Home » Intelligent Design » Evolution’s Influence on the Life Sciences and Inter Cellular Communication

Evolution’s Influence on the Life Sciences and Inter Cellular Communication

While evolution is one of the most influential theories in history, in areas outside of science, it also has significant influence within science. One aspect of this influence has been to view life as simple. If all of biology just happened to arise by chance events then organisms and their designs must be pretty straightforward. This expectation has consistently been contradicted by the evidence. As Bruce Alberts explained, for example:  Read more

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

26 Responses to Evolution’s Influence on the Life Sciences and Inter Cellular Communication

  1. This is an absolute case for Irreducible Complexity;

    This paper shows without a shadow of a doubt that design is real and here is why;

    Input encode medium decode output

    There is no way in hell that a Darwinian process is capable of creating any such communications systems, it is quite frankly impossible….

  2. The dead give away for this is the following statement in the article;

    “They demonstrated that in flies that had been genetically engineered to lack synapse-making proteins, cells are unable to form synapses or signal successfully.”

    Knock out a single piece and voila, its broken…. so the system must have started of as a sum of its parts and not by the Darwinian build it as we go along process…..

  3. YES! Posts like these and comments like yours Andre are my favorite!
    They show me exactly how little you guys understand what you are talking about.
    Not only have you dumbed down complex science, apparently in an attempt to explain it to a toddler, but you have also twisted it in a way that seems to support your favorite irreducible complexity gibberish.
    Good work guys.

  4. AVS @3,

    Another pompous ass heard from.

  5. AVS, glad to have such a towering intellect visit us to correct us IDiots. You know unsupervised children are bound to get into trouble! :) Will you, if it is not to much trouble for your massive intellect, please help us IDiots out if and show us the exact experimental work where a single synapse or neuron was arrived at by purely Darwinian processes:

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    Smart Neurons: Single Neuronal Dendrites Can Perform Computations – Oct. 27, 2013
    Excerpt: The study,,, examined neurons in areas of the mouse brain which are responsible for processing visual input from the eyes. The scientists achieved an important breakthrough: they succeeded in making incredibly challenging electrical and optical recordings directly from the tiny dendrites of neurons in the intact brain while the brain was processing visual information.
    These recordings revealed that visual stimulation produces specific electrical signals in the dendrites — bursts of spikes — which are tuned to the properties of the visual stimulus.
    The results challenge the widely held view that this kind of computation is achieved only by large numbers of neurons working together, and demonstrate how the basic components of the brain are exceptionally powerful computing devices in their own right.
    Senior author Professor Michael Hausser commented: “This work shows that dendrites, long thought to simply ‘funnel’ incoming signals towards the soma, instead play a key role in sorting and interpreting the enormous barrage of inputs received by the neuron. Dendrites thus act as miniature computing devices for detecting and amplifying specific types of input.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....140632.htm

    I just keep thinking to myself that that sure looks to me designed AVS, so any help will you can give to dispel such ludicrous notions will be appreciated.

  6. Just checking in with you guys to see how you’re doing! You guys never cease to amaze me.
    Guess what, I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the amount of evolution in textbooks is only increasing, despite all your hard work here. I heard something about you guys getting thrown out of court or something in Texas too. Too bad, you had me going there for a second.
    I can always count on you guys for a laugh.

  7. Of course it looks like design to you. You looked in the toilet this morning and saw design. I’m sure you were quite proud too.
    How exactly is referencing basic biology supposed to help your case? Yes, the brain is complex, we know. Too complex for you to understand the basics of? Yes, therefore GOD. Good work again, I can always count on you BA.
    When you’ve grown up and are capable of coming up with your own arguments, then you can come play with the big boys.

  8. Dang AVS, I know you are too busy looking at yourself in the mirror, admiring how smart and good looking you are, to be bothered with actually providing empirical support for your atheistic beliefs (how can there be another god when you stare at him every day in the mirror eh?), but I just keep getting that ‘eerie feeling’ of design every time I read stuff like following:

    Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, – June 2009
    Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,”We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....103205.htm

    DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive – Science Magazine, August-16-2012
    Excerpt: “When it comes to storing information, hard drives don’t hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare.”
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sci.....-code.html

    Logically and Physically Reversible Natural Computing: A Tutorial – 2013
    Excerpt: This year marks the 40th anniversary of Charles Bennett’s seminal paper on reversible computing. Bennett’s contribution is remembered as one of the first to demonstrate how any deterministic computation can be simulated by a logically reversible Turing machine. Perhaps less remembered is that the same paper suggests the use of nucleic acids to realise physical reversibility. In context, Bennett’s foresight predates Leonard Adleman’s famous experiments to solve instances of the Hamiltonian path problem using strands of DNA — a landmark date for the field of natural computing — by more than twenty years.
    http://link.springer.com/chapt.....38986-3_20

    Cellular Traffic Control System Research Earns the Nobel Prize – Keeps Activities Inside Cells From Descending Into Chaos – Cornelius Hunter – December 22, 2013
    Excerpt: ,,,here is how the Nobel Prize press release describes the work:

    “Through their discoveries, Rothman, Schekman and Südhof have revealed the exquisitely precise control system for the transport and delivery of cellular cargo. Disturbances in this system have deleterious effects and contribute to conditions such as neurological diseases, diabetes, and immunological disorders.
    Without this wonderfully precise organization, the cell would lapse into chaos.”

    ,,,Not surprisingly there is no scientific explanation for how such a traffic control system evolved.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ystem.html

    ExPASy – Biochemical Pathways – interactive schematic
    http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/.....mbnails.pl

    Primary Cilium As Cellular ‘GPS System’ Crucial To Wound Repair
    Excerpt: The primary cilium, the solitary, antenna-like structure that studs the outer surfaces of virtually all human cells, orient cells to move in the right direction and at the speed needed to heal wounds, much like a Global Positioning System helps ships navigate to their destinations.
    “What we are dealing with is a physiological analogy to the GPS system with a coupled autopilot that coordinates air traffic or tankers on open sea,”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....190330.htm

    Learning from Bacteria about Social Networking (Information Processing) – video
    Excerpt: I will show illuminating movies of swarming intelligence of live bacteria in which they solve optimization problems for collective decision making that are beyond what we, human beings, can solve with our most powerful computers.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJpi8SnFXHs

    Venter: Life Is Robotic Software – July 15, 2012
    Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter.
    http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/

    And in spite of the fact of finding highly sophisticated molecular machines/robots and computational systems permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.

    “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”
    James Shapiro – Molecular Biologist

    The following expert doesn’t even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,

    ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,

    Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Michael Behe – No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/

    “Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination”
    Dr. Michael Behe

  9. Nah, you got me all wrong BA, I don’t even own a mirror. But thanks for the compliment.
    Anyways, lets look at where you get your scientific knowledge from: dumbed-down “science” articles that cater to the scientifically illiterate like yourself, your psychotic friends over at “insert sciency-sounding name here,” and who knows where else. It would seem you have fallen victim to science’s attempts to explain biology to the laymen. We often tend to do this with words such as “machines,” which you and your friends salivate over while twisting and warping what is actually being said.
    Once again, when you are ready to form your own arguments on the topic, then you can come play. I will warn you though, this means you might have to actually learn something instead of just copy/pasting from the mile long word document you have on your desktop lying in wait or whatever it is that you do.
    Don’t worry, anything you learn can immediately be forgotten, as I’m sure you are very good at.

  10. AVS your equivocation is duly noted as ID is NOT anti-evolution.

  11. You must be new here, Joe.

  12. AVS, if molecular machines are not really machines then why did they try to model the assembly process of the flagellum in view of finding inspiration for enhancing industrial operations:

    The Bacterial Flagellum: A Paradigm for Design – Jonathan M. – Sept. 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, so striking is the appearance of intelligent design that researchers have modelled the assembly process (of the bacterial flagellum) (McAuley et al.). Not only does the flagellum manifestly exhibit engineering principles, but the engineering involved is far superior to humanity’s best achievements. The flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity in spades. In all of our experience of cause-and-effect, we know that phenomena of this kind are uniformly associated with only one type of cause – one category of explanation – and that is intelligent mind. Intelligent design succeeds at precisely the point at which evolutionary explanations break down.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/1067.....-Flagellum

    I’m telling you AVS, I just can’t shake that ‘eerie feeling’ of design:

    Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard calls the Bacterial Flagellum

    “the most efficient machine in the universe.”

    Bacterial Flagellum – A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630

    Souped-Up Hyper-Drive Flagellum Discovered – December 3, 2012
    Excerpt: Get a load of this — a bacterium that packs a gear-driven, seven-engine, magnetic-guided flagellar bundle that gets 0 to 300 micrometers in one second, ten times faster than E. coli.
    If you thought the standard bacterial flagellum made the case for intelligent design, wait till you hear the specs on MO-1,,,
    Harvard’s mastermind of flagellum reverse engineering, this paper describes the Ferrari of flagella.
    “Instead of being a simple helically wound propeller driven by a rotary motor, it is a complex organelle consisting of 7 flagella and 24 fibrils that form a tight bundle enveloped by a glycoprotein sheath…. the flagella of MO-1 must rotate individually, and yet the entire bundle functions as a unit to comprise a motility organelle.”
    To feel the Wow! factor, jump ahead to Figure 6 in the paper. It shows seven engines in one, arranged in a hexagonal array, stylized by the authors in a cross-sectional model that shows them all as gears interacting with 24 smaller gears between them. The flagella rotate one way, and the smaller gears rotate the opposite way to maximize torque while minimizing friction. Download the movie from the Supplemental Information page to see the gears in action.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66921.html

    Man I’m lost in all this design thinking AVS. Tell you what, you can cure me if you can just falsify ID:

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

    Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world,,,

    Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdU5ojTpyzg

    ,,will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:

    “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
    James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world – Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw

  13. “In writing this paper, a relatively high level of technicality has been necessary in order to convey the engineering sophistication of this nano-machine.”
    Translation: “I’m going to explain this in the most technical way possible to overemphasize the fact that I think the flagellum was designed by an intelligent engineer in the sky.”
    Good one.
    Also, how come you stop the quote at “researchers have modelled the assembly process”?
    You left out “in view of finding inspiration for enhancing industrial operations.”
    Why did you do that? Hmm, why I wonder? Maybe it’s because the word “inspiration” lessens the impact you are looking for. The didn’t use the flagella as a direct model, they used it to try to come up with ideas. I’m not surprised I guess, since you wouldn’t know inspiration if it slapped you across the face.
    I asked nicely for you to do some research and form your own arguments and yet again I got regurgitated psychobabble from your holy book of science wisdom quote mines. We’re done here.

  14. AVS- ID is not anti-evolution and I am not new here

  15. AVS you accused:

    “You left out “in view of finding inspiration for enhancing industrial operations.””

    and yet I wrote:

    AVS, if molecular machines are not really machines then why did they try to model the assembly process of the flagellum in view of finding inspiration for enhancing industrial operations:

    Did you fail reading comprehension in grammar school? Or is plain English not your primary language? :) Or are you just so desperate to find anything to complain about, since you have no real evidence, that you are just making stuff up now?

    as to:

    “We’re done here.”

    Sorry to hear that. Come back when you have a empirical falsification in order will you? :)

  16. You see BA, you think what you have to say is important. The only thing that had any merit in your post was the quote, and yet somehow you left out half of it.
    Empirical falsification? Of what?

  17. Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.-
    Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    AVS, I use to work on Jet Engines in the Air Force, and this electron tomography of a flagella sub-unit looks far more sophisticated than the axle assembly of a Jet Engine:

    Bacterial Flagellum: Visualizing the Complete Machine In Situ
    Excerpt: Electron tomography of frozen-hydrated bacteria, combined with single particle averaging, has produced stunning images of the intact bacterial flagellum, revealing features of the rotor, stator and export apparatus.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....220602286X

    Why is that AVS? How come that exceeds our best Jet Engines? Can you go into the lab show me how unguided Darwinian processes produced that? I really would like an empirical demonstration if you don’t mind and not a just so story:

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.

  18. AVS,

    Guess what, I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the amount of evolution in textbooks is only increasing, despite all your hard work here.

    Just to prove to these dumbby zealots how amazingly powerful and enlightening Darwin’s theory of common descent evolution is at benefiting mankind by furthering scientific knowledge and technological innovation… just get it over with, and show these guys up, just list all the advances in science an technology that the theory of common descent has uniquely brought to us which no other theory could as a basis!

    We’re watching…. So, let em have it!!!…. rarrr… I’m sure you’re going to make them all bloody and bruised with all the advances you present.

  19. I’ve already posted on that, the last time I was here buddy, but I can recap for you since you don’t remember.
    Take a look into a lot of the early cancer research, into a lot of the protein complexes and individual proteins which were studied in yeast and then we were able to directly apply them to higher eukaryotes for further study. Try the polycomb group proteins, Histone acetyltransferases in tetrahymena, deacetylases, methyltransferases, the list goes on. Why were we able to apply these findings directly to cancer studies in higher eukaryotes, in mice, and later humans so successfully? Because we they have all, without exception, evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution is the overarching theme of biology that links the many fields of the study of life.
    Man I should teach general bio courses or something.
    Oh wait, I do.

  20. AVS:

    Why were we able to apply these findings directly to cancer studies in higher eukaryotes, in mice, and later humans so successfully? Because we they have all, without exception, evolved from a common ancestor.

    That doesn’t follow. You can’t even tell us the genes involved in say the evolution of humans from quadrapeds/ knuckle walkers.

  21. This is it Joe. You have no idea what you are talking about. End of story. If you want to learn about biology and evolution so that you can talk about it without looking like a jackass then you should pay for an education like everyone else.
    Off the top of my head I know one, look up the FoxP2 gene.
    Enjoy life in the slow lane.

  22. AVS, stuff it. Obviously you are a clueless cry-baby.

    FOXP2? Your position can’t even account for it! Your position can’t acount for any regulatory networks. Blind and mindless processes can build stuff like that.

  23. AVS,

    Wrong. Assuming there is a common ancestors would not uniquely lead to studies of similarities across species.

    All that’s needed to do anything like that is what’s referred to as comparative anatomy. Which long preceded Darwin, and clearly does not rely on assumptions of common descent.

    Intelligent design can also utilize studies of comparative anatomy.

    So, try again, buddy. I’m waiting… come on… anything unique & exclusive to common descent! (hint: Don’t say common descent brings us knowledge of common descent either. They’ll laugh at you.)

  24. Mindless process? Don’t talk about yourself like that Joe.
    Take care now, I’ve already been on here for too long, I can feel my IQ dropping.
    <3

  25. AVS, your IQ drops when you breath…

  26. Mindless process? Don’t talk about yourself like that Joe.
    Take care now, I’ve already been on here for too long, I can feel my IQ dropping.

    That’s just a feeling of you’re IQ dropping. Which could simply mean, you thought you were smarter than you were. And the feeling is a result of denied-realization of that fact.

    Don’t worry. In a way, you actually become wiser as the more you learn that the less you know. :P

Leave a Reply