CELL INTELLIGENCE

You may freely copy any of my files and print it out provided you keep my Email and web address on it. This web site operated by:-Alfred.

Comments, criticisms and suggestions gratefully received. It helps to know what people want to know about.
www.evolution.htmlplanet.com
alfredem@paradise.net.nz.


CELL INTELLIGENCE

Abstract:
If cells move about randomly so as to accidently bump into food, or into a better part of solution containing nutrients, then there is probably no guiding force. However if free roaming cells systematically move toward food sources or to light sources then there must be at least some robotic automatic guidance system. The article on CELL INTELLIGENCE, quoted from below, shows that there is considerable intelligence in the cells, demonstrated with short video clips.
However I disagree with one statement which I consider very important, because of its restrictions on science research and understanding.
I recommend reading the full article, accept the science, but be wary of evolutionary type assumptions.


Quoting part of the article from:
www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/cellint0.htm, downloaded 27 February 2008.

2. The cell as a whole is capable of immensely complex migration patterns for which (t)heir genome cannot contain a detailed program as they are responses to unforeseeable encounters Cell movement is not random.
Cells can 'see', i.e. they can map the directions of near-infrared light sources in their environment and direct their movements toward them. No such 'vision' is possible without a very sophisticated signal processing system ('cell brain') that is linked to the movement control of the cell. The larger their light scattering, the larger the distance from which aggregating cells came together.

(The light from the light source was scattered by the cell. .
Let me add to my previous answer to your question, that in some of the experiments you quote there was an artificial light source, but in most of them the light source was the black body radiation scattered by neighboring cells. G.A.-B.
From Emails.)

In addition there is the supporting theoretical consideration that the hitherto completely unexplained complex structure of centrioles is predicted in every detail if one asks what structure a cellular 'eye' would have.


My comments:
The research is fascinating, but I take exception to his last comment, "complex structure of centrioles is predicted in every detail if one asks what structure a cellular 'eye' would have".

This is a logic problem, and stems from having previously decided that only explanations that support evolution can be considered, and is in fact inherent in his statement, because of his a priori belief. But he is still asking that if the structure is a predictable outcome, what would be logical. But this requires logic, and logic is an intelligence function. If you ask "what structure a cellular 'eye' would have" you are actually asking by assumption "if it is designed by some intelligence, compatible with my intelligence" then what would it have? Because if it was produced by purposeless random events you could not predict it. You are then matching up your intelligence, as to what the design should be, with the intelligence that designed the cell centrioles. In this case you apparently agree with the fascinating design.

Evolutionary processes.
If they were not designed, but evolved by random purposeless evolutionary trial and error you should find serious defects, and possibly useless appendages that may someday be found a use.

The proper question.
If you want to hold to evolution then the proper question is "what evolutionary processes would bring this about? How would the preceeding cells in the past be guided towards making a centriole, since they could not possibly know about light of any frequency, or that it could in any way be useful. Nor could the cells envisage any mechanism that would detect and carry the information of light to some part of the cell that could interpret and use the information. The information about light and its uses would have to come from outside the cell, from a source that could see and understand the possibilities, particularly for the very first cell that had the very simplest light detector.

But the interpretive part of the mechanism may not exist either, so would require further accidental events, and even more to couple the system up, even though the interpretive mechanism may be attached to the detector, there are still connections to be made, and then to the cell's controlling intelligence centre for the cell to react to take an advantage from the information, if it can understand its significance.

Bear in mind that the "cell brain" would be unlikely to have a "plug connection" available for some unknown future device to connect to using some unknown communication format. The centrioles might just as easily connect to the waste disposal system, so disposal can only take place if there is enough light detected. Why do you expect that they would connect to the "cell brain" when there are so many other options, is it because of your intelligent reasoning? Did the designer also think that was the obvious place to connect? How would evolution know where to make the connection for a new device, which, at the time, was of unknown use? Nor could evolution "decide" how or where to connect an unknown device, Darwin was quite clear that the process was random unguided, and had to have some selective advantage at each small step, but what advantage would some not yet connected device have? Or a connection transmitting signals but having no device attached to produce purposeful useful signals?

Also according to Darwin evolution cannot plan ahead, but only select small useful steps that occur by random errors, mutations and extra copies. What small step could have started the building of the centrioles, and why would it be an advantage and be selected, and then built on? Without guidance as to what to add to the initial stage, the chance that some addition would ruin or totally block the correct development is vastly more likely than it would be to accidently add the correct unit for continuing the progress.

Many researchers have found that any mutations are far more likely to be deleted, possibly deleting the genetic line in the process, than they are to be able to continue through generations. Genetic errors usually cause additional load for the organism and are more likely to be deleted before they can be modified further, over generations, into something that gives an advantage. This has never been shown to happen, but is assumed by evolutionists, and an explanation concocted to make evolution seem logical and true.

The ID view.
If you look at it from the ID or Creationist point of view then the complexity is so great, that with all the other complexities in the cell it is clearly so perfectly designed that evolution cannot be the source, there had to be some intelligent source for the information and physical design, coupled with the manipulating ability, and the desire to create the species. Some may have been designed for a different purpose, but in a fallen and corrupting world may have taken a wrong path, and now seem to be a serious problem.

Your conclusion:
The best design for a cellular eye is a pair of centrioles.

Are there other options?
Why not four, (or even six), centrioles, so you can sense other cells to associate with, ( not "watch for feeding opportunities" as I first thought) in the opposite direction at the same time, by detecting near-Infrared light. If this had happened wouldn't you say "The best design for a cellular eye is two pair of centrioles facing opposite ways"? Your reasoning will change to suit what you find, no matter what you find, and a story concocted to make it support the evolutionary belief. The evolutionary requirement that the results MUST support the evolution paradigm stifles honest free research, as anything that may indicate that evolution cannot be the source, but intelligent design information must have been used to create some organism or attribute, is likely to get you sacked or seriously discriminated against. Many dare not research something that might disprove some concept of evolution, because of criticism they will receive. Hence the attachment of a statement that "this supports evolution" to much research that clearly disproves evolution, if one thinks seriously about the data.


Evolution getting impossible to believe:
ENCODE Project meets Darwinian theory,
evolution, science and society.

The ENCODE impact on evolution theory. Richard Dawkin's et al, "pond scum" evolution teaching and its effects on society. The usefulness of evolution teaching for physics, technology, empirical science etcetera.


Respond to G. Buehler, the author of "CELL INTELLIGENCE"
e-mail.

Read his web page first.

An Email from G. Buehler,

Let me add to my previous answer to your question, that in some of the experiments you quote there was an artificial light source, but in most of them the light source was the black body radiation scattered by neighboring cells. Let me also add a few comments to your claim that my centriole hypothesis supports the basic tenets of ID. (centriole hypothesis = claim that a pair of centrioles functions as a cellular eye) 1. I presented my centriole hypothesis more than 20 years ago as a simple 'function-from-structure'-argument . This type of argument does not ever imply a specific mechanism that gave rise to the structure. Lots and lots of contingent experiments are needed to do that. Far from examining the origin of centrioles, I used the following 20 years to merely test experimentally whether or not cells are able to 'see', i.e. distinguish between individual light sources that were located in different places in their environment. I believe that my 2005 PNAS paper (Albrecht-Buehler, G. (2005) A Long-Range Attraction Between Aggregating 3T3 Cells Mediated By Near-Infrared Light Scattering,PNAS 102: 5050-5055 ) proved this ability of cells definitively. This paper and all my previous experiments along this line, however, did not prove that cells use their centrioles to 'see'. That remains a hypothesis. 2. If my hypothesis is correct, and I am convinced it is, than it must fit into any philosophy that claims to explain nature, whatever it may be. Otherwise, this philosophy would contradict an observable fact , and thus would have to be rejected. Judging by the history of science, there were and always will be many different philosophical systems that are consistent with the set of observations that are known at the time. Science cannot prove one or the other system right. In principle, it can only eliminate one or the other system by discovering a new observation that contradicts a specific claim of this philosophy. 3. In the past philosophical systems were rarely specific enough to be disprovable by a detailed observation. Notable exceptions were the Kopernican heliocentric system, Darwin's theory of evolution and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. All of them made very specific predictions that were tested and overwhelmingly found to be correct. 4. Obviously, Darwin's theory is one about evolution by variation followed by natural selection. We know the mechanisms of selection. However, neither Darwin or any other great biologist have ever claimed to know the mechanisms of variation. Mutations are certainly a part it, but there is no evidence that they are sufficient. You and others seem to claim that intelligent design will provide a satisfactory, i.e. a testable explanation for the mechanism of variation. Educate me, how far are you in substantiating this claim? Regards Guenter


"Educate me, how far are you in substantiating this claim?"
I am working on a web page to support a particular line on reasoning for my claim, in fact it was substantiated long before my time, I just want to put it on the web, but even now you are looking at the evidence, but don't see it, as you are trained to see it the evolutionist way. Scientists often work on one narrow field, the one they were trained in, and have in the back of their mind that "this will show how evolution proceeded". But if you step back and read other peoples research, and contemplate the magnificent complexity, and enormous complexity in the animal and plant kingdoms and how many dovetail together, and are often dependent on another species in some cunning way, it becomes obvious that design information came from somewhere outside of the organisms, but you won't see that if you don't look at the big picture.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans Ch1 v 20.
When I consider the complexities involved in life, and ask myself if this is the result of a myriad succession of unguided mutations and accidents, or is it a result of planning, it seems very obvious to me that some external manipulative power has deliberately created all this life.
God can prove His existence and power to me, and has, or you, but I cannot prove it to you as you can always disbelieve the evidence, as you do now as you research the amazing complexities and apparent design in nature. As yet I cannot envisage how to test God in the Laboratory. But I know whom I have believed. I still don't understand how anyone with a scientific bent can look at all the microscopic perfection of life and still say, in effect: "Unguided chemicals have by a series of flukes produced this glorious accidental result!" life!

Darwin's theory is not specific enough to be disproved as new stories are cooked up to cover any discovery, and accepted even though they are only assumptions, and still accepted after being disproved, as the evolutionist fraternity will not relinquish anything that can be claimed as support.

Biston Bitularia, (once proof you could see evolution happening, but actually it proves stasis), Haeckel's forged embrio drawings still in use to support abortions and evolution. Horse evolution, about ten ways, based on assumptions of the appearance of unrelated creatures, now whales are getting a "make-over" to be from land animals, via apparently unrelated sea creatures, (huge size and design changes). How many times have you heard that the missing link has been found that proves we are descended from apes etc, but it is soon disproved, and as yet proof has not been found. But even this will change, and then change again, because it is not how we came about, evolution keeps missing the truth, so must keep changing its story, but the actual scientific data remains true, its the assumptions that change.

Now whales are getting a "make-over"

Pakicetus

Note: nothing below skull was found, but a convincing full drawing was made of the supposed intermediate to whales, shown diving for fish.

Gingerich discovered in Pakistan a few skull fragments of a wolf-like creature that allegedly had an inner ear like a whale. But this is far from conclusive. There wasn't any post-cranial skeleton found, so we haven't the faintest idea how it moved. However, this didn't stop Gingerich from writing an article for school teachers with an illustration of an animal swimming and catching fish, and looking convincingly like an intermediate between land animals and whales. He also claimed, "In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales."

A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature. The commentary on this paper in the same issue says, "All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground." This is nothing like Gingerich's picture of an aquatic animal describing Pakicetus as a "terrestrial cetacean" claiming "The first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners."
From http://creation.com/3856

When more data comes in, the early dishonest claims about the scant evidence is really shocking. Note that Gingerich's evidence was based on part of the ear cavity from one side of the head, and teeth and part of the lower jaw. He had no other bones to indicate body size and type. No evidence that it is connected to whales! Evolutionists can be such outrageous liars about the initial evidence that they claim to have, that they should never be believed until you are certain that all the evidence is in and thoroughly researched.
But note that publications are out there, and will be for many years, teaching in schools and to the public, that whales were originally land animals, while it is already disproved!


    * Mesonychid (55 million years ago)
    * Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)
    * Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)
    * Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)

PS. How do we know the ages when even fresh lava shows great ages
by all radiometric tests? Radiocarbon is found even in diamonds and coal,
so nothing can be very old, as in 50,000 years the radiocarbon
should have decayed completely.

There were also huge size and design changes in the proposed lineage, but as usual none of the progressive intermediates that Darwin expected to have as proof. How many times have you heard that the missing link has been found that proves we are descended from apes etc, but it is soon disproved, and as yet proof has not been found. But even this will change, and then change again, because it is not how we came about, evolution keeps missing the truth, so must keep changing the story.


Evolution getting impossible to believe?

ENCODE Project meets Darwinian theory,
evolution, science and society.

The ENCODE impact on evolution theory. Richard Dawkin's et al, "pond scum" evolution teaching and its effects on society. The usefulness of evolution teaching for physics, technology, empirical science etcetera.


This web site operated by:-Alfred.

Comments, criticisms and suggestions gratefully received. It helps to know what people want to know about.
www.evolution.htmlplanet.com
alfredem@paradise.net.nz.


URLs with scientific information on the subject or guidance not based on hype.

True Origins.
The web site, True Origins, has a strong scientific basis covering the source of life, thermodynamics, biological origins, and includes many science references for most of the articles. Some of the research quoted within research papers on trueorigins is done by evolutionists who try to fit the data into evolution, and are puzzled because it often does not fit the theory, so some fanciful story telling is done to make it seem OK. However, the research papers on true origins usually show how it fits in logically, in accordance with the rules of science, which usually supports creation more than evolution.

If you have been snubbing God because you believe in evolution, you need to read about the many things that show that evolution cannot happen. One good evidence is the tiny acid driven rotary motor that is in every cell of your body, to produce ATP, from ADP, the cells energy fuel. Read "ATP The perfect Energy Currency for the Cell", and other evidence at:-

True Origin -Fascinating, easily understood data on evolution's problems.

www.creation.com -Creation.com Presents the creationist side of the debate. Includes many articles and audio and video files of debates and discussions on the issue. Extensive scientific and general interest Articles, showing how well most science and fossils fit into the biblical perspective.

creationtheory.8k.com. Comments on evolutions problems and National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and Teaching about Evolution.

Exchangedlife.com A section on creation/evolution and some articles on prophesy, some of which is still ahead of us, showing that someone back then knew the future.

About family life and values:-
Focus on Family values - Guidance for a good life style, that is based on good principles.

Above Rubies -See the latest experiences and testimonies at Above Rubies.

Comments, criticisms and suggestions gratefully received. It helps to know what people want to know about.
This web page operated by:- Alfred alfredem@paradise.net.nz. www.evolution.htmlplanet.com


Checkout one of my other pages above, or go to one of web sites listed above.





551

.