Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Design, planning, purpose within the cell have killed Darwinism already. When will they realize it?



This is real science and it is the place where Darwinism takes off it's lab jacket and puts on the priestly robes of the religion of naturalistic materialistic humanism.    Atheism and Darwinism go hand in hand.   But Darwinism doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.   There is no chance that molecular machines more complex than your automobile or your computer or the jet you fly on or the factory you work in just happened to happen.   Really?   Are you really going to fall for that?   After many years pointing out all the reasons Darwinism is ridiculous and various lies and scams they have pulled off, now consider where science has taken us in understanding the world of the cell.   Way past Darwin country folks, we have to face the fact that we are designed.

But this is a good thing, because if we are designed we must have a Designer and that Designer must have had a purpose to design us and everything around us.  So wouldn't an intelligent person pursue the identity of the Designer and try to ascertain the meaning of his existence?    I offer to you that the Bible is the Word of God designed to lead you to the knowledge of the Designer and to lay out precisely why you are here and what you can do to fulfill your purpose in life and you can start today!

Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails


cover story ann gauger on information.jpg

[This article is authored by Biologic research scientist Ann Gauger, whose work uses molecular genetics and genomic engineering to study the origin, organization and operation of metabolic pathways. She received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Dr. Gauger also appears in the upcoming film Metamorphosis.]

Over the last decade I've become convinced that in spite of our overflowing databases we don't understand much about biology. We're like students who have learned the Bohr model of the atom, and think we have grasped atomic structure. As a beginning, it's a decent approximation. But atomic structure goes way beyond this simple model.

In the same way, we're accustomed to talking and thinking about the cell as made up of machines (hardware), with DNA as the software program that somehow determines the hardware. This is an advance over imagining the cell as a few simple chemical reactions. But it's still radically inadequate, if not obsolete, when trying to capture the reality of what we're discovering in the biological world. We're in search of more adequate conceptual categories. And the outcome will make our current descriptions look utterly inadequate. What we want to do is to catch up to the evidence, and get beyond our own, quite limited ways of speaking of these realities.




In a recent essay Steve Talbott highlights the inadequacies of our current way of thinking and speaking about biology. He points out that organisms are more than the sum of their mechanisms. In fact, he rejects the machine metaphor as completely inadequate to describe living things. Living beings are adaptable and responsive to their environments, changing their behavior based on external cues and their own requirements. They are transformative, existing as entities that are much more than the molecules that compose them. They are not what they eat -- they make what they eat into themselves. Living beings are integrated wholes that come from other living things. And they are more than their DNA. DNA requires a functional cellular environment to be properly read and interpreted, just as a cell requires DNA to be able to sustain itself. In order to understand the whole picture you have to look at the cell from many points of view, not just a gene-centric one.

Everything in organisms is interconnected causally. Everywhere in biological systems, chicken and egg problems abound. For example, amino acid biosynthesis pathways are composed of enzymes that require the amino acids they make, ATP biosynthesis pathways must have ATP to make ATP, DNA is needed to make proteins, but proteins are needed to make DNA, and the list goes on. Indeed, the scope of the problem is difficult even to grasp.

Ultimately, cellular systems can be made only by -- wait for it -- cells. We can isolate ribosomes or nuclei or mitochondria or Golgi, and study their parts, but we can't build them, even though we know what they are made of. It takes a whole cell to make them. For example, ribosomes and spliceosomes, the large ribonucleoprotein particles that are essential for the processing and translation of messenger RNAs into protein, must be synthesized, modified, and partially assembled in particular regions of the nucleus, and then be exported to the cytoplasm for further modification and assembly. Literally hundreds of other proteins and RNAs are involved in these dynamic processes, enabling the many RNA-RNA, RNA-protein, and protein-protein interactions and rearrangements that are required, all the while proof-reading and removing stalled assemblages that may occur along the way.1

What kind of processes can produce such interconnected, self-reproducing systems? Can a bottom-up process like neo-Darwinism boot-strap its way to such causally circular beings?

Many biologists would answer yes, because after all, what else is there besides neo-Darwinism? Their prior commitment to mechanistic, reductionist thinking and materialist presuppositions prevents them from seeing the problem. In fact, this insistence on purely materialistic, bottom-up explanations goes back a long way.

I have a book of lectures given at MIT by the famous developmental biologist and geneticist, Edmund Wilson, in 1923. The book is called The Physical Basis of Life. Wilson acknowledged that we knew nothing about the origin or functioning of cells or the development of body plans, but insisted as an article of faith that there would be a purely physical explanation, based in chemistry.



Up until now, the materialist, reductionist method has been very successful, because cells can be ground up, probed, measured and tested in a way that life forces or agency can't be. But now molecular, cellular, and developmental biologists are drowning in a flood of data that we don't know how to interpret. We do not know, for example, how to read a genome from an unknown new species to say what kind of organism it will produce. We can only determine what other genomes it most closely resembles. In order to predict the nature and appearance of the organism with that genome, we would need to know -- just for starters -- the maternal and paternal contributions to the egg and sperm, the whole of the developmental path from egg to adult, plus the particular effects of any mutations within that genome on its phenotype, not to mention its environmental history.

When we rely only on a reductionist approach, we cannot see the organism as a whole. An extremely simple analogy, drawn from a human artifact, might help to see why. Imagine an elaborately knit sweater, maybe an Irish fisherman's. Someone who wants to understand the sweater finds a loose end and starts to pull. He keeps pulling and pulling, expecting to arrive at some causal knot, until the whole thing comes apart and is unraveled on the floor. The sweater as a functional whole depends on the way the wool twines together. To understand the sweater you have to look at the patterns in the whole, not just what it was made of. Pulling it apart destroys its essential nature. Now this is a very poor analogy, but scientists are often like that poor fellow tugging on the string.

I like to show a video to illustrate the why we need to look top down as well as bottom up. It's a real-time visualization of a living cell, with various structures (organelles) highlighted one by one. Go here to see it.




These cellular components, and many others, function in a very crowded cellular milieu, somehow recognizing the molecules and structures with which they are supposed to interact. They send and receive signals, correct errors, and adjust their activity in a dynamic way according to the needs of the whole organism.

Notice the language of intentionality in the last paragraph: 'function', 'recognize', interact', 'signal', 'correct', 'adjust'. Such language is common in biological writing. Talbott points this out also, and explains why (emphasis added):
[Because] there is no possible way to make global sense of genes and their myriad companion molecules by remaining at their level, researchers have "simply bestowed upon the gene the faculty of spontaneity, the power of 'dictating,' 'informing,' 'regulating,' 'controlling,' etc." And today, one could add, there is at least an equal emphasis on how other molecules "regulate" and "control" the genes! Clearly something isn't working in this picture of mechanistic control. And the proof lies in the covert, inconsistent, and perhaps unconscious invocation of higher coordinating powers through the use of these loaded words -- words that owe their meaning ultimately to the mind, with its power to understand information, to contextualize it, to regulate on the basis of it, and to act in service of an overall goal.
Recognizing the implied intentionality in such language, several authors have called for biologists to abolish these words from their writing. According to them, anything that implies either teleology (being directed toward a goal or purpose) or agency (intelligence acting to produce an effect) is to be eschewed. After all, both teleology and agency have been discarded by modern biologists, along with vitalism. Yet teleological language persists. Maybe the reason such language is so common in biology research is because living things are directed toward a purpose. Maybe biological systems do reflect intelligent agency, because intelligent agents are the only known source capable of designing, assembling, and then coordinating so many interrelated sub-systems into a functional whole. And maybe, by acknowledging this, we can come to understand biology better.Notes

1Staley JP, Woolford JL (2009) "Assembly of ribosomes and spliceosomes: complex ribonucleoprotein machines." Curr Opin Cell Biol. 21: 109-118. doi:10.1016/j.ceb.2009.01.003.


Friends and foes, it is time to recognize the writing on the wall.   Anyone with any sense happens upon a BMW and instantly recognizes that someone(s) designed and built that automobile. When will your "duh" moment hit and you realize that Darwinism was just a 19th Century dream that had no real basis in fact. Variation within kind is a fact and it is part of the design of the organism. It is all we have observed in organisms and it is all we will ever see. Sputtering commenters can flip up a few mutated organisms that cannot survive in the wild and organisms sometimes seem to have "new" features when they lose a function. That, friends, is the pathetically poor hope that Darwinists cling to as they see more and more information and design within organisms...much like a poor mental patient certain that he is Abraham Lincoln who will not pay any attention to historical documents or pictures of the dead President, we have a horde of Darwinists who cannot see the forest for all the trees. 

credit

13 comments:

Hawkeye® said...

Sir Radar,

Very cool videos. Mini motors, microscopic factories, sub-cellular recognition and access systems, and even "walking" tractor load towers. How cool is that! (Designed no doubt by Darwin's miniature John Deere company... haha).

(:D) Thanks for sharing

Jon Woolf said...

Still forgetting Rule 15, I see...

radar said...

Rule 15 - if any evidence falsifies Darwinism, ignore it.

Jon Woolf said...

Try again, Radar.

AmericanVet said...

What Woolf means is that I beat his pathetic arguments into the dust and I urge you to go read the Ultimate Information Post and see for yourselves. Look at the top of my blog links and read all the articles and comments and think for yourself.

I didn't throw a tantrum or even a humdrum. I wanted to post the information back-and-forth in one complete post so that people could read all of the arguments of the commenters and compare them to my information that was presented. So again, Jon Woolf speaks with forked tongue.

Mutations do not make information. Anyone who thinks breaking things is making things must be a Darwinist. No one else is that foolish. That is utterly ridiculous! You don't fix your car by smashing it with a sledgehammer and you don't compose an email by ripping the computer off of the desk and throwing it to the floor. Neither does new information come from mutations.

Anonymous said...

Radar, are you talking about your "Ultimate Censorship Post", the one that you originally had posted on this blog, only to remove it so as to delete all comments and post it on yout private sports blog that does not allow any commenting whatsoever? The one where you thoroughly embarrassed yourself in the original comment section by freaking out and calling Jon names, etc.? The one were you admitted to deleting all comments and not allowing further commenting because you wanted to pretend like yours was the "last word" on the topic of "information"? You mean that one? Yeah, I like that one too. Although I like it because it's such a great example of your complete ineptitude when it comes to answering even one of Jon's "pathetic arguments". Just get over that inflated ego of yours already, buddy. It's not doing you any favors. I mean, yours is not the last word on "information" among those that share your worldview.

So maybe you (and your "readers", LOL) should take a look at this 5 part series on the origins of biological information from a different christian perspective (oh and make note of the comments sections following each post as well because there's lots of good stuff in there too).

biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-origin-of-biological-information-part-1-intelligent-design

All 5 parts can be found in the LHS column.

I wouldn't mind hearing your bud Hawkeye's thoughts on what other christians have to say on the topic of the origin of biological information.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

2nd try ...

Radar, are you talking about your "Ultimate Censorship Post", the one that you originally had posted on this blog, only to remove it so as to delete all comments and post it on your private sports blog that does not allow any commenting whatsoever? The one where you thoroughly embarrassed yourself in the original comment section by freaking out and calling Jon names, etc.? The one were you admitted to deleting all comments and not allowing further commenting because you wanted to pretend like yours was the "last word" on the topic of "information"? You mean that one? Yeah, I like that one too. Although I like it because it's such a great example of your complete ineptitude when it comes to answering even one of Jon's "pathetic arguments". Just get over that inflated ego of yours already, buddy. It's not doing you any favors. I mean, yours is not the last word on "information" among those that share your worldview.

So maybe you (and your "readers", LOL) should take a look at this 5 part series on the origins of biological information from a different christian perspective (oh and make note of the comments sections following each post as well because there's lots of good stuff in there too).

http://
biologos.org/
blog/
evolution-and-origin-of-biological-information-part-1-intelligent-design

All 5 parts can be found in the LHS column.

I wouldn't mind hearing your bud Hawkeye's thoughts on what other christians have to say on the topic of the origin of biological information.

- Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

Get over yourself, Canucklehead, if I wanted to censor commenters you would probably be at the head of the line. That post is a not-for-comment testament to the thread of arguments in which all the commenters failed to answer the question, "what is the natural source of information?" Biologos doesn't have the answer, either.


It is a compendium of posts that still have comments threads you can attack, so give up on the censorship blather because that is one thing I don't do here. You know it because I let you keep saying stuff I completely disagree with and make claims that I consider counterintuitive or inept.

Anonymous said...

Believe what you will Radar, like I said, to me, your "info post" is a testament to the levels to which you will stoop, in order to preserve your unscientific right-wing christian-extremist world view.

And don't pretend like you've read the Biologos series on information. You only say that they don't provide an explanation for a "natural source of information" because that's the conclusion provided to you by your worldview, NOT because you've actually researched what they have to say. As usual, you start with conclusions, not questions. Your quick dismissal of their series only stands as yet another example of just how unscientific (and unscrupulous) your arguements on evolution, information, etc., actually are.

- Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

Actually, Canucklehead, I have been to and read the Biologos site long ago. You didn't call my attention to it.

Since when is me making a URL and putting on my links list "stooping?" Isn't this my blog? Do I even have to post your comments? The Ultimate Information Post is a set of posts and comments that clearly and emphatically proves that information is not from natural sources and all the commenters and all of their weblinks couldn't dispute it. It is a flag of victory raised over naturalist materialists. That's why you don't like it. Because you were unable to refute it.

You must have been a difficult child.

AmericanVet said...

Biologos is a site that is greatly disappointing because it is nothing more than kowtowing to a superstition with no dependence on facts.

Martin Luther and Grossteste and Copernicus and Kesler fought against the Aristotlean Ptolemaic concepts of philosophy and science and led the world into Reformation and helped the scientific community shake off superstition in favor of methodological investigation and evidence. Darwinism is taking us back to paganism and superstition.

Jon Woolf said...

Back to information, are we?

"As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is the fool that repeateth his folly." -- Proverbs 26:11

Four reasons that Radar's view of information is wrong:

1) There is no standard or units for measuring information, so there's no way to tell if a given mutation increases or decreases the gene's information-content.

2) Radar's definition of information says that there must be intelligence present to receive the information. There is no intelligence in a cell. Therefore, by his definition there is no information in a cell.

3) Whether a mutation is positive or negative in its impact depends on the environment. If a mutation's net effect is to increase the organism's chances of survival, then the mutation is beneficial.

4) When all is said and done, reality is the ultimate test of human concepts. Observations of reality demonstrate conclusively that mutations can produce new genes, with new functions. Mutations can also improve existing genes.

Jon Woolf said...

"Darwinism is taking us back to paganism and superstition. "

[puzzled look]

Properly used, "paganism" means a specific type of religious system in which natural forces are personified into a pantheon of major and minor gods and spirits.

Radar argues that "Darwinism" supports paganism.

Radar also claims that "Darwinism" is atheistic and its advocates must be atheists.

If "Darwinism" is atheistic, and its advocates hate all religion, then why would they be pushing a religion such as paganism?

Zathras not understand.