The remarkable process of cell division

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 2, 2022

Cell biology, Intelligent Design}

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

Chromosomes are densely packed DNA. The two “sister chromatids” of a chromosome, having been accurately duplicated during prophase and secured by centromeres, are arranged with all the other chromosomes on the spindle axis in metaphase. Soon after they are winched apart in anaphase into daughter cells. This elaborate choreography takes place every time a cell divides. The cell cycle is fascinating to anyone who has witnessed it under a light microscope, as you can see here:
Evolution News, “DNA Packing: One of the Supreme Wonders of Nature” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 31, 2022)

Remarkable movies made with super-resolution atomic force microscopy show the parts of cohesin undergoing conformational changes. These hand-over-hand motions operate in the dark without eyes, using ATP for energy. They get it right every time!
Evolution News, “DNA Packing: One of the Supreme Wonders of Nature” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 31, 2022)

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: Everything is coming up non-random (PAV)

Comments

Lt Com Data: (apologies for not pasting you entertaining reply because of the problem I observed) So, you don't think it's possible for the ID view to be shown to be incorrect. Thank you for being honest and taking the time to answer.JVL_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: I gave you this exact thing before about 6 months ago. You dropped the conversation and did not return. I apologise for that. I need to gain an idea of your understanding. Provide some framework on the question. I just want to know, based on your own understanding of the issues and evidence and data whether or not it's possible for the ID view to be shown to be incorrect. AND is it possible, based on your view and understanding, that the unguided view could be shown to be correct. I don't know why you're finding this so complicated. I'm asking for your own, personal opinion.JVL_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

@JVL ID as source of life will be invalidated when you will see a pig flying over Pacific ocean while singing rock ballads in mandarin dialect.Lieutenant Commander Data_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

JVL
But the point is it’s not my view or perception of the probabilities; I’m interested in your view of them.
I need to gain an idea of your understanding. Provide some framework on the question.Silver Asiatic_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

247 JVL I gave you this exact thing before about 6 months ago. You dropped the conversation and did not return. I can take a sentence, randomize the letters and give it to you. Using whatever randomizer you want, create a complete, correct English language sentence without the help of human intervention.Silver Asiatic_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: I asked you to frame the issue in the hopes that you’re not just asking loaded questions or gotchas. As easy as you think it might be to say if something is possible, would be as easy for you to say how probable it is. But the point is it's not my view or perception of the probabilities; I'm interested in your view of them. If you don’t want to help with probabilities in favor of something “simpler” then, yes, I think that’s a lot trickier. Apology accepted, although I don’t think you did it intentionally. I am interested in your own, personal view. If you don't want to offer it then fair enough.JVL_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

JVL
I asked a couple of very simple, potentially yes or no questions
I asked you to frame the issue in the hopes that you're not just asking loaded questions or gotchas. As easy as you think it might be to say if something is possible, it would be just as easy for you to say how probable it is.
If that’s too tricky an assignment I apologise.
If you don't want to help with probabilities in favor of something "simpler" then, yes, I think that's a lot trickier. Apology accepted, although I don't think you did it intentionally.Silver Asiatic_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: you know that far above I put up the random text experiments. that is a direct example of how it could be falsified by observation of FSCO/I by blind chance. And how would that be done? Just give an example of a possible experiment so I'm clear as to what you're thinking. Then I won't misinterpret you or argue against a straw man.JVL_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

As, JVL is appealing to falsificationism, ignoring what has already been pointed out about its deep problems. KFkairosfocus_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Asauber: Why on earth would you need to find out if it’s possible to change someone’s mind, without the intent of possibly changing their mind? To see how you think. If you don't want to answer my questions then fine but don't drag out the suspense. Either you have an answer or you don't.JVL_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

JVL, you know that far above I put up the random text experiments. that is a direct example of how it could be falsified by observation of FSCO/I by blind chance. KFkairosfocus_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

"I’m merely wondering if it’s possible." JVL, Why on earth would you need to find out if it's possible to change someone's mind, without the intent of possibly changing their mind? It's rhetoric a salesperson would use. Andrewasauber_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

PS I have just noticed something: when I try to reply to Lt Com Data including a copy-and-paste part of his (?) post I get blocked by WordFence. When I reply to him (?) without the copy-and-paste it works just fine. Could he (?) have set something which is causing a problem?JVL_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Lt Com Data: Should I take your reply to mean you don't think it's possible for the ID view to be shown to be incorrect?JVL_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Asauber: I am not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm merely wondering if it's possible. Will you answer my simple questions?JVL_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: if you could assist with the probability measures, that would help. You’ve made a decision so I’d hope you could – the probability of … I asked a couple of very simple, potentially yes or no questions (I'll leave that up to you) because I'm interested in your opinion, not mine. I know what I think. If that's too tricky an assignment I apologise.JVL_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

JVL @ 210 "Also, I CLEARLY stated I was NOT trying to change anyone’s mind. " JVL @ 235 "What kind of evidence or data would it take to change your mind?" Andrewasauber_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

JVL do you think it’s possible that at some time your ID view might be shown to be incorrect?
Considering that a single cell is much more complex than anything humanity invented then Id view will be shown to be incorrect in the moment a car ,a computer ,etc. will emerge from laws of physics without human/intelligent intervention. Billions of years and no iphone found underground in a coal mining? Why?If there are real chances to appear multiplications of a living cells then a phone than can't multiply itself should have much more chances to emerge.
Kairosfocus JVL, in principle possible,
KF in principle you are too nice. :)Lieutenant Commander Data_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

JVL - if you could assist with the probability measures, that would help. You've made a decision so I'd hope you could - the probability of ... The lucky chance that the universe exists with laws and constants as it is today The lucky chance that the earth emerged with conditions right for life The lucky chance that life emerged from non-living chemicals The lucky chance that cellular life emerged with cell-processing features The lucky chance that single cells multiplied and bonded for complex organisms The lucky chance that human beings evolved The lucky chance that rationality, consciousness and purpose evolved from unintelligent, irrational, blind nature Total those up - and then there's a probability for that. Maybe 1 in 1000 chances? Or one in a hundred billion? or much more than that? When you provide that, someone can say "yes, that's very probable" or not.Silver Asiatic_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: in principle possible What kind of evidence or data would it take to change your mind? I'm hoping you suggest something that is potentially achievable.JVL_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

JVL, in principle possible, I also believe the second law of thermodynamics can be in principle refuted, but for very similar reasons, maximally unlikely. KF PS, that unguided blind chance and mechanical necessity could give rise to life and body plans up to ours is in the same boat as failure of the second law of thermodynamics. And, again, you were already advised on the problems of falsificationism above.kairosfocus_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus and Bornagain77 and anyone else who designs to respond: Hand on heart, do you think it's possible that at some time your ID view might be shown to be incorrect? Also, do you think it possible that the unguided view might be shown to be correct? Thanks.JVL_{February 17, 2022
February
02
Feb
17
17
2022
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

JVL, it was shown in 153 ff above that your redefinition in 150 of "history" and "records" to lend plausibility to the notion that there is observational warrant for claiming that FSCO/I came about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity fails. You have never cogently answered that. Further to the matter, on OoL, you imply that highly complex code and algorithms [present in D/RNA] -- involving language and goal directed stepwise processes came about by blind forces in Darwin's warm pond or the like, along with the molecular nanotech machinery to effect same, involving metabolic pathways of astonishing complexity and a von Neumann kinematic self replication facility manifesting another order of complex system integration . You and all of us full well know on a world of experience and linked blind needle in haystack search challenge that complex language and goals are highly characteristic of intelligently directed configuration, but you have tried to evade the force by linguistic manipulation. Which, you obviously cannot defend as your switch to tangents shows. It is likely that your reactions and arguments show underlying ideological commitment to the institutionalised orthodoxy of the day, but that is visibly in unacknowledged crisis. Such adherence is not insane and is common but lacks rational support. As for evil, a fair self assessment and evaluation of our common condition will at once show that Solzhenitsyn was quite correct. That is, the line between good and evil first passes through the individual human heart. Further to all of this, evolutionary materialism and so its fellow traveller ideologies too, is manifestly self referential regarding our cognitive powers and incoherently undermines credibility of rational freedom -- e.g. no free will from Provine and Haldane's chemical vs rational soundness -- thus is incoherent and self defeating, self falsifying. It cannot justify its insistence on being a yardstick of scientific truth or knowledge, much less institutional domination. So, instead it would be advisable to address the gaps and revise your thinking to better accord with what we know on trillions of observed cases and search challenge analysis, FSCO/I is a strong, highly reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration as a pivotal causal factor. Fair comment, insistence on a failed paradigm in the face of cogent correction is a mark of ideological commitment, not of sound analysis. Flailing away on distractive, tangential, polarising gambits only further shows lack of weight on the merits. KFkairosfocus_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

JVL, Instantly, you know, just from the calendar, the date of Christian founding and the founder of the faith defined by the gospel of the realm of God, the realm of truth lived by the right: Jesus of Nazareth, crucified c 30 AD at age 33, and risen with 500 witnesses, about two dozen of whom were prominent enough to be identifiable, especially his chief emissaries of the good news, the apostles. The same circle from which the foundational texts (apart from the Hebrew Scriptures Jesus fulfilled as Messiah, cf Isa 52:13 - 53:12 esp) known as the New Testament came. Islam, coming along 600 years later and asserting that Jesus was not crucified -- as well established a basic fact of history as one gets -- is simply not relevant. So, pretence not to know that Luther coming along 1500 years later as a Christian Theologian based on said scriptures and gospel message, cannot have been foundational, as well you knew all along. As for the sect you seem to suggest as though it were typical, that is what, late C20? And, an isolated sect of low repute by all accounts, for cause. Strawman based distractor no 1 fails. Next, we both know that what was shown in brief above was that the system of thought, evolutionary materialistic scientism, is hopelessly self referentially absurd. In brief, again, we cannot reduce our responsible rational freedom of mind to computation on a wetware substrate without undermining credibility of our reasoning. Haldane highlighted it c 1930 and Provine seemed to fail to see it twenty years ago, without real rational freedom, credibility of mind and its schemes disintegrates. Evolutionary materialism fails. In failing it is unsurprising to see that it has in it no world root is that can properly ground ought, an amorality that opens the door to that gross error of thought, nihilism. Plato knew better 2400 years ago. Finally, your weak turnabout projection also fails. For, as even your own attempts show, it is a regrettably typical pattern of objectors here at UD to use red herrings to go off on tangents: you are already switching from a subject you raised on alleged "history" of the prehistoric past of origins you tried to use to smuggle in the empirically unsupported notion that blind chance and mechanical necessity can and does create FSCO/I. In fact you had begged questions and fallaciously redefined history to lend unwarranted strength to your claims. You proceeded to toxically loaded strawmen and subtly ignited them to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise discussion. [What relevance is the claim of Islam to the fact that neither Luther nor an odd sect could be foundational to the Christian faith, and even that issue is tangential.] Of course, doubtless some ID adherents have behaved poorly and some will doubtless do so again. For, to struggle with evil is part of the human frame. But to try to divert a well founded observation made over more than a decade into a turnabout gambit is a fail. However, such distractions and evasions carry an implicit message: the objections are coming up short on the weight of merits. Otherwise, there would be triumphal, crushing arguments given by those who come here to object, not distractions and evasions. KFkairosfocus_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

JVL presents no real-time scientific evidence whatsoever for his extraordinary claims and has the audacity to claim, "their views are unscientific". The sheer audacity of his blatant hypocrisy is breathtaking. Sad, but breathtaking.bornagain77_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 and Asauber can't quite seem to man-up and accept the fact that they consider anyone who thinks life arose on Earth via unguided processes is insane or evil in some way. But i think they've said as much without being explicit. To me that means their views are unscientific, they do not accept anyway their positions could be shown to be incorrect. This has nothing to do with any evidence I might present, this has to do with their ability to consider their views potentially incorrect. They don't think that is possible. So there is no point in talking about it.JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Very telling JVL, you can't be bothered to present any actual real-time empirical evidence for your extraordinary claims,, yet it is the evidence itself that, (if you had any), would stop me dead in my tracks from saying that it is an insane belief to believe that a series of 'selected accidents' can possibly create something as unfathomably complex as the brain or the eye.
The Human Brain Is ‘Beyond Belief’ by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * – 2017 Excerpt: The human brain,, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”1 and “a world we had never imagined.”2,,, https://www.icr.org/article/10186 The Human Eye, Like The Human Brain, Is A Wonder https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/
I don't care if you talk to me or not JVL. I just know, barring any compelling real-time empirical evidence to the contrary, that I am not going to stop saying that unguided Darwinian evolution is a completely absurd, even insane, belief for you JVL, a supposedly sane and rational person, to hold.bornagain77_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

JVL And if I have read and understood all the statements and still disagree . . . Am I insane or evil?
How we call a person that always blame somebody else and take no responsibility for his actions? It's always somebody else's fault , everybody else should change to serve ,respect, understand me, me, me . Cry louder or...change yourself . Grow a pair.Lieutenant Commander Data_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: I consider your ‘anti-rational’ Darwinian worldview to be completely insane (Haldane, Lewis, Egnor), and I hold that you have, at least, the minimal amount of sanity required to recognize that it is a insane worldview. So, there is no reason you and I should continue to attempt to have any kind of conversation. So I can ignore your comments from no on? JVL, you keep dancing around the fact that you have presented no real-time empirical evidence to support your ‘extraordinary’ claim that unguided processes can create something as complex as the brain. That wasn't the immediate topic. You should try harder to pay attention.JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

JVL, you keep dancing around the fact that you have presented no real-time empirical evidence to support your 'extraordinary' claim that unguided processes can create something as complex as the brain.bornagain77_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply