AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

We have discussed inter-cellular communication. This article shows how a series of molecular cascade reactions tell a cell it has adhered to its neighbor and receives communication to act upon:-http://www.mechanobio.info/modules/go-0007229-"Integrins are proteins that function mechanically, by attaching the cell cytoskeleton to the extracellular matrix (ECM), and biochemically, by sensing whether adhesion has occurred. The integrin family of proteins consists of alpha and beta subtypes, which form transmembrane heterodimers. Integrins function as adhesion receptors for extracellular ligands and transduce biochemical signals into the cell, through downstream effector proteins. Remarkably, they function bidirectionally, meaning they can transmit information both outside-in and inside-out.-***-"For integrin to function as a bidirectional signal transmitter, 
 
1) Integrins undergo a process called activation, during which conformational changes expose the headpiece (?I and hybrid domain) for ligand binding [36, 37, 38, 39]. This can be initiated by the binding of adaptor proteins and/or ligands. - 2) Adaptor proteins bind to the integrin cytoplasmic domains, thereby connecting integrin to the cytoskeleton.- 3) Integrins microcluster laterally for efficient ligand binding. - "Upon activation, integrins are capable of triggering a variety of signal transduction cascades. The combination of ? and ? subtypes, for example, will affect different in vivo functions. As demonstrated by knockout mouse studies, and highlighted in the table below, these include cell behaviour and tissue organization."-Comment: A highly complex biochemistry article, but what it says is cells communicate and adhere thru a series of molecular cascade reactions. All of this easily follows instructional information organization, using the natural functional reactions of protein molecules. Shapiro et al. work at the single cell level, and their discussion only covers that level of biochemistry.

9101 views

DAVID: We have discussed inter-cellular communication. This article shows how a series of molecular cascade reactions tell a cell it has adhered to its neighbor and receives communication to act upon-http://www.mechanobio.info/modules/go-0007229-David's comment: A highly complex biochemistry article, but what it says is cells communicate and adhere thru a series of molecular cascade reactions. All of this easily follows instructional information organization, using the natural functional reactions of protein molecules. Shapiro et al. work at the single cell level, and their discussion only covers that level of biochemistry.-We all know that cells communicate, and we also know that cells form communities. I don't understand your comment about Shapiro et al. Are you implying they don't realize that communication requires partners, and cells work in communities?

9085 views

DAVID: We have discussed inter-cellular communication. This article shows how a series of molecular cascade reactions tell a cell it has adhered to its neighbor and receives communication to act upon
> 
> http://www.mechanobio.info/modules/go-0007229
> 
> David's comment: A highly complex biochemistry article, but what it says is cells communicate and adhere thru a series of molecular cascade reactions. All of this easily follows instructional information organization, using the natural functional reactions of protein molecules. Shapiro et al. work at the single cell level, and their discussion only covers that level of biochemistry.
> 
> dhw" We all know that cells communicate, and we also know that cells form communities. I don't understand your comment about Shapiro et al. Are you implying they don't realize that communication requires partners, and cells work in communities?-My point about Shapiro et al is they work with single-celled animals, not whole animals or whole organs. Shapiro's observations and theories are all based on single-cell studies. He does not look at communities nor comment on communities of cells in his book. I thought I was very clear. Of course he understands how organs and bodies work, but he doesn't discuss the 'intelligence' of kidney cells, or do I know if he would extrapolate his theory into how kidney cells apply intelligence.

9094 views

dhw" We all know that cells communicate, and we also know that cells form communities. I don't understand your comment about Shapiro et al. Are you implying they don't realize that communication requires partners, and cells work in communities?-DAVID: My point about Shapiro et al is they work with single-celled animals, not whole animals or whole organs. Shapiro's observations and theories are all based on single-cell studies. He does not look at communities nor comment on communities of cells in his book. I thought I was very clear. Of course he understands how organs and bodies work, but he doesn't discuss the 'intelligence' of kidney cells, or do I know if he would extrapolate his theory into how kidney cells apply intelligence.-Whole animals and whole organs are communities of single cells, and if single cells are intelligent, you don't have to be a genius to work out that cell communities must be intelligent too. HOWEVER, as I have said repeatedly, once an organ has been invented, of course the cells will perform their allotted duties, just as ants do in their community. (Active, inventive intelligence would only be required when new situations arose.) Once more, my hypothesis is an alternative (possibly divine) to your divine 3.8-billion-year old computer programme and/or God's personal intervention for all innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders. I have no idea whether Shapiro has extended his knowledge of bacterial intelligence to his understanding of how evolution works, but since Margulis was also a champion of cellular intelligence and emphasized the importance of cooperation in the history of evolution, I really can't believe I am the first to put the two concepts together.

9174 views


> dhw: Whole animals and whole organs are communities of single cells, and if single cells are intelligent, you don't have to be a genius to work out that cell communities must be intelligent too. HOWEVER, as I have said repeatedly, once an organ has been invented, of course the cells will perform their allotted duties, just as ants do in their community. -Quite right-> dhw: I have no idea whether Shapiro has extended his knowledge of bacterial intelligence to his understanding of how evolution works, but since Margulis was also a champion of cellular intelligence and emphasized the importance of cooperation in the history of evolution, I really can't believe I am the first to put the two concepts together.-Back to the same issue. Independent intelligence of cells vs. intelligent instructional information to run the cells. As a whole animal biologist I'm solidly with the latter.

9185 views

dhw: I have no idea whether Shapiro has extended his knowledge of bacterial intelligence to his understanding of how evolution works, but since Margulis was also a champion of cellular intelligence and emphasized the importance of cooperation in the history of evolution, I really can't believe I am the first to put the two concepts together.-DAVID: Back to the same issue. Independent intelligence of cells vs. intelligent instructional information to run the cells. As a whole animal biologist I'm solidly with the latter.-I know your opinion. I am merely pointing out that it is contrary to the views of Shapiro and Margulis, and I don't know why you suddenly emphasized Shapiro's work on intelligent single cells, as if that meant cell communities were not intelligent.
In a separate post you write: -This study has an initial insight into the way bacterial colonies wage war. We know that the initial antibiotics came from fungi, but bacteria use them also to protect their colony:
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-bacteria-resist.html
You have emphasized the following:

...proteins work as signaling systems for lots of different things. They can receive signals from the external environment, signals from other bacteria, signals telling them about the status of their cell in a fluctuating environment.-"'If something damages a membrane, bacteria have a way of sensing that and then turning on the response," Straight said. (Your bold)-A way of sensing that indicates the sentience of bacteria, and unless your God has preprogrammed every possible response to every possible situation for the rest of the life of Planet Earth, I would suggest that turning on the response requires the autonomous intelligence that Shapiro & Co. attribute to bacteria. -David's comment: Once again, protein reactions acting as signal agents. This can all be epigenetic cell-controlled events, per Shapiro, as described in his book, and in my view the instructions exist to direct this.-And in Shapiro's view: Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities." (Quoted on the More James Barham introduces James Shapiro thread, 19 August at 21.01)

9146 views


> I know your opinion. I am merely pointing out that it is contrary to the views of Shapiro and Margulis, and I don't know why you suddenly emphasized Shapiro's work on intelligent single cells, as if that meant cell communities were not intelligent.-Conclusions from work on single cells does not carry over to multicellular organs. Each bacteria must take care of itself or as I've pointed joined with its fellows to cooperate in battle. You've picked up on it:-> dhw: In a separate post you write: 
> 
> David: This study has an initial insight into the way bacterial colonies wage war. We know that the initial antibiotics came from fungi, but bacteria use them also to protect their colony:-> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-bacteria-resist.html-> 
> dhw: A way of sensing that indicates the sentience of bacteria, and unless your God has preprogrammed every possible response to every possible situation for the rest of the life of Planet Earth, I would suggest that turning on the response requires the autonomous intelligence that Shapiro & Co. attribute to bacteria. -You seem to attribute a very complex lifestyle to bacteria. They are simple. They absorb food they sense or they engulf it. If a chemical attack appears they move away or attack. Not a great deal of onboard information is necessary. A kidney cell does much more complex work, and all of its decisions are automatic.
> 
> dhw; And in Shapiro's view: Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities." (Quoted on the More James Barham introduces James Shapiro thread, 19 August at 21.01)- Of course bacteria are just like described above. Old ground. I have my own interpretation of Shapiro's findings. No point discussing further, but note my comment about kidney cells or liver cells for that matter. This is where my opinion comes from. My knowledge that single cells in complex organisms like humans do much more automatically than bacteria do as independent organisms. So to me bacteria work automatically, and no one can tell whether Shapiro or I am correct as to automatic or independent mechanisms control their lives.

9186 views

Dhw: I don't know why you suddenly emphasized Shapiro's work on intelligent single cells, as if that meant cell communities were not intelligent.
DAVID: Conclusions from work on single cells does not carry over to multicellular organs. Each bacteria must take care of itself or as I've pointed joined with its fellows to cooperate in battle.-It is the communal activity that provides the analogy to how multicellular organs may have been formed in the first place: through the intelligent cooperation of cells.-DAVID: You've picked up on it:
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-bacteria-resist.html
dhw: A way of sensing that indicates the sentience of bacteria, and unless your God has preprogrammed every possible response to every possible situation for the rest of the life of Planet Earth, I would suggest that turning on the response requires the autonomous intelligence that Shapiro & Co. attribute to bacteria. -DAVID: You seem to attribute a very complex lifestyle to bacteria. They are simple. They absorb food they sense or they engulf it. If a chemical attack appears they move away or attack. Not a great deal of onboard information is necessary. A kidney cell does much more complex work, and all of its decisions are automatic.-You keep ignoring my response to the kidney argument, so let me repeat it: ...if single cells are intelligent, you don't have to be a genius to work out that cell communities must be intelligent too. HOWEVER, as I have said repeatedly, once an organ has been invented, of course the cells will perform their allotted duties, just as ants do in their community. (Active, inventive intelligence would only be required when new situations arose.)-dhw; And in Shapiro's view: Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities." (Quoted on the More James Barham introduces James Shapiro thread, 19 August at 21.01)
DAVID: Of course bacteria are just like described above. Old ground. I have my own interpretation of Shapiro's findings. -May I ask what other attributes you would add to Shapiro's list before you would describe an organism as intelligent? -DAVID: This is where my opinion comes from. My knowledge that single cells in complex organisms like humans do much more automatically than bacteria do as independent organisms. So to me bacteria work automatically...-Of course single cells in the kidney do much more automatically than bacteria do as independent organisms. They have their role in a fixed community. But if bacteria are LESS automatic than kidney cells, how does that lead to the conclusion that bacteria work automatically?-DAVID: ...and no one can tell whether Shapiro or I am correct as to automatic or independent mechanisms control their lives.-That is true. You are a bacterial determinist and a human compatibilist, and you have every right to ignore the findings of these eminent experts whom you admire so much.

9091 views


> dhw: It is the communal activity that provides the analogy to how multicellular organs may have been formed in the first place: through the intelligent cooperation of cells.-We are totally apart. The intelligent cooperation comes from the information implanted into them from the beginning of life.
> 
> dhw: You keep ignoring my response to the kidney argument, so let me repeat it: ...if single cells are intelligent, you don't have to be a genius to work out that cell communities must be intelligent too. HOWEVER, as I have said repeatedly, once an organ has been invented, of course the cells will perform their allotted duties, just as ants do in their community. (Active, inventive intelligence would only be required when new situations arose.)-Still very apart. Cells are cells. Single-celled bacteria do less complex work in living on their own than do kidney cells working for me. If my kidney cells can work automatically at that high level of complexity, then it is logical that bacteria work automatically at their lower level of complexity.-> DAVID: Of course bacteria are just like described above. Old ground. I have my own interpretation of Shapiro's findings. 
> 
> dhw:May I ask what other attributes you would add to Shapiro's list before you would describe an organism as intelligent? -Their intelligent responses are all automatic.
> 
> DAVID: This is where my opinion comes from. My knowledge that single cells in complex organisms like humans do much more automatically than bacteria do as independent organisms. So to me bacteria work automatically...
> 
> dhw: Of course single cells in the kidney do much more automatically than bacteria do as independent organisms. They have their role in a fixed community. But if bacteria are LESS automatic than kidney cells, how does that lead to the conclusion that bacteria work automatically?-Covered above.
> 
> DAVID: ...and no one can tell whether Shapiro or I am correct as to automatic or independent mechanisms control their lives.
> 
> dhw: That is true. You are a bacterial determinist and a human compatibilist, and you have every right to ignore the findings of these eminent experts whom you admire so much.-Thank you. I do admire them.

9102 views

dhw: It is the communal activity that provides the analogy to how multicellular organs may have been formed in the first place: through the intelligent cooperation of cells.
DAVID: We are totally apart. The intelligent cooperation comes from the information implanted into them from the beginning of life.-So let's look at gradations. Would you say that all the cooperative decisions made by ants were preprogrammed in the first cells? By wolves? By humans? Somewhere along the line, there has to be autonomy of thought. If God did not preprogramme every single communal, communicative decision made by humans/wolves/ants/bacteria, they must have the means of making their own decisions. You will accept that for humans and wolves, perhaps hesitate over ants, but you are absolutely certain that your God preprogrammed every single bacterial response to every single situation that bacteria have faced since the year dot.
 
dhw: You keep ignoring my response to the kidney argument, so let me repeat it: ...if single cells are intelligent, you don't have to be a genius to work out that cell communities must be intelligent too. HOWEVER, as I have said repeatedly, once an organ has been invented, of course the cells will perform their allotted duties, just as ants do in their community. (Active, inventive intelligence would only be required when new situations arose.)
DAVID: Still very apart. Cells are cells. Single-celled bacteria do less complex work in living on their own than do kidney cells working for me. If my kidney cells can work automatically at that high level of complexity, then it is logical that bacteria work automatically at their lower level of complexity.-But you are viewing the kidney as an established community of cells in which each one has a role to play (like ants),but how did it form in the first place? You say God programmed it in the first cells, along with every other organ, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. Or he did a dabble. My alternative is that cells cooperated to work out what they needed to do in order to filter waste, just as leaf-cutting ants cooperated to work out their own complex way to dispose of their waste, with particular ants taking on their very specialized roles. Only when cell/ant communities are faced with new problems does this cooperation require departure from the automatic role. Then decisions are made, and that is when cellular/ant intelligence is no longer automatic.
 
dhw: May I ask what other attributes you would add to Shapiro's list before you would describe an organism as intelligent? 
DAVID: Their intelligent responses are all automatic.-But "my" experts keep telling me that bacteria are cognitive, sentient beings and not automatons. If we accept the term artificial intelligence for computers, I am asking what attributes in addition to Shapiro's list would in your eyes distinguish automatons from autonomous beings.

9169 views

I came across this very long article and interview, offering all kinds of fascinating ideas about identity, body and spirit, epigenetics, quantum physics, medicine, immortality, the power of belief....Bruce Lipton is a cellular biologist, and some of his ideas are described as iconoclastic. They include his views on the nature of the cell, and below are some relevant quotes, but that is just a small part of the area he covers: 
	
	The Biology of Belief - Dr Bruce Lipton - The Truth About ...
www.thetruthaboutfoodandhealth.com/healtharticles/biology-of...
The Biology of Belief by Bruce H. Lipton, ... from outside the cell. Cellular biologist Dr. Bruce Lipton, ... , intelligence and behavior? A: ...-QUOTE: Dr. Lipton conducted a series of experiments that reveal that the cell membrane, the outer layer of a cell, is the organic equivalent of a computer chip, and the cell's equivalent of a brain. Although this view conflicts with the widely held scientific dogma that genes control behavior, papers by other researchers have validated his iconoclastic thinking.-Dr. Lipton has also been a pioneer in applying the principles of quantum physics to the field of cellular biology. Traditional cell biology focuses on physical molecules that control biology. Dr. Lipton on the other hand focuses on the mechanisms through which energy in the form of our beliefs can affect our biology, including our genetic code.-Q: What is the fundamental difference between the conventional science we have all come to learn and the "new biology" that is emphasized in your book?
A: Our source, "identity," is not from within the body, and it is immortal; We are not victims of life we are creators of life; a human organism is not an singular individual, it is in reality, a "community" of sentient cells.-Q: Cells can be conceived as miniature "people"?
A: Cells have "lives," they need basic requirements, they have social order among them, as well as politics. Their "necessities" are fundamentally our necessities.-Q: Do cells have a "brain"?
A: The cell membrane [ie, its skin] reads environmental stimuli, transduces the information into a biochemical "awareness" which is then used to regulate cell behavior and gene activity.-Q: What is cellular consciousness?
A: Cells are aware of their environments via their receptors and make informed decisions in response to stimuli that comprise their "field".-Q: Your work emphasizes that the fundamental units of awareness are actually molecular units of "perception." What are perceptions? How do they relate to beliefs?
A: The cell's I/O's are receptor and effector protein complexes; they provide awareness of the environment [receptors] and send stimuli [effectors] to engage the cell's systems. By definition, these membrane proteins provide the cell with an "awareness of the environment through physical sensation", this is the precise dictionary definition of the word perception. Complex perceptions, as experienced by humans, are based upon interpretations of experiences. In society there is an especial emphasis to express conformity with our interpretations. We may "buy" our interpretations of life experiences (learning) from those we perceive to be experts. However, experts can be wrong, so we may be operating from acquired misperceptions. Conclusions: perceptions control life, but they might be right or they may be wronghence they are our beliefs.-Q: Through evolution, individual cells came together in the form of communities. We perceive such communities as "organisms, eg, a fish, snake, tree, and even a human. What is the essence of a community and why did they evolve?
A: Cells came together in community to share awareness and enhance their survival. The same thing applies as to individuals in a human community. In community, each individual gives up their own "control" of what they are going to do and instead conforms to the coordinating central voice's directives. In the cellular community of a human, that central voice is the mind.-Q: How is a cell community organized so that it survives. What/who is in "control"?
A: The brain is the source of the "central voice." It has two subdivisions, the subconscious and the conscious mind. The subconscious is a million times more powerful than the conscious. But the subconscious is only "habitual," it will only play the programs with which it has been loaded. 95% of our daily activities are controlled by the subconscious mind. The less powerful conscious mind is unique for it is creative, it can "observe" the body's operations and manually control the mechanism, overriding the read-only subconscious programs.-Much food for thought, though this can only be ingested through an open mind.

9052 views

dhw: I came across this very long article and interview, -> 
> QUOTE: Dr. Lipton conducted a series of experiments that reveal that the cell membrane, the outer layer of a cell, is the organic equivalent of a computer chip, and the cell's equivalent of a brain. Although this view conflicts with the widely held scientific dogma that genes control behavior, papers by other researchers have validated his iconoclastic thinking.-What other papers? I agree the cell membrane picks up stimuli and transmits them for the genome to m ake resopnses.
> 
> dhw: Dr. Lipton has also been a pioneer in applying the principles of quantum physics to the field of cellular biology. Traditional cell biology focuses on physical molecules that control biology. Dr. Lipton on the other hand focuses on the mechanisms through which energy in the form of our beliefs can affect our biology, including our genetic code.-Back to panpsycism
> 
>> dhw: A: Our source, "identity," is not from within the body, and it is immortal; We are not victims of life we are creators of life; a human organism is not an singular individual, it is in reality, a "community" of sentient cells.-Back to universal consciousness at a cellular level.
> 
> dhw: Q: Do cells have a "brain"?
> A: The cell membrane [ie, its skin] reads environmental stimuli, transduces the information into a biochemical "awareness" which is then used to regulate cell behavior and gene activity.-True. Automatically.-
> dhw: A: The cell's I/O's are receptor and effector protein complexes; they provide awareness of the environment [receptors] and send stimuli [effectors] to engage the cell's systems. By definition, these membrane proteins provide the cell with an "awareness of the environment through physical sensation", this is the precise dictionary definition of the word perception. -True
> 
>
> dhw: A: Cells came together in community to share awareness and enhance their survival. The same thing applies as to individuals in a human community. In community, each individual gives up their own "control" of what they are going to do and instead conforms to the coordinating central voice's directives.-He is with you. He likes purposeful cell committees-> 
> dhw: Q: How is a cell community organized so that it survives. What/who is in "control"?
> A: The brain is the source of the "central voice." It has two subdivisions, the subconscious and the conscious mind. The subconscious is a million times more powerful than the conscious. But the subconscious is only "habitual," it will only play the programs with which it has been loaded. 95% of our daily activities are controlled by the subconscious mind. The less powerful conscious mind is unique for it is creative, it can "observe" the body's operations and manually control the mechanism, overriding the read-only subconscious programs.-He is confusing human consciousness with cellular activity. He wants cells with a subconscious. Just a stupid comparison
> 
> dhw: Much food for thought, though this can only be ingested through an open mind.-I accept some of his direct reasonable biochemical cellular reaction comments. As or the rest:-https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-bruce-lipton-and-the-biology-of-belief.t1003/-His first claim of mutations not being random has no evidence whatsoever to support it. In his Spontaneous Evolution book, he points to a paper published in Nature in 1988 written by John Cairns. The paper describes an experiment where E. coli with a defective mutant gene for breaking down lactose are placed in a medium containing nothing but lactose. Results were that the bacteria had mutated and were able to break down the lactose and grow. Cairns concluded that the mutation was not random and Lipton claims that we can do similar things when our health is compromised. This idea has huge problems because not only was the experiment flawed but there are perfectly good explanations. All of it is discussed rather thoroughly on Wiki.- Lipton's second claim is where the bulk of his ideas come from. He asserts that since proteins control gene expression that we somehow have power over that mechanism with our consciousness and proceeds to tell stories of miracle cures via hypnosis and meditation that can most likely be explained by cases of misdiagnosis or a very lucky recovery. The problem here is that proteins are made with instruction from DNA and specific proteins regulate the expression of certain genes. No gene, no regulatory protein, so genes indirectly control their own expression. As discussed in the previous point, changes in DNA are random, so we cannot control which gene is going to change to produce which protein unless we use genetic engineering. The misconception comes with epigenetics. The most dramatic epigenetic changes are permanent and happen early in development. Epigenetic changes in mature individuals are usually superficial, such as eye color changes, hormone levels, sleep cycle, and other processes that are already very self-regulated. More can be read on that topic here and here. Lipton claims that these processes can somehow be controlled with our beliefs and be used to unlock DNA that can help us live healthy and peacefully without the help from government or pharmaceutical companies. A classic snake-oil salesman who sells false hope to sick patients.

9256 views

dhw: I came across this very long article and interview... 
QUOTE: Dr. Lipton has also been a pioneer in applying the principles of quantum physics to the field of cellular biology. Traditional cell biology focuses on physical molecules that control biology. Dr. Lipton on the other hand focuses on the mechanisms through which energy in the form of our beliefs can affect our biology, including our genetic code.
DAVID: Back to panpsychism-This is not panpsychism. He is talking about the influence of the mind on the body. -QUOTE: Our source, "identity," is not from within the body, and it is immortal; We are not victims of life we are creators of life; a human organism is not an singular individual, it is in reality, a "community" of sentient cells.
DAVID: Back to universal consciousness at a cellular level.-I thought you might like the bit about our immortal identity. He seems to share quite a lot of your ideas. But yes, we are back to yet another cellular biologist who believes that cells are sentient, conscious beings that live and cooperate in communities. The support is growing.-QUOTE: Q: Do cells have a "brain"?
A: The cell membrane [ie, its skin] reads environmental stimuli, transduces the information into a biochemical "awareness" which is then used to regulate cell behavior and gene activity.
DAVID: True. Automatically.-He doesn't say automatically.-QUOTE: A: Cells came together in community to share awareness and enhance their survival. The same thing applies as to individuals in a human community. In community, each individual gives up their own "control" of what they are going to do and instead conforms to the coordinating central voice's directives.
DAVID: He is with you. He likes purposeful cell committees.-I am very much inclined to be with him. He is a cellular biologist who shares the views of his fellow biologists Margulis, Shapiro, McClintock, Buehler et al...I certainly do not feel qualified to say he and they are absolutely wrong.-QUOTE: Q: How is a cell community organized so that it survives. What/who is in "control"?
A: The brain is the source of the "central voice." It has two subdivisions, the subconscious and the conscious mind. The subconscious is a million times more powerful than the conscious. But the subconscious is only "habitual," it will only play the programs with which it has been loaded. 95% of our daily activities are controlled by the subconscious mind. The less powerful conscious mind is unique for it is creative, it can "observe" the body's operations and manually control the mechanism, overriding the read-only subconscious programs.-DAVID: He is confusing human consciousness with cellular activity. He wants cells with a subconscious. Just a stupid comparison-I thought you believed that cells carried masses and masses of information which they processed automatically. That is their subconscious, and he is saying that this constitutes 95% of their activity. But it is the other 5% of consciousness that does the creative work - the equivalent of the brain. It sounds stupid to you because you refuse even to contemplate the possibility that cells are sentient, cognitive beings.
 
DAVID: I accept some of his direct reasonable biochemical cellular reaction comments. As for the rest:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-bruce-lipton-and-the-biology-of-belief.t1003/
QUOTE: His [Lipton's] first claim of mutations not being random has no evidence whatsoever to support it.-I am surprised that you have chosen to quote this article. The very first words are directly opposed to your own beliefs regarding random mutations, and if you read the comments that follow the article, you will see some informed debunking of the debunker. I haven't read the book and haven't had time to listen to the lecture but, quite apart from his championship of the intelligent cell, I found the article and interview (especially Lipton's views concerning the mind's influence on the body) interesting and stimulating. One of the contributors to the above link has stressed how much in tune his ideas are with eastern philosophies. -DHW: Much food for thought, though this can only be ingested through an open mind.

BBELLA: I read his book and am open to his findings.-Thank you. I am all in favour of openness. It complements the scepticism, and leads to a healthy balance up here on the picket fence.

9119 views

DAVID: Back to panpsychism
> 
> dhw: This is not panpsychism. He is talking about the influence of the mind on the body. -I really get the impression he is proposing cellular consciousness.
> 
> QUOTE: Our source, "identity," is not from within the body, and it is immortal; We are not victims of life we are creators of life; a human organism is not an singular individual, it is in reality, a "community" of sentient cells.
> DAVID: Back to universal consciousness at a cellular level.
> 
> dhw: I thought you might like the bit about our immortal identity. He seems to share quite a lot of your ideas. But yes, we are back to yet another cellular biologist who believes that cells are sentient, conscious beings that live and cooperate in communities. The support is growing.-He and I do share, no question. Your discovery of the ones who support this idea is growing, nothing more.-> DAVID: True. Automatically.
> 
> dhw: He doesn't say automatically.
 
I know, but I do.
> 
> dhw: I am very much inclined to be with him. He is a cellular biologist who shares the views of his fellow biologists Margulis, Shapiro, McClintock, Buehler et al...I certainly do not feel qualified to say he and they are absolutely wrong.-Of course you can't.
> 
> DAVID: He is confusing human consciousness with cellular activity. He wants cells with a subconscious. Just a stupid comparison
> 
> dhw: I thought you believed that cells carried masses and masses of information which they processed automatically.-I understand how reluctantly you have come to recognize that life runs on information, with a cellular interpretation of the layers of code and modifiers doing their job. I still get the idea that originally you did not understand the presence of, and importance of, that concept. -> dhw: That is their subconscious, and he is saying that this constitutes 95% of their activity. But it is the other 5% of consciousness that does the creative work - the equivalent of the brain. It sounds stupid to you because you refuse even to contemplate the possibility that cells are sentient, cognitive beings.-Just fancy terms to jazz up the description of a cell. The cell has algorithms to follow, simple as that. Let's use embryology: the zygote has all the DNA, but in he intact human baby each cell type has the original DNA modified for that cell type, all arranged by the algorithm of embryologic development. Now back to the single cell and how it works: if the developing embryo can do all it does automatically creating a living individual human, a single cell can run its affairs (which are much simpler) the same way. I have complex multicellular organism view in discussing this; Shapiro does not with his one-celled bacteria and how he describes them. I believe he is fully aware of my view. I repeat, he is making point about how to view the genome as a read/write mechanism. 
> 
> dhw:I am surprised that you have chosen to quote this article. -I posted it just to demonstrate there is opposition to Lipton and I noted a comment in the review of his book that he is not widely accepted.- I haven't read the book .... I found the article and interview (especially Lipton's views concerning the mind's influence on the body) interesting and stimulating. One of the contributors to the above link has stressed how much in tune his ideas are with eastern philosophies. -I agree with all of that. In practice I used placebo effect many times. And the placebo effect acts upon cells!
> [/i]
> BBELLA: I read his book and am open to his findings.
> 
> dhw: Thank you. I am all in favour of openness. It complements the scepticism, and leads to a healthy balance up here on the picket fence.-Healthy skepticism is of great value. I use it with Lipton.

9091 views

DAVID: Back to panpsychism
dhw: This is not panpsychism. He is talking about the influence of the mind on the body. 
DAVID: I really get the impression he is proposing cellular consciousness.-He certainly is, as do Margulis, McClintock, Shapiro, Buehler & Co. But that is not the same as panpsychism.
 
Dhw: ... The support is growing.
DAVID: Your discovery of the ones who support this idea is growing, nothing more.-When the supporters are dedicated experts in the field, I would suggest they should be taken seriously and not dismissed as being absolutely wrong.
 
DAVID: He is confusing human consciousness with cellular activity. He wants cells with a subconscious. Just a stupid comparison
dhw: I thought you believed that cells carried masses and masses of information which they processed automatically.
DAVID:I understand how reluctantly you have come to recognize that life runs on information, with a cellular interpretation of the layers of code and modifiers doing their job. I still get the idea that originally you did not understand the presence of, and importance of, that concept. -Please believe me when I say I am not quite that stupid. My objection was to the constant and highly confusing misuse of this word, blurring the distinction between information and the mechanism that processes it, with statements like information runs life or information as the source of life. We have reached agreement on this. -dhw: That is their subconscious, and he is saying that this constitutes 95% of their activity. But it is the other 5% of consciousness that does the creative work - the equivalent of the brain. It sounds stupid to you because you refuse even to contemplate the possibility that cells are sentient, cognitive beings.

DAVID: Just fancy terms to jazz up the description of a cell. The cell has algorithms to follow, simple as that. Let's use embryology: the zygote has all the DNA, but in he intact human baby each cell type has the original DNA modified for that cell type, all arranged by the algorithm of embryologic development. Now back to the single cell and how it works: if the developing embryo can do all it does automatically creating a living individual human, a single cell can run its affairs (which are much simpler) the same way. I have complex multicellular organism view in discussing this; Shapiro does not with his one-celled bacteria and how he describes them. I believe he is fully aware of my view. I repeat, he is making point about how to view the genome as a read/write mechanism.-Very impressive, but it does not invalidate Lipton's claim that cell communities function 95% automatically (= the subconscious) and 5% consciously, or Shapiro's claim that living cells and organisms [my bold] are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities. As I understand it, the read/write mechanism records and retrieves information. Shapiro believes cells and organisms have the ability to process that information and make decisions based on their findings. - 
BBELLA: I read his book and am open to his findings.
dhw: Thank you. I am all in favour of openness. It complements the scepticism, and leads to a healthy balance up here on the picket fence.
DAVID: Healthy skepticism is of great value. I use it with Lipton.-Quite right too. However, you seem to exercise scepticism mainly when dealing with explanations that are different from your own! :-)

9009 views

DAVID:I understand how reluctantly you have come to recognize that life runs on information, with a cellular interpretation of the layers of code and modifiers doing their job. I still get the idea that originally you did not understand the presence of, and importance of, that concept. 
> 
> dhw: Please believe me when I say I am not quite that stupid. My objection was to the constant and highly confusing misuse of this word, blurring the distinction between information and the mechanism that processes it, with statements like information runs life or information as the source of life. We have reached agreement on this. -I apologize. I see you had semantic problems, as the editor you are.-> 
> dhw:As I understand it, the read/write mechanism records and retrieves information. Shapiro believes cells and organisms have the ability to process that information and make decisions based on their findings. -I know. He is discussing epigenetic changes which may cause advances in evolution.

9059 views

DAVID: I understand how reluctantly you have come to recognize that life runs on information, with a cellular interpretation of the layers of code and modifiers doing their job. I still get the idea that originally you did not understand the presence of, and importance of, that concept. 
dhw: Please believe me when I say I am not quite that stupid. My objection was to the constant and highly confusing misuse of this word, blurring the distinction between information and the mechanism that processes it, with statements like information runs life or information as the source of life. We have reached agreement on this. -DAVID: I apologize. I see you had semantic problems, as the editor you are.-Gracious apology happily accepted. The semantic problems were not mine, however. If the writer says something he does not mean, e.g. he says information runs life when he means life runs on information, then he is the one with problems!-dhw: As I understand it, the read/write mechanism records and retrieves information. Shapiro believes cells and organisms have the ability to process that information and make decisions based on their findings. 
DAVID: I know. He is discussing epigenetic changes which may cause advances in evolution.-And since these changes are the result of interaction between the environment and the cellular community, and since he believes cells and organisms are intelligent, cognitive, sentient, decision-making beings, it's mighty difficult to see how this means evolution is all a matter of cells and organisms automatically obeying God's implanted instructions.

9088 views

DAVID: I know. He is discussing epigenetic changes which may cause advances in evolution.
> 
> dhw: And since these changes are the result of interaction between the environment and the cellular community, and since he believes cells and organisms are intelligent, cognitive, sentient, decision-making beings, it's mighty difficult to see how this means evolution is all a matter of cells and organisms automatically obeying God's implanted instructions.-He also says that cells act teleologically to survive and to evolve. God could haveeasily programmed all of that into the cells.

9149 views

David: He also says that cells act teleologically to survive and to evolve. God could haveeasily programmed all of that into the cells.-You amaze me with your abilities and access as to be able to tell us what the immaterial can do easily. -Amazing

9001 views

David: He also says that cells act teleologically to survive and to evolve. God could haveeasily programmed all of that into the cells.
> 
> Romansh:You amaze me with your abilities and access as to be able to tell us what the immaterial can do easily. 
> 
> Amazing-Just faith.

9052 views

DAVID: I know. He [Shapiro] is discussing epigenetic changes which may cause advances in evolution.
dhw: And since these changes are the result of interaction between the environment and the cellular community, and since he believes cells and organisms are intelligent, cognitive, sentient, decision-making beings, it's mighty difficult to see how this means evolution is all a matter of cells and organisms automatically obeying God's implanted instructions.
DAVID: He also says that cells act teleologically to survive and to evolve. God could have easily programmed all of that into the cells.-I take teleologically to mean with purpose, in which case his statement can be used to support the case for evolution being driven by cellular intelligence. All of that means every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, so back we go to the higgledy-piggledy bush of animal evolution which you gear to the production of humans, though by your own admission you can't explain why God did it that way and (in your response to Romansh) it's just faith.

8997 views

DAVID: He [Shapiro] also says that cells act teleologically to survive and to evolve.
> 
> dhw: I take teleologically to mean with purpose, in which case his statement can be used to support the case for evolution being driven by cellular intelligence.-He also states that cells can create the large jumps in complexity by their epigenetic mechanisms. He doesn't explain how that ability might have appeared or developed in the cells. He simply states that is how evolution jumps ahead.

8988 views

DAVID: He [Shapiro] also says that cells act teleologically to survive and to evolve.
dhw: I take teleologically to mean with purpose, in which case his statement can be used to support the case for evolution being driven by cellular intelligence.
DAVID: He also states that cells can create the large jumps in complexity by their epigenetic mechanisms. He doesn't explain how that ability might have appeared or developed in the cells. He simply states that is how evolution jumps ahead.-This is excellent news. Since he considers cells and organisms to be intelligent entities, he can only mean that they use their intelligence to create the jumps. But like me, he leaves open the question of the origin of that intelligence, because his focus is on how evolution works. I am delighted to have my hypothesis supported by a biologist for whom you have such great respect.
 
From: The biochemistry of cell adhesion...:-dhw: ...the point I have made, which is that we have evidence of organisms changing their own structure in response to the environment and without advance planning.
DAVID: That is the epigenetic response. No planning.-Exactly. Epigenetic is not, of course, a synonym for automatic.-dhw: That doesn't prove they are capable of invention (as opposed to adaptation), but it opens up the possibility that the same mechanism might be used innovatively when changing conditions offer new opportunities (as opposed to life-threatening dangers).
DAVID: And that is the point Shapiro proposes in my response to 'Lipton and cell adhesion'-As above.

8989 views


> dhw: ...the point I have made, which is that we have evidence of organisms changing their own structure in response to the environment and without advance planning.
> DAVID: That is the epigenetic response. No planning.
> 
> Exactly. Epigenetic is not, of course, a synonym for automatic.
> 
> dhw: That doesn't prove they are capable of invention (as opposed to adaptation), but it opens up the possibility that the same mechanism might be used innovatively when changing conditions offer new opportunities (as opposed to life-threatening dangers).
> DAVID: And that is the point Shapiro proposes in my response to 'Lipton and cell adhesion'
> 
> dhw: As above.-I wish we knew the mechanism by which species arrive.

8999 views

DAVID: I wish we knew the mechanism by which species arrive.-So do we all. But Shapiro's proposal that the intelligent cell acts purposefully in order to survive and evolve offers a convincing explanation of the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, does it not? Well worth serious consideration, I'd say.

9009 views

I came across this very long article and interview, offering all kinds of fascinating ideas about identity, body and spirit, epigenetics, quantum physics, medicine, immortality, the power of belief....Bruce Lipton is a cellular biologist, and some of his ideas are described as iconoclastic. They include his views on the nature of the cell, and below are some relevant quotes, but that is just a small part of the area he covers: 
> 	
> 	The Biology of Belief - Dr Bruce Lipton - The Truth About ...
> www.thetruthaboutfoodandhealth.com/healtharticles/biology-of...
> The Biology of Belief by Bruce H. Lipton, ... from outside the cell. Cellular biologist Dr. Bruce Lipton, ... , intelligence and behavior? A: ...
> 
>Conclusions: perceptions control life, but they might be right or they may be wronghence they are our beliefs.
> -> 
> Much food for thought, though this can only be ingested through an open mind.-I'm a fan of Bruce Liptons from my Noetic Science days. They cover his work often in their articles. I read his book and am open to his findings, along with others that ring with some truth for me like Sheldrake, Bohm etc.

9156 views

dhw: Would you say that all the cooperative decisions made by ants were preprogrammed in the first cells? By wolves? By humans? Somewhere along the line, there has to be autonomy of thought. If God did not preprogramme every single communal, communicative decision made by humans/wolves/ants/bacteria, they must have the means of making their own decisions. You will accept that for humans and wolves, perhaps hesitate over ants, but you are absolutely certain that your God preprogrammed every single bacterial response to every single situation that bacteria have faced since the year dot.-I think consciousness is required for the decision-making you describe. Therefore, bacteria and cells don't autonomously decide. We don't know if ants could be conscious, but they have brains. So possibly their instincts have a degree of autonomous variability.-> dhw: My alternative is that cells cooperated to work out what they needed to do in order to filter waste, just as leaf-cutting ants cooperated to work out their own complex way to dispose of their waste, with particular ants taking on their very specialized roles. Only when cell/ant communities are faced with new problems does this cooperation require departure from the automatic role. Then decisions are made, and that is when cellular/ant intelligence is no longer automatic.-You are back to committees of cells working out roles. This requires experimentation in itty-bitty steps with no evidence of it in evolution.
> 
> dhw: But "my" experts keep telling me that bacteria are cognitive, sentient beings and not automatons. If we accept the term artificial intelligence for computers, I am asking what attributes in addition to Shapiro's list would in your eyes distinguish automatons from autonomous beings.-Your same old approach. Computers do what they are told to do.

9108 views

dhw: If God did not preprogramme every single communal, communicative decision made by humans/wolves/ants/bacteria, they must have the means of making their own decisions. You will accept that for humans and wolves, perhaps hesitate over ants, but you are absolutely certain that your God preprogrammed every single bacterial response to every single situation that bacteria have faced since the year dot.

DAVID: I think consciousness is required for the decision-making you describe. Therefore, bacteria and cells don't autonomously decide. We don't know if ants could be conscious, but they have brains. So possibly their instincts have a degree of autonomous variability.-Instincts, of course, are not governed by conscious intelligence, so you're not giving much away here. The problem is not why behaviour is repeated (if it's beneficial, natural selection will ensure that it survives) but how it started in the first place. You have just posted two more natural wonders: another parasitic wasp and bats that manoeuvre better than birds, and you ask: Could this behavior have developed naturally? And Living organisms are amazingly inventive. Or were they helped? Do you really and truly believe that God had to preprogramme or personally design these wonders in order to produce humans or food for humans? I agree that such behaviour is a far cry from the invention of a kidney. But once you grant organisms inventive autonomy, you have a clear explanation for the helter-skelter animal evolution you have acknowledged. The trouble is, it conflicts with your personal reading of your God's mind. 
 
dhw: My alternative is that cells cooperated to work out what they needed to do in order to filter waste, just as leaf-cutting ants cooperated to work out their own complex way to dispose of their waste, with particular ants taking on their very specialized roles. Only when cell/ant communities are faced with new problems does this cooperation require departure from the automatic role. Then decisions are made, and that is when cellular/ant intelligence is no longer automatic.
DAVID: You are back to committees of cells working out roles. This requires experimentation in itty-bitty steps with no evidence of it in evolution.-There is no evidence of God's 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for all innovations or personal intervention. We can only speculate.
 
dhw: But "my" experts keep telling me that bacteria are cognitive, sentient beings and not automatons. If we accept the term artificial intelligence for computers, I am asking what attributes in addition to Shapiro's list would in your eyes distinguish automatons from autonomous beings.
DAVID: Your same old approach. Computers do what they are told to do.-Computers are not living organisms that reproduce, adapt to changing conditions of all sorts, spontaneously form communities with or wage war on other computers. Bacterial intelligence is natural, not artificial. And it is not my same old approach. I only know what I read, and I am not in any position to tell cellular biologists who maintain that bacteria are sentient, cognitive beings that they are absolutely wrong.

9065 views

dhw: Do you really and truly believe that God had to preprogramme or personally design these wonders in order to produce humans or food for humans? I agree that such behaviour is a far cry from the invention of a kidney. But once you grant organisms inventive autonomy, you have a clear explanation for the helter-skelter animal evolution you have acknowledged. The trouble is, it conflicts with your personal reading of your God's mind. -I have previously said I have no idea how/why God did this in the way He did. I firmly think He directed and managed the process and progress of evolution. My conflict with God's mind is no greater than yours.-> DAVID: You are back to committees of cells working out roles. This requires experimentation in itty-bitty steps with no evidence of it in evolution.
> 
> dhw: There is no evidence of God's 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for all innovations or personal intervention. We can only speculate.-You jumped over my point that your approach requires itty-bitty steps. Committees of cells cannot do complex planning for complex jumps in evolution, which is what is seen.-> dhw: I only know what I read, and I am not in any position to tell cellular biologists who maintain that bacteria are sentient, cognitive beings that they are absolutely wrong.- ut there are experts with just the opposite point of view, and no one can prove either side for sure.

8982 views

dhw: There is no evidence of God's 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for all innovations or personal intervention. We can only speculate.
DAVID: You jumped over my point that your approach requires itty-bitty steps. Committees of cells cannot do complex planning for complex jumps in evolution, which is what is seen.-How do you know? Nobody has witnessed the processes that produced these sudden jumps. You admit you "have no idea how/why God did this in the way He did", and yet you expect me to explain how cells did it.-dhw: I only know what I read, and I am not in any position to tell cellular biologists who maintain that bacteria are sentient, cognitive beings that they are absolutely wrong.
DAVID: But there are experts with just the opposite point of view, and no one can prove either side for sure.-Then let us keep an open mind.

9041 views

DAVID: You jumped over my point that your approach requires itty-bitty steps. Committees of cells cannot do complex planning for complex jumps in evolution, which is what is seen.
> 
> dhw: How do you know? Nobody has witnessed the processes that produced these sudden jumps. You admit you "have no idea how/why God did this in the way He did", and yet you expect me to explain how cells did it.-Because they can't, for the reason I gave above. to account for the gaps/jumps in evolution, there must be coherent planning in advance.-> DAVID: But there are experts with just the opposite point of view, and no one can prove either side for sure.
> 
> dhw: Then let us keep an open mind.-I have every right to chose sides. I'm not on the picket fence.

9039 views

DAVID: You jumped over my point that your approach requires itty-bitty steps. Committees of cells cannot do complex planning for complex jumps in evolution, which is what is seen.
dhw: How do you know? Nobody has witnessed the processes that produced these sudden jumps. You admit you "have no idea how/why God did this in the way He did", and yet you expect me to explain how cells did it.
DAVID: Because they can't, for the reason I gave above. to account for the gaps/jumps in evolution, there must be coherent planning in advance.-We are going through a period of evolutionary stasis, in which all we see is adaptation, as opposed to innovation. We know from current adaptations that cell communities can make rapid adjustments to themselves without advance planning - purely in response to environmental change. That is the only clue we have concerning the inventiveness that led to past innovations, but it is not inconceivable that given an environmental change that offered new possibilities (e.g. an increase in levels of oxygen), as opposed to pure threat, the same intelligence might respond by making more radical adjustments. I am, however, merely hypothesizing, just as you are with your divine 3.8-billion-year programme for every innovation.
 
DAVID: But there are experts with just the opposite point of view, and no one can prove either side for sure.
dhw: Then let us keep an open mind.
DAVID: I have every right to chose sides. I'm not on the picket fence.-Of course. Atheists use the same argument about God. I just wish people who have chosen would recognize that all the arguments are full of flaws, and would therefore not condemn other viewpoints as being absolutely wrong.

9050 views


> dhw: We are going through a period of evolutionary stasis, in which all we see is adaptation, as opposed to innovation. We know from current adaptations that cell communities can make rapid adjustments to themselves without advance planning - purely in response to environmental change.-Other than the rapid appearance of H. sapiens, not much else has changed for over six million years. Are we at the end of planned evolution?

9069 views

dhw: We are going through a period of evolutionary stasis, in which all we see is adaptation, as opposed to innovation. We know from current adaptations that cell communities can make rapid adjustments to themselves without advance planning - purely in response to environmental change.
DAVID: Other than the rapid appearance of H. sapiens, not much else has changed for over six million years. Are we at the end of planned evolution?-Why planned? In any case, your question is not relevant to the point I have made, which is that we have evidence of organisms changing their own structure in response to the environment and without advance planning. That doesn't prove they are capable of invention (as opposed to adaptation), but it opens up the possibility that the same mechanism might be used innovatively when changing conditions offer new opportunities (as opposed to life-threatening dangers).

9013 views


> dhw: the point I have made, which is that we have evidence of organisms changing their own structure in response to the environment and without advance planning.-That is the epigenetic response. No planning.-> dhw: That doesn't prove they are capable of invention (as opposed to adaptation), but it opens up the possibility that the same mechanism might be used innovatively when changing conditions offer new opportunities (as opposed to life-threatening dangers).-And that is the point Shapiro proposes in my response to 'Lipton and cell adhesion'.

9041 views

Simply put, they open pores and pass molecules:-http://phys.org/news/2016-08-outlines-cellular-life.html-"Scientists have long known that cells have various types of sensory abilities that are key to their function, such as sensing light, heat, nerve signals, damage, chemicals or other inputs.-"In this process, a chemical stimulus called ATP functions as a signaling molecule, which in turn causes calcium levels in a cell to rise and decline, and tells a cell it's time to do its job - whether that be sending a nerve impulse, seeing a bird in flight or repairing a wound. These sensing processes are fundamental to the function of life. (my bold)-***-"'The thing is, individual cells don't always get the message right, their sensory process can be noisy, confusing, and they make mistakes," Sun said. "But there's strength in numbers, and the collective sensory ability of many cells working together usually comes up with the right answer. This collective communication is essential to life."-"In this study, researchers helped explain just how that works for animal cells.-"When cells meet, a small channel usually forms between them that's called a gap junction. On an individual level, a cell in response to ATP begins to oscillate, part of its call to action. But with gap junction-mediated communications, despite significant variability in sensing from one cell to another, the sensitivity to ATP is increased. Oscillation is picked up and becomes more uniform.-"This interactive chatter continues, and a preponderance of cells receiving one sensation persuade a lesser number of cells reporting a different sensation that they must be wrong. By working in communication and collaboration, most of the cells eventually decide what the correct sensory input is, and the signal that gets passed along is pretty accurate.-"With this accuracy of communication, cells in a heart chamber collectively decide it's time 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.-"This research was done with fibroblast cells, which are used in wound healing, but the results should apply to many cellular sensing mechanisms, researchers said.-***-"Consider a baseball player trying to get a hit, which Ted Williams once called "the hardest single thing to do in sport." A major league pitcher hurls a 93 mile-per-hour fastball, low but possibly a strike.-"The photoreceptor cells in the batter's eyes see the pitch coming. Some cells see it as a curve in the dirt, and some mistake it for a changeup, a slower pitch. But the majority of the cells come to the correct conclusion, it's a fastball at the knees, and they spread the word. After extensive communication between all these cells, a conclusion is reached and the correct message is sent to neurons in the brain.-"The brain cells, in turn, send a strong signal through nerves to muscles all over the batter's body, the shoulders, legs, and especially arms. The signals arrive and once again a collaborative process takes place, deciding what the message is and how to react. Calcium ions in muscle cells are triggered and a brutally fast-but-accurate response is triggered, swinging the bat. This entire process, from the ball leaving the pitcher's hand to contact with the bat, takes less than half a second.-Comment: This shows the body's cells can cooperate remarkably, but note the bold above. It is by molecular signals, all rapid and automatic.

8504 views

DAVID: > Simply put, they open pores and pass molecules:
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2016-08-outlines-cellular-life.html
> 
> "Scientists have long known that cells have various types of sensory abilities that are key to their function, such as sensing light, heat, nerve signals, damage, chemicals or other inputs.
> 
> "In this process, a chemical stimulus called ATP functions as a signaling molecule, which in turn causes calcium levels in a cell to rise and decline, and tells a cell it's time to do its job - whether that be sending a nerve impulse, seeing a bird in flight or repairing a wound. These sensing processes are fundamental to the function of life. (David's bold)-David's comment: This shows the body's cells can cooperate remarkably, but note the bold above. It is by molecular signals, all rapid and automatic.-You always pick out the automatic chemical processes which enable organisms to perceive and communicate (just as they do in humans), and you systematically ignore the crucial processes that determine how the information itself is processed and what is the substance of the message communicated. Why do you not consider the rest of the post?-> 
>> 
QUOTE: "'The thing is, individual cells don't always get the message right, their sensory process can be noisy, confusing, and they make mistakes," Sun said. "But there's strength in numbers, and the collective sensory ability of many cells working together usually comes up with the right answer. This collective communication is essential to life."-The process is not automatic. It requires intelligent cooperation and rectifying mistakes. Why would mistakes be made if the whole process was automatic?
> 
> 
QUOTE: "This interactive chatter continues, and a preponderance of cells receiving one sensation persuade a lesser number of cells reporting a different sensation that they must be wrong. By working in communication and collaboration, most of the cells eventually decide what the correct sensory input is, and the signal that gets passed along is pretty accurate."-What on earth is automatic about a process in which cells argue among themselves and come up with a decision?
> 
> > 
QUOTE: "The brain cells, in turn, send a strong signal through nerves to muscles all over the batter's body, the shoulders, legs, and especially arms. The signals arrive and once again a collaborative process takes place, deciding what the message is and how to react. -Signals are passed, cells collaborate to interpret them, and decide what to do. But all you can see is the automatic signalling molecule.
>

8458 views


> David's comment: This shows the body's cells can cooperate remarkably, but note the bold above. It is by molecular signals, all rapid and automatic.
> 
> dhw: You always pick out the automatic chemical processes which enable organisms to perceive and communicate (just as they do in humans), and you systematically ignore the crucial processes that determine how the information itself is processed and what is the substance of the message communicated. Why do you not consider the rest of the post?
> 
> > 
> >> 
> QUOTE: "'The thing is, individual cells don't always get the message right, their sensory process can be noisy, confusing, and they make mistakes," Sun said. "But there's strength in numbers, and the collective sensory ability of many cells working together usually comes up with the right answer. This collective communication is essential to life."
> 
> The process is not automatic. It requires intelligent cooperation and rectifying mistakes. Why would mistakes be made if the whole process was automatic?
> > 
> > 
> QUOTE: "This interactive chatter continues, and a preponderance of cells receiving one sensation persuade a lesser number of cells reporting a different sensation that they must be wrong. By working in communication and collaboration, most of the cells eventually decide what the correct sensory input is, and the signal that gets passed along is pretty accurate."
> 
> What on earth is automatic about a process in which cells argue among themselves and come up with a decision?
> > 
> > > 
> QUOTE: "The brain cells, in turn, send a strong signal through nerves to muscles all over the batter's body, the shoulders, legs, and especially arms. The signals arrive and once again a collaborative process takes place, deciding what the message is and how to react. 
> 
> Signals are passed, cells collaborate to interpret them, and decide what to do. But all you can see is the automatic signalling molecule.-You forget the estimate that the whole batting process is a half second or less. It requires instant coordination How much time for debate is there (?), and I can tell you the quote is hyperbole, as the researcher has no idea what each cell among millions is doing. That is impossible research and therefore an assumption. My own lab work in med school tells me that.

8464 views

dhw: If I wear my theist hat, I can certainly see that a divinely designed mechanism producing all kinds of weird, platypussy wonders might serve the purpose of satisfying curiosity, providing relief from eternal boredom, having fun, learning new things etc. I can also see in all organisms, including the platypus, the purpose of survival. But what I cannot see is how the platypus - as unique in its way as homo sapiens, being the sole survivor of its wider family - can be part of your God's great plan to produce you and me. And you can multiply that example by all the other millions of extant and extinct natural wonders and evolutionary innovations which you insist also required God's personal intervention. - DAVID: You wear two hats, so you must be two-headed. I still invoke the balance of nature to explain it, plus a drive to extreme inventiveness to see what evolves.
 - As any hat-maker will tell you, it is possible and indeed highly desirable that you should own more than one hat, but you can only wear one at a time.
 
We agreed long ago that the balance of nature means nothing more than life going on. It does not explain why your God would specially preprogramme or dabble the platypus or the weaverbird's nest. The drive to extreme inventiveness "to see what evolves" is precisely what I have outlined above. That is very different from the guided drive to extreme inventiveness to produce what has already been planned. It's good to see you slowly moving towards my hypothesis!

8463 views

dhw: We agreed long ago that the balance of nature means nothing more than life going on. It does not explain why your God would specially preprogramme or dabble the platypus or the weaverbird's nest. The drive to extreme inventiveness "to see what evolves" is precisely what I have outlined above. That is very different from the guided drive to extreme inventiveness to produce what has already been planned. It's good to see you slowly moving towards my hypothesis!-I've gone about as far as I can go, based on what we know.

8445 views

An other take on the same article:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/09/design_paper_hi103156.html-"Decoding the cellular response to environmental perturbations, such as chemosensing, photosensing, and mechanosensing, has been of central importance in our understanding of living systems. To date, most studies of cellular sensation and response have focused on single isolated cells or population averages. An emerging picture from these studies is the set of design principles governing cellular signaling pathways: these pathways are organized into an intertwined, often redundant network with architecture that is closely related to the robustness of cellular information processing. (my bold) -"The Oregon State researchers had a hunch that a higher level of information processing is going on:-"However, many examples suggest that collective sensing by many interacting cells may provide another dimension for the cells to process environmental cues. Examples, such as quorum sensing in bacterial colonies, olfaction in insects and mammals, glucose response in the pancreatic islet, and the visual processing of retinal ganglion cells, suggest a fundamental need to revisit cellular information processing in the context of multicellular sensation and response, because even weak cell-to-cell interaction may have strong impact on the states of multicellular network dynamics. In particular, we seek to examine how the sensory response of cells in a population differs from that of isolated cells and whether we can tune between these two extremes by controlling the degree of cell-cell communication.-"They've set up an intriguing question. How does the inside of a body respond to cues from the outside? What translates sensations into chemical signals? How are those signals communicated inside cells and between cells? The OSU team describes their approach:-"We study a population of fibroblast cells that responds to a chemical stimulus (ATP) and communicates by molecule exchange. Combining experiments and mathematical modeling, we find that cells exhibit calcium oscillations in response to not only the ATP stimulus but also, increased cell-cell communication. Our results show that, when cells are together, their sensory responses reflect not just the stimulus level but also, the degree of communication within the population."-Comment: Note my bold. The whole process is a half second. It has to be automatic to fit the time frame and uses information in the cells which is implanted there. Yes, of course the cells cooperate. The time frame allows nothing else.

8518 views

DAVID: Another take on the same article:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/09/design_paper_hi103156.html-You seem to accept the authority of the article. I think the first half, which we have already discussed, is much clearer, so let me reproduce it again with all its indications of intelligence, which I will put in bold. In my view automatic behaviour can hardly involve cells discussing, disagreeing and then coming to a collective decision :-The thing is, individual cells don't always get the message right, their sensory process can be noisy, confusing, and they make mistakes," Sun said. "But there's strength in numbers, and the collective sensory ability of many cells working together usually comes up with the right answer. This collective communication is essential to life."-Cells have a way of voting a consensus.-This interactive chatter continues, and a preponderance of cells receiving one sensation persuade a lesser number of cells reporting a different sensation that they must be wrong. By working in communication and collaboration, most of the cells eventually decide what the correct sensory input is, and the signal that gets passed along is pretty accurate.-Now let's put it together in a real-life situation requiring rapid response. Watch a baseball play from the cells' perspective, as the batter sees a 93-mile-per-hour fastball coming in low:-After extensive communication between all these cells, a conclusion is reached and the correct message is sent to neurons in the brain.-Think how fast this has to happen. That's a pretty rapid committee meeting! -The brain cells, in turn, send a strong signal through nerves to muscles all over the batter's body, the shoulders, legs, and especially arms. The signals arrive and once again a collaborative process takes place, deciding what the message is and how to react... [/b]-DAVID: The whole process is a half second. It has to be automatic to fit the time frame and uses information in the cells which is implanted there. Yes, of course the cells cooperate. The time frame allows nothing else.-It's amazing how fast these intelligent cells work! To reverse your own approach, it may look automatic from the outside, but who can tell the difference? Not long ago, we watched a video of E.coli bacteria solving a problem. That was speeded up, because it took them quite a while to work it out, but work it out they did. Cells/cell communities are very good at solving problems, and it would be interesting to know how many researchers think that God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on every solution to every single problem that cells/cell communities will face for the rest of time.

8458 views

dhw: It's amazing how fast these intelligent cells work! To reverse your own approach, it may look automatic from the outside, but who can tell the difference?-The problem for you is how to interpret cells' reaction when they are studied down to a level of the molecular reactions inside the cells that generate the responses to stimuli. All that can be seen is a series of molecules' reactions with each other to produce the response, with the same response each time the same stimulus is applied. There will be a specific molecular response to each specific stimulus. Automaticity.

8503 views

dhw: It's amazing how fast these intelligent cells work! To reverse your own approach, it may look automatic from the outside, but who can tell the difference-DAVID: The problem for you is how to interpret cells' reaction when they are studied down to a level of the molecular reactions inside the cells that generate the responses to stimuli. All that can be seen is a series of molecules' reactions with each other to produce the response, with the same response each time the same stimulus is applied. There will be a specific molecular response to each specific stimulus. Automaticity.-Many processes are, of course, automatic (e.g. the work of the senses) as I keep acknowledging. But the question is how the information gained is then applied, and the problem for you is that we can only study the physiological manifestations of mental processes. You are aware of this when it comes to human thought, and indeed you criticize neuroscientists who believe brain activity to be the source of mental activity as opposed to being the receiver of it. You even go so far as to acknowledge that the behaviour of brainless micro-organisms appears to be intelligent, and the articles you quote (like this one) often show you that it actually is, but you cling to your prejudices.

8512 views

dhw: Many processes are, of course, automatic (e.g. the work of the senses) as I keep acknowledging. But the question is how the information gained is then applied, and the problem for you is that we can only study the physiological manifestations of mental processes. You are aware of this when it comes to human thought, and indeed you criticize neuroscientists who believe brain activity to be the source of mental activity as opposed to being the receiver of it. You even go so far as to acknowledge that the behaviour of brainless micro-organisms appears to be intelligent, and the articles you quote (like this one) often show you that it actually is, but you cling to your prejudices. - If we could discover a seat of intelligence in micro-organisms I would agree with you.

8416 views

dhw: Many processes are, of course, automatic (e.g. the work of the senses) as I keep acknowledging. But the question is how the information gained is then applied, and the problem for you is that we can only study the physiological manifestations of mental processes. You are aware of this when it comes to human thought, and indeed you criticize neuroscientists who believe brain activity to be the source of mental activity as opposed to being the receiver of it. You even go so far as to acknowledge that the behaviour of brainless micro-organisms appears to be intelligent, and the articles you quote (like this one) often show you that it actually is, but you cling to your prejudices. - DAVID: If we could discover a seat of intelligence in micro-organisms I would agree with you. - And you are the one who accuses me of wanting absolute proof that God exists! Has anyone yet discovered your God's 3.7-billion-year computer programme which offers micro-organisms solutions to every problem they will encounter for the rest of time? - David's comment (re geckos): It looks like a reasoned learned behaviour, just like our black Texas cows under a tree for shade on hot days. - Another lovely article, and a great comment. I agree, these organisms reason things out (invention), and when something works, they stick to it (learned behaviour). Observation tells us that micro-organisms do the same, but you prefer to believe in God's undiscovered computer programme rather than a different type of receiver.

8475 views


> DAVID: If we could discover a seat of intelligence in micro-organisms I would agree with you.
> 
> dhw: And you are the one who accuses me of wanting absolute proof that God exists! Has anyone yet discovered your God's 3.7-billion-year computer programme which offers micro-organisms solutions to every problem they will encounter for the rest of time? - Biochemists can pick a cell apart and show you what it does in responce to all stimuli. What else do you want!
> 
> David's comment (re geckos): It looks like a reasoned learned behaviour, just like our black Texas cows under a tree for shade on hot days.
> 
> dhw: Another lovely article, and a great comment. I agree, these organisms reason things out (invention), and when something works, they stick to it (learned behaviour). Observation tells us that micro-organisms do the same, but you prefer to believe in God's undiscovered computer programme rather than a different type of receiver. - For micro-organisms answered above.

8458 views

DAVID: If we could discover a seat of intelligence in micro-organisms I would agree with you.-dhw: And you are the one who accuses me of wanting absolute proof that God exists! Has anyone yet discovered your God's 3.7-billion-year computer programme which offers micro-organisms solutions to every problem they will encounter for the rest of time?-DAVID: Biochemists can pick a cell apart and show you what it does in responce to all stimuli. What else do you want!-Ah, so that's why there is a consensus among biochemists that all micro-organisms have been supplied by God with a 3.7 billion-year-old computer programme to solve every problem they will encounter for the rest of time. Or is there? If not, why not?

8420 views


> DAVID: Biochemists can pick a cell apart and show you what it does in responce to all stimuli. What else do you want!
> 
> dhw: Ah, so that's why there is a consensus among biochemists that all micro-organisms have been supplied by God with a 3.7 billion-year-old computer programme to solve every problem they will encounter for the rest of time. Or is there? If not, why not?-Cells handle their daily activities very well with a 3.7 million year old history of life. See today's entry on DNA/RNA speed of action.

8410 views

DAVID: Biochemists can pick a cell apart and show you what it does in responce to all stimuli. What else do you want!-dhw: Ah, so that's why there is a consensus among biochemists that all micro-organisms have been supplied by God with a 3.7 billion-year-old computer programme to solve every problem they will encounter for the rest of time. Or is there? If not, why not?-DAVID: Cells handle their daily activities very well with a 3.7 million year old history of life. See today's entry on DNA/RNA speed of action.-Is there a consensus among biochemists that God installed a computer programme in all of them? If God gave them the intelligence to handle their daily activities, you would also be able to say they handled their daily activities with a 3.7 billion year history of life!
 
David's comment re DNA/RNA: The complexity of living biochemistry seen in action demands the conclusion it was developed by an active mind. No chance process can possibly do this.-I agree. Once intelligence exists, there seems to be an inevitable progression to ever increasing complexity (your own term), resulting in all the improvements we see from the simple cell to the human brain. But where did the first intelligence spring from? That is the great question to which we have no answer.

8445 views


> DAVID: Cells handle their daily activities very well with a 3.7 million year old history of life. See today's entry on DNA/RNA speed of action.
> 
> dhw: Is there a consensus among biochemists that God installed a computer programme in all of them? If God gave them the intelligence to handle their daily activities, you would also be able to say they handled their daily activities with a 3.7 billion year history of life!-Of course there is no consensus. They have implanted intelligent information.
> 
> David's comment re DNA/RNA: The complexity of living biochemistry seen in action demands the conclusion it was developed by an active mind. No chance process can possibly do this.
> 
> dhw: I agree. Once intelligence exists, there seems to be an inevitable progression to ever increasing complexity (your own term), resulting in all the improvements we see from the simple cell to the human brain. But where did the first intelligence spring from? That is the great question to which we have no answer.-My answer is an eternal mind, God. Again you want a proven answer.

8435 views

David's comment re DNA/RNA: The complexity of living biochemistry seen in action demands the conclusion it was developed by an active mind. No chance process can possibly do this. - dhw: I agree. Once intelligence exists, there seems to be an inevitable progression to ever increasing complexity (your own term), resulting in all the improvements we see from the simple cell to the human brain. But where did the first intelligence spring from? That is the great question to which we have no answer. - DAVID: My answer is an eternal mind, God. Again you want a proven answer. - There are two questions under discussion. The first is how evolution works, and I have proposed (theistic version) that your God provided organisms with autonomous intelligence, as opposed to preprogramming them or dabbling with them. My hypothesis fits in with all the information we currently have, but you categorically reject it because you want proof. The second question is whether God exists or intelligence came about by chance. I am fully aware that proof is impossible for both hypotheses, find them equally difficult to accept, recognize that one must be closer to the truth than the other, and therefore do NOT reject either. You do not require proof for your own hypotheses, but firmly reject the alternatives for lack of proof.

8455 views


> DAVID: My answer is an eternal mind, God. Again you want a proven answer.
> 
> dhw: There are two questions under discussion. The first is how evolution works, and I have proposed (theistic version) that your God provided organisms with autonomous intelligence, as opposed to preprogramming them or dabbling with them. My hypothesis fits in with all the information we currently have, but you categorically reject it because you want proof. The second question is whether God exists or intelligence came about by chance. I am fully aware that proof is impossible for both hypotheses, find them equally difficult to accept, recognize that one must be closer to the truth than the other, and therefore do NOT reject either. You do not require proof for your own hypotheses, but firmly reject the alternatives for lack of proof.-My 'proof' exists in that I accept Adler's view of evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' principal of thought. It comes from my education in biochemistry. Chance is impossible, as demonstrated to me in my entry today about nitrogen-fixing.

8411 views

DAVID: My answer is an eternal mind, God. Again you want a proven answer.-dhw: There are two questions under discussion. The first is how evolution works, and I have proposed (theistic version) that your God provided organisms with autonomous intelligence, as opposed to preprogramming them or dabbling with them. My hypothesis fits in with all the information we currently have, but you categorically reject it because you want proof. The second question is whether God exists or intelligence came about by chance. I am fully aware that proof is impossible for both hypotheses, find them equally difficult to accept, recognize that one must be closer to the truth than the other, and therefore do NOT reject either. You do not require proof for your own hypotheses, but firmly reject the alternatives for lack of proof.-DAVID: My 'proof' exists in that I accept Adler's view of evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' principal of thought. It comes from my education in biochemistry. Chance is impossible, as demonstrated to me in my entry today about nitrogen-fixing.-Perhaps worth noting: beyond a reasonable doubt suggests that in this context doubt is unreasonable (not very complimentary to folk like me), and the accompaniment to this legal term is innocent until proved guilty. The proof must be such that the jury is even prepared to send the accused to his death. Would you go that far? Of course you wouldn't (although many religious fanatics would and do).
 
As for your proof stemming from your education in biochemistry, if all or even the vast majority of biochemists believed in God's 3.7-billion-year-old computer programme or dabbling, your claim might carry some weight. We always end up by agreeing that your belief requires a gigantic leap of faith, and that I respect. But if you insist on my providing proof for my cellular intelligence hypothesis, while you have no proof for the computer programme hypothesis you believe in, I can't help feeling you are applying double standards.

8415 views


> dhw: We always end up by agreeing that your belief requires a gigantic leap of faith, and that I respect. But if you insist on my providing proof for my cellular intelligence hypothesis, while you have no proof for the computer programme hypothesis you believe in, I can't help feeling you are applying double standards.-Perhaps I'm not clear. My position uses the concept 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt' to accept God's programming. On your side you accept comments by a few research folks who view sentient actions of unicellular organisms as more than simply an automatic response to stimuli. Studies of the cells through biochemistry show only a series of specific metabolic reactions, always the same. In counter to your quotes from these few, I could quote all the ID scientists with whom I agree. I don't bother as it is a repetitious waste of time. And I remind you the folks you quote are folks I've first quoted in the past on this venue. No double standard. I know you can't take the leap, so you look for possible reasonable alternatives. I cannot accept the intelligent cell as reasonable. Let's end this aspect of debate and move on.

8423 views

dhw: We always end up by agreeing that your belief requires a gigantic leap of faith, and that I respect. But if you insist on my providing proof for my cellular intelligence hypothesis, while you have no proof for the computer programme hypothesis you believe in, I can't help feeling you are applying double standard.
DAVID: Perhaps I'm not clear. My position uses the concept 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt' to accept God's programming. -You are clear. However, you do not have a scrap of evidence that 3.7 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with programmes to cover every single innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution, apart from those he produced by direct dabbling. Hence the problem of double standards.-DAVID: On your side you accept comments by a few research folks who view sentient actions of unicellular organisms as more than simply an automatic response to stimuli. -My hypothesis remains a hypothesis. Like everyone else in this field, I am unable to find a clear explanation for evolutionary innovation. I am prepared to accept the possibility that these research folks are right, and if they are, their findings provide a basis on which to build my hypothesis. I am certainly not prepared to reject their findings, as you do.-DAVID: Studies of the cells through biochemistry show only a series of specific metabolic reactions, always the same. In counter to your quotes from these few, I could quote all the ID scientists with whom I agree.-Why only ID scientists? Our disagreement over cellular intelligence has nothing to do with ID, since your God could have designed it. But out of interest, do all your ID scientists agree with you that 3.7 billion years ago God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on every subsequent innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution, apart from those he dabbled?
 
DAVID: No double standard. I know you can't take the leap, so you look for possible reasonable alternatives. I cannot accept the intelligent cell as reasonable. Let's end this aspect of debate and move on.-We can certainly agree to differ and leave it at that, but then you would have to stop emphasizing your belief that cells/cell communities work automatically, and that every innovation and natural wonder provides evidence of God's preprogramming and/or dabbling. With admirable integrity, you sometimes provide us with some wonderful posts that support the case for cellular intelligence (though you argue the opposite). We can try to stay clear of the topic, but I must have the right to reply to your comments.

8366 views


> dhw; You are clear. However, you do not have a scrap of evidence that 3.7 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with programmes to cover every single innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution, apart from those he produced by direct dabbling. Hence the problem of double standards.-Of course no proof. But that seems all you are satisfied with. I see a reality that demands a mind to plan it, and then faith takes over. I started in hour position years cago.
> 
> DAVID: On your side you accept comments by a few research folks who view sentient actions of unicellular organisms as more than simply an automatic response to stimuli. 
> 
> dhw: My hypothesis remains a hypothesis. Like everyone else in this field, I am unable to find a clear explanation for evolutionary innovation. I am prepared to accept the possibility that these research folks are right, and if they are, their findings provide a basis on which to build my hypothesis. I am certainly not prepared to reject their findings, as you do.-I reject them because I know how cells work their biochemistry.
> 
> DAVID: Studies of the cells through biochemistry show only a series of specific metabolic reactions, always the same. In counter to your quotes from these few, I could quote all the ID scientists with whom I agree.
> 
> dhw: Why only ID scientists? Our disagreement over cellular intelligence has nothing to do with ID, since your God could have designed it. But out of interest, do all your ID scientists agree with you that 3.7 billion years ago God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on every subsequent innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution, apart from those he dabbled?-No they don't try to go further than obviously God had to do it.
> 
> DAVID: No double standard. I know you can't take the leap, so you look for possible reasonable alternatives. I cannot accept the intelligent cell as reasonable. Let's end this aspect of debate and move on.
> 
> dhw; With admirable integrity, you sometimes provide us with some wonderful posts that support the case for cellular intelligence (though you argue the opposite). We can try to stay clear of the topic, but I must have the right to reply to your comments.-No, please comment.

8653 views

A new discovery of cells using virus particles in DNA to communicate information:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cells-hack-viruslike-protein-to-communicate/...

"The genomes of plants and animals are littered with the remains of viruses that integrated themselves into their DNA hundreds of millions of years ago. Most of these viral remnants are inactive, but the latest research suggests that some evolved into genes that let cells communicate.

"A pair of papers published in Cell on January 11 suggest that the protein encoded by one such gene uses its virus-like structure to shuttle information between cells: a new form of cellular communication that may be key to long-term memory formation and other neurological functions.

***

"When Shepherd and Budnik analysed the genetic sequences of mouse and fly versions of Arc, they found that they were similar to that of a viral gene called gag. Retroviruses such as HIV use the Gag protein to assemble protective shells called capsids that transport the virus’s genetic material between cells during infection.

"When the researchers looked at the Arc protein under a high-resolution microscope, they found that it formed a similar capsid and carried the genetic instructions, or messenger RNA (mRNA), that encode Arc. The capsid was then wrapped in a piece of the cell membrane and released as an extracellular vesicle.

***

"In flies, Budnik’s group found that motor neurons—which connect to muscle cells and tell them when to contract—produced vesicles containing Arc. Once the vesicles reached the muscle cells, they fused with those cells’ membranes, releasing the Arc protein and mRNA. It’s unclear what the muscle cell does with the protein and mRNA, but Budnik found that flies that lacked the gene formed fewer connections between neurons and muscles.

"Shepherd’s group found a similar phenomenon in neurons taken from mouse brains. Neurons that absorbed extracellular vesicles from other neurons would start using the Arc mRNA to produce the protein once they were stimulated to fire.

"Shepherd and Budnik think that the vesicles containing Arc play a part in helping neurons to form and break connections over time as an animal’s nervous system develops or adapts to a new environment or memory. Although the fly and mouse versions of Arc are similar, they seem to have evolved from two distinct retroviruses that entered the species’ genomes at different times. “There must be something really fundamental about it," Budnik says, for it to appear in both mice and flies.

***

“'This almost raises more questions than it answers,” says Yvonne Couch, a biologist who studies extracellular vesicles at the University of Oxford in the UK. She wonders what stimulates neurons to produce extracellular vesicles and what other material might be carried between neighbouring cells.

"Shepherd and Budnik plan to continue studying Arc, but they’re also interested in whether other proteins function in the same way. The human genome contains around 100 gag-like genes that could encode proteins that form capsids. It’s possible that this new form of communication between cells is more common than we thought, Shepherd says. “We think it’s just the beginning.'”

Comment: Vescicles contain molecules that carry information. How cells interpret the carried information is not clear. I would suggest that the arrival of the protein starts a cascade of protein reactions until the new function is established. No thought involved, all automatic.

7721 views

A deep study as to how they communicate signals, and iti s not simple:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180216150338.htm

"Cells carry out their conversations using specialized communication molecules called ligands, which interact with corresponding molecular antennae called receptors. When a cell uses the Notch pathway to communicate instructions to its neighbors -- telling them to divide, for example, or to differentiate into a different kind of cell -- the cell sending the message will produce certain Notch ligands on its surface. These ligands then bind to Notch receptors embedded in the surface of nearby cells, triggering the receptors to release gene-modifying molecules called transcription factors into the interior of their cell. The transcription factors travel to the cell's nucleus, where the cell's DNA is stored, and activate specific genes. The Notch system thus allows cells to receive signals from their neighbors and alter their gene expression accordingly.

"Ligands prompt the activation of transcription factors by modifying the structure of the receptors into which they dock. All ligands modify their receptors in a similar way and activate the same transcription factors in a receiving cell, and for that reason, scientists generally assumed that the receiving cell should not be able to reliably determine which ligand had activated it, and hence which message it had received.

***

"So, the question is, as a cell, how do you differentiate between two ligands, both of which look like similar puffs of smoke in the distance?"

***

"The team studied two chemically similar Notch ligands, dubbed Delta1 and Delta4. They discovered that despite the ligands' similarity the two activated the same receptor with strikingly different temporal patterns. Delta1 ligands activated clusters of receptors simultaneously, sending a sudden burst of transcription factors down to the nucleus all at once, like a smoke signal consisting of a few giant puffs. On the other hand, Delta4 ligands activated individual receptors in a sustained manner, sending a constant trickle of single transcription factors to the nucleus, like a steady stream of smoke.

"These two patterns are the key to encoding different instructions to the cell, the researchers say. In fact, this mechanism enabled the two ligands to communicate dramatically different messages. By analyzing chick embryos, the authors discovered that Delta1 activated abdominal muscle production, whereas Delta4 strongly inhibited this process in the same cells.

"Cells speak only a handful of different molecular languages but they have to work together to carry out an incredible diversity of tasks," says Elowitz. "We've generally assumed these languages are extremely simple, and cells can basically only grunt at each other. By watching cells in the process of communicating, we can see that these languages are more sophisticated and have a larger vocabulary than we ever thought. And this is probably just the tip of an iceberg for intercellular communication.'" (my bold)

Comment: We see here a system as complex as our brain's relationship to its s/s/c, in that information (immaterial) is transmitted by material timing actions by the molecules. Yet we can ask, are cells truly conscious in and of themselves? That consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable. And I believe God is universal consciousness.

7607 views

DAVID: A deep study as to how they communicate signals, and it is not simple:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180216150338.htm

QUOTE: "Cells speak only a handful of different molecular languages but they have to work together to carry out an incredible diversity of tasks," says Elowitz. "We've generally assumed these languages are extremely simple, and cells can basically only grunt at each other. By watching cells in the process of communicating, we can see that these languages are more sophisticated and have a larger vocabulary than we ever thought. And this is probably just the tip of an iceberg for intercellular communication.'" (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: We see here a system as complex as our brain's relationship to its s/s/c, in that information (immaterial) is transmitted by material timing actions by the molecules. Yet we can ask, are cells truly conscious in and of themselves? That consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable. And I believe God is universal consciousness.

What do you mean by “truly” conscious? I don’t think any of us would suggest that cells are as conscious of the universe and of themselves as we are. Nor is your dog. But if you are now telling us you find it reasonable that ALL levels have a degree of consciousness, this suggests that at long, long last you are just beginning to accept the possibility that cells are intelligent. I must very sincerely thank you, as always, for your admirable integrity in producing articles which support hypotheses that you are opposed to. That is in the true spirit of our forum, which should always be a quest for truth and not for mere confirmation of existing beliefs or disbeliefs.

7610 views

DAVID: A deep study as to how they communicate signals, and it is not simple:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180216150338.htm

QUOTE: "Cells speak only a handful of different molecular languages but they have to work together to carry out an incredible diversity of tasks," says Elowitz. "We've generally assumed these languages are extremely simple, and cells can basically only grunt at each other. By watching cells in the process of communicating, we can see that these languages are more sophisticated and have a larger vocabulary than we ever thought. And this is probably just the tip of an iceberg for intercellular communication.'" (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: We see here a system as complex as our brain's relationship to its s/s/c, in that information (immaterial) is transmitted by material timing actions by the molecules. Yet we can ask, are cells truly conscious in and of themselves? That consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable. And I believe God is universal consciousness.

dhw: What do you mean by “truly” conscious? I don’t think any of us would suggest that cells are as conscious of the universe and of themselves as we are. Nor is your dog. But if you are now telling us you find it reasonable that ALL levels have a degree of consciousness, this suggests that at long, long last you are just beginning to accept the possibility that cells are intelligent. I must very sincerely thank you, as always, for your admirable integrity in producing articles which support hypotheses that you are opposed to. That is in the true spirit of our forum, which should always be a quest for truth and not for mere confirmation of existing beliefs or disbeliefs.

Thank you for your kind comments. My main point was to illustrate that the actions of biochemical molecules have all the appearance of conscious purposeful events. But I do not believe those individual molecules are actually conscious. They are a product of design which results in the emergence of life from their activities.

7651 views

DAVID: A deep study as to how they communicate signals, and it is not simple:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180216150338.htm

QUOTE: "Cells speak only a handful of different molecular languages but they have to work together to carry out an incredible diversity of tasks," says Elowitz. "We've generally assumed these languages are extremely simple, and cells can basically only grunt at each other. By watching cells in the process of communicating, we can see that these languages are more sophisticated and have a larger vocabulary than we ever thought. And this is probably just the tip of an iceberg for intercellular communication.'" (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: We see here a system as complex as our brain's relationship to its s/s/c, in that information (immaterial) is transmitted by material timing actions by the molecules. Yet we can ask, are cells truly conscious in and of themselves? That consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable. And I believe God is universal consciousness.

dhw: What do you mean by “truly” conscious? I don’t think any of us would suggest that cells are as conscious of the universe and of themselves as we are. Nor is your dog. But if you are now telling us you find it reasonable that ALL levels have a degree of consciousness, this suggests that at long, long last you are just beginning to accept the possibility that cells are intelligent. I must very sincerely thank you, as always, for your admirable integrity in producing articles which support hypotheses that you are opposed to. That is in the true spirit of our forum, which should always be a quest for truth and not for mere confirmation of existing beliefs or disbeliefs.

DAVID: Thank you for your kind comments. My main point was to illustrate that the actions of biochemical molecules have all the appearance of conscious purposeful events. But I do not believe those individual molecules are actually conscious. They are a product of design which results in the emergence of life from their activities.

As so often before, though givest with one hand and taketh away with the other. Cells appear to be conscious, and “that consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable” (my bold), so it must reasonable to propose that what appears to be conscious IS conscious. But you don’t believe it. Ah well, I’ll settle for the fact that the proposal now seems reasonable to you!

7627 views

DAVID: A deep study as to how they communicate signals, and it is not simple:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180216150338.htm

QUOTE: "Cells speak only a handful of different molecular languages but they have to work together to carry out an incredible diversity of tasks," says Elowitz. "We've generally assumed these languages are extremely simple, and cells can basically only grunt at each other. By watching cells in the process of communicating, we can see that these languages are more sophisticated and have a larger vocabulary than we ever thought. And this is probably just the tip of an iceberg for intercellular communication.'" (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: We see here a system as complex as our brain's relationship to its s/s/c, in that information (immaterial) is transmitted by material timing actions by the molecules. Yet we can ask, are cells truly conscious in and of themselves? That consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable. And I believe God is universal consciousness.

dhw: What do you mean by “truly” conscious? I don’t think any of us would suggest that cells are as conscious of the universe and of themselves as we are. Nor is your dog. But if you are now telling us you find it reasonable that ALL levels have a degree of consciousness, this suggests that at long, long last you are just beginning to accept the possibility that cells are intelligent. I must very sincerely thank you, as always, for your admirable integrity in producing articles which support hypotheses that you are opposed to. That is in the true spirit of our forum, which should always be a quest for truth and not for mere confirmation of existing beliefs or disbeliefs.

DAVID: Thank you for your kind comments. My main point was to illustrate that the actions of biochemical molecules have all the appearance of conscious purposeful events. But I do not believe those individual molecules are actually conscious. They are a product of design which results in the emergence of life from their activities.

dhw: As so often before, though givest with one hand and taketh away with the other. Cells appear to be conscious, and “that consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable” (my bold), so it must reasonable to propose that what appears to be conscious IS conscious. But you don’t believe it. Ah well, I’ll settle for the fact that the proposal now seems reasonable to you!

Have you forgotten that I think God's consciousness pervades all of the universe?

7623 views

DAVID’s comment: We see here a system as complex as our brain's relationship to its s/s/c, in that information (immaterial) is transmitted by material timing actions by the molecules. Yet we can ask, are cells truly conscious in and of themselves? That consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable. And I believe God is universal consciousness.

dhw: What do you mean by “truly” conscious? I don’t think any of us would suggest that cells are as conscious of the universe and of themselves as we are. Nor is your dog. But if you are now telling us you find it reasonable that ALL levels have a degree of consciousness, this suggests that at long, long last you are just beginning to accept the possibility that cells are intelligent...

DAVID: ... My main point was to illustrate that the actions of biochemical molecules have all the appearance of conscious purposeful events. But I do not believe those individual molecules are actually conscious. They are a product of design which results in the emergence of life from their activities.

dhw: As so often before, though givest with one hand and taketh away with the other. Cells appear to be conscious, and “that consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable” (my bold), so it must reasonable to propose that what appears to be conscious IS conscious. But you don’t believe it. Ah well, I’ll settle for the fact that the proposal now seems reasonable to you!

DAVID: Have you forgotten that I think God's consciousness pervades all of the universe?

What does this mean? Is your level of consciousness your own or God’s? Is your dog’s level of consciousness its own or God's? Is an ant’s level of consciousness its own or God’s? Is a bacterium’s level of consciousness its own or God’s? Have you forgotten what you wrote: “That consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable. And I believe God is universal consciousness.” That makes you a theistic panpsychist. It also means that cells are conscious at the level of cell consciousness.

7669 views

dhw: As so often before, though givest with one hand and taketh away with the other. Cells appear to be conscious, and “that consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable” (my bold), so it must reasonable to propose that what appears to be conscious IS conscious. But you don’t believe it. Ah well, I’ll settle for the fact that the proposal now seems reasonable to you!

DAVID: Have you forgotten that I think God's consciousness pervades all of the universe?

dhw: What does this mean? Is your level of consciousness your own or God’s? Is your dog’s level of consciousness its own or God's? Is an ant’s level of consciousness its own or God’s? Is a bacterium’s level of consciousness its own or God’s? Have you forgotten what you wrote: “That consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable. And I believe God is universal consciousness.” That makes you a theistic panpsychist. It also means that cells are conscious at the level of cell consciousness.

Doesn't mean that at all. I've always stated that the consciousness of the universe is God's, and that He has designed cells to appear conscious as in my entry today about cell products addressed to arrive at the right useful point.

7666 views

dhw: Is your level of consciousness your own or God’s? Is your dog’s level of consciousness its own or God's? Is an ant’s level of consciousness its own or God’s? Is a bacterium’s level of consciousness its own or God’s? Have you forgotten what you wrote: “That consciousness fully pervades all levels of the universe is reasonable. And I believe God is universal consciousness.” That makes you a theistic panpsychist. It also means that cells are conscious at the level of cell consciousness.
DAVID: I've always stated that the consciousness of the universe is God's, and that He has designed cells to appear conscious as in my entry today about cell products addressed to arrive at the right useful point.

I presume you’re referring to this comment:

DAVID's comment: The complexity of the structure and of the functions of this giant enzyme demands that a designer of life be strongly considered. Only a planning mind can create such structures with such precise mechanisms of function.

I’m quite happy with the design argument. I don’t see how that means that God’s consciousness pervades the universe at all levels, and you and I are conscious, and your dog is conscious, and an ant is conscious, and bacteria seem to be conscious but you happen to know that they are robots.

XXXXX

Under “neurons”
QUOTES: "Nerve cells are constantly firing off in your body. They control your eyes as you read these words, and they send back the images you see on this page to your brain. They, along with chemical signals, control a multitude of processes in our bodies, and there is no scientific reason to think they gradually evolved, one mutation at time.
"Indeed, that idea contradicts everything we know from the science. And yet this is what evolutionists believe. Let me repeat that: evolutionists believe nerve cells and their action potential designs evolved one mutation at time. Indeed, evolutionists believe this is a proven fact, beyond all reasonable doubt."

This evolutionist here suggests that cells from the very beginning had the perhaps God-given potential to change their structure and to combine in an almost endless variety of forms and functions – a kind of autonomous inventive intelligence. For some reason the word “mutation” has come to be linked with the word “random”. Every change is a mutation, whether random or designed. Assuming the author doesn’t believe that every form of life existed from the very beginning, I cannot see any objection to the argument that the multitude of processes has come about through a multitude of mutations – though not one at a time, since one major mutation would require others throughout the rest of the body to accommodate it, affecting whole communities of cells. Even if a creationist argues that his God has personally changed the designs, he still can’t avoid the fact that each change is a mutation, unless he wishes to argue that his God has created every single life form and variation from scratch.

7659 views

DAVID: I've always stated that the consciousness of the universe is God's, and that He has designed cells to appear conscious as in my entry today about cell products addressed to arrive at the right useful point.

I presume you’re referring to this comment:

DAVID's comment: The complexity of the structure and of the functions of this giant enzyme demands that a designer of life be strongly considered. Only a planning mind can create such structures with such precise mechanisms of function.

dhw: I’m quite happy with the design argument. I don’t see how that means that God’s consciousness pervades the universe at all levels, and you and I are conscious, and your dog is conscious, and an ant is conscious, and bacteria seem to be conscious but you happen to know that they are robots.

My comment that God pervades also includes that He designed intelligent responses in bacteria as well as my dog and ants are conscious.

XXXXX

Under “neurons”
QUOTES: "Nerve cells are constantly firing off in your body. They control your eyes as you read these words, and they send back the images you see on this page to your brain. They, along with chemical signals, control a multitude of processes in our bodies, and there is no scientific reason to think they gradually evolved, one mutation at time.
"Indeed, that idea contradicts everything we know from the science. And yet this is what evolutionists believe. Let me repeat that: evolutionists believe nerve cells and their action potential designs evolved one mutation at time. Indeed, evolutionists believe this is a proven fact, beyond all reasonable doubt."

dhw: This evolutionist here suggests that cells from the very beginning had the perhaps God-given potential to change their structure and to combine in an almost endless variety of forms and functions – a kind of autonomous inventive intelligence.

If not God-given you have no explanation for the appearance of autonomous inventive intelligence which must operate with an understanding of the information it receives.

dhw: For some reason the word “mutation” has come to be linked with the word “random”. Every change is a mutation, whether random or designed. Assuming the author doesn’t believe that every form of life existed from the very beginning, I cannot see any objection to the argument that the multitude of processes has come about through a multitude of mutations – though not one at a time, since one major mutation would require others throughout the rest of the body to accommodate it, affecting whole communities of cells. Even if a creationist argues that his God has personally changed the designs, he still can’t avoid the fact that each change is a mutation, unless he wishes to argue that his God has created every single life form and variation from scratch.

I did not reproduce the part of the article that showed the odds against multiple coordinated mutuations to produce a major change:

"Are there long, gradual, pathways of functional intermediate structures, separated by only one or perhaps a few mutations, leading to every single species, and every single design and structure in all of biology? As we saw last time, this has been a fundamental claim and expectation of evolutionary theory which is at odds with the science.* If one mutation is rare, a lot of mutations are astronomically rare. For instance, if a particular mutation has a one-in-a-hundred million (one in 10^8) chance of occurring in a new individual, then a hundred such particular mutations have a one in 10^800 chance of occurring. It’s not going to happen."

https://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/02/this-didnt-evolve-few-mutations-at-time.html

7616 views

dhw: I’m quite happy with the design argument. I don’t see how that means that God’s consciousness pervades the universe at all levels, and you and I are conscious, and your dog is conscious, and an ant is conscious, and bacteria seem to be conscious but you happen to know that they are robots.

DAVID: My comment that God pervades also includes that He designed intelligent responses in bacteria as well as my dog and ants are conscious.

Yes, I know. You think dogs and ants are conscious because they behave intelligently, but bacteria are robots although they behave intelligently.

dhw: This evolutionist here suggests that cells from the very beginning had the perhaps God-given potential to change their structure and to combine in an almost endless variety of forms and functions – a kind of autonomous inventive intelligence.

DAVID: If not God-given you have no explanation for the appearance of autonomous inventive intelligence which must operate with an understanding of the information it receives.

I have given you the alternative sources many times over, emphasizing that I find all of them equally difficult to believe. Hence my fence-sitting agnosticism. The possible sources are your God (a form of top-down panpsychism), chance, and bottom-up panpsychism (rudimentary consciousness evolving).
xxx
dhw: For some reason the word “mutation” has come to be linked with the word “random”. Every change is a mutation, whether random or designed. Assuming the author doesn’t believe that every form of life existed from the very beginning, I cannot see any objection to the argument that the multitude of processes has come about through a multitude of mutations […]
DAVID: I did not reproduce the part of the article that showed the odds against multiple coordinated mutuations to produce a major change:

QUOTE: "Are there long, gradual, pathways of functional intermediate structures, separated by only one or perhaps a few mutations, leading to every single species, and every single design and structure in all of biology? As we saw last time, this has been a fundamental claim and expectation of evolutionary theory which is at odds with the science.* If one mutation is rare, a lot of mutations are astronomically rare. For instance, if a particular mutation has a one-in-a-hundred million (one in 10^8) chance of occurring in a new individual, then a hundred such particular mutations have a one in 10^800 chance of occurring. It’s not going to happen."

Exactly the same argument. If you believe in common descent, those mutations did happen (though as I pointed out before, not one at a time). You say your God preprogrammed or dabbled them. I propose that cellular intelligence organized them. Your author doesn’t seem to realize that he is NOT arguing against mutations but against chance. If, however, he rejects common descent, the alternative is the individual creation of every single species and variation from scratch, and I wonder what you and “the science”* say about that.

7657 views

xxx
dhw: For some reason the word “mutation” has come to be linked with the word “random”. Every change is a mutation, whether random or designed. Assuming the author doesn’t believe that every form of life existed from the very beginning, I cannot see any objection to the argument that the multitude of processes has come about through a multitude of mutations […]
DAVID: I did not reproduce the part of the article that showed the odds against multiple coordinated mutuations to produce a major change:

QUOTE: "Are there long, gradual, pathways of functional intermediate structures, separated by only one or perhaps a few mutations, leading to every single species, and every single design and structure in all of biology? As we saw last time, this has been a fundamental claim and expectation of evolutionary theory which is at odds with the science.* If one mutation is rare, a lot of mutations are astronomically rare. For instance, if a particular mutation has a one-in-a-hundred million (one in 10^8) chance of occurring in a new individual, then a hundred such particular mutations have a one in 10^800 chance of occurring. It’s not going to happen."

dhw: Exactly the same argument. If you believe in common descent, those mutations did happen (though as I pointed out before, not one at a time). You say your God preprogrammed or dabbled them. I propose that cellular intelligence organized them. Your author doesn’t seem to realize that he is NOT arguing against mutations but against chance. If, however, he rejects common descent, the alternative is the individual creation of every single species and variation from scratch, and I wonder what you and “the science”* say about that.

He and I have the same theory, which I am sure you recognize, and it not scientific. God speciates. And 'cellular intelligence' appeared from what? Again God supplies the answer, because intelligence is obviously required.

7621 views

QUOTE: "Are there long, gradual, pathways of functional intermediate structures, separated by only one or perhaps a few mutations, leading to every single species, and every single design and structure in all of biology? As we saw last time, this has been a fundamental claim and expectation of evolutionary theory which is at odds with the science.* If one mutation is rare, a lot of mutations are astronomically rare. For instance, if a particular mutation has a one-in-a-hundred million (one in 10^8) chance of occurring in a new individual, then a hundred such particular mutations have a one in 10^800 chance of occurring. It’s not going to happen."

dhw: Exactly the same argument. If you believe in common descent, those mutations did happen (though as I pointed out before, not one at a time). You say your God preprogrammed or dabbled them. I propose that cellular intelligence organized them. Your author doesn’t seem to realize that he is NOT arguing against mutations but against chance. If, however, he rejects common descent, the alternative is the individual creation of every single species and variation from scratch, and I wonder what you and “the science”* say about that.

DAVID: He and I have the same theory, which I am sure you recognize, and it not scientific. God speciates. And 'cellular intelligence' appeared from what? Again God supplies the answer, because intelligence is obviously required.

I have merely tried to point out the flaws in the article you quoted. You claim to believe in common descent, and so you should also reject everything he says about mutations. I already know you believe mutations (and speciation) are programmed or dabbled, and you already know that my hypothesis of cellular intelligence as the organizer of the mutations allows for God as the designer. And since the author sneers at the unscientific nature of belief in chance, why don't you criticize his failure to acknowledge the unscientific nature of his own theory (which of course you do recognize)? Let's have some balance here!

7618 views

dhw: Exactly the same argument. If you believe in common descent, those mutations did happen (though as I pointed out before, not one at a time). You say your God preprogrammed or dabbled them. I propose that cellular intelligence organized them. Your author doesn’t seem to realize that he is NOT arguing against mutations but against chance. If, however, he rejects common descent, the alternative is the individual creation of every single species and variation from scratch, and I wonder what you and “the science”* say about that.

DAVID: He and I have the same theory, which I am sure you recognize, and it not scientific. God speciates. And 'cellular intelligence' appeared from what? Again God supplies the answer, because intelligence is obviously required.

dhw: I have merely tried to point out the flaws in the article you quoted. You claim to believe in common descent, and so you should also reject everything he says about mutations. I already know you believe mutations (and speciation) are programmed or dabbled, and you already know that my hypothesis of cellular intelligence as the organizer of the mutations allows for God as the designer. And since the author sneers at the unscientific nature of belief in chance, why don't you criticize his failure to acknowledge the unscientific nature of his own theory (which of course you do recognize)? Let's have some balance here!

But his point is God speciates, to which he and I both agree. Of course he argues against chance. So do I. He does not accept common descent. I think God used evolution as a God-controlled process, so on this one point he and I do not see eye to eye. Many of the ID folks side with him, I think mainly on theological grounds. They are primarily of Christian background. I'm not. Perhaps the reason why we differ.

7670 views

dhw: I have merely tried to point out the flaws in the article you quoted. You claim to believe in common descent, and so you should also reject everything he says about mutations. I already know you believe mutations (and speciation) are programmed or dabbled, and you already know that my hypothesis of cellular intelligence as the organizer of the mutations allows for God as the designer. And since the author sneers at the unscientific nature of belief in chance, why don't you criticize his failure to acknowledge the unscientific nature of his own theory (which of course you do recognize)? Let's have some balance here!

DAVID: But his point is God speciates, to which he and I both agree. Of course he argues against chance. So do I. He does not accept common descent. I think God used evolution as a God-controlled process, so on this one point he and I do not see eye to eye. Many of the ID folks side with him, I think mainly on theological grounds. They are primarily of Christian background. I'm not. Perhaps the reason why we differ.

As above, I asked for balance. Thank you for now rejecting his point about mutations, with its implicit support for separate creation and its complete lack of scientific evidence, of which he seems unaware as he sneers at the unscientific nature of belief in chance.

7644 views

A new study of how these molecules work to pick up signals:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180709152701.htm

" INRS professor Nicolas Doucet and his research team contributed to the discovery of this new molecular switch, shedding new light on the role of receptor tyrosine kinases, a well-known protein family whose function is still being explored.

***

"Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) are a family of proteins that carry out many tasks required for organism growth and maintenance. They are found in every cell of the human body and broadly act on processes ranging from cell organization to nutrient management. Despite their distinct roles, they conserve a high degree of structural similarity at the molecular level, suggesting that each component of their three-dimensional structure plays an important role in their biological function. However, only recently has technology become sufficiently precise to peer into key molecular interactions of RTKs at the atomic level.

***

"One of the main difficulties Prof. Doucet's research team had to face was the need to clearly demonstrate that NCK and EPHA4 could recognize each other at the molecular level. If not, phosphorylation would be off the table.

***

"RTK receptors embedded in the cell membrane stick their 'sensory receivers' outside the cell and extend their enzymatic machinery inside the cell. Part of their equipment is a kinase, an enzyme that activates other proteins by adding a phosphate group to specific amino acids on their surface. This process is known as phosphorylation.

"To activate a cellular signaling pathway, RTKs pair up as soon as a receiver picks up a signal. Linking together involves reciprocal action, with each partner accepting a phosphate group from the other. All partners then line up in such a way that they can interact with a new molecule, thus initiating the required cellular function."

Comment: These are organic molecules working from their innate abilities to change shape and/or electrical attraction fields with ions charges. No brain or DNA instructions involved. The molecules are designed and chosen to fill a specific repetitive role without an mental thought involved

7519 views

DAVID’s comment: These are organic molecules working from their innate abilities to change shape and/or electrical attraction fields with ions charges. No brain or DNA instructions involved. The molecules are designed and chosen to fill a specific repetitive role without an mental thought involved.

These molecules are part of the cell. When you move your arm, all kinds of electrical actions take place, but your arm does not have a brain and does not indulge in mental thought. The concept of cellular intelligence rests on the idea that the cell itself has some sort of brain equivalent which issues instructions to the rest of the cell (see Buehler).

7503 views

DAVID’s comment: These are organic molecules working from their innate abilities to change shape and/or electrical attraction fields with ions charges. No brain or DNA instructions involved. The molecules are designed and chosen to fill a specific repetitive role without an mental thought involved.

dhw: These molecules are part of the cell. When you move your arm, all kinds of electrical actions take place, but your arm does not have a brain and does not indulge in mental thought. The concept of cellular intelligence rests on the idea that the cell itself has some sort of brain equivalent which issues instructions to the rest of the cell (see Buehler).

The molecules respond to each other. That is how they are designed with charged ions at the appropriate spots to have them interlock. The design looks like intelligent actions.

7543 views

DAVID’s comment: These are organic molecules working from their innate abilities to change shape and/or electrical attraction fields with ions charges. No brain or DNA instructions involved. The molecules are designed and chosen to fill a specific repetitive role without an mental thought involved.

dhw: These molecules are part of the cell. When you move your arm, all kinds of electrical actions take place, but your arm does not have a brain and does not indulge in mental thought. The concept of cellular intelligence rests on the idea that the cell itself has some sort of brain equivalent which issues instructions to the rest of the cell (see Buehler).

DAVID: The molecules respond to each other. That is how they are designed with charged ions at the appropriate spots to have them interlock. The design looks like intelligent actions.

I’m not saying the molecules are intelligent. The claim made by certain experts in the field is that the molecules are directed by intelligence. The fact that an action looks intelligent might possibly be caused by the fact that it IS intelligent.

7551 views

DAVID’s comment: These are organic molecules working from their innate abilities to change shape and/or electrical attraction fields with ions charges. No brain or DNA instructions involved. The molecules are designed and chosen to fill a specific repetitive role without an mental thought involved.

dhw: These molecules are part of the cell. When you move your arm, all kinds of electrical actions take place, but your arm does not have a brain and does not indulge in mental thought. The concept of cellular intelligence rests on the idea that the cell itself has some sort of brain equivalent which issues instructions to the rest of the cell (see Buehler).

DAVID: The molecules respond to each other. That is how they are designed with charged ions at the appropriate spots to have them interlock. The design looks like intelligent actions.

dhw: I’m not saying the molecules are intelligent. The claim made by certain experts in the field is that the molecules are directed by intelligence. The fact that an action looks intelligent might possibly be caused by the fact that it IS intelligent.

More likely intelligent design with intelligent instructions.

7524 views

Part of the WnT pathway now found:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180720092455.htm

"This is a nice example of a rather unexpected discovery: by studying the development of the blood vessels of the brain, researchers have just shed light on a question that was pending for 10 years! They provide a molecular mechanism conferring ligand specificity to Wnt signaling, an ancestral communication pathway present in all vertebrates.

"Wnt is ancient pathway, whose evolutionary appearance dates back to the emergence of multicellular animals. It plays pivotal roles in cell to cell communication and governs several aspects of embryonic development and tissue homeostasis. When dysfunctional, Wnt signaling can be at the origin of many diseases, in particular several cancers. With 10 receptors and 19 ligands, recognizing each other, the complexity of the pathway seemed dizzying. How do vertebrate cells manage to interpret the many Wnt signals they encounter and trigger an adequate response? It is such an interpretation mechanism that ULB researchers have just discovered.

***

"Previous findings had shown that two proteins expressed by cerebral endothelial cells, Gpr124 and Reck, are required for cerebrovascular development in response Wnt7 ligands. The team went on to study the mechanism by which the complex operates. Using genetic, biophysical and zebrafish experiments, researchers have shown that the complex Gpr124 / Reck acts as a decoding module: Reck recognizes the Wnt7 ligand, but the presence of Gpr124 is necessary to trigger Wnt7 signaling via Frizzled receptors. Their results are detailed in Science."

Comment: This is another example of designed molecules acting according to an intelligent design. A ligand is a substance that forms a complex with a biomolecule to serve a biological purpose. In protein-ligand binding, the ligand is usually a molecule which produces a signal by binding to a site on a target protein.

7518 views

David Comment: This is another example of designed molecules acting according to an intelligent design. A ligand is a substance that forms a complex with a biomolecule to serve a biological purpose. In protein-ligand binding, the ligand is usually a molecule which produces a signal by binding to a site on a target protein.

What do you mean, precisely, by 'produces a signal'? Is it electrical? Chemical?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

7493 views

David Comment: This is another example of designed molecules acting according to an intelligent design. A ligand is a substance that forms a complex with a biomolecule to serve a biological purpose. In protein-ligand binding, the ligand is usually a molecule which produces a signal by binding to a site on a target protein.

Tony: What do you mean, precisely, by 'produces a signal'? Is it electrical? Chemical?

A ligand is on a cell wall and bonds to an incoming protein molecule. It is not a separate electrical signal, but ion attracting ions can be part of it in the bond.

7489 views

Extracellular RNA can carry biochemical molecules outside cells around the body:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190404143629.htm

"Scientists have improved their understanding of a new form of cell-cell communication that is based on extracellular RNA (exRNA). RNA, a molecule that was thought to only exist inside cells, now is known to also exist outside cells and participate in a cell-cell communication system that delivers messages throughout the body.

***

"'Using computational deconvolution, we discovered six major types of exRNA cargo and their carriers that can be detected in bodily fluids, including serum, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, saliva and urine," said co-first author Oscar D. Murillo, a graduate student in Baylor's Molecular and Human Genetics Graduate Program working in the Milosavljevic lab. "The carriers act like molecular vessels moving their RNA cargo throughout the body. They include lipoproteins -- one of the major carriers is High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL or the "good cholesterol") -- a variety of small protein-containing particles and small vesicles, all of which can be taken up by cells."

"The researchers found that the computational method helps reveal biological signals that could not be previously detected in individual studies due to the naturally complex variation of the biological system. For example, in an exercise challenge study their computational approach revealed differences before and after exercise in the proportions of the exRNA-cargo in HDL particles and vesicles in human plasma.

"'Exercise increased a proportion of RNA molecules involved in regulating metabolism and muscle function, suggesting adaptive response of the organism to exercise challenge," Milosavljevic said. "This finding opens the possibility that in other conditions, both in health or disease, the computational method might identify signals that could have physiological and clinical relevance.'"

Comment: This adds a new complex signalling and delivery system using exRNA messengers. What degree of complexity is needed before it is recognize a designer is required?

4275 views

How a molecule takes in new protein into the cell:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/protein-3d-maps-toxic-substances-organs

"A close look at one protein shows how it moves molecular passengers into cells in the kidneys, brain and elsewhere.

"The protein LRP2 is part of a delivery service, catching certain molecules outside a cell and ferrying them in. Now, 3-D maps of LRP2 reveal the protein’s structure and how it captures and releases molecules, researchers report February 6 in Cell. The protein adopts a more open shape, like a net, at the near-neutral pH outside cells. But in the acidic environment inside cells, the protein crumples to drop off any passengers.

***

"The various conditions associated with LRP2 dysfunction come from the protein’s numerous responsibilities — it binds to more than 75 different molecules. That’s a huge amount for one protein, earning it the nickname “molecular flypaper,” says nephrologist Jonathan Barasch of Columbia University.

"Typically, LRP2 sits at a cell membrane’s surface, waiting to snag a molecule passing by. After the protein binds to a molecule, the cell engulfs the part of its surface containing the protein, forming an internal bubble called an endosome. LRP2 then releases the molecule inside the cell, and the endosome carries the protein back to the surface.

"To understand this shuttle system, Barasch and colleagues collected LRP2 from 500 mouse kidneys. The researchers put some of the protein in a solution at the extracellular pH of 7.5, and some in an endosome-mimicking solution at pH 5.2. Using a cryo-electron microscope, they captured images of the proteins and then stitched the images together in a computer, rendering 3-D maps of the protein at both open and closed formations.

"The researchers suggest that charged calcium atoms hold the protein open at extracellular pH. But as pH drops due to hydrogen ions flowing into the endosome, the hydrogen ions displace the calcium ions, causing the protein to contract."

Comment: this is design in action. The molecule acts automatically. Previous famous experts could not see this and assumed cells were intelligent. dhw wake up.

463 views

Obviously cells have to control their gene expresson so it stays within proper limits:

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-insight-gene.html

"The findings, first reported on bioRxiv, could ultimately improve our understanding of how certain antibacterial drugs work against the enzyme RNA polymerase (RNAP) in treating conditions such as Clostridium difficile infections and tuberculosis.

"Gene expression occurs when the information contained in DNA is used to produce functional gene products such as proteins and other molecules. The process has two stages. In the first stage, called transcription, RNAP reads the information in a strand on DNA, which is then copied into a new molecule of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA). In the second stage, the molecule then moves on to be processed or translated.

"However, to help control gene expression levels, transcriptional pausing by RNAP can occur between the two stages, providing a kind of 'roadblock' where transcription may be terminated or modulated.

"'A consensus pause sequence that acts on RNAPs in all organisms, from bacteria to mammals, halts the enzyme in an elemental paused state from which longer-lived pauses can arise," explains senior author Robert Landick,

***

"The team's analyses first revealed that the elemental pause process involves several biological players, which together create a barrier to prevent escape from paused states. The process also causes a modest conformational shift that makes RNAP 'stumble' in feeding DNA into its reaction centre, temporarily stopping it from making RNA.

"'We also found that transcriptional pausing makes RNAP loosen its grip and backtrack on the DNA while paused," says Landick. "Together, these results provide a framework to understand how the process is controlled by certain conditions and regulators within cells.'"

Comment: Cells which are high speed production factories and must have tight controls over outputs that are made to stay within required limits. Cells make split-second decisions based on tight controls by 'regulators'. This is all automatic molecular activity. It must be to work at such constant high speed. Only cellular design can achieve this homeostasis, and homeostasis is what creates the phenomenon of living matter. The universe has homeostasis in its organization, but it is equal to living matter.

5296 views

dhw: You always pick out the automatic chemical processes which enable organisms to perceive and communicate (just as they do in humans), and you systematically ignore the crucial processes that determine how the information itself is processed and what is the substance of the message communicated. Why do you not consider the rest of the post?... - Signals are passed, cells collaborate to interpret them, and decide what to do. But all you can see is the automatic signalling molecule. - DAVID: You forget the estimate that the whole batting process is a half second or less. It requires instant coordination. How much time for debate is there (?), and I can tell you the quote is hyperbole, as the researcher has no idea what each cell among millions is doing. That is impossible research and therefore an assumption. My own lab work in med school tells me that. - You generously provide us with these up-to-date articles, draw your own conclusion, and then pooh-pooh any aspect of the researchers' conclusions that runs counter to those you reached when you were a student. Continuing the batting analogy, are you saying that God has preprogrammed the batter? Or is it possible that in that split second he processes the information and takes his own decision on how to react?

8476 views


> dhw; You generously provide us with these up-to-date articles, draw your own conclusion, and then pooh-pooh any aspect of the researchers' conclusions that runs counter to those you reached when you were a student.-I am pooh-poohing his outrageous comment that presupposes he can know what every cell is doing as he studies the reactions. I've noted over and over the hyperbole in science reporting, recently about Earth-like planets. Exciting news, even if overstated generates readership. I'm sure you know this.-> dhw; Continuing the batting analogy, are you saying that God has preprogrammed the batter? Or is it possible that in that split second he processes the information and takes his own decision on how to react?-The batter uses free will and judgment to decided where to swing the bat. Same as cricket. There is no time except for automaticity to swing the bat in the right time.

8490 views

dhw; You generously provide us with these up-to-date articles, draw your own conclusion, and then pooh-pooh any aspect of the researchers' conclusions that runs counter to those you reached when you were a student.
DAVID: I am pooh-poohing his outrageous comment that presupposes he can know what every cell is doing as he studies the reactions. I've noted over and over the hyperbole in science reporting, recently about Earth-like planets. Exciting news, even if overstated generates readership. I'm sure you know this.-I have also noticed it. Every week there is a new sensation that will somehow revolutionize our understanding of life and the universe. But the observation that cells are sentient, intelligent beings is not an overnight sensation. Lynn Margulis was promoting the idea thirty years ago, and you know that others follow the same line of thinking today. You disagree, which is your right, but I don't think this particular article is meant to be a headline-seeking revelation. The researchers seem rather to take it for granted that cells deliberately communicate and cooperate.-dhw: Continuing the batting analogy, are you saying that God has preprogrammed the batter? Or is it possible that in that split second he processes the information and takes his own decision on how to react?
DAVID: The batter uses free will and judgment to decide where to swing the bat. Same as cricket. There is no time except for automaticity to swing the bat in the right time.-What you call the free will and judgment where to swing the bat is precisely the point I am trying to make: that in a fraction of a second, automatically perceived information is consciously processed and a decision is made. Then the muscle movements automatically respond to the decision. It is the conscious processing of information and decision-making that you refuse to distinguish from the automatic perception and final implementation of the decision.-On the same subject, from a very different angle, an article in the Times caught my eye: since the 1990s the Tasmanian devil has been driven almost to extinction by a highly contagious form of cancer. In just four generations, however, there has been a remarkable genetic shift, and the survivors appear to have a degree of immunity to the cancer, and go on to spread their genes throughout the local population. How can we explain this? I would suggest that while the vast majority of the cell communities were unable to cope, a small minority worked out a solution, and once it had been found, they passed it on. What is the alternative? That God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on the solution to this particular problem (along with a few billion other problems and solutions) and eventually it managed to switch itself on in a few individuals? Or God personally intervened and dabbled with the genome of a few individuals, because the survival of the Tasmanian devil is so important to him? Once you acknowledge the possibility that cell communities are intelligent (some more than others), the whole process falls into place. And you can still have your God as the originator.-Xxxx-I have just seen your post about Shapiro, for which many thanks.
DAVID: Shapiro thinks cells think. Is this panpsychism? This article tends to accept it:-http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/08/23/24492279/what-the-white-mans-fly-tells-us-ab...-As I understand it, there are different forms of panpsychism. I have problems identifying with the idea that everything in the universe has a mental aspect, but I have no difficulty with the idea that all living organisms think in their own different ways. Once more, I am very grateful for the integrity with which you present us with articles that run contrary to your own beliefs. Of course Shapiro is a prime example of scientists who follow the Margulis line mentioned above.

8449 views

dhw: The researchers seem rather to take it for granted that cells deliberately communicate and cooperate.-And I take my view for granted.-> dhw: It is the conscious processing of information and decision-making that you refuse to distinguish from the automatic perception and final implementation of the decision.-Of course the batter is making conscious decisions in his brain from his proprioceptive sense of knowing where all parts of his body are positioned so he can adjust his swing to the right spot at the right moment.
> 
> dhw: since the 1990s the Tasmanian devil has been driven almost to extinction by a highly contagious form of cancer. In just four generations, however, there has been a remarkable genetic shift, and the survivors appear to have a degree of immunity to the cancer, and go on to spread their genes throughout the local population. How can we explain this?-Easy. There is a variability in individual immunity. Those with some immunity survive and produce young with more immunity, just as some bacteria develop a population of immune individuals by the same method. Not all bacterial immunity is lateral transfer.
> 
> dhw: I have just seen your post about Shapiro, for which many thanks.-> DAVID: Shapiro thinks cells think. Is this panpsychism? This article tends to accept it:
> 
> http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/08/23/24492279/what-the-white-mans-fly-tells-us-ab... 
> As I understand it, there are different forms of panpsychism. I have problems identifying with the idea that everything in the universe has a mental aspect, but I have no difficulty with the idea that all living organisms think in their own different ways. Once more, I am very grateful for the integrity with which you present us with articles that run contrary to your own beliefs. Of course Shapiro is a prime example of scientists who follow the Margulis line mentioned above.-Thank you. Shapiro's main contribution is that organisms can reorganize their DNA. I agree with that point.

8531 views

dhw: It is the conscious processing of information and decision-making that you refuse to distinguish from the automatic perception and final implementation of the decision.
DAVID: Of course the batter is making conscious decisions in his brain from his proprioceptive sense of knowing where all parts of his body are positioned so he can adjust his swing to the right spot at the right moment.-The scientists who believe in cellular intelligence believe that cell communities have the same proprioceptive (yeah, had to look that one up!) knowledge, and they do not share your insistence that intelligence requires a brain (although you are a dualist who believes that intelligence can exist independently of the brain once the brain is dead).
 
dhw: ...since the 1990s the Tasmanian devil has been driven almost to extinction by a highly contagious form of cancer. In just four generations, however, there has been a remarkable genetic shift, and the survivors appear to have a degree of immunity to the cancer, and go on to spread their genes throughout the local population. How can we explain this?
DAVID: Easy. There is a variability in individual immunity. Those with some immunity survive and produce young with more immunity, just as some bacteria develop a population of immune individuals by the same method. Not all bacterial immunity is lateral transfer.-Obviously there is variability, since some organisms die. The question is how this immunity comes about when there is a new threat. I suggested that while the vast majority of the cell communities were unable to cope, a small minority worked out a solution, and once it had been found, they passed it on. I also asked if you thought your God had programmed the immunity or personally dabbled to save the Tasmanian devil. If not, please explain how you think some organisms acquire their immunity to new threats.-DAVID: Shapiro thinks cells think. Is this panpsychism? This article tends to accept it:
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/08/23/24492279/what-the-white-mans-fly-tells-us-ab...-dhw: As I understand it, there are different forms of panpsychism. I have problems identifying with the idea that everything in the universe has a mental aspect, but I have no difficulty with the idea that all living organisms think in their own different ways. Once more, I am very grateful for the integrity with which you present us with articles that run contrary to your own beliefs. Of course Shapiro is a prime example of scientists who follow the Margulis line mentioned above.
DAVID: Thank you. Shapiro's main contribution is that organisms can reorganize their DNA. I agree with that point.-Why main contribution? If he thinks they are able to do this consciously (not to be confused with human self-awareness), it is a mighty step forward in our understanding of how evolution works: intelligence is not only found in the heads of humans, but also in the roots and leaves of trees, and the movements of microorganisms, and even the inner workings or the most basic units of life. You could hardly have a clearer statement.

8443 views

dhw: The scientists who believe in cellular intelligence believe that cell communities have the same proprioceptive (yeah, had to look that one up!) knowledge-Can you give me a reference that tells us cells have proprioceptive sense.-> DAVID: Easy. There is a variability in individual immunity. Those with some immunity survive and produce young with more immunity, just as some bacteria develop a population of immune individuals by the same method. Not all bacterial immunity is lateral transfer.
> 
> dhw: Obviously there is variability, since some organisms die. The question is how this immunity comes about when there is a new threat. ....I also asked if you thought your God had programmed the immunity or personally dabbled to save the Tasmanian devil. If not, please explain how you think some organisms acquire their immunity to new threats.-Please see my above statement again. There is no reason to deny the possibility that some devils had a partial natural immunity to the cancer from the beginning. In that case they would not need God. The other possibility is epigenetic changes to DNA over four generations. again god not needed for direct intervention.-> DAVID: Thank you. Shapiro's main contribution is that organisms can reorganize their DNA. I agree with that point.
> 
> dhw: Why main contribution? If he thinks they are able to do this consciously (not to be confused with human self-awareness), it is a mighty step forward in our understanding of how evolution works: intelligence is not only found in the heads of humans, but also in the roots and leaves of trees, and the movements of microorganisms, and even the inner workings or the most basic units of life. You could hardly have a clearer statement.-You keep forgetting the 'intelligence' could be automatically controlled by implanted instructional information.

8460 views

I am combining several posts as they all deal with the same subject: cellular intelligence, for which it seems to me there is mounting evidence.-dhw: The scientists who believe in cellular intelligence believe that cell communities have the same proprioceptive (yeah, had to look that one up!) knowledge.

DAVID: Can you give me a reference that tells us cells have proprioceptive sense.-As I said, I had to look it up. My Encarta dictionary defines proprioceptor as any receptor (as in the gut, blood vessels, muscles etc,) that supplies information about the state of the body. If this is correct, the scientists who believe in cellular intelligence believe that cell communities consciously communicate, interact and cooperate, which could not possibly happen without their acquiring and exchanging information about the state of the body they compose. If this is a wrong definition of proprioceptive knowledge, then of course I will withdraw my statement.
 
xxxxxx-DAVID (re the Tasmanian devil):There is a variability in individual immunity. dhw: Obviously there is variability, since some organisms die. The question is how this immunity comes about when there is a new threat. ....I also asked if you thought your God had programmed the immunity or personally dabbled to save the Tasmanian devil. If not, please explain how you think some organisms acquire their immunity to new threats.
DAVID: Please see my above statement again. There is no reason to deny the possibility that some devils had a partial natural immunity to the cancer from the beginning. In that case they would not need God. The other possibility is epigenetic changes to DNA over four generations. again god not needed for direct intervention.
How does an organism change its partial immunity to full immunity? Any mechanism whereby an organism changes itself in order to counter new threats in my view requires some kind of intelligence, whether organic or divine. (I don't see how epigenetic change precludes intelligent restructuring in response to a new threat.) And so back we go - still within the confines of your theism: you have discounted dabbling, so did your God preprogramme immunity to this new form of cancer, or did he give the organism the intelligence to change itself?-xxxxxx -DAVID: Shapiro's main contribution is that organisms can reorganize their DNA. I agree with that point.
dhw: Why main contribution? If he thinks they are able to do this consciously (not to be confused with human self-awareness), it is a mighty step forward in our understanding of how evolution works: intelligence is not only found in the heads of humans, but also in the roots and leaves of trees, and the movements of microorganisms, and even the inner workings or the most basic units of life. You could hardly have a clearer statement.
DAVID:You keep forgetting the 'intelligence' could be automatically controlled by implanted instructional information.-I was disputing your claim that Shapiro's main contribution was that organisms can reorganize their DNA, as if this somehow overshadows the importance of his claim that organisms are intelligent. I know you disagree with him.-xxxxxx -QUOTE (under Biological complexity): It is not yet clear how these two ligands induce such disparate effects in the same cell by the same receptor. That's the million-dollar question, said Leifer. It might be that the ligands recruit different co-receptors, or induce TLR4 to adopt different conformations, she suggested."
David's comment: I view this as two automatic molecular responses, as Leifer also seems to in her statement re' mechanism. This is an either/or reaction involving a so far unknown molecular change.-I may have missed something, but I can't find the word mechanism anywhere. I've found detect, recognize, determine, sensing, interpret.all of which seem to suggest some sort ofhow should I put itintelligence?-xxxxxx-David's comment (re ants): ...the parallelism with human agriculture is amazing. The ant colonies show a group cleverness and one must wonder did the ants work out this arrangement on their own or were they guided? They originally lived on leaves. How did they find a somewhat compliant fungus?-I keep referring to the astonishingly intelligent achievements of ants as an analogy to cellular cooperation. At least you have now allowed for the possibility that ant communities may be intelligent, whereas you refuse even to countenance the possibility that cell communities may work in similar fashion. -xxxxxx-David's comment (under transcription and DNA structure): ...the glucocorticoid example is a wonderful description of how the body is coordinated in its feedback controls of various important chemical levels. I again ask, how did evolution develop such a complex stepwise system of intimate controls. Hard to imagine it is trial and error.-Indeed, the whole body is a wonderful example of how cell communities communicate and cooperate with one another. How much trial and error there was, we shall never know, but the Tasmanian devil took four generations to perfect its immunity to a new form of cancer. Maybe this system of intimate controls took many generations, and many individuals died while others soldiered on in their intelligent pursuit of perfection.

8486 views

dhw: As I said, I had to look it up. My Encarta dictionary defines proprioceptor as any receptor (as in the gut, blood vessels, muscles etc,) that supplies information about the state of the body. If this is correct, the scientists who believe in cellular intelligence believe that cell communities consciously communicate, interact and cooperate, which could not possibly happen without their acquiring and exchanging information about the state of the body they compose. If this is a wrong definition of proprioceptive knowledge, then of course I will withdraw my statement.-Your definition is correct. You are referrrng to cell communities which are whole organs. The organs that have proprioception are muscle groups, arms and legs and torsos giving the brain body positions so the person knows where all parts are dynamically during movement. These are automatic reactions. The cricket batter could not swing at a pitch from the bowler in split-second accuracy without instant information from the entire groups of cell sensors. You are stretching your concept of cell intelligence beyond all credulity
> 
> xxxxxx-i]
> dhw; How does an organism change its partial immunity to full immunity? Any mechanism whereby an organism changes itself in order to counter new threats in my view requires some kind of intelligence, whether organic or divine. -It is a recognized concept in biology that individuals with partial immunity when mating will create progeny with better immunity. Interventions not needed.- 
> xxxxxx
 
> dhw: I was disputing your claim that Shapiro's main contribution was that organisms can reorganize their DNA, as if this somehow overshadows the importance of his claim that organisms are intelligent. I know you disagree with him.-A major porton of is book is how cells re-write and edit their DNA. His is the 'third way of evolution'. Here I totally agree with him. He claims that shows intelligence. I claim it is built-in.
> 
> xxxxxx -> David's comment: I view this as two automatic molecular responses, as Leifer also seems to in her statement re' mechanism. This is an either/or reaction involving a so far unknown molecular change.
> 
> dhw;I may have missed something, but I can't find the word mechanism anywhere. I've found detect, recognize, determine, sensing, interpret.all of which seem to suggest some sort ofhow should I put itintelligence?-Her statement of possible 'mechanism': -"It is not yet clear how these two ligands induce such disparate effects in the same cell by the same receptor. That's the million-dollar question, said Leifer. It might be that the ligands recruit different co-receptors, or induce TLR4 to adopt different conformations, she suggested."-Pure molecular biochemical reactions to me. The ligand attaches to one molecular area or another. They will figure it out.-> 
> xxxxxx
> 
> David's comment (re ants): ...the parallelism with human agriculture is amazing. The ant colonies show a group cleverness and one must wonder did the ants work out this arrangement on their own or were they guided? They originally lived on leaves. How did they find a somewhat compliant fungus?
> 
> dhw: I keep referring to the astonishingly intelligent achievements of ants as an analogy to cellular cooperation. At least you have now allowed for the possibility that ant communities may be intelligent, whereas you refuse even to countenance the possibility that cell communities may work in similar fashion.-Ants are whole beings with brains. Cells are not. 
> 
> xxxxxx
> 
> David's comment (under transcription and DNA structure): ...the glucocorticoid example is a wonderful description of how the body is coordinated in its feedback controls of various important chemical levels. I again ask, how did evolution develop such a complex stepwise system of intimate controls. Hard to imagine it is trial and error.
> 
> dhw: Indeed, the whole body is a wonderful example of how cell communities communicate and cooperate with one another. How much trial and error there was, we shall never know, but the Tasmanian devil took four generations to perfect its immunity to a new form of cancer. Maybe this system of intimate controls took many generations, and many individuals died while others soldiered on in their intelligent pursuit of perfection.-The Tasmanian devils may not have perfect immunity yet, but they will get there. As for trial and error, partial success is still death. Only complete success makes for survival. That is the argument for the irreducible complexity proposal against Darwin's theory.

8530 views

dhw: My Encarta dictionary defines proprioceptor as any receptor (as in the gut, blood vessels, muscles etc,) that supplies information about the state of the body. If this is correct, the scientists who believe in cellular intelligence believe that cell communities consciously communicate, interact and cooperate, which could not possibly happen without their acquiring and exchanging information about the state of the body they compose. 
DAVID: Your definition is correct. You are referrrng to cell communities which are whole organs.
 
You could hardly have proprioceptive knowledge of the body if you didn't have a body.-DAVID: The organs that have proprioception are muscle groups, arms and legs and torsos giving the brain body positions so the person knows where all parts are dynamically during movement. These are automatic reactions. The cricket batter could not swing at a pitch from the bowler in split-second accuracy without instant information from the entire groups of cell sensors. You are stretching your concept of cell intelligence beyond all credulity.-You have ignored my point that there is a distinction between automatic perception of the ball, non-automatic processing of the information (speed, position), non-automatic decision-making (what stroke to play), and automatic implementation of the decision (the muscles responding to the decision). But we don't need this analogy. My concept of cell intelligence does not preclude the automatic activities that are essential to the functioning of communities once an organ exists. Intelligence only comes into active play when there is a problem to be solved or, going one step further in my evolutionary hypothesis, when new conditions permit innovation. -xxxxxx-dhw: How does an organism change its partial immunity to full immunity? Any mechanism whereby an organism changes itself in order to counter new threats in my view requires some kind of intelligence, whether organic or divine. 
DAVID: It is a recognized concept in biology that individuals with partial immunity when mating will create progeny with better immunity. - We are trying to understand how organisms cope with new problems - not how later generations will inherit the solutions. Better immunity, according to your next comment, is not enough.-DAVID: The Tasmanian devils may not have perfect immunity yet, but they will get there. As for trial and error, partial success is still death. Only complete success makes for survival. That is the argument for the irreducible complexity proposal against Darwin's theory.-You said some of the Tasmanian devils may have had partial immunity to start with, so what was the point of that if partial immunity is of no use? The Tasmanian devil very nearly became extinct (and many species do when confronted by a new catastrophe). Just enough of them survived through four generations to come up with a solution that worked. They are now flourishing. Once again: you have excluded divine intervention, so did your God preprogramme the solution, and a few individuals only managed to switch on the right programme at the last minute? Or did they work it out for themselves?
 
xxxxxx
 
David's comment: I view this as two automatic molecular responses, as Leifer also seems to in her statement re' mechanism. This is an either/or reaction involving a so far unknown molecular change.
dhw;I may have missed something, but I can't find the word mechanism anywhere. I've found detect, recognize, determine, sensing, interpret.all of which seem to suggest some sort ofhow should I put itintelligence?-DAVID: Her statement of possible 'mechanism': "It is not yet clear how these two ligands induce such disparate effects in the same cell by the same receptor. That's the million-dollar question, said Leifer. It might be that the ligands recruit different co-receptors, or induce TLR4 to adopt different conformations, she suggested."
Pure molecular biochemical reactions to me. The ligand attaches to one molecular area or another. They will figure it out.-I see nothing in the words "recruit" and "induce" to indicate that she shares your view that these are automatic reactions. Figuring something out suggests intelligence to me.-xxxxxx-David's comment (re ants): ...the parallelism with human agriculture is amazing. The ant colonies show a group cleverness and one must wonder did the ants work out this arrangement on their own or were they guided? 
dhw: I keep referring to the astonishingly intelligent achievements of ants as an analogy to cellular cooperation. At least you have now allowed for the possibility that ant communities may be intelligent, whereas you refuse even to countenance the possibility that cell communities may work in similar fashion.
DAVID: Ants are whole beings with brains. Cells are not. -Some single cells are whole beings, though the analogy here is with cell communities. And as a dualist, you keep telling us that intelligence is not the product of the brain.

8561 views


> dhw: My concept of cell intelligence does not preclude the automatic activities that are essential to the functioning of communities once an organ exists. Intelligence only comes into active play when there is a problem to be solved or, going one step further in my evolutionary hypothesis, when new conditions permit innovation. - And I pointed out that Shapiro demonstrates they can edit their DNA to accomplish changes. Their ability may well come from a God-given mechanism.
> 
> xxxxxx - > You said some of the Tasmanian devils may have had partial immunity to start with, so what was the point of that if partial immunity is of no use? ... Once again: you have excluded divine intervention, so did your God preprogramme the solution, and a few individuals only managed to switch on the right programme at the last minute? Or did they work it out for themselves? - Not every attribute organisms carry are useful. They become useful when needed. This is what new adaptations of parts is all about. Seen in evolution regularly. The devils may have done it by copulating survivors producing more immune progeny, seen all the time in biology.
> 
> xxxxxx
> Pure molecular biochemical reactions to me. The ligand attaches to one molecular area or another. They will figure it out.
> 
> dhw; I see nothing in the words "recruit" and "induce" to indicate that she shares your view that these are automatic reactions. Figuring something out suggests intelligence to me. - I was referring to the researchers finding out the automatic response in cells, not the cells themselves.
> 
> xxxxxx
>> DAVID: Ants are whole beings with brains. Cells are not. 
> 
> dhw; Some single cells are whole beings, though the analogy here is with cell communities. And as a dualist, you keep telling us that intelligence is not the product of the brain. - You are confused about my beliefs. Intelligence is the product of the brain plasticity. Consciousness is not. The brain is required to receive it.

8484 views

dhw: My concept of cell intelligence does not preclude the automatic activities that are essential to the functioning of communities once an organ exists. Intelligence only comes into active play when there is a problem to be solved or, going one step further in my evolutionary hypothesis, when new conditions permit innovation. 
DAVID: And I pointed out that Shapiro demonstrates they can edit their DNA to accomplish changes. Their ability may well come from a God-given mechanism. - It's good to hear that you also think cells/cell communities can do their own editing, as opposed to relying on your God to do it for them. I have always agreed that this ability may have been God-given. - xxxxxx - dhw: You said some of the Tasmanian devils may have had partial immunity to start with, so what was the point of that if partial immunity is of no use? ... Once again: you have excluded divine intervention, so did your God preprogramme the solution, and a few individuals only managed to switch on the right programme at the last minute? Or did they work it out for themselves?
David: Not every attribute organisms carry are useful. They become useful when needed. This is what new adaptations of parts is all about. Seen in evolution regularly. The devils may have done it by copulating survivors producing more immune progeny, seen all the time in biology. - This would mean the Tasmanian devils already carried their immunity to the new form of cancer, but the immunity attribute only became useful when the new form of cancer arrived. I am sceptical that the zillions of adaptations (not to mention innovations and natural wonders) extant and extinct were/are already present in every organism and were/are only useful when needed, as that would mean that barring divine dabbling - assuming you still believe in common descent - they were all preprogrammed in the very first cells. Earlier you talked of me stretching my concept of autonomous, intelligent, self-changing cell communities beyond all credulity. Hmmm - xxxxxx - dhw; .Figuring something out suggests intelligence to me.
DAVID: I was referring to the researchers finding out the automatic response in cells, not the cells themselves. - Ah, my apologies - a misunderstanding. Nevertheless, I see no sign in the article itself that the researchers regard the responses as automatic. Whereas: I've found detect, recognize, determine, sensing, interpret.all of which seem to suggest some sort ofhow should I put itintelligence? - xxxxxx - DAVID: Ants are whole beings with brains. Cells are not. 
dhw; Some single cells are whole beings, though the analogy here is with cell communities. And as a dualist, you keep telling us that intelligence is not the product of the brain.
DAVID: You are confused about my beliefs. Intelligence is the product of the brain plasticity. Consciousness is not. The brain is required to receive it. - I certainly am confused. I can't see how natural (as opposed to artificial) intelligence at any level can exist without consciousness (not to be confused with human self-awareness). And if you believe in an afterlife, I really don't see how you can be your brainless self with your consciousness but without your intelligence. How about your memories, emotions, beliefs, ideas? Will these join your intelligence back in the rotting brain, while your consciousness lives on without them?

8516 views

David: Not every attribute organisms carry are useful. They become useful when needed. This is what new adaptations of parts is all about. Seen in evolution regularly. The devils may have done it by copulating survivors producing more immune progeny, seen all the time in biology.
> 
> dhw: This would mean the Tasmanian devils already carried their immunity to the new form of cancer, but the immunity attribute only became useful when the new form of cancer arrived.-We carry two kinds of immunity. Generalized and specific. Specific is learned by changing the DNA in T an B cells. Generalized is carried in huge molecules called globulins, which are in the beginning of life come to babies thru their mother's first milk, colostrum. Later we continue to make them on our own. This is probably where the Tasmanian devils had some hidden partial immunity. Remember all living beings fall under a bell shaped curve of variability. The devils who are creating a new immune population were at the high end of the curve.-> dhw: I am sceptical that the zillions of adaptations (not to mention innovations and natural wonders) extant and extinct were/are already present in every organism and were/are only useful when needed, as that would mean that barring divine dabbling - assuming you still believe in common descent - they were all preprogrammed in the very first cells. -See explanation above to remove your flights of fancy about immunity.-> 
> xxxxxx
> DAVID: You are confused about my beliefs. Intelligence is the product of the brain plasticity. Consciousness is not. The brain is required to receive it.
> 
> dhw: I certainly am confused. I can't see how natural (as opposed to artificial) intelligence at any level can exist without consciousness (not to be confused with human self-awareness).-Of course our intelligence is part of our consciousness. I was just sorting out how I think the brain handles both.

8466 views

This article says exactly what I noted earlier about innate immunity and Tasmanian devils:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2104275-superfast-evolution-could-save-tasmanian-devils-from-extinction/-
"Devil facial tumour disease is a transmissible cancer that was first observed in Tasmanian devils in 1996. They usually contract the disease by biting a tumour on an infected animal. Initially, the fatality rate was reportedly almost 100 per cent.-"This high mortality rate has seen the total devil population decline by 80 per cent - and locally the figure can touch 95 per cent. This led to fears of rapid extinction, but some devil populations seem to be doing better than disease models would predict.-"To understand why, Menna Jones at the University of Tasmania, Australia, and her colleagues recently analysed the genomes of almost 300 devils from three separate regions in Tasmania.-"The researchers compared genetic samples taken from the three devil populations before and after the cancer arrived in each area. Populations affected by the disease differed from pre-disease ones in two regions of the genome - both with known links to cancer and immunity. This hints that genetic resistance to the cancer has spread through the devil populations, which might explain why numbers are defying expectations in disease-struck areas.-"These gene variants would have been around before, but there was no evolutionary advantage to them being at high frequency, says Katherine Belov at the University of Sydney. Since the arrival of this new disease, the animals without these variants would have been dying, leading to an increase in the frequency of these protective variants. (my bold)-"Given the prevalence of the genetic changes in devil populations today - and what is known about their reproductive behaviour - the study authors estimate that resistance spread through the population over just four to six generations. It's as if extreme mortality has led to extreme evolutionary selection pressure, says Jones. It has happened a lot faster than we expected.'-Comment: What humans 'expect' is not necessarily what will happen. Only factual information counts.

8520 views

David: Not every attribute organisms carry are useful. They become useful when needed. 
dhw: This would mean the Tasmanian devils already carried their immunity to the new form of cancer, but the immunity attribute only became useful when the new form of cancer arrived.
DAVID: We carry two kinds of immunity. Generalized and specific. Specific is learned by changing the DNA in T an B cells. Generalized is carried in huge molecules called globulins, which are in the beginning of life come to babies thru their mother's first milk, colostrum. Later we continue to make them on our own. This is probably where the Tasmanian devils had some hidden partial immunity. Remember all living beings fall under a bell shaped curve of variability. The devils who are creating a new immune population were at the high end of the curve.-Thank you for this explanation. If DNA is changed, and if we continue to make globulins on our own, presumably this means that the development of both types of immunity is ongoing - which makes perfect sense, as we are continually exposed to new threats. But how does this preclude even the possibility that the changes are guided by cellular intelligence responding to environmental conditions? This a genuine question - I am not disputing your explanation! (But I still don't understand the point of partial immunity, since you have said that this would not enable organisms to survive.)-Your second post supports your argument concerning pre-existing useful attributes. -QUOTES: 
Menna Jones at the University of Tasmania, Australia, and her colleagues recently analysed the genomes of almost 300 devils from three separate regions in Tasmania.
"The researchers compared genetic samples taken from the three devil populations before and after the cancer arrived in each area.
Populations affected by the disease differed from pre-disease ones in two regions of the genome - both with known links to cancer and immunity. "
These gene variants would have been around before, but there was no evolutionary advantage to them being at high frequency (David's bold)-I'm in no position to dispute this, but the disease first struck in 1996, and the article is dated 2 September 2016. If the researchers only recently analysed samples before and after the arrival of the cancer, I can't help wondering how long the gap would have been between before and after. How certain could the researchers be that the disease had not already reached the regions? They seem more concerned with the speed at which the variants spread, but I am pondering the origin of the variants. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but these are the only origins I can visualize: 1) the variants were already present, and it was sheer luck that they happened to produce immunity; 2) the variants were already present, and your God had planted them there with a dabble, or had preprogrammed them in order to produce immunity to this particular cancer; 3) some of the devils were aware of the cancer, and worked out their own variants by altering their genome. Again, I am simply trying to understand how you think it all works.-XXXX -Dhw: as a dualist, you keep telling us that intelligence is not the product of the brain.
DAVID: You are confused about my beliefs. Intelligence is the product of the brain plasticity. Consciousness is not. The brain is required to receive it.
dhw: I certainly am confused. I can't see how natural (as opposed to artificial) intelligence at any level can exist without consciousness (not to be confused with human self-awareness).
David: Of course our intelligence is part of our consciousness. I was just sorting out how I think the brain handles both.-My point was that if you believe in an afterlife, it doesn't make sense for the brainless you to be conscious without your intelligence (plus other attributes such as memory). And yet you insist that cells cannot be intelligent because they do not have brains. Either intelligence/consciousness/memory etc. can exist without the brain or they can't.

8468 views

David: Remember all living beings fall under a bell shaped curve of variability. The devils who are creating a new immune population were at the high end of the curve.[/i]
> 
> But how does this preclude even the possibility that the changes are guided by cellular intelligence responding to environmental conditions? This a genuine question - I am not disputing your explanation! -I've agreed with Shapiro, that it makes sense that cells can modify (edit) their DNA to some degree (epigenetics). I do not agree that it is intelligence ion any sense of planning or thinking. It think it is an automatic mechanism settled in on-board instructions.-> dhw:(But I still don't understand the point of partial immunity, since you have said that this would not enable organisms to survive.)-See the sentence above about bell-shaped curves and variability. Some organisms will have enough immunity to stagger thru and then mate to create more immune progeny.
> 
> Your second post supports your argument concerning pre-existing useful attributes. 
> 
> QUOTES: 
> Menna Jones at the University of Tasmania, Australia, and her colleagues recently analysed the genomes of almost 300 devils from three separate regions in Tasmania.
> "The researchers compared genetic samples taken from the three devil populations before and after the cancer arrived in each area.
> Populations affected by the disease differed from pre-disease ones in two regions of the genome - both with known links to cancer and immunity. "
> These gene variants would have been around before, but there was no evolutionary advantage to them being at high frequency (David's bold)
> 
> dhw: I'm in no position to dispute this, but the disease first struck in 1996, and the article is dated 2 September 2016. .... They seem more concerned with the speed at which the variants spread, but I am pondering the origin of the variants. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but these are the only origins I can visualize: 1) the variants were already present, and it was sheer luck that they happened to produce immunity; 2) the variants were already present, and your God had planted them there with a dabble, or had preprogrammed them in order to produce immunity to this particular cancer; 3) some of the devils were aware of the cancer, and worked out their own variants by altering their genome. Again, I am simply trying to understand how you think it all works.-Do you understand bell-shaped curves statistically? For devils it would be from one left end no immunity to the other right end with partial immunity, with the average at the top of the curve very slight suggestion of some immunity.
> 
> XXXX 
>> David: Of course our intelligence is part of our consciousness. I was just sorting out how I think the brain handles both.
> 
> dhw: My point was that if you believe in an afterlife, it doesn't make sense for the brainless you to be conscious without your intelligence (plus other attributes such as memory). And yet you insist that cells cannot be intelligent because they do not have brains. Either intelligence/consciousness/memory etc. can exist without the brain or they can't.-The soul doesn't require a brain. It returns to the universal consciousness, just as Sheldrake's human species consciousness (hsc) is received by the brain, but the hsc exists as a field of consciousness, no species single brain required. Just an aspect of quantum requirement for consciousness to exist, as God uses quantum mechanics to make the universe.

8463 views

David: Remember all living beings fall under a bell shaped curve of variability. The devils who are creating a new immune population were at the high end of the curve.
Dhw: But how does this preclude even the possibility that the changes are guided by cellular intelligence responding to environmental conditions? 
DAVID: I've agreed with Shapiro, that it makes sense that cells can modify (edit) their DNA to some degree (epigenetics). I do not agree that it is intelligence in any sense of planning or thinking. I think it is an automatic mechanism settled in on-board instructions.-Thank you. This means that your explanation does not in any way preclude the hypothesis of cellular intelligence. You simply disagree it.-dhw: (But I still don't understand the point of partial immunity, since you have said that this would not enable organisms to survive.)
DAVID: See the sentence above about bell-shaped curves and variability. Some organisms will have enough immunity to stagger thru and then mate to create more immune progeny.-So maybe the intelligent cell communities start off by staggering thru, but in due course they perfect the survival process. The same could apply to all innovations and natural wonders. The inventors stagger thru, and subsequent generations sail thru, with each generation building on the work of its predecessors. -Dhw: I am pondering the origin of the variants. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but these are the only origins I can visualize: 1) the variants were already present, and it was sheer luck that they happened to produce immunity; 2) the variants were already present, and your God had planted them there with a dabble, or had preprogrammed them in order to produce immunity to this particular cancer; 3) some of the devils were aware of the cancer, and worked out their own variants by altering their genome. Again, I am simply trying to understand how you think it all works.
DAVID: Do you understand bell-shaped curves statistically? For devils it would be from one left end no immunity to the other right end with partial immunity, with the average at the top of the curve very slight suggestion of some immunity.-Thank you. See above for my suggestion regarding partial immunity. Obviously no immunity makes my three proposals irrelevant, since them thar devils went down under. But I'm afraid I don't see how bell curves relate to the origin of any degree of immunity: once again, is immunity a matter of luck, divine intervention/ preprogramming, or intelligent DIY? -xxx
 
David: Of course our intelligence is part of our consciousness. I was just sorting out how I think the brain handles both.
dhw: My point was that if you believe in an afterlife, it doesn't make sense for the brainless you to be conscious without your intelligence (plus other attributes such as memory). And yet you insist that cells cannot be intelligent because they do not have brains. Either intelligence/consciousness/memory etc. can exist without the brain or they can't.
DAVID: The soul doesn't require a brain. It returns to the universal consciousness, just as Sheldrake's human species consciousness (hsc) is received by the brain, but the hsc exists as a field of consciousness, no species single brain required. Just an aspect of quantum requirement for consciousness to exist, as God uses quantum mechanics to make the universe.-So do you believe that after your bodily death your brainless soul will retain your intelligence, memories etc. or not?

8517 views

dhw: But I'm afraid I don't see how bell curves relate to the origin of any degree of immunity: once again, is immunity a matter of luck, divine intervention/ preprogramming, or intelligent DIY? -I'll try again. Darwin knew this: all organisms constitute populations of variation in their attributes. No two individuals are the same. As so with immunity. Those with some are lucky that their general immunity will partially respond to a new threat, providing the mechanism to survive and create progeny with better immunity. What I think God created is the variability as part of the evolutionary process. DIY does not apply.
> 
> xxx
> 
> 
> dhw: So do you believe that after your bodily death your brainless soul will retain your intelligence, memories etc. or not?-My consciousness stays intact and carries intelligence and memories, etc.

8477 views

Once again I am putting different threads together as they deal with the same subject.-David (under Rumination on multiverses): The research road ahead is clear, more and more complexity: chance has no chance of being the correct solution to the question of why is there life.
dhw: This is a major reason for my inability to believe in chance. However, we are looking at developments that have been perfected over thousands of millions of years by organisms which may be intelligent enough to invent them. That is why the concept of the intelligent cell is so important. Even if there is a God, there is no need to have him painstakingly working out every single detail of every single complexity for every single organism if you grant that he might have given organisms the means to work it all out for themselves.-DAVID: I couldn't agree more that God may have given organisms the ability to 'work it out for themselves'. I would just like proof that such a mechanism exists. Until then pre-planning or dabble.-There is no proof of pre-planning or dabbling either, but I am more than happy with your agreement that organisms' ability to work it out for themselves may exist. (See also Holographic Universe). That means that cells/cell communities may be intelligent after all. Hallelujah! I'd better frame this post.-Xxxx-dhw: But I'm afraid I don't see how bell curves relate to the origin of any degree of immunity: once again, is immunity a matter of luck, divine intervention/ preprogramming, or intelligent DIY? 
DAVID: I'll try again. Darwin knew this: all organisms constitute populations of variation in their attributes. No two individuals are the same. As so with immunity. Those with some are lucky that their general immunity will partially respond to a new threat, providing the mechanism to survive and create progeny with better immunity. What I think God created is the variability as part of the evolutionary process. DIY does not apply.-And yet you couldn't agree more that God may have given organisms the ability to work it out for themselves. That is DIY. Developing immunity is just as much a part of an organism's method of coping with the environment as developing new means of locomotion, of breathing, of working out defensive strategies etc. Individuals are communities of cell communities, and so if cell communities react in their own individual ways to changes in environmental conditions, what exactly has been pre-planned? If your God planned variability in the evolutionary process, doesn't that suggest that he gave cell communities the ability to work it out for themselves rather than merely obeying inbuilt instructions either to die, to be lucky enough to have partial immunity, or to develop full immunity?-xxx-dhw: So do you believe that after your bodily death your brainless soul will retain your intelligence, memories etc. or not?
DAVID: My consciousness stays intact and carries intelligence and memories, etc.
-Thank you. That means intelligence and memory are independent of the brain, and therefore it cannot be argued that brainless organisms are incapable of being intelligent.

8475 views


> DAVID: I couldn't agree more that God may have given organisms the ability to 'work it out for themselves'. I would just like proof that such a mechanism exists. Until then pre-planning or dabble.
> 
> dhw: There is no proof of pre-planning or dabbling either, but I am more than happy with your agreement that organisms' ability to work it out for themselves may exist. (See also Holographic Universe). That means that cells/cell communities may be intelligent after all. Hallelujah! I'd better frame this post.-You are framing a hollow comment. I've not changed at all. If organism can work things out it will be by God's guidance thru a mechanism He has given them, that is intelligent information which makes it look like they are actually intelligent of their own accord.
> 
> Xxxx
> 
> dhw' And yet you couldn't agree more that God may have given organisms the ability to work it out for themselves. That is DIY. Developing immunity is just as much a part of an organism's method of coping with the environment as developing new means of locomotion, of breathing, of working out defensive strategies etc.-With the devil's immunity issue you still don't follow. Perhaps I'm not explaining it well. Two partially immune parents on that end of the bell curve will impart to some of their kids a slightly better immunity. Thus is several generations really immune kids appear. No luck, no ingenuity, just the natural variation of organisms allowing for this result under selection pressure, remember, as the article says.
xxx
> 
> dhw: So do you believe that after your bodily death your brainless soul will retain your intelligence, memories etc. or not?-
> DAVID: My consciousness stays intact and carries intelligence and memories, etc.
> 
> 
> Thank you. That means intelligence and memory are independent of the brain, and therefore it cannot be argued that brainless organisms are incapable of being intelligent.-Remember I'm a dualist who believes that a brain is necessary as a receiver for conscious intelligence. Brainless organisms have no chance of having their own intelligence. They operate under intelligent instructions

8458 views

DAVID: I couldn't agree more that God may have given organisms the ability to 'work it out for themselves'. I would just like proof that such a mechanism exists. Until then pre-planning or dabble.
dhw: That means that cells/cell communities may be intelligent after all. Hallelujah! I'd better frame this post.
DAVID: You are framing a hollow comment. I've not changed at all. If organism can work things out it will be by God's guidance thru a mechanism He has given them, that is intelligent information which makes it look like they are actually intelligent of their own accord. -If you are guided, you do not work things out for yourself. Divine guidance can only take the form of preplanning or dabbling. So apparently your statement means you agree that God may have given organisms the ability to be guided by preplanning or dabbling, but until that is proven, they are guided by preplanning or dabbling. When you agreed with me, I think you knew just I meant by work it out for themselves!-Xxxx-Dhw: Developing immunity is just as much a part of an organism's method of coping with the environment as developing new means of locomotion, of breathing, of working out defensive strategies etc.
DAVID: With the devil's immunity issue you still don't follow. Perhaps I'm not explaining it well. Two partially immune parents on that end of the bell curve will impart to some of their kids a slightly better immunity. Thus is several generations really immune kids appear. No luck, no ingenuity, just the natural variation of organisms allowing for this result under selection pressure, remember, as the article says.-I follow, but your bell curve does not explain this improvement. Why SHOULD partially immune (whatever that entails) parents impart a better immunity? Why don't they just pass on their non-immune parts so the next generation dies (as obviously happens when entire species are wiped out within generations)? Why SHOULD immunity be perfected? You are reverting to the same use of natural that materialists sometimes use to gloss over the complexities of biological processes. But you have suggested it is all part of God's planned variability, on which I commented: If your God planned variability in the evolutionary process, doesn't that suggest that he gave cell communities the ability to work it out for themselves rather than merely obeying inbuilt instructions either to die, to be lucky enough to have partial immunity, or to develop full immunity? Perhaps you might answer?
 
xxx-dhw: So do you believe that after your bodily death your brainless soul will retain your intelligence, memories etc. or not?
DAVID: My consciousness stays intact and carries intelligence and memories, etc.

dhw: Thank you. That means intelligence and memory are independent of the brain, and therefore it cannot be argued that brainless organisms are incapable of being intelligent.
DAVID: Remember I'm a dualist who believes that a brain is necessary as a receiver for conscious intelligence. Brainless organisms have no chance of having their own intelligence. They operate under intelligent instructions.-If conscious intelligence is not engendered by the brain, and if a brainless organism can receive and implement instructions, there is no reason why those instructions should not be issued by a similar conscious intelligence not engendered by a brain. Merely repeating your beliefs does not remove their inconsistency.

8442 views


> dhw: I follow, but your bell curve does not explain this improvement. Why SHOULD partially immune (whatever that entails) parents impart a better immunity? Why don't they just pass on their non-immune parts so the next generation dies (as obviously happens when entire species are wiped out within generations)? Why SHOULD immunity be perfected? -You are missing the point about variation. The slightly immune devils parent offspring that either pick up some of the immunity or they don't. if they don't they die, but some will get an additive effect from each parent and have a better immunity. Some of these will survive, mate and by the same mechanism some offspring will appear with an every greater immunity until we reach a generation with good immunity. This is selection pressure, and an accepted mechanism for the evolutionary development of an improved characteristic.-xxxx->> DAVID: Remember I'm a dualist who believes that a brain is necessary as a receiver for conscious intelligence. Brainless organisms have no chance of having their own intelligence. They operate under intelligent instructions.
> 
> dhw: If conscious intelligence is not engendered by the brain, and if a brainless organism can receive and implement instructions, there is no reason why those instructions should not be issued by a similar conscious intelligence not engendered by a brain. Merely repeating your beliefs does not remove their inconsistency.-You miss my point. If an organism has an onboard mechanism they are not receiving instructions, they are already present for use. Not inconsistent.

8450 views

dhw: your bell curve does not explain this improvement. 
DAVID: You are missing the point about variation. The slightly immune devils parent offspring that either pick up some of the immunity or they don't. if they don't they die, but some will get an additive effect from each parent and have a better immunity. Some of these will survive, mate and by the same mechanism some offspring will appear with an every greater immunity until we reach a generation with good immunity. This is selection pressure, and an accepted mechanism for the evolutionary development of an improved characteristic.-I don't see what use slight immunity would be. If they are not immune they will die. What is this additive effect? Why should two slightly immune parents give birth to offspring which are slightly more slightly immune than them? What do you mean by selection pressure? Organisms that develop immunity will survive, and so eventually there will only be organisms that are immune. If there is no immunity, the species will become extinct. That is how selection works. What you have described is Darwinian gradualism, of which you so heartily disapprove. See your comment under ants: Step-wise is problematic if survival is an issue. It certainly is. But apparently survival through immunity can develop step by step, with the slightly immune organisms staggering thru, as you put it so beautifully! Kind of only slightly dying. I suggest that perhaps some individual cell communities (that's your variability) work out how to combat the new threat, and the formula is passed on to the survivors' offspring (though I certainly wouldn't rule out improvements, e.g. as cell communities learn to combat non-fatal effects). Natural selection does the rest, as described above.-xxxx-DAVID: Remember I'm a dualist who believes that a brain is necessary as a receiver for conscious intelligence. Brainless organisms have no chance of having their own intelligence. They operate under intelligent instructions.
dhw: If conscious intelligence is not engendered by the brain, and if a brainless organism can receive and implement instructions, there is no reason why those instructions should not be issued by a similar conscious intelligence not engendered by a brain. Merely repeating your beliefs does not remove their inconsistency.
DAVID: You miss my point. If an organism has an onboard mechanism they are not receiving instructions, they are already present for use. Not inconsistent.-Of course, you are right. IF those instructions are there, they are there. My argument is that IF intelligence is not engendered by the brain (as you believe), there is no reason why brainless organisms should not issue their own instructions. Your statement that brainless organisms have no chance of having their own intelligence depends entirely on IF they already contain instructions to counter every single possible change in their environment for the rest of time. You treat your own IF as an established fact. The inconsistency is your belief in brainless intelligence, which conflicts with your insistence that intelligence is not possible in an organism without a brain.

8423 views

For a complete understanding of proprioception, the sense of body position, here is a very complete article on the subject, just published: - http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46796/title/Proprioception--The-S...

8454 views

A large portion of the chemical roles is explained:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-11-protein-enables-brains-muscles.html

"A huge colony of receptors must be optimally positioned and functioning on our muscle cells for our brains to talk with our bodies so we can walk and breathe.

"Now scientists have found that a protein believed to help anchor that city of receptors also helps ensure their formation and function and slow their degradation.

***

"The protein is rapsyn, and the receptors are for acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter that motor neurons release to activate our muscle cells. Rapsyn is made by our muscle cells and considered a sort of biological anchor that interacts with the acetylcholine receptors to ensure that they are optimally positioned for our muscles to receive orders from our brain.

"'For precise, efficient synapse function, the receptors have to be extremely highly concentrated at exactly the right place," Mei said.

"The connection, or synapse, the cells form is called the neuromuscular juncture. During development, neurons in the spinal cord reach out to muscle cells to form this direct line of communication. To make that connection, neurons release the protein agrin, which reaches out to LRP4, a protein on the muscle cell surface. This activates MuSK, an enzyme that supports the clustering of receptors on the muscle cell surface that will enable communication.

"Now Mei and his collaborators have shown that rapsyn does not just help hold these receptors in place on the muscle cell, but also functions as an enzyme to help drive the formation of the neuromuscular juncture through a process called neddylation. In fact, agrin and MuSK also aid this neddylation.

"The newly discovered action occurs in one of three domains, or parts, of rapsyn called RING, whose specific function was previously unknown. Rapsyn's classic scaffolding function is in another portion; a third portion has a still unknown role.

"The RING finding is a bit of a surprise since in biology anchor proteins like rapsyn typically don't have this enzymatic activity. "This anchor is active," Mei said. In fact, this is the synapse brain protein found that appears to have both these essential jobs with receptors.

"It was known that there's a lot of rapsyn near the acetylcholine receptors at the neuromuscular juncture and there is fairly constant turnover of both. The new finding indicates that rapsyn helps ensure plenty of receptors are always present in this dynamic environ.

***

"They still have plenty of questions, like if rapsyn also changes the function of the receptors, as Mei suspects. They also want to see if mutations in these other parts of rapsyn impact the enzymatic role of the RING domain, since there is evidence that mutations in other portions also can lead to deadly breathing problems. The scientists also are pursuing the function of the third rapsyn portion.

"And that's only the tip of the iceberg and a clue, Mei theorizes, to also take a look at anchor proteins throughout the body, including the brain itself. He is already looking at classic anchoring proteins, such as PSD-95, in the neuron-to-neuron connections, for any evidence of enzymatic activity - and potential new therapeutic targets - there."

Comment: More and more complexity is discovered as research progresses. Rapsyn acts as an attractor and an enzyme at the same time. How did that evolve? Not stepwise. Again highly suggestive of saltation by God.

8464 views

How mRNA molecules are delivered to the right spot in the cell for protein production is now understood:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117083037.htm

"Messenger RNAs bearing the genetic information for the synthesis of proteins are delivered to defined sites in the cell cytoplasm by molecular motors.

***

"The research team systematically isolated and crystallized sub-complexes of the molecular machine responsible for the process and subjected them to X-ray crystallographic analysis. The resulting models clearly show, for the first time, how the hairpin-like conformation of the RNA is altered when it is recognized by the requisite binding proteins in the nucleus. "We were surprised to see that the RNA is not only recognized by these proteins, they also force it to adopt a new form. They staple it together, so to speak," Niessing says. Carriage of the RNAs is the responsibility of so-called motor proteins. With the help of unfolded adaptor proteins, they attach to the RNA-protein complex as it emerges from the nucleus. In doing so, they stabilize the whole assembly, as the structural models demonstrate, thus allowing the RNA to be transported to its destination along the fibers that make up the cytoskeleton, which serve as the system's 'railway lines'.

"The new data represent a major advance in our understanding of the transport of RNA -- a process that is common to all organisms whose cells are nucleated and is vital for their survival."

Comment; Even though this is studied in nucleated cells, the same mechanism had to be present in early life with cells that were not nucleated. All cells have an organized architecture and regulated processes:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-015-9497-8

"With the central focus of analysis on the case of minimal living systems, we argue that regulation consists in a specific form of second-order control, exerted over the core (constitutive) regime of production and maintenance of the components that actually put together the organism. The main argument is that regulation requires a distinctive architecture of functional relationships, and specifically the action of a dedicated subsystem whose activity is dynamically decoupled from that of the constitutive regime. We distinguish between two major ways in which control mechanisms contribute to the maintenance of a biological organisation in response to internal and external perturbations: dynamic stability and regulation. Based on this distinction an explicit definition and a set of organisational requirements for regulation are provided, and thoroughly illustrated through the examples of bacterial chemotaxis and the lac-operon. The analysis enables us to mark out the differences between regulation and closely related concepts such as feedback, robustness and homeostasis."

8469 views

Zebrafish stripes created by cell activity:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49275/title/Macrophages-Physicall...

From the notes for the illustration:

"As they mature, zebrafish develop a pattern of black stripes made up of dark pigmented cells called melanophores. Researchers have now shown that organization of the pattern is achieved by the ferrying activity of immune cells called macrophages. First, xanthoblasts (orange)—precursors to yellow pigment cells residing in zebrafish skin—form vesicles (red) filled with signaling molecules at their surface (1). Then, macrophages (blue) pick up these vesicles, which remain attached to xanthoblasts by thin filaments (2). On encountering a melanophore (black), the macrophage deposits its cargo on the surface of the pigment cell (3). This long-distance communication represents an entirely new function for macrophages."

***

"Macrophages are increasingly appreciated as important mediators of many physiological processes, from homeostasis to tissue remodeling. But the recent discovery of a new role for the immune cells comes from an unexpected source: the stripes that give zebrafish their name.

"Widely used as a model organism for developmental biology because the young are transparent, Danio rerio as adults have a characteristic black-and-yellow striping that runs the lengths of their bodies. “Nobody really pays much attention to the later stages” of the fish’s development, says University of Virginia biologist David Parichy. “But for years, [our lab] has worked on pigmentation and pattern formation.”

"Zebrafish pigmentation is directed by precursors to the skin’s yellow-pigment cells called xanthoblasts. During development, these cells produce long, thin filaments tipped with vesicles containing signaling molecules that land on black-pigment cells called melanophores; once docked, these vesicles help arrange melanophores into orderly black stripes.

"Last year, while using time-lapse imaging to watch labeled vesicles, Parichy and Dae Seok Eom, his colleague at the University of Washington, were struck by the peculiar way they moved. “These things were so weird,” says Parichy. “They cruise around like they have a mind of their own. Looking at them, we started to think, well, maybe there’s something tractoring them around.”

"The vesicles’ wanderings were reminiscent of another cell type: the macrophage. Indeed, when the pair depleted macrophages in baby zebrafish, they found that abnormal dark blotches appeared between the black stripes, indicating communication failure between xanthoblasts and melanophores.

"Further time-lapse imaging in normal zebrafish—this time with macrophages also labeled—revealed what was going on: the immune cells were engulfing xanthoblast vesicles and dragging them around intact. Then, on encountering a melanophore, each macrophage deposited its cargo and wandered off elsewhere.

"The study provides the first evidence of macrophages physically transferring a signal in this way, notes Richard Lang of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. “From a technical perspective, it’s quite gorgeous,” he says. “The images give you a really important insight into the way this works.'”

Comment: this is automatic cell function. The pattern's evolution is a mystery. It is a very purposeful design pattern. Not by chance.

8091 views

Biofilm has communication signals across the mass of cells:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180726085914.htm

"A concept known as 'percolation' is helping microbiologists explain how communities of bacteria can effectively relay signals across long distances. Once regarded as a simple cluster of microorganisms, communities of bacteria have been found to employ a strategy we use to brew coffee and extract oil from the sea. Percolation helps the microscopic community thrive and survive threats, such as chemical attacks from antibiotics.

***

"Cells at the edge of these communities tend to grow more robustly than their interior counterparts because they have access to more nutrients. To keep this edge growth in check and ensure the entire community is fit and balanced, the "hungry" members of the biofilm interior send electrochemical signals to members at the exterior. These signals halt consumption at the edge, allowing nutrients to pass through to the interior cells to avoid starvation.

"'This keeps the interior fed well enough and if a chemical attack comes and takes out some of the exterior cells, then the protected interior is able to continue and the whole population can survive," said Larkin, a UC San Diego Biological Sciences postdoctoral scholar. "It is essential that the electrochemical signal be consistently transmitted all the way to the biofilm edge because that is the place where the growth must be stopped for the community to reap the most benefit from signaling."

***

"In a community of bacteria, signals pass from cell to cell in a connected path over a distance of hundreds of cells. Using fluorescence microscopes, the researchers were able to track individual cells that were "firing" (transmitting a signal). The scientists found that the fraction of firing cells and their distribution in space precisely matched theoretical predictions of the onset of percolation. In other words, the bacterial community had a fraction of firing cells that was precisely at the tipping point between having no connectivity and full connectivity among cells, also known as a critical phase transition point.

"'We're all familiar with how we make coffee through percolation and it's an interesting twist that bacteria appear to use the same concept to accomplish the very complicated task of efficiently relaying an electrochemical signal over very long distances from cell to cell," said Süel.

"'It's interesting that these bacteria, which are so-called simple, single-cell organisms, are using a fairly sophisticated strategy to solve this community-level problem," said Larkin. "It's sophisticated enough that we humans are using it to extract oil, for example.'"

Comment: Most likely an automatic electrochemical series of reactions from interior to exterior, passed from contiguous cell to contiguous cell.

7502 views

The new information has to get through cell membranes:

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-cell.html

"The interior of all living cells is separated from the outside world by membranes. These membranes keep the cells intact and protect them from negative influences. But they also act as a barrier for nutrients and information. For this reason, cell membranes contain mechanisms that enable selective access to desired substances or transmit information from external signals into the cell.

"An important signal pathway in mammals consists of three components: The first is a receptor that recognises the signal and is activated by it. The second is a so-called G protein that binds to the activated receptor and transmits the signal to one or more effector proteins. In this case, the effector is adenylyl cyclase, the third component of the signal chain. This protein is activated by a subunit of the G protein and produces, in a biochemical reaction, a secondary messenger called cyclic AMP (cAMP).

"cAMP triggers various reactions in the cell; for example, it increases the permeability of the membrane to calcium in cardiac cells, leading to an increase in the heart beat rate.

***

"'Surprisingly, in determining the structure of the adenylyl cyclase bound to the alpha subunit of the G protein, we discovered that the protein appears to be able to inhibit itself," says Korkhov. One part of the protein is responsible for this self-inhibition. This part blocks the active site of the enzyme and prevents the overproduction of cAMP.

"This new insight into the molecular structure of adenylyl cyclase provides a much better understanding of how external signals lead to the controlled production of the important secondary messenger cAMP. "

Comment: In this case the stimulus to the cell is meant to initiate a specific required reaction and a series of specific molecules, one of which is especially designed to employ inhibition. The research makes it clear the cell is obviously programmed to make the proper response, no innate intelligence necessary.

3999 views

New findings spotting specific molecules:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210212101844.htm

"The researchers chose to study yeast cells, since they are similar to human cells, and their focus is on glycolytic oscillations -- a series of chemical reactions during metabolism where the concentration of substances can pulse or oscillate. The study showed how cells that initially oscillated independent of each other shifted to being more synchronized, creating partially synchronized populations of cells.

"'One of the unique things with this study is that we have been able to study individual cells instead of simply entire cell populations. This has allowed us to really be able to see how the cells transition from their individual behaviour to coordinating with their neighbours. We have been able to map their behaviour both temporally and spatially, that is to say, when something occurs and in which cell," says Beck Adiels.

***

"This type of behaviour is also found in cells such as heart muscle cells and in pancreatic cells, which can be an important piece of the puzzle in diabetes research."

Comment: I do not understand how glycolytic oscillations carry messages, but no else knows either. We know DNA carries information in its code. Does the pitch of the oscillations? The advancing research raises more questions than answers.

2029 views

Another form of chemical communication using a glutamate channel, which transmits more than glutamate:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/biology/twisty-molecular-elevator/?utm_source=Cosmos...

"A team, led by Ichia Chen of the University of Sydney, has modelled the shape of an extremely important molecular machine – the glutamate transporter. Understanding this shape and process helps to explain how brain cells “talk” to each other.

"Cells communicate by sending chemical signals, mostly in the form of the neurotransmitter glutamate. These glutamate signals are released from a nerve through glutamate transporters, which sits on the surface of the cell and open and close to let the signal through at the right time, pumping the glutamate out when open.

***

"The team captured the shape of the transporter in incredible detail with cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM), and found that it looked like a “twisting elevator” inside the cell membrane, they report in their paper, published in Nature.

***

"The images showed that the glutamate transporter could multi-task. The first function was to pump glutamate through the membrane and the second is to transport other molecules.

“'These molecular machines use a really cool twisting, elevator-like mechanism to move their cargo across the cell membrane,” says senior author Renae Ryan, from the University of Sydney.

“'But they also have an additional function where they can allow water and chloride ions to move across the cell membrane."

Comment: We are still on the outside looking in. We do not know the text of the messages or how they are interpreted by the cells. All we know is cells do talk to each other. Be sure to look at the illustrations of a molecule that can twist around to perform a job. Just another molecular machine that demands the recognition of design.

2070 views

Energy expenditure analyzed:

https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/impact-events/should-we-expect-efficiency-inside-the-...

"Kinesin-1: The Cell’s Cargo Mover
Kinesin-1 moves vesicles around cells by “walking” along rod-like protein assemblies called microtubules (see video below). Kinesin-1 uses adenosine triphosphate (ATP) as fuel to move around. However, when a team of researchers at Yamaguchi University in Japan measured the motion of Kinesis-1 along the microtubules, they found that up to 80% of the energy released from ATP generated heat instead of movement!

***

"As scientists continued to research the operation of Kinesin-1, they recognized that much noisier conditions exist inside the cell than outside on a piece of glass. Given this fact, scientists wanted to know whether this noise affected the energy conversion rate.

"The Efficiency of Kinesin-1
To investigate further, they attached small (~500 nanometer) polymer beads to the Kinesis-1 molecule and then used an infrared laser like a set of “optical tweezers” to grab onto the beads.1 By varying the intensity and location of the laser, they could mimic the type of noise experienced by Kinesin-1 inside the cell. Many tests with the laser setup showed a dramatic increase in efficiency of Kinesin-1 movement—specifically, the molecule sped up—under a load. More significantly, the acceleration of Kinesin-1 increased with the size of the load. Additionally, it appears that many other proteins and enzymes in the cell will experience similar efficiency gains when tested under conditions mimicking those inside the cell (although more tests are needed to confirm this).

***

"In similar fashion, Kinesin-1 acts like a poorly designed molecule in the pristine conditions of the lab. However, when it operates in the noisy environment of the cell, it performs beautifully—just like it was designed to do."

Comment: We need to reflect on Gilbert and Sullivan wisdom, 'things are seldom what they seem'. We need to analyze the working systems right down in their environment. Superficial objections to our backwards retina come to mind. The designer knew exactly what He was doing and why. dhw's superfical analysis of God's roundabout way of producing us is a good case in point. As we dig in, every time we find superb design. Humans are a prime endpoint example.

902 views

dhw: from a very different angle, an article in the Times caught my eye: since the 1990s the Tasmanian devil has been driven almost to extinction by a highly contagious form of cancer. In just four generations, however, there has been a remarkable genetic shift, and the survivors appear to have a degree of immunity to the cancer, and go on to spread their genes throughout the local population

An example of genetic variability allows devils to survive with immunity is that some of them naturally carry generalized antibodies against the disease:

http://phys.org/news/2016-05-natural-antibodies-combat-tasmanian-devil.html

"Deakin University scientists may have found a way to stop the cancer that has been killing Tasmanian devils for the past 20 years.

"And the devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) could actually already hold the solution – natural antibodies found in the marsupial's immune system.

"Dr Beata Ujvari, from Deakin's Centre for Integrative Ecology within the School of Life and Environmental Sciences, investigated differences in molecules found in the devils' immune systems, comparing those that had the cancer, known as the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease, and those that didn't.

"We know from human and animal studies that certain natural antibodies are able to recognise and kill cancerous cells, so we wanted to see whether the presence of these molecules would also determine tumour development in Tasmanian devils," Dr Ujvari said.

"'We found that devils that have a higher ratio of these natural antibodies were less likely to have cancer.

"'We can deduce then that devils with higher natural antibody ratio are therefore less susceptible to the contagious cancer.'"

Comment: Tis is an example of individual variability that is seen all through life, including the bacteria seen surviving the antibiotic experiment we have discussed.

8466 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum