact turns our understanding of how instructions spread in a cell on its head:

Cells in the body are wired like computer chips to direct signals that instruct how they function, research suggests.

Unlike a fixed circuit board, however, cells can rapidly rewire their communication networks to change their behaviour.

The discovery of this cell-wide web turns our understanding of how instructions spread around a cell on its head.

It was thought that the various organs and structures inside a cell float around in an open sea called the cytoplasm.

Signals that tell the cell what to do were thought to be transmitted in waves and the frequency of the waves was the crucial part of the message.

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh found information is carried across a web of guide wires that transmit signals across tiny, nanoscale distances.

It is the movement of charged molecules across these tiny distances that transmit information, just as in a computer microprocessor, the researchers say. … Professor Mark Evans, of the University of Edinburgh’s Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, said: “We found that cell function is coordinated by a network of nanotubes, similar to the carbon nanotubes you find in a computer microprocessor.

“The most striking thing is that this circuit is highly flexible, as this cell-wide web can rapidly reconfigure to deliver different outputs in a manner determined by the information received by and relayed from the nucleus. This is something no man-made microprocessors or circuit boards are yet capable of achieving.” University of Edinburgh, “Scientists discover signalling circuit boards inside body’s cells” at Phys.org

Paper. (open access)

PaV, who often posts here, kindly writes to say,

Look at the final paragraphs of the pdf where they liken this to a quantum computer system. We’re dealing here with a programmable computer chip–their language. How in the world can something like this be brought about through random variation??? Also note that they say that it’s likely each cell type has its own signalling program.”

It appears to be ‘binary code’ at the level of atoms and molecules, which mimics what computers do. It’s like finding “Deep Blue” (IBM’s computer) inside a cell. This is quantum computing–a feat humankind has failed to master, going on inside a busy cell. Random variations? Oh, my!

Let’s make a prediction: computer scientists might begin studying cells to see how they keep out “noise” in a quantum computing system! Amazing.

Cellular quantum computing…? When Darwinism was alive and the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby was suing the school boards, the cell was a simple jelly that could arise in a warm little pond. Remember that?

See also: Researcher: Mathematics Sheds Light On “Unfathomably Complex” Cellular Thinking

In addition to DNA, our cells have an instruction language written in sugar Of course it all just tumbled into existence and “natural selection” somehow organized everything. As if.

and

In Nature: Cells have “secret conversations” We say this a lot: That’s a lot of information to have simply come into being by natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism). It’s getting not only ridiculous but obviously ridiculous.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

21 Replies to “Sit down. Cells have signaling circuit boards. Only much more advanced than ours

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    It’s a cellular nervous system. That is amazing, Arguments aside that is really truly amazing

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    “sarcasm on”

    But Brother Brian, (and Dawkins and Crick), assure us that there is “nothing to see here” and that we can rest assured that it is merely the ‘appearance of design”

    “Nothing to see here!”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnX5wci404

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit

    “sarcasm off”

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    Responding to Dawkins’ ludicrous conjecture that Nature only looks designed, didn’t I recall to mind that that was what science was supposed to be about : empirical observation. Design proved by rational inference from the plainest, empirical obsrvation. I believe you boffins even use the term, ‘Observer’ in some telling way, that alas, I forget !

    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why Dawkins’ egregious, revisionist fantasies – entirely gratuitous – were not pilloried out of existence within hours of their publication.

  4. 4
    PeterA says:

    It has been said over and over here in this website that the near future doesn’t look encouraging at all for the Darwinian crowd. The overwhelming avalanche of bad news for those folks is coming in such an increasing rate that it makes me feel sorry for them. But they seem to ignore the warning signs and the red flags popping all around them lately.
    I hope they wake up and smell the flowers soon. They’re missing the sweet celebration party that ID is having all along these days.
    We’re glad they’re many dedicated scientists working hard on leading edge research projects all over the world. Breathtaking technological progress is making possible for many scientists to look deep into the biological systems and discover amazing things that they never expected to encounter, because they were educated in the fallacies of outdated ideas lacking empirical support.
    Can’t wait to read the next papers.

  5. 5
    PaoloV says:

    Axel,

    “I cannot, for the life of me, understand why Dawkins’ egregious, revisionist fantasies – entirely gratuitous – were not pilloried out of existence within hours of their publication”

    Yes, that seems incomprehensible, but keep in mind that although ID -being a scientific paradigm- does not go beyond the empirical inference of design as the best explanation for what we observe, the potential philosophical and specially theological implications of conscious design could be difficult to accept for many people, hence Dawkins’ ideas are welcome as “scientific” assurance that we can get away doing everything our own way. Many people refrain from questioning what they hear or read as long as it makes them feel comfortable. The Christian scriptures clearly say that we should test everything and hold what is good. But in order to know what is good we need discerning wisdom. The only true source of wisdom is God as revealed in the Bible.

  6. 6
    Tom Robbins says:

    Game, Set and Match,
    And God bless you for this website, as stories like this tend to get pushed down the ranks in favor of the standard storytelling knuckleheads that spend their lives trying to explain away miracles. We have gone from, as in Darwin’s day, from an amorphous blob of plasma or “goo” to a digitally controlled city that communicates ON MANY separate levels with its neighbors. Now we find out that not only have our limited minds (In his Likeness?) achieved many things similar to technology in a cell, or similar to larger phenotypical expressions that make the ultimate macro structures and tools, and again our mimicry is never as multipurpose, or efficient, or precise!

    Now we get the icing on the cake! AND, I will make an ID prediction if they have not already settled this, but there will be with these “circuit board” like connections which signal each other, an error detection and correction system – some kind of cyclic redundancy check (crc) . something which cancels bad signals and retransmits.. I mean we already know the big picture of cell communication is very much like internet routing and switching, now they find the actual NETWORK ADAPTER of a cell, that lays down a “wire” to make a direct local connection – simply wonderful, and beautiful – our God is an awesome GOD, and he does not make any crap. Pain and suffering come to teach us, to hone us, but he gave us the best possible earthly temple to temporarily contain our soul. Puts fearfully and wonderfully made in an entire new and almost unbelievable light!! Thank you!

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 2

    But Brother Brian, (and Dawkins and Crick), assure us that there is “nothing to see here” and that we can rest assured that it is merely the ‘appearance of design”

    The only designers we know of are ourselves and we didn’t design living cells – as far as we know. So all we have is the appearance of design. It’s just another argument by analogy in that it claims that there are functions or processes in living cells that are similar to some found on circuit boards, similar in some respects – or maybe just another example of pareidolia..

    Do we have an exact step-by=step account of how modern living cells evolved from simpler precursor organisms or base chemicals? No, we don’t. Do we similarly compelling evidence for the existence of some extraterrestrial intelligent designer? No, we don’t. It’s an open question. I would argue that we have better evidence for naturalistic causation than we do for theistic. Others take a different view. That’s fine. We’ll just have to wait for science to find a way of deciding the issue.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Apparently Seversky felt left out of the list of atheistic trolls that I provided. So, without further ado,,,

    “sarcasm on”

    But SEVERSKY, Brother Brian, (and Dawkins and Crick), assure us that there is “nothing to see here” and that we can rest assured that it is merely the ‘appearance of design”

    “Nothing to see here!”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnX5wci404

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit

    “sarcasm off”

    Sorry for leaving you out of the list of atheistic trolls Seversky ole buddy. It is just that Brother Brain has been taking your place here on UD as the resident UD troll lately. (And frankly, IMHO, he is really giving you a run for your money on being even more trollish than you ever were) 🙂

    Better step up your game unless you want to lose your troll crown.

  9. 9
    awstar says:

    Seversky @ 7 has a point.

    “Do we similarly compelling evidence for the existence of some extraterrestrial intelligent designer? No, we don’t”

    Maybe we should fund some research to look for evidence of an extraterrestrial intelligent designer. I’m guessing that if it (assuming it is neither he nor her) is so intelligent to do what we are discovering, it might have left some sort of message it knows we could make sense of if/when we find it. Maybe there’s some sort of monolith it left behind, like in Space Odyssey 2000 or some other unique sign — like a cross or something.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Awstar

    “Maybe there’s some sort of monolith it left behind, like in Space Odyssey 2000 or some other unique sign — like a cross or something.”

    Or maybe even some type of burial shroud or something with mysterious lettering on it?

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

  11. 11
    PeterA says:

    Tom Robbins @6,

    Excellent commentary! Thanks!

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 8

    Sorry for leaving you out of the list of atheistic trolls Seversky ole buddy. It is just that Brother Brain has been taking your place here on UD as the resident UD troll lately. (And frankly, IMHO, he is really giving you a run for your money on being even more trollish than you ever were) ????

    Better step up your game unless you want to lose your troll crown

    Not to worry, I’m not offended. Brother Brian is doing a fine job. More power to his elbow.

  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 10

    “Maybe there’s some sort of monolith it left behind, like in Space Odyssey 2000 or some other unique sign — like a cross or something.”

    Or maybe even some type of burial shroud or something with mysterious lettering on it?

    You find a cross buried on the moon made of some impenetrable black material that beams a powerful signal in to space when sunlight hits it and you will really have something. A bit of medieval cloth with a faint image on it, not so much.

  14. 14
    Brother Brian says:

    Sev

    A bit of medieval cloth with a faint image on it, not so much.

    I once saw the image of Jesus Christ in the peanut butter I spread on my toast. 🙂

    Fellow a/mat troll

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Hmmm interesting, much like our UD atheistic trolls desperately want to believe that “This is something no man-made microprocessors or circuit boards are yet capable of achieving” is merely an ‘appearance and/or illusion of design’, so too they desperately want to believe that a photographic negative, 3-D hologram image of a crucified man on a burial clothe, which has now been dated to the first century, is just an ‘appearance and/or illusion of a man rising from the dead’.

    This judgement of theirs of course presupposes that our atheistic trolls can discern what is real from what is illusory to begin with. Unfortunately for them, (since they have rejected God), they have no way of discerning what is real from what is illusory in the first place.

    (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

    Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Perhaps if our atheistic trolls on UD were ever able to tell what is real from what is illusory in the first place then they might have much more credibility in trying to convince others that the overwhelming ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life and that the Photographic Negative, 3D holographic, image that we see on the shroud are merely illusory. Until then they simply have no credibility.

    Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

    So basically, we have a clothe with a photographic negative image on it that was made well before photography was even invented. Moreover, the photographic negative image has a 3-Dimensional holographic nature to its image that was somehow encoded within the photographic negative well before holography was even known about. Moreover, even with our present day technology, we still cannot replicated the image in all its detail.
    My question to atheists is this, if you truly believe some mad genius forger in the middle ages made this image, then please prey tell why did this mad genius save all his genius for this supposed forgery alone and not for, say, inventing photography itself since he surely would have required mastery of photography to pull off the forgery? Not to mention mastery of laser holography? Moreover, why did this hypothetical mad super-genius destroy all of his scientific instruments the he would have had to invent in order to make the image? Leonardo da Vinci would not have been worthy to tie the shoe laces of such a hypothetical mad genius!

    The Turin Shroud: from the photo to the three-dimensional – Aldo Guerreschi
    Excerpt: In 1931, a second photographer, Giuseppe Enrie, took what are probably the best, even though they were in the black and white format of that time.
    But a series of fortuitous circumstances – the size of the plates, the improved optics, the particular characteristics of the orthochromatic negative, which is not sensitive to red and which was at that time the best you could buy – brought out the best of the photographs.
    When I was younger, I was lucky enough to have known and worked with Enrie and so I was able to understand not only his experience and passion for the Shroud’s image, but also his desire that each copy should be made with such a sense of responsibility towards those seeing it as to make him extremely demanding and hard to please.
    I printed this image for many years and during the Ostension of 1978 I saw it many times, as did the numerous pilgrims who came to Turin at that time.
    At this point, and maybe a little presumptuously, I thought I knew this image well. Somewhat later, in April 1997, following the dramatic fire in Turin Cathedral and the Guarini Chapel, I was asked to document the examination subsequently carried out to determine the state of the sheet and to photograph any eventual damage to it, which fortunately had not occurred.
    I therefore had the good fortune to see the Shroud in close up for a whole day; I can assure you that it was a very emotional experience and one which I will try to transmit to you.
    When this sheet was unrolled on a long table, all the folds, scorch marks, holes and patching emerged together with that almost imperceptible impression and I realised that everything I had learned up to that point was worth nothing or practically nothing; the image I thought I knew was not that one.
    While photography has the advantage of fixing an image in time and of concentrating it so that whichever angle you look at it from it remains the same, with the Shroud itself that is not the case.
    Moving around that table from a certain angle I saw this image so faded as if to practically disappear, while from others it seemed as if the figure were almost outside the sheet; it was, I repeat, an incredible emotion.
    At that moment I knew that this image was unique.
    Let me tell you more.
    I asked permission to photograph some details of the face. As I said previously, I thought I knew it well..
    I approached the face placing my camera at a distance of about 20 – 30 cm, aimed the camera at the face and saw ………… nothing in the viewfinder; “and yet” I said ” I know it by heart.” I had to beg my friend to point to the position of the eye, because from a distance of 30 cm I could not see it. I could only see it as I moved away from it.
    So it is a barely perceptible image, one which escapes you, which leaves you perplexed. I am convinced that if people could see it from close up they would not only feel great emotion, but would also realise the real consistency of this image, which would dispel the many doubts surrounding the authenticity of this sheet which unquestionably enshrouded a corpse, and of this there is absolutely no doubt.
    Forgive me if I have bored you with my emotions regarding the Shroud, but I instinctively wanted you to share them with me.
    http://shroud.com/pdfs/aldo1.pdf

    NEW TESTS DATE THE SHROUD
    New experiments date the Shroud of Turin to the 1st century AD. They comprise three tests; two chemical and one mechanical. The chemical tests were done with Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy, examining the relationship between age and a spectral property of ancient flax textiles. The mechanical test measured several micro-mechanical characteristics of flax fibers, such as tensile strength. The results were compared to similar tests on samples of cloth from between 3250 BC and 2000 AD whose dates are accurately known.
    FTIR identifies chemical bonds in a molecule by producing an infrared absorption spectrum. The spectra produce a profile of the sample, a distinctive molecular fingerprint that can be used to identify its components.
    Raman Spectroscopy uses the light scattered off of a sample as opposed to the light absorbed by a sample. It is a very sensitive method of identifying specific chemicals.
    The tests on fibers from the Shroud of Turin produced the following dates: FTIR = 300 BC + 400 years; Raman spectroscopy = 200 BC + 500 years; and multi-parametric mechanical = 400 AD + 400 years. All the dates have a 95% certainty. The average of all three dates is 33 BC + 250 years (the collective uncertainty is less than the individual test uncertainties). The average date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death on the cross in 30 AD, and is far older than the medieval dates obtained with the flawed Carbon-14 sample in 1988. The range of uncertainty for each test is high because the number of sample cloths used for comparison was low; 8 for FTIR, 11 for Raman, and 12 for the mechanical test. The scientists note that “future calibrations based on a greater number of samples and coupled with ad hoc cleaning procedures could significantly improve its accuracy, though it is not easy to find ancient samples adequate for the test.”
    They used tiny fibers extracted from the Shroud by micro-analyst Giovanni Riggi di Numana, who gave them to Fanti. Riggi passed away in 2008, but he had been involved in the intensive scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin by the STURP group in 1978, and on April 21, 1988 was the man who cut from the Shroud the thin 7 x 1 cm sliver of linen that was used for carbon dating.
    These tests were carried out in University of Padua laboratories by professors from various Italian universities, led by Giulio Fanti, Italian professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s engineering faculty. He co-authored reports of the findings in 1) a paper in the journal Vibrational Spectroscopy, July 2013, “Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy” by Giulio Fanti, Pietro Baraldi, Roberto Basso, and Anna Tinti, Volume 67, pages 61-70; 2) a paper titled “A new cyclic-loads machine for the measurement of micro-mechanical properties of single flax fibers coming from the Turin Shroud” by Giulio Fanti and Pierandrea Malfi for the XXI AIMETA (Italian Association of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics) congress in 2013, and 3) the 2013 book “Il Mistero della Sindone” (The Mystery of the Shroud), written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta in Italian.
    https://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html
    March 2019: defence of Fanti’s work
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/viruses-devolve/#comment-674732

    A video from Robert Villarreal, friend of the late Raymond Rodgers (lead chemist on STURP). Villarreal is a scientist at the Los Alamos laboratory:

    Shroud Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlFTVv2l0L4

    Shroud of Turin – Carbon 14 Test Proven False –
    – Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford – video
    (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

  16. 16
    PeterA says:

    When Darwinism was alive and the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby was suing the school boards, the cell was a simple jelly that could arise in a warm little pond. Remember that?

    Well, Darwinism seems still alive in the credulous crowds out there.

    Shame on us humans!

  17. 17
    PeterA says:

    In a way I’m glad some confused folks make BA77 post so much interesting information for the rest of us to read. Thus some objectors unknowingly benefit us. Should we thank them for that? 🙂

  18. 18
    willspeaks says:

    In the ignorant vernacular of a layman. OMG!:)

  19. 19
    PeterA says:

    From the original paper:

    how function-specific signals arise is enigmatic

    this circuit is not hardwired and remodels for different outputs during cell proliferation.

    Cells may thus support unforeseen levels of network activity.

    Functional specification is therefore determined

    the cellular intranet conferred by the SR and its associated network activities are not hardwired, reconfiguring to deliver different outputs during phenotypic modulation on the path

    cytoplasmic nanocourses may be common to but vary in nature between different cell types.

  20. 20
    PeterA says:

    We ain’t seen nothin’ yet
    The forecast for the near future is: more amazing discoveries like this

    The biological systems will make the impression of being designed, but let’s remember that it’s just an illusion

    Ok?

    It looks like s duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, has the anatomy of a duck, has the DNA of a duck, behaves like a duck, has the physiology of a duck, therefore it gives the wrong impression of being a duck.

  21. 21
    PeterA says:

    The same news report about the same paper came out in different journals as usual:

    https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-circuit-boards-body-cells.html

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190524102755.htm

    https://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news2/newsid=52874.php

    Did they write the same comments on the referenced paper?

    Just curious about the publishing business

Leave a Reply