• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Morphogenesis of eukaryotic cells, structure, and shape: by random chance, or design?

Status
Not open for further replies.

rationalist

Member
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
Morphogenesis of eukaryotic cells, structure, and shape: by random chance, or design?

https://***************************...tructure-and-shape-by-random-chance-or-design

The morphogenesis of eukaryotic cells, structure, and shape is due to at least 38 different mechanisms. They are classified into two groups: The molecules that provide complex instructional cues of action based on information through signaling and secondly by force-generating molecules that are directed through those signals, which are responsible for cell morphogenesis. On a grand scheme, there are four weblike networks, which form the scaffolds that give form to the cells: Spectrins, Actins, Microtubules, and the Extracellular Matrix. These scaffold networks are dynamic, not static, and can change sizes and forms, polymerize, and depolymerize filaments according to the informational cues received.

Following activities are performed by at least 36 different signaling molecules & mechanisms: 8 molecules signal, 4 orienting, 5 activate, 2 direct, 3 promote, 2 regulate, 1 guide, 3 organize, 1 inform, 1 coordinate, 1 specify, 1 modulating, 1 provide position cues, 2 mediate, 1 provoke change.

The molecules, acting upon the instructional signals received, form patterns, force change, stretch, change and induce cell shape, move positions, orient, provoke ingress, express, align, deform, accumulate molecules, invaginate, extend, form a web, concentrate, hold together, give mechanical support, stiffen, promote stabilize, form geometry, polarity, form division-plane positioning, phosphorylate, dephosphorylate, force transmission, couple molecules physically, form gradients, deform, pull forces, promote cell rounding, transduce, specify cell-fate, extend, provide structural links, form aspect ratio and size, form filament ends, etc.

Information is required to specify the making of the molecules that provide instructional information ( the engineers ) which are essential to direct the molecular actors to perform their actions in an orchestrated manner. But Information is also required to specify the making of the molecules and proteins that are the actors in this grand scheme ( the workers in the factory ). In cells, there are dozens of different engineers (signaling molecules ), which direct the factory workers ( actors ) in their job. In an engineer's department, the individual engineers must elaborate their instruction plans in harmony as a team and joint venture and orchestrate the plan of action, and coordinated instructions provided to the factory workers.

But while in human enterprises, in all steps, human intelligence is involved in a plan of action to achieve a specific goal, in cells, everything is pre-programmed and occurs without intelligent intervention. Cells are 100% autonomous interlinked factory parks with a director department, which also operates in a fully pre-programmed manner. Cell factories are not static. They work in a dynamic network together with their neighbor cells and even distant cell factory parks in a joint venture to form Tissues, Organs, Organ Systems, and Organisms, made of trillions of cells, all working together in a coordinated fashion. The placement of each of these cell factory parks is directed by bioelectric signaling.

The bioelectric code: An ancient computational medium for dynamic control of growth and form
https://***************************...ains-the-real-mechanisms-of-biodiversity#7745

In the same sense, as in human organization, there is the smallest nucleus of a society, the family, there is the district, the county, the region, the estate, and the country, so organisms are organized in hierarchies of organization: Cells, Tissues, Organs, Organ Systems, and Organisms. But rather than static, organisms adapt and react to the environment, food and energy supply, and a large variety of conditions.

In order for an organism to change from one species to another, the change must start at the smallest unit, which is the cell. The signaling molecules, and the language they operate upon, is not only stored in genes but in over 20 different epigenetic signaling codes. Any of those, if not working properly, can cause disease. This is a demonstration that the gene-centric view is false. It is based on a naive understanding of how biological systems work, going back to Darwins time. Today we know better.

The real mechanisms that explain biodiversity and complex organismal architecture are preprogrammed instructional complex INFORMATION encoded in various genetic and epigenetic languages and communication by various signaling codes through various signaling networks, as well as elements, molecules, macro-molecules, tissue and scaffold networks that act upon the signaling instructions. That brings us unambiguously to intelligent design. To the origin by an intelligent designer.

With what I described above, I have elucidated just ONE of at least 17 different things that have to be specified in the formation of cells in a multicellular organism:

1. Morphogenesis of eukaryotic cells, structure, and shape
2. Cell fate determination and differentiation ( phenotype, or what cell type each one will become )
3. Cell growth and size
4. Cell division counting: How do cells know when to stop self-replicating?
5. Position and place in the body. This is crucial. Limbs like legs, fins, eyes, etc. must all be placed at the right place.
6. How it is interconnected with other cells,
7. What communication it requires to communicate with other cells, and the setup of the communication channels
8. What specific sensory and stimuli functions are required and does it have to acquire in regard to its environment and surroundings?
9. What specific new regulatory functions it acquires
10. When will the development program of the organism express the genes to grow the new cells during development?
11. Changes in the composition of the cell membrane or secreted products.
12. Specification of the cell-cell adhesion and which ones will be used in each cell to adhere to the neighbor cells ( there are 4 classes )
13. Apoptosis: programming of the time period the cell keeps alive in the body, and when is it time to self-destruct and be replaced by newly produced cells of the same kind
14. Set up its specific nutrition demand
15. Number of cell divisions
16. Cell shape changes
17. Cell movement

By design, or non-design?

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
https://***************************...ty-and-a-spatially-organized-body-plan-emerge

How does biological multicellular complexity and a spatially organized body plan emerge?
https://***************************...ty-and-a-spatially-organized-body-plan-emerge

How Systems Biology consolidates the inference of Creationism
https://***************************...ty-and-a-spatially-organized-body-plan-emerge
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Non.

Gradual changes retained and built upon look irreducibly complex from their present shape absent information about their past states.

To put it another way: if we're looking for a methodology to infer design, we need a clearly established metric of designedness we can test on objects of known provenance to see whether the metric holds up. Merely waving at complexity does not infer design.

Another problem with this form of argument as a whole is that if complexity necessarily inferred design, then the designer would need to be at least as, if not far more complex, and thus would in turn infer a further designer... ad nauseam.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
I wasn't here then, but a quick search of that username turns up... a series of arguments from complexity. Why is the repetition necessary?
 
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
Non.

Gradual changes retained and built upon look irreducibly complex from their present shape absent information about their past states.

To put it another way: if we're looking for a methodology to infer design, we need a clearly established metric of designedness we can test on objects of known provenance to see whether the metric holds up. Merely waving at complexity does not infer design.

Another problem with this form of argument as a whole is that if complexity necessarily inferred design, then the designer would need to be at least as, if not far more complex, and thus would in turn infer a further designer... ad nauseam.


God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/rebutting-an-atheist-argument-against-theism
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
God is a remarkably simple entity.

Sorry, who exactly are you?

How are you supposed to be an authority on the nature of the alleged deity?

If we are to hold a sensible discussion, I want to be absolutely clear to you - any assertions wherein you pretend to knowledge like this makes me far less likely to consider you a trustworthy source, but rather to view you as someone jumped up on their own self-certainty, reaching far beyond their actual knowledge, and pretending to an authority they don't possess.

You know nothing at all about the nature of the alleged entity.


As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts,...

Ok, so show me a mind absent a brain or physical substrate. Your claim needs to be substantiated.


In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple.

Another assertion about the unknowable. I don't know if you normally find that making such assertions impresses people, but just for clarity - with me, it just makes me consider you a fantasist.


Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity

Assertion.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Regardless: simple things producing complexity?

Sounds remarkably like a materialist argument. The difference is that we know that atoms and the like exist, but that divine overseer isn't actually evident, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded. It's an invisible dragon in your garage.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
I wasn't here then, but a quick search of that username turns up... a series of arguments from complexity. Why is the repetition necessary?

Elshamah was isolated to one thread, so as not to overrun the forum with pointless threads. I feel this action needs to be done again for Elshamah and this new handle. That way, people that want to engage with the repetition can and Elshamah does not overrun the forum with pointless threads.
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
Closing this thread there are enough threads where this subject can be discussed. Please do not make more topics about same subject.

p.s. you can if i’m not mistaken a report with bell on the left if you press that moderators and admin get a notification and you can type what is happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top