David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view II (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, June 26, 2020, 22:37 (1609 days ago) @ David Turell

The last entry left out all of the pertinent examples of damage to organism and how they repair themselves, apparently having a picture of the future form they should achieve. We do not know how they do it, but they do all the time!!

Taken from a box example in his chapter:

"The Miracle of Wound Healing
Here is a description offered by English biologist Brian Ford (2009):
“Surgery is war. It is impossible to envisage the sheer complexity of what happens within a surgical wound. It is a microscopical scene of devastation. Muscle cells have been crudely crushed, nerves ripped asunder; the scalpel blade has slashed and separated close communities of tissues, rupturing long-established networks of blood vessels. After the operation, broken and cut tissues are crushed together by the surgeon’s crude clamps. There is no circulation of blood or lymph across the suture.
“Yet within seconds of the assault, the single cells are stirred into action. They use unimaginable senses to detect what has happened and start to respond. Stem cells specialize to become the spiky-looking cells of the stratum spinosum [one of the lower layers of the epidermis]; the shattered capillaries are meticulously repaired, new cells form layers of smooth muscle in the blood-vessel walls and neat endothelium; nerve fibres extend towards the site of the suture to restore the tactile senses …
“These phenomena require individual cells to work out what they need to do. And the ingenious restoration of the blood-vessel network reveals that there is an over-arching sense of the structure of the whole area in which this remarkable repair takes place. So too does the restoration of the skin. Cells that carry out the repair are subtly coordinated so that the skin surface, the contour of which they cannot surely detect, is restored in a form that is close to perfect.'”

An example which takes to task the Darwinist reliance on natural selection:

"During development, the lens of an amphibian eye derives from the outer layer of cells in the developing head, at the point where an outgrowth of the brain comes into contact with the epidermal cells. But if an already developed lens is removed from one of these animals, something truly remarkable happens: a new lens forms from the upper edge of the iris, a structure that has nothing to do with lens formation in normal development. The procedure runs like this:

"Cells from the upper part of the iris — cells that have already reached an endpoint of differentiation — begin multiplying; these multiplying cells then proceed to dedifferentiate — that is, to lose their specialized character, including the pigmentation that gives the iris its color; the newly multiplied, iris-derived cells migrate so as to form a globe of dedifferentiated tissue in the proper location for a lens; and finally,
they start producing the differentiated products of lens cells, including crystallin proteins, and are thereby transformed into transparent lens cells — all in the nuanced spatial pattern required for the formation of a proper lens.

'And so, lacking the usual resources and the usual context for formation of a lens, the animal follows an altogether novel path toward the restoration of normal form and function.
It is impossible to believe that these complex and intricately coordinated responses to the loss of the lens were somehow already physically determined or programmed or otherwise specified in the animal’s one-celled zygote. Nor is it easy to imagine how there could ever have been a sustained and large population of lens-injured amphibians with otherwise functional eyes — a population large enough, that is, to enable a supposedly mindless process of natural selection to evolve a specific, novel solution to the problem of lens regeneration. " (my bold)

Comment: Just a sample of the evidence he presents. Worth reading the entire essay (book chapter).