Your Designed Body: Engineering Hurdles

_{Eric Hedin

December 16, 2022

Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, specified complexity}

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

Excerpt from Your Designed Body, by Steve Laufmann and Howard Glicksman, MD.

To be alive, each cell must perform thousands of complicated tasks, with both functional and process coherence. This includes…containment, special-purpose gates, chemical sensing and controls (for many different chemicals), supply chain and transport, energy production and use, materials production, and information and information processing.

What does it take to make these work? Designing solutions to problems like this is hard, especially given two additional requirements.
The first, orchestration, means the cell has to get all the right things done in the right order at the right times. The activities of millions of parts must be coordinated. To this end, the cell actively sequences activities, signals various parts about what to do, starts and stops various machinery, and monitors progress.
The second requirement is reproduction. As if being alive weren’t difficult enough, some of the body’s cells must be able to generate new cells. This imposes a daunting set of additional design problems. Each new cell needs a high-fidelity copy of the parent cell’s internal information, all the molecular machines needed for life, and a copy of the cell’s structure, including the organelles and microtubules. And it needs to know which internal operating system it should use. Once these are all in place, the cell walls must constrict to complete the enclosure for the new cell, without allowing the internals to spill out.

Somehow cells solve all these problems. Each cell is a vast system of systems, with millions of components, machines, and processes, which are coherent, interdependent, tightly coordinated, and precisely tuned—all essential characteristics of the cell if it’s to be alive rather than dead.

There remains no plausible, causally adequate hypotheses for how any series of accidents, no matter how lucky and no matter how much time is given, could accomplish such things. Presently it even lies beyond he reach of our brightest human designers to create them. Human engineers have no idea how to match the scope, precision, and efficiencies of even a single such cell, much less organisms composed of many cellular systems of systems, each system composed of millions or billions of cells.
Your Designed Body, pages 49-50.

Comments

Ba77, Yet "evolution" is said to be the 'cornerstone of Biology.' Nothing shows that statement to be true. Those in charge of scientific research are making some progress with understanding the present. With doing research on things alive today to find out how and why disease processes work the way they do. With the human genome sequenced, the next hurdle will be figuring out what that massive amount of code does. However, those who study the past must start with the thought that everything they see has a 'natural' explanation. That every ancient fossil they find represents a part of a series of steps where organisms self-upgrade from "primitive" to modern. How can biological systems upgrade themselves? How can they create novel information in a system that has no goals, no direction? Novel "additions" that integrate into the organism perfectly, not imperfectly. An animal has one tail, not three. An insect has wings that are designed correctly. That are just the right size and shape to travel through the air and carry its weight. And the insect has infused knowledge that gives it perfect control over those wings.relatd_{December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

,,,, For instance, take the intelligibility, and/or rationality, of the universe. Atheistic Naturalism, especially with its core "random chaos" postulate, simply has no clue why the universe should be rational, much less does Atheistic Naturalism have any clue why we, out of all creatures on earth, should, uniquely, have the capacity to understand the rationality behind the universe. In fact, via their denial of the reality of free will, atheistic naturalists undermine human rationality altogether, and thus undermine a primary, and 'required', assumption for doing science.
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html Of note: Martin Cothran is author of several textbooks on traditional logic (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism). (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD
As their denial of the reality of free will makes fairly clear, assuming methodological naturalism, and/or atheistic naturalism, to be true beforehand, (before any scientific investigation has even begun mind you), drives science itself, indeed drives our entire conception of reality itself, into catastrophic epistemological failure,
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), 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. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply 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). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 18, 2021 - Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves 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, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, 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;
Moreover, directly contrary to what Darwinian atheists claim via their mandated presupposition of 'methodological naturalism, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the Darwinist's unquestioned assumption of atheistic naturalism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare to understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. So thus in conclusion, and as Dick pointed out, the real core of Darwin's theory is atheistic naturalism itself, not the 'central dogma' as Sir Giles tried to imply. As the 2016 Royal Society meeting itself made clear, core precepts of the central dogma can be, and have been, experimentally falsified, and Neo-Darwinism itself can even be openly questioned among leading evolutionary biologists, but to question atheistic naturalism itself is simply heresy for Darwinists.,,,, ID is to be, at all times, "ignored, dismissed, or mocked" by Darwinists as a viable option. As should be needless to say, this is NOT science. This is the religion of atheistic naturalism placing a choke hold on science, stifling free inquiry, and refusing to ever let science go where the evidence may lead. In short, assuming atheistic naturalism as being true beforehand, and refusing to ever allow atheistic naturalism itself to be questioned, and/or falsified, is the antithesis of a free and open science.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77_{December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

The following exchange between Sir Giles and Dick is very interesting,
Sir Giles: “Anything that needs a protein that cannot be produced from a combination of A, G, C and T is beyond the reach of evolution.” Dick: "Finding such a protein may falsify naturalistic evolution for Sir Giles, but I doubt that it would do so for most evolutionists. I suspect they’d conclude that the existence of the protein is evidence that there’s an alternative mechanism in the cell for synthesizing proteins that has yet to be discovered." Sir Giles: "Sorry, but that would be a big game changer. Modern evolutionary theory is based on variation in DNA and selection of the phenotypes that result from it. If you can find a necessary protein that is not dependent on those four bases, then you would have falsified our understanding of evolution. Good luck with that." Dick: "It would indeed be a game changer, but it would only cause a restructuring of the current theory. It wouldn’t compel a rejection of the overarching concept of naturalistic evolution, at least not for those whose commitment to naturalism is more fundamental than their commitment to Darwinian versions of evolution."
On this point Dick is completely, 100%, correct. As Dr. Cornelius Hunter recently pointed out, the core of evolution, the only thing that is not forfeitable in evolution theory, is the overarching mandate of Atheistic Naturalism itself. Other than the commitment to Atheistic Naturalism, and as far as empirical science is concerned, anything goes.
There Is No Settled “Theory of Evolution” - Cornelius Hunter - November 10, 2022 Excerpt: What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right? Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That’s according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, “The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing,” by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation. Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature. So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one. Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on. But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now. There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false. - Dr. Cornelius Hunter - PhD. Biophysics https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/there-is-no-settled-theory-of-evolution/
There is simply no empirical finding that is ever allowed to falsify the Darwinist's core belief that all species on earth arose naturalistically, completely without Intelligence. For instance, take Sir Giles appeal to the 'central dogma' of evolutionary theory, i.e. "Modern evolutionary theory is based on variation in DNA and selection of the phenotypes that result from it." Yet the "central dogma" of evolutionary theory, (apparently unbeknownst to Sir Giles), is now known to be false. As Denis Noble stated, "all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved."
"Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology": Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin March 31, 2015 Excerpt: Noble doesn't mince words: "It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that "genetic change is random," (2) that "genetic change is gradual," (3) that "following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population," and (4) that "inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible." He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,, He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the "Integrative Synthesis," where genes don't run the show and all parts of an organism -- the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything -- is integrated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/physiology_is_r094821.html
And in the following video around the 15:00 minute mark, Dr.Jonathan Wells shows that the 'central dogma' of Darwinian evolution, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.
Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (14:36 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=876
Yet none of these falsifications of the 'central dogma' matter. The core belief in Atheistic Naturalism, i.e. that life evolved naturalistically and that no intelligence is required, continues unabated. For instance, the 2016 Royal Society meeting featured several speakers who openly discussed the many failings of Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, i.e. the 'central dogma', yet, even though they provided no plausible alternative to Neo-Darwinism, never-the-less, they openly "ignored, dismissed, or mocked ID" as a plausible explanation.
Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell - December 5, 2016 Excerpt: That such a thoroughly mainstream scientific organization should now at last acknowledge problems with the received neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is also obviously notable. Indeed, from our point of view, though presenters ignored, dismissed, or mocked ID,,,, the proceedings confirmed something ID advocates, including Stephen Meyer and others, have been saying for years.,,, The conference did an excellent job of defining the problems that evolutionary theory has failed to solve, but it offered little, if anything, by way of new solutions to those longstanding fundamental problems.,,,, “All elements of the Extended Synthesis [as discussed at the conference] fail to offer adequate explanations for the crucial explanatory deficits of the Modern Synthesis (aka neo-Darwinism) that were explicitly highlighted in the first talk of the meeting by Gerd Müller.” https://evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/
Again, as Dick and Dr. Hunter pointed out, in Darwinian evolution, and as far as empirical science is concerned, anything goes, save for the core belief in Atheistic Naturalism itself. Intelligent Design is simply a non-starter and is “ignored, dismissed, or mocked" as a viable alternative. Moreover, not only do Darwinists steadfastly refused to ever consider ID as a plausible alternative, Darwinists have tried to codify Atheistic Naturalism itself as the supposed unquestioned 'ground rule', and/or 'required assumption', for doing science.
Methodological naturalism Excerpt: Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[21] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today":[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism Methodological naturalism Excerpt: Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
Yet, contrary to what many people have falsely been led to believe, "Methodological naturalism is not now, nor has it ever been, the 'required assumption' for doing science. In fact, far from science ever assuming atheistic naturalism to be true, the required assumptions for the birth of modern science, and for the continued success of science, are the Judeo-Christian assumptions of, 1: The contingency of nature, 2: The intelligibility of nature, and 3: Human Fallibility;
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s championing of inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
Atheistic Naturalism simply lacks the ability to ground any of those Judeo-Christian presuppositions.,,,,bornagain77_{December 21, 2022
December
12
Dec
21
21
2022
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

Dick at 13, What are you hoping to accomplish? I've been here for a relatively long time and there are those here who are never persuaded by any argument, as if anybody ever wrote anything. They continue on, oblivious to any criticism. They just repeat the party line over and over. That tells me they don't want to hear or listen to any criticism of the party line. They repeat and repeat, like used car salesman. And will continue forever - maybe longer.relatd_{December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Relatd @12 "You are engaging in wishful thinking, little else." Maybe you can explain what you mean by this. How is it "wishful thinking" to claim that many of those wedded to a naturalistic worldview simply won't let their belief in mechanistic evolution be falsified if there's any way that they can avoid it? I certainly don't "wish" that that were true. In fact, I wish it weren't, but I'm quite convinced that it is.Dick_{December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

Dick, You are engaging in wishful thinking, little else.relatd_{December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Re: Sir Giles @8: It would indeed be a game changer, but it would only cause a restructuring of the current theory. It wouldn’t compel a rejection of the overarching concept of naturalistic evolution, at least not for those whose commitment to naturalism is more fundamental than their commitment to Darwinian versions of evolution.Dick_{December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

AF, now you know why I speak of the 20 AAs as the main ones. In a canonical world there are rare advantages to going beyond the canon. KFkairosfocus_{December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

Bit off-topic but the incorporation of non-canonical amino-acids into protein is an active area of research.Alan Fox_{December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Richard: Finding such a protein may falsify naturalistic evolution for Sir Giles, but I doubt that it would do so for most evolutionists.
Sorry, but that would be a big game changer. Modern evolutionary theory is based on variation in DNA and selection of the phenotypes that result from it. If you can find a necessary protein that is not dependent on those four bases, then you would have falsified our understanding of evolution. Good luck with that.Sir Giles_{December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Re: Sir Giles @5 "Anything that needs a protein that cannot be produced from a combination of A, G, C and T is beyond the reach of evolution." Finding such a protein may falsify naturalistic evolution for Sir Giles, but I doubt that it would do so for most evolutionists. I suspect they'd conclude that the existence of the protein is evidence that there's an alternative mechanism in the cell for synthesizing proteins that has yet to be discovered.Dick_{December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

SG: Re ACGT. Thank you for pointing out of that all life is information-based. Recent Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger recently opined that information is at the root of everything. Let me know when you come up with a materialistic explanation for information and its centrality in the universe..AnimatedDust_{December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Tjguy: Question: Do you think there exists anything that is beyond the creative powers of evolution?
Sure. Anything that needs a protein that cannot be produced from a combination of A, G, C and T is beyond the reach of evolution.
It’s interesting that you are more than willing to believe in miracles of chance – trillions of them – to support your belief in evolution, but not miracles of purpose and design – because that would violate your worldview.
Since evolution isn’t all about chance, your statement isn’t relevant.Sir Giles_{December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

@#2 Sir Giles You said the ID argument is nothing more than this: “Oh golly, that is so complicated it must be designed.” Question: Do you think there exists anything that is beyond the creative powers of evolution? Or do you think that evolution is capable of designing and creating anything and everything that exists irregardless of it's complexity? It's like you just close your eyes to the complexity of things and ramp up your faith in the supposed creative powers of evolution in spite of the fact that you don't really know if evolution can create these things or not. Basically YOUR argument is this: "Everything evolved so no matter how complicated something might be, we know there must have been a way for it to evolve." This is the only option your worldview permits you to take so I get it, but I just don't think it is the best explanation of reality in the end. It's interesting that you are more than willing to believe in miracles of chance - trillions of them - to support your belief in evolution, but not miracles of purpose and design - because that would violate your worldview. In the end, we all have faith.tjguy_{December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

No, the argument is quite simple to follow
But right on key, an anti ID person cannot follow it. All the anti ID people have are ad hominems. Thank you, for proving my point.jerry_{December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Jerry: Guaranteed to pass right over the anti ID minds that inhabit this site.
No, the argument is quite simple to follow. After all, it would have to be for the ID faithful. Here, let me simplify it further. “Oh golly, that is so complicated it must be designed.”Sir Giles_{December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Guaranteed to pass right over the anti ID minds that inhabit this site. This may be too tough for them. They will just bow to the niche god who sits right next to overwhelming god on the altar of the DNA god and then recite stories.jerry_{December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply