The Evolution of Neural Crest Cells: Teleology Raised to the Power of Serendipity

_{Cornelius Hunter

May 7, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

There is a reason why Aristotle’s ideas persisted for thousands of years—they advance fundamental themes in how we think. And no, those ideas did not become outdated with the rise of modern science, as the textbooks explain. Consider a recent paper on the flight of bats which stated that the bat’s specialized airflow sensors evolved in order “to guide motor behaviors” and that vertebrate nervous systems, in general, “have flexibly adapted to accommodate anatomical specializations for flight.” The infinitive form is the key. Evolutionary theory is supposed to have rejected teleology. Whereas Aristotle explained natural phenomena as a consequence of final causes, modern science, so the textbooks state, is free of such mysteries. After Bacon it was all about empiricism, mathematical descriptions and natural laws. There was no appeal to goals or end-directed action. Right? Wrong. Read more

Comments

“There is no proof/evidence of X” = “My mind is closed to the possibility of X” William, you assume too much. If you had read my original post, you would see that I question everything right down to the idea of subject/object; mind/matter. If I'm not even at an answer there, then I hope you can see that I am not denying anything based on lack of evidence. However, evidence (if by that we mean something provable to someone else as something that happened to someone) is absolutely critical in order to put ANY postulate forward in a manner that is to be accepted by the masses, should they even exist. Let me put this another way: I have this thing inside of me that feels something bigger than life (I call it "me"), but I have never been able to quantize it. It's often in my heart, but I feel silly because I have never seen it outside of my own thoughts. I've worked with about 50 lawyers, for almost 20 years, and they would only say "LOL" to that. But then again, I know what my senses give me while I'm awake, and I can corroborate these senses with the words of others I seem to meet. (A friend went for a hotdog, I was not there; but I did see the hotdog in the elevator...so that is not a part of me, unless my own life is completely irrational). Remind me again how we are even in a position to state that we have the knowledge to be postulating god or no god? You see, I am not even there yet, but I do prefer facts because facts in essence are many instances of proof that something is. Facts, of course, are not mental recollections, but tangible reality; events witnessed by many and physical evidence of such events. If you are saying that things happen in the world that are not a part of 'tangible reality' then I think we are living in very different worlds, and admit very different phenomena as evidence that what we believe to have happened, really happened. I'll believe in bigfoot when I see him, or when 'credible' evidence comes forth. But of course, the idea of credibility does not even exist now. So where do we go from here? Keep fighting, or for once try to find a middle ground? Seeing as neither of us knows the truth, nor do my science gods nor your non-science gods, we would be wise to be agnostic here.shawngibson@unravelingdescent.com_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Shawn said:
God as an influential being in the day-to-day universe. There is ZERO proof of that.
When you understand the monumental problem with your own thinking such a statement represents, you'll gain a mote of wisdom essential to effective critical thinking. "There is no proof/evidence of X" = "My mind is closed to the possibility of X", because there simply is no way to support a universal negative claim. It can only be an assertion of a pre-existing bias.William J Murray_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Shawn at 11 The battle between science and ID is a manufactured war. Meanwhile, the facts remain.Upright BiPed_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Shawn, science would be impossible if atheistic materialism were true. (See "Boltzmann Brain" and Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism"): Thus how is it possible for anyone to truly be a scientist if they are a atheistic materialist?
Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True (Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism) - video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga - video https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL80CAECC36901BCEE
of related interest to Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism:
Quote: "In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage" Donald Hoffman PhD. - Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception - 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439
"Boltzmann Brain"
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency - a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what "breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027 Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video: The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
supplemental note as to your reference of Kant:
visible effects originate from invisible causes - God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum - Antoine Suarez - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQOwMX4bCqk&index=1&list=UUVmgTa2vbopdjpMNAQBqXHw
Also of note:
The Universal Determinism Dichotomy (UDD) - David L. Abel - 2015 Excerpt: In recent years, physicalistic philosophy has come under increasing scrutiny, even from within the scientific community.(1-8,14-43) Incorporation of metaphysical materialism into the very definition of science has been called into question, especially since the scientific method itself is non-physical. Other problems with philosophic physicalism include: 1) Physicality seems to have had a beginning in time, along with time itself. This raises questions of what caused the effect of physicality, including the time dimension. 2) The laws of physics themselves are mathematical (abstract, conceptual and formal rather than physical). 3) Life is formally organized within even the simplest cell, not just self-ordered as we see in Prigogine’s “dissipative structures” of chaos theory. 4) All known life is cybernetic. Subcellular processes are all meticulously programmed and processed by very sophisticated mechanisms, never observed to arise from Chance and/or Necessity. 5) Representationalism, a purely formal phenomenon, is employed within living cells. Various Material Symbol Systems are used to communicate messages, program complex computations, and to regulate homeostasis. Prescription and its Processing are products of Decision Theory, not Stochastic (random) Theory. Stochastic Theory is merely descriptive. Only Decision Theory is known to be able to prescribe sophisticated function, and process it. https://www.academia.edu/12267097/The_Universal_Determinism_Dichotomy_UDD_
bornagain77_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Is it possible to believe in ID without believing in any god that has an influence on day-to-day human affairs?
Yes. Again, ID is not about religion. It's about objective physical evidence of design. You need to separate your conclusions from the evidence.
As I have said, I already admit that there may have been a designer, way back when.
"Admitting" something in rhetoric for the purposes of denying it in practice is about the observer, not the evidence.
Assuming my conclusion, and confirmation bias, are both of course in accordance with me pleasing myself, going about my day in a manner I find acceptable, i.e. as opposed to believing in Big Foot, if that makes sense.
More than you apparently understand.
I have always been completely permeable to new facts.
Is that why you denigrate them with virtually every phrase you choose? No need to answer. It's a given.Upright BiPed_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

shawn:
Is it possible to believe in ID without believing in any god that has an influence on day-to-day human affairs?
Yes. “Lokiarchaeota” - the organisms they found- are just as evolved as eukaryotes. They need the “Lokiarchaeota” of today to be vey similar to the “Lokiarchaeota” of hundreds of millions of years ago to have a case. And even then there is a huge hole to be filled to get to eukaryotes.Joe_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

May I ask, please, if it is not religious, then from where comes the hatred between scientific folks and ID people? When I go to many sites, the scientific people have nothing but hatred for ID people, and see them as, if you'll pardon the language, troglodytes (no offence to chimps). And on the other end, the ID people throw equally vitriolic arguments back. There's never a middle ground. I don't see science and ID as even being part of the same pursuit. ID is about what happened before life; Evolution is about what happened after life started. Shawnshawngibson@unravelingdescent.com_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Is it possible to believe in ID without believing in any god that has an influence on day-to-day human affairs? As I have said, I already admit that there may have been a designer, way back when. Assuming my conclusion, and confirmation bias, are both of course in accordance with me pleasing myself, going about my day in a manner I find acceptable, i.e. as opposed to believing in Big Foot, if that makes sense. I have always been completely permeable to new facts. Shawnshawngibson@unravelingdescent.com_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Shawn, ID isn't about religion. Its about physical evidence of design. Also, look up the concepts of "assuming your conclusion" and "confirmation bias".Upright BiPed_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

This is the first time I've ever written on an ID site, and I admit I am no scientist. I've been following this story here (along with many other blog posts here), for days. It seems, along with recent "Lokiarchaeota" news, to be a big push for origins. I do not mean to come across as arrogant, or for that matter ignorant, but I wrote myself an email to respond here, including mostly my 'big' thoughts. I hope you don't mind me posting it here: My whole life I've been a person of science, but have always felt that religion can give small, humble people what they need to survive tragedies and their own ignorance (I count myself among the small and humble). Religion can give comforting answers in times of desperation; for example, I've often listened to the Sermon on the Mount, and Buddhist writings, and Hindu writings, Greek, Shinto, Zoroastrian, well, you get the point, but I've never taken the gods as literal. And I'd like to thank Immanual Kant for teaching me the most important thing I've ever learned: that people are always ends, never merely means to ends; even if they are means to ends - they are always ends, and the means must fall under the ends: a person must always be treated well. So when some person in an ancient book gives a dictum on behalf of his god, I follow my own heart and ask, would this dictum hurt another? If yes, I ignore it. I actually didn't need Kant to teach me that, I knew it as a child, but he put it so succinctly:) The current landscape has left a bitter taste in my mouth, as if religion is the cause of all evil. But some people, religious people with no ill-intent, need to be educated, too. I'm not sure how to approach Creationists, and children of religious people. I just want to educate people, and that includes people who believe in god but who are curious and are open to separating faith from fact. I have no problem with a god creating the universe; my problem is with religion. I see no god in the day-to-day workings of life, not today and not throughout recorded history, but that does not mean, maybe, that there was no God in the beginning - the problem is believing that god is relevant, is a lover of humans and does awesome things, has an effect in this universe, and offers ultimatums to human beings as regards their day to day doings and their place in the afterlife, at the expense of anyone who believes in a different god; such a god has no place (if evidence is key) in Evolution, or in this world in general, but that doesn't mean there is no god. Evolutionary science has NEVER even spoken of god(s) except as corollary to appease various factions. God is irrelevant in that sense. Gods are only relevant in the inner sense of faith. But you can not deny the unconscious motives of the average, ignorant, small, defeatable person. We all want answers. Most of us are not scientists or spiritual gurus. The influence of others MUST be contained; each person MUST be able to traverse their own reasonable minds. The education systems of the world fall VERY SHORT of instigating this! Priests teach religion; teachers are underfunded or are under the influence of priests or their own institutions. Only when no answers are given to young people, just questions for them to explore, will the falsity of "religion", and the value of scientific method, be universal. We all loved Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy as children, but we soon learned that they were just fictions of human imagination, and we went on to ask why it hurts when we fall down. If only our questions could have remained so small! If one wants to believe in a god for reasons of self-assurance, then so be it (I have prayed to some part of my head when in great pain or when suffering a great loss, but I've never expected a goblin to come out of the closet as a result, or for my prayers to 'actually' change the future); believing in a god on a personal level will not affect anything but it will help that person get through a particularly bad event. And no one would deny a person the right to be human, as long as that person is able to separate his or her heart/emotions from what goes on in the objective world. But then, of course, you must step back and say, "Wow, I just begged a god I don't believe in to help me through this". And further: "If I believe that my prayers will be answered, then all I believe about science is moot". God as a crux for hurting hearts - no problem. God as an influential being in the day-to-day universe. There is ZERO proof of that. I think the entire ID argument is completely irrelevant. If a god had a hand in this, it was only at the onset; Nature took care of the rest!!! Unless, of course, you take a teleological approach, and confine yourself to the straightjacket of complete automation. Hegel would be proud:) For that matter, if my own thoughts are to be included, then we need to admit that as a species, if there is even a species (or other species, or a sun or even a universe), no person has ever divided the subject/object barrier into anything comprehensible. Mind/matter? Same thing. But no sane person, even if they recognize these divides, can actually live according to them. We seem once we question to be caught living a life we can not believe in on any level, except on that level where we are able to trickle through the ages, through biological and ecological and developmental data, theses recreated all over the world many times, updated as new knowledge is again proven many times. It's the closest we have to being able to satisfy a reasonable mind. I think we have a long way to go before we will truly be answering fundamental questions. However, I will be following science and reading those headlines, in hopes of feeling that we know more than we did yesterday. I won't be following Hesiod, the Bible, the Mahabharata, or any other dust-bound book from a long-gone age (if ages, books, and other people exist). The question, however, then becomes one of boxes within boxes, and according to Occam's razor, we defeat ourselves by postulating such un-endable first causes. I myself choose to believe in science, in scientific method, because it's the one area where we have proof, as much proof as is possible, given that none of you may actually even exist. Having said all of this, you will see that, at 45 years old, and semi-educated in both realms, and with life in general, I have no answers. Sincerely, Shawn Gibsonshawngibson@unravelingdescent.com_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Spot on, Cornelius. Atheist science = Mr Magooology. Without wishing to push the barnyard metaphor too disparagingly, their sterility in terms of the major paradigms reminds me of the aphorism of an eastern sage, quoted by Aldous Huxley in his essay on comparative religion, The Perennial Philosophy, to the effect that pigs eat acorns and think neither of the earth that nourishes them nor the sun that enlivens them/gives increase. When evolution is such a miraculous, catch-all concept, it makes you wonder why they express continual astonishment, as each new discovery puts the kybosh on their cherished, putative, evolutionary insights. Forrest Gump's chocolate-box gift that never stops giving.Axel_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Indeed, Dionisio. Apparently with a God-like cleverness according to the descriptions in your link. And just to imagine that (barely) constrained randomness over a vanishingly short time in the Cambrian resulted in complexity that's billions and billions and billions and billions . . . (rinse and repeat) . . . of times more complex than anything humans have ever designed, and that they self assembled by (barely) constrained chance is a miracle of the first order. Sounds of (barely) constrained laughter. -QQuerius_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

FYI - biological cells are sufficiently 'clever' to avoid and solve problems: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-563444Dionisio_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Kinesins walk along microtubule highways carrying building components for molecular machines. To what end? Clearly, barely constrained randomness. BA77 mentioned Psalm 139. But that's 3 thousand years old. Some "God" knitting us together as though we were a product of purpose. We know better since Darwin, don't we? Sunrise Psalm 139 Where is your God?leodp_{May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

"barely constrained randomness" sounds a lot like "barely guided randomness". Seems the interesting Science would be found in the "barely constraining" part of the process. Not in the random yawn. Go Science.ppolish_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

In regards to the 'barely constrained randomness' that the Darwinists tried to portray the kinesin's actions as, it is interesting to note this recent article on the myosin molecular machine. An article in which its actions were described as 'anything but random':
Developments from the Study of Cells and Molecular Machines - April 28, 2015 Myosin Yet the stiff-legged motion seemed awkward at first -- something like a Monty Python "silly walk" sketch. But by filming the machines at 1000 frames per second, the Oxford scientists could see that the molecular machines' motion is anything but random or silly (see the animation above). "The movement resembles the twirling of a dividing compass used to measure distances on a map," chemist Philipp Kukura says. It's a bigger feat than first appears. "Think of it being rather like trying to walk a tightrope in a hurricane whilst being pelted with tennis balls.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/developments_fr095581.html
If that loss of 'barely constrained randomenss' was not bad enough for the atheistic materialist who prefers chaos/randomness to be his god instead of letting God be his God, it is now found that mutations themselves are not random but are directed:
How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome - James A. Shapiro - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513000869
Even the small minority 'mutations/changes' to the genome that are not being directed by highly sophisticated molecular machines, but are happening 'accidentally/randomly' as Darwinists had originally presupposed, are now found to not be happening in a mathematically random pattern, but are found to be happening in a non-random pattern:
New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms - Cornelius Hunter - January 7, 2013 Excerpt: mutations don’t occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene’s single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene’s nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations.,,, These findings contradict evolution’s prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/news-research-elucidates-directed.html WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations - Kevin Kelly - 2014 Excerpt: What is commonly called "random mutation" does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it. On the contrary, there's much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism's predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern. http://edge.org/response-detail/25264
The fact that life IS NOT 'barely constrained randomness' is perhaps best illustrated in this following article. In the article, Talbott gives an overview of the 'purposeful' actions of the billion, trillion, protein molecules that make up a human body:
HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling... and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)",,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2
To try to describe the preceding 'miracle' of a billion, trillion protein molecules, operating as a cohesive whole for precisely a lifetime, as 'barely constrained randomness' is to do an injustice to science and to the English language that is, in my honest opinion, on par with the crime of negligent homicide. Supplemental note:
“What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?” picture – http://cdn-4.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/harvardd-2.jpg The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
Verse and Music:
Psalm 139:14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. Phillips, Craig & Dean - Throne of Praise (Official Lyric Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyZFxDjsC7g
bornagain77_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

as to this quote of yours Dr. Hunter:
“to guide motor behaviors” and that vertebrate nervous systems, in general, “have flexibly adapted to accommodate anatomical specializations for flight. The infinitive form is the key. Evolutionary theory is supposed to have rejected teleology.” teleology 1 a : the study of evidences of design in nature b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature c : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes 2 : the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleology
Dr. Hunter, your pointing out of Darwinists's illegitimate use of words that express purpose and goals in life, (i.e. illegitimate use of words that express teleology), reminds me of this following article from Stephen Talbott in which he challenges biologists to describe the processes of molecular biology without using such words that invoke purpose
The 'Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! - Stephen L. Talbott - September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
This working biologist states 'we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them':
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails - Ann Gauger - June 2011 Excerpt: I'm a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn't troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it's high time we moved on. - Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
The impression of Intelligent Design in molecular biology is simply overwhelming. Of course, most neo-Darwinists, of the atheistic persuasion, do not like the overwhelming impression of Intelligent Design in life and try to counter that overwhelming impression of Design. Dr. Wells relates, in this following article from one year ago, how Darwinists, trying to counter the overwhelming impression of Design that the animation ‘Inner Life of the Cell’ had created, purposely tried, (with a new animation titled, "Inner Life of a Cell: Protein Packing"), to make the cell look as chaotic as possible,,
Flailing Blindly: The Pseudoscience of Josh Rosenau and Carl Zimmer – Jonathan Wells April 17, 2014 Excerpt: The new animation (like the old) also includes a kinesin molecule hauling a vesicle, but this time the kinesin’s movements are characterized (in Zimmer’s words) by
“barely constrained randomness. Every now and then, a tiny molecule loaded with fuel binds to one of the kinesin “feet.” It delivers a jolt of energy, causing that foot to leap off the molecular cable and flail wildly, pulling hard on the foot that’s still anchored. Eventually, the gyrating foot stumbles into contact again with the cable, locking on once more — and advancing the vesicle a tiny step forward. This updated movie offers a better way to picture our most intricate inner workings…. In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it’s as if they’re trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don’t operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd.”
But that’s not what the biological evidence shows. In fact, kinesin moves quickly, with precise movements, to get from one place to another,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/flailing_blindl084521.html
"barely constrained randomness" is the key phrase in that excerpt. Dr. Wells goes on to state in his article that the kinesin's actions are anything but 'barely constrained randomness'
Flailing Blindly: The Pseudoscience of Josh Rosenau and Carl Zimmer - Jonathan Wells - April 17, 2014 Excerpt: Kinesin (a motor which hauls protein cargo around the cell) is considerably more energy efficient than man-made machines. It has been called "a stunning example of cellular nanotechnology" and "positive evidence for design." ,,, kinesin moves quickly, with precise movements, to get from one place to another. A kinesin molecule takes one 8-nanometer "step" along a microtubule for every high-energy ATP molecule it uses, and it uses about 80 ATPs per second. On the scale of a living cell, this movement is very fast. To visualize it on a macroscopic scale, imagine a microtubule as a one-lane road and the kinesin molecule as an automobile. The kinesin would be traveling over 200 miles per hour! The fact that the cell's cytoplasm is quite crowded makes this even more remarkable -- like an automobile going 200 miles per hour through a traffic jam. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/flailing_blindl084521.html
Here are two more articles that directly contradict their claim that the kinesin’s actions are "barely constrained randomness",,,
Kinesin: What Gives? - Steven M. Block - Department of Molecular Biology - Princeton Excerpt: The kinesin motor is impressively fast,,, and is quite powerful,,, (Scaled up to our own dimensions, a motor with corresponding properties would travel at similar speeds and produce as much horsepower per unit weight as the 'Thrust' supersonic car, which recently broke the sound barrier) http://www.stanford.edu/group/blocklab/Block-Cell%20Review.pdf How Cellular Motors Prevent Traffic Jams - January 10, 2013 Excerpt: Living cells have superhighways of microtubules, crowded with molecular machines that "walk" along them delivering cargo. Sometimes things get a bit crowded, but deliveries arrive on time -- thanks to a unique strategy. In short, the machines hand off their cargo, one to the next, till it reaches the end of the traffic jam, something like the kid's relay race game of passing a beach ball overhead down the line. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/how_cellular_mo068121.html
bornagain77_{May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply