Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

War on cancer could benefit from design perspective?


From Oregon State U:

Researchers have discovered a mechanism of intercellular communication that helps explain how biological systems and actions – ranging from a beating heart to the ability to hit a home run – function properly most of the time, and in some scenarios quite remarkably.

The findings are an important basic advance in how cell sensory systems function. They shed light on the poorly-understood interaction between cells – and they also suggest that some of the damage done by cancer cells can be seen as a “failure to communicate.”

With this accuracy of communication, cells in a heart chamber collectively decide to contract at the appropriate time, and blood gets pumped, dozens of times a minute, for a lifetime. Neuron cells send accurate signals. Photoreceptor cells see clearly.

Cancer cells, by contrast, are poor communicators. This study showed that they resist this process of collective communication, and when enough of them are present, the communicative process begins to lessen and break down. This may be at least one of the ways in which cancer does its biologic damage. More.

Find could suggest one way of blasting cancer cells to hell by spotting their poor communications.

But no, wait, all this communication is just a random process, right? Signals are no different from noise!

On the other hand, why is there even a discipline called cell signalling if Darwin’s followers are correct? At some point, Darwinism is going to begin to cost a lot. Like, getting in the way of cancer cures.

See also: Does Moore’s Law apply to origin of life? Of course, Moore’s Law is fuelled by intelligent design. If people can live with that fact, we might be on to something here.


Interested in conservation of information search theorems?

Hat tip: Evolution News & Views

Follow UD News at Twitter!

War on cancer could benefit from design perspective?
Not only it could, but it definitely must and will benefit. Is there another valid perspective to approach biology research from?
At some point, Darwinism is going to begin to cost a lot. Like, getting in the way of cancer cures.
All the outdated reductionist bottom-up approach to research has been a source of much confusion and waste of precious time. For so long they have been looking in the wrong places with biased expectations, while the Big Data conundrum in biology keeps getting worse. Perhaps that's why so many papers are filled with expressions like 'surprisingly', 'unexpectedly', 'strikingly'? Dionisio

Leave a Reply