https://www.sciencenews.org/article/brain-kidney-cells-memory

"Neurons have historically been the cell most associated with memory. But far outside the brain, kidney cells can also store information and recognize patterns in a similar way to neurons, researchers report November 7 in Nature Communication

***

"Outside the brain, cells of all types need to keep track of stuff. One way they do that is through a protein central to memory processing, called CREB. It, and other molecular components of memory, are found in neurons and nonneuronal cells. While the cells have similar parts, the researchers weren’t sure if the parts worked the same way.

"In neurons, when a chemical signal passes through, the cell starts producing CREB. The protein then turns on more genes that further change the cell, kick-starting the molecular memory machine. Kukushkin and colleagues set out to determine whether CREB in nonneuronal cells responds to incoming signals the same way.

"The researchers inserted an artificial gene into human embryonic kidney cells. This artificial gene largely matches the naturally occurring stretch of DNA that CREB activates by binding to it — a region the researchers call a memory gene. The inserted gene also included instructions for producing a glowing protein found in fireflies.

"The team then watched the cells respond to artificial chemical pulses that mimic the signals that trigger the memory machinery in neurons. “Depending on how much light [the glowing protein] produces, we know how strongly that memory gene was turned on,” Kukushkin says.

"Different timing patterns of pulses resulted in different responses. When the researchers applied four, three-minute chemical pulses separated by 10 minutes, the light 24 hours later was stronger than in cells where the researchers applied a “massed” pulse, a single 12-minute pulse.

“'This [massed-spaced] effect has never been seen outside a brain, it’s always been thought as this property of neurons, of a brain, how memory is formed,” Kukushkin says. “But we propose that maybe if you give nonbrain cells complicated enough tasks, they will also be able to form a memory.”

"Neuroscientist Ashok Hegde calls the study “interesting, because they are applying what’s generally considered a neuroscience principle sort of broadly to understand gene expression in nonneuronal cells.” But it’s unclear how generalizable the findings are to other kinds of cells, says Hegde, of Georgia College & State University in Milledgeville. Still, he says this research may someday help with the search for potential drugs to treat human disease, especially those where memory loss occurs." (my bold)

"Kukushkin agrees. The body can store information, he says, and that could be meaningful to someone’s health."

Comment: I find this especially interesting in kidney cells, which have to be sensitive to many changes in the body as they filter urine to maintain balances. The other organ I'd be interested in is the liver, whose cells have a similar function to the kidney. In each organ strict limits to functional results are maintained.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(23)00832-1?dgcid=raven_jbs_aip...

"Pursuing prey through clutter is a complex and risky activity requiring integration of guidance subsystems for obstacle avoidance and target pursuit. The unobstructed pursuit trajectories of Harris’ hawks Parabuteo unicinctus are well modeled by a mixed guidance law feeding back target deviation angle and line-of-sight rate. Here we ask how their pursuit behavior is modified in response to obstacles, using high-speed motion capture to reconstruct flight trajectories recorded during obstructed pursuit of maneuvering targets. We find that Harris’ hawks use the same mixed guidance law during obstructed pursuit but appear to superpose a discrete bias command that resets their flight direction to aim at a clearance of approximately one wing length from an upcoming obstacle as they reach some threshold distance from it. Combining a feedback command in response to target motion with a feedforward command in response to upcoming obstacles provides an effective means of prioritizing obstacle avoidance while remaining locked-on to a target. We therefore anticipate that a similar mechanism may be used in terrestrial and aquatic pursuit. The same biased guidance law could also be used for obstacle avoidance in drones designed to intercept other drones in clutter, or to navigate between fixed waypoints in urban environments."

Comment: in the article these flight plans are mathematically analyzed and shown to be repetitive, which allows for robotic programming in drone design. Once again nature teaches us design!

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/06/cognitive-cells-a-newer-challenge-to-neo-darwinism/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610723000573?via%3Dihub

"Crick's Central Dogma has been a foundational aspect of 20th century biology, describing an implicit relationship governing the flow of information in biological systems in biomolecular terms. Accumulating scientific discoveries support the need for a revised Central Dogma to buttress evolutionary biology's still-fledgling migration from a Neodarwinian canon. A reformulated Central Dogma to meet contemporary biology is proposed: all biology is cognitive information processing. Central to this contention is the recognition that life is the self-referential state, instantiated within the cellular form. Self-referential cells act to sustain themselves and to do so, cells must be in consistent harmony with their environment. That consonance is achieved by the continuous assimilation of environmental cues and stresses as information to self-referential observers. All received cellular information must be analyzed to be deployed as cellular problem-solving to maintain homeorhetic equipoise. However, the effective implementation of information is definitively a function of orderly information management. Consequently, effective cellular problem-solving is information processing and management. The epicenter of that cellular information processing is its self-referential internal measurement. All further biological self-organization initiates from this obligate activity. As the internal measurement by cells of information is self-referential by definition, self-reference is biological self-organization, underpinning 21st century Cognition-Based Biology.

A comment from ID:

"So cells are smarter than we thought… ? They offer a brief look at the many bewilderingly complex feedback loops in typical cells. In their view, how should biology change? Here are some snippets from their Conclusion:

"When biology is framed as an informational interactome, all forms of biological expression interact productively in a continuous, seamless feedback loop. In that reciprocating living cycle, there is no privileged level of causation since all aspects of the cell as an organized whole participate in cellular problem-solving…

"So the cell acts on itself (self-organization) instead of merely being acted upon by the neo-Darwinian genes. But also, they write,

"The origin of self-referential cognition is unknown. Indeed, it can now be declared biology’s most profound enigma. Yet, that instantiation can be properly accredited as equating with the origin of life.

“'Self-Referential Cognition”
In short, we have no idea how cells, which have been around for billions of years, could become so complex that they can be compared to intelligent beings (“self-referential cognition”) without any design in nature at all. Well, maybe they couldn’t have. Maybe the main thing to take away here, whether the authors intend it or not, is this: If biologists don’t want intelligent design, they will surely need to come up with something more convincing than Crick’s materialism.

***

"...conundrums like this help us understand why panpsychism (all life forms/cells are conscious) is beginning to replace materialism in science.

"Here’s the Problem
In a nutshell: The only really satisfactory form of materialism is eliminative materialism, meaning that minds are merely what brains do and human consciousness is simply an evolved illusion. You are indeed nothing but a pack of neurons. But if so, that very theory is an illusion like all the others.

"In a world of awe-inspiringly complex life forms, it probably makes more sense for the materialist to adopt panpsychism. Thus words like “cognitive” and “self-referential” can be attached to cells without risk. I am not claiming that the authors are panpsychists, of course. My point is that their approach should be welcome to panpsychists.

"Anyway, there is a definite nudge in that direction. University of Chicago biochemist James Shapiro titled a 2021 journal paper “All living cells are cognitive.” The same year, prominent neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, said in a book excerpt at The Scientist, that we cannot deny viruses “some fraction” of intelligence, based on the way their strategies resemble those of insects.

***

"From a panpsychist perspective, human consciousness is not a mere illusion generated by a pack of neurons. It is the most highly developed known form of consciousness among life forms, all of which are conscious to some extent. That is, it is real in the same way that cell cognition and self-organization are real. So humans can learn about cells and propound theories about them that are not necessarily illusions but rather a meta level of consciousness.

"Of course, panpsychism doesn’t do much to resolve the “profound enigma” of how such a world of life could come to exist without any intelligent intention or design. But that’s not what the materialist most needs right now anyway. He most needs to believe that his own findings are not just a user illusion. He can admit the profound enigma and leave the matter there."

Comment: right on point for our discussion of life's use of information and to recognize design when we see it. And welcome back James Shapiro.

Biofilms

DAVID: We both know humans are autonomously intelligent and at least I accept free will without question. Note the 'molecules' ACT AS IF. My statement does not say they are intelligent. You constantly twist statements.

dhw: My point was that if they act as if they are intelligent, how do you know they are not? I agree with you that we are autonomously intelligent, but you still haven’t offered one single attribute in addition to those I listed as evidence that cells are also intelligent.

Appearing intelligent doesn't mean it is not all automatic functions, remember?

Biofilms divide up functions:

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/how-bacterial-communities-divvy-up-duties-71138?...

"Biofilms form when groups of bacteria cover themselves in a sticky mixture of sugars, protein, and DNA. This extracellular matrix glues bacteria to surfaces and serves as a slimy shield, protecting cells in the interior from predators and antibiotics. Conventional drugs become ensnared in the matrix, tangled in a molecular mesh that prevents them from penetrating the biofilm’s inner layers. What’s more, oxygen depletion causes cells in the center to enter a hibernation-like state, making them tolerant to antibiotics that target metabolic processes. In fact, biofilms can withstand doses up to 1,000 times greater than their planktonic counterparts.

"Within the biofilm, bacteria take on different responsibilities. Some individuals focus on reproduction to expand the colony, while others specialize in construction, oozing polysaccharides and proteins that make up the extracellular matrix. And other bacteria defend the community, building molecular weapons that shoot competitors with toxins.

"These tasks aren’t fixed for life. As the biofilm matures and the community needs change, an individual bacterium may take on new responsibilities. Kovács’s team has found that in populations of the soil bacterium Bacillus subtilis, most microbes assume responsibility for matrix production during early development when they are little more than a throng of unconnected cells. But once construction progresses, some cells will switch to producing spores or useful enzymes.

"So how do bacteria dole out chores? It’s partly stochastic, said Kovács. By amplifying random fluctuations in cellular reactions, individual bacteria specialize into distinct roles. For instance, the cells within a B. subtilis biofilm that are engaged in protease production are randomly determined.

"Task delegation can also be influenced by a bacterium’s location within the biofilm, said Daniel Dar, a researcher of microbial systems at the Weizmann Institute of Sciences. Just as different boroughs of a city might differ in levels of air pollution or abundance of organic supermarkets, different parts of the biofilm are exposed to wildly different levels of oxygen and nutrients. Bacteria sense these microenvironments and adapt by up or down regulating the expression of certain genes to influence different cell processes.

***

"By lighting up expression of more than 100 genes, the researchers uncovered what looked like a color-by-numbers map of zoning regulations. Different clusters of bacteria showed diverse patterns of gene activity corresponding to altered metabolic states depending on their locations within the biofilm. For instance, microbes in the bottom portion of the mature biofilm had activated a set of genes that code for digestive enzymes, while their westerly neighbors prioritized transcription of genes involved in defense.

***

"Division of labor doesn’t only arise from differences in gene expression but can also be triggered by irreversible genetic changes. Among Streptomyces coelicolor, a soil-dwelling bacteria that forms fungal-like structures, deletions of large chunks of their chromosome causes a subset of cells to specialize in antibiotic synthesis. More than half of the antibiotics used to treat human infections are produced by S. coelicolor.

"Although the colonies start out as clones, unstable DNA regions quickly acquire mutations. In a paper published this year in Molecular Systems Biology, scientists reported how the S. coelicolor genome is split into two main sections. The more stable end of the chromosome houses genes that synthesize antibiotics, while the growth-promoting genes are located on the more fragile end. Mutations in these delicate regions often erase sequences associated with growth and replication, generating strains that are specialized in antibiotic secretion.

***

"Electricity can kill bacteria, but lower doses can also stimulate growth of specific cell types, said Gürol Süel, a biophysicist at the University of California, San Diego. Over the past decade, Süel’s team has uncovered how bacteria communicate through electrical impulses, much like a giant action potential that passes through the entire biofilm. Electrical signaling allows cells within the biofilm to regulate growth, share nutrients and recruit outsiders to join the community."

Comment: this work supports Shapiro's finding that bacteria edit DNA. I still believe all of this activity is from DNA programmed instructions.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news/breast-cancer-cells-retrain-t-cells-to-invade-specif...

"In a recent paper published in Cell Reports, Karin de Visser, group leader at the Netherlands Cancer Institute and the Oncode Institute and professor at Leiden University, described a regulatory T cell (Treg) population that is reprogrammed by cancer cells to reduce the immune system’s ability to prevent metastasis. Because this population selectively promotes lymph node metastasis, de Visser’s findings reveal how tissue-specific interactions between tumor and immune cells may determine which tissue a cancer cell homes to, offering important clues for precision medicine approaches to treat the disease.

***

“'One of the most obvious changes we saw was that Treg [numbers] were increased in the circulation and in every organ we looked at, sometimes even at early cancer stages when the [primary] tumor was still very small,” de Visser said.

"Tregs are part of the body’s safety mechanism to prevent autoimmunity by modulating natural killer (NK) and T cell activity. In their mouse models, de Visser and her team found that the population of brainwashed Tregs that localize to lymph nodes were hyperactivated and impaired NK cell function, likely to help cancer cells stay hidden from the immune system in this tissue.

"The scientists next depleted Tregs and found that this prevented lymph node metastasis but did not alter cancer spread to other organs. “It was mind-blowing, because these cells carry the genetic instructions to develop breast cancer and metastasize, so it really showed that this [tissue specificity] is not a cancer cell-intrinsic process, they need help from other cells,” de Visser said.

"To understand if Tregs also control metastatic spread in humans, de Visser next collaborated with researchers at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and studied the immune cell populations in tumor and lymph node biopsies of breast cancer patients and healthy controls. Similar to their mouse models, the scientists found elevated Treg and reduced NK cell levels in cancer patients compared to healthy controls. Moreover, patients with early-stage lymph node metastasis showed even higher Treg levels, correlating with a stronger reduction in NK cell numbers. “This is the first and strongest evidence to show that Tregs can selectively promote metastasis to lymph nodes but not [to] the lung,” said Wanjun Chen, chief of the mucosal immunology section and senior investigator at the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research who was not involved in the current study."

Comment: This is obvious evidence of cellular intelligence in cancer cells. These are rogue cells who have taken over control of their own destiny and have thrown off any influence by standardized control mechanisms. This shows that in multicellular organisms there are controls against autoimmune reactions. Further it shows that normal cell activities are tightly controlled. Such controls means specifically that cells are purposely constrained to do their prescribed activity and nothing more. dhw invokes cellular intelligence to cause speciation. But we see that ordinary cells are tightly controlled in their activities. The only cells that can create new species are the germ cells, which create embryos when male and female fuse together. Under dhw's thinking germ cells must go rogue, like cancer cells, to make a new species. Perhaps not: there may be a way cells communicate to germ cells the need for change. The problem with this idea is the evidence cells are so tightly controlled in their activities. That God speciates as the designer is another answer,

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/your-designed-body-engineering-hurdles/

"To be alive, each cell must perform thousands of complicated tasks, with both functional and process coherence. This includes…containment, special-purpose gates, chemical sensing and controls (for many different chemicals), supply chain and transport, energy production and use, materials production, and information and information processing.

"What does it take to make these work? Designing solutions to problems like this is hard, especially given two additional requirements.

"The first, orchestration, means the cell has to get all the right things done in the right order at the right times. The activities of millions of parts must be coordinated. To this end, the cell actively sequences activities, signals various parts about what to do, starts and stops various machinery, and monitors progress.

"The second requirement is reproduction. As if being alive weren’t difficult enough, some of the body’s cells must be able to generate new cells. This imposes a daunting set of additional design problems. Each new cell needs a high-fidelity copy of the parent cell’s internal information, all the molecular machines needed for life, and a copy of the cell’s structure, including the organelles and microtubules. And it needs to know which internal operating system it should use. Once these are all in place, the cell walls must constrict to complete the enclosure for the new cell, without allowing the internals to spill out.

"Somehow cells solve all these problems. Each cell is a vast system of systems, with millions of components, machines, and processes, which are coherent, interdependent, tightly coordinated, and precisely tuned—all essential characteristics of the cell if it’s to be alive rather than dead.

"There remain no plausible, causally adequate hypotheses for how any series of accidents, no matter how lucky and no matter how much time is given, could accomplish such things. Presently it even lies beyond the reach of our brightest human designers to create them. Human engineers have no idea how to match the scope, precision, and efficiencies of even a single such cell, much less organisms composed of many cellular systems of systems, each system composed of millions or billions of cells."

Comment: With so much happening at once it must all be automatic, or it would not work. Sequential activity requires automaticity.

https://phys.org/news/2022-12-fluorescent-sensor-reveals-key-protein.html

"Researchers led by Osaka University report the development of INCIDER, a fluorescent sensor system that enables high-contrast microscopic imaging of temporal changes in cellular interactions mediated by the N-cadherin molecule.

***

"Cells tend to get themselves in and out of "sticky situations" on a regular basis, as they make and break functional connections with each other. Monitoring intercellular interactions is essential for gaining deeper insights into the complex human physiology. Now, researchers from Japan have developed a new way to track some of these adhesive interactions in real time.

***

"The human body is made up of millions of cells that need to work together to keep everything functioning normally. In order for cells to work well together, they need to stick together, and they do this through the use of adhesion molecules such as neural cadherin (NCad).

***

"'The results were striking," explains senior author Tomoki Matsuda. "We observed bright fluorescence on the surfaces of interacting cells, indicating that the fluorescent sensors were appropriately activated by cell–cell adhesion.'"

Comment: communication by molecule. That is how it has to work. Each molecule has a meaning.

Stem cells

QUOTE: "Self-generated gradients have now made sense of perplexing behavior in cancer cells, fish embryos, immune cells, bacteria, slime mold, and more — and findings are accumulating rapidly."

DAVID: I simply imagine each cell has a GPS system with the proper endpoint presented which they must follow Just like we use in our cars to reach an intended destination. The designer at work.

dhw: Why do you think your God designed a GPS system for cancer cells?[…]

DAVID: The article does not invoke God. Cancer cells simply usurp available God-given machinery from their previously normal cell basis.

dhw: It is you who invoke God in your interpretation of the article, which would mean your God provided cancer cells – like all the other cells in the list - with a GPS system. Or are you coming round to thinking that, like viruses, maybe they work out their own route to survival?

DAVID: I have to add God. The articles I quote, other than ID ones, don't mention design. Cancer cells are real cells with distorted DNA and easily use all the available cell machinery they need to grow and spread. Nothing new to 'work out'.

dhw: The article says that their behaviour was perplexing, but now – according to you – it has been explained by God providing them with a GPS system. So they easily use the machinery you call a GPS system (with precise instructions - automatic) but which I call intelligence (no instructions - autonomous).

The article is converted by me from Darwin-speak, as usual. Cancer cells can easily automatically use existing systems from the normal cells they came from. Cancer cells are simply rogue forms of normal.

QUOTE: "Self-generated gradients have now made sense of perplexing behavior in cancer cells, fish embryos, immune cells, bacteria, slime mold, and more — and findings are accumulating rapidly."

DAVID: I simply imagine each cell has a GPS system with the proper endpoint presented which they must follow Just like we use in our cars to reach an intended destination. The designer at work.

dhw: Why do you think your God designed a GPS system for cancer cells?[…]

DAVID: The article does not invoke God. Cancer cells simply usurp available God-given machinery from their previously normal cell basis.

dhw: It is you who invoke God in your interpretation of the article, which would mean your God provided cancer cells – like all the other cells in the list - with a GPS system. Or are you coming round to thinking that, like viruses, maybe they work out their own route to survival?

DAVID: I have to add God. The articles I quote, other than ID ones, don't mention design. Cancer cells are real cells with distorted DNA and easily use all the available cell machinery they need to grow and spread. Nothing new to 'work out'.

The article says that their behaviour was perplexing, but now – according to you – it has been explained by God providing them with a GPS system. So they easily use the machinery you call a GPS system (with precise instructions - automatic) but which I call intelligence (no instructions - autonomous).

Stem cells

QUOTE: "Self-generated gradients have now made sense of perplexing behavior in cancer cells, fish embryos, immune cells, bacteria, slime mold, and more — and findings are accumulating rapidly."

DAVID: I simply imagine each cell has a GPS system with the proper endpoint presented which they must follow Just like we use in our cars to reach an intended destination. The designer at work.

dhw: Why do you think your God designed a GPS system for cancer cells?

DAVID: He didn't. Cancer cells are molecular genome mistakes using available normal systems to their advantage. I noted the neat switch trick using my GPS quote above from a different discussion.

dhw: The quote above says that self-generated gradients explain cancer cells, and you compared it to a GPS guiding the cells to their intended destination (now bolded), as designed by your God. So I just wondered why your God would have given guidance to cancer cells, as the article states (now bolded).

DAVID: The article does not invoke God. Cancer cells simply usurp available God-given machinery from their previously normal cell basis.

dhw: It is you who invoke God in your interpretation of the article, which would mean your God provided cancer cells – like all the other cells in the list - with a GPS system. Or are you coming round to thinking that, like viruses, maybe they work out their own route to survival?

I have to add God. The articles I quote, other than ID ones, don't mention design. Cancer cells are real cells with distorted DNA and easily use all the available cell machinery they need to grow and spread. Nothing new to 'work out'.

DAVID: Yes, this is the system God wanted and probably had to do it this way as the only system that would work. He fully knew its warts and carefully gave us editing systems for molecular processes and immune systems for the warring aspects. Your complaints simply ask God to do it better. Accept that He can't.

dhw: Thank you for saying “probably”. At least that leaves open the possibility that your all-powerful God might have been able to design something different, which is the most I can ask of you. You believe he designed “good” and “bad” viruses, and despite his kind efforts, sometimes the “bad” viruses win. Why should I accept your belief that your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent the bad viruses from winning? But maybe, just maybe, your God did not design the good and the bad. After all, what’s good for us may be bad for certain viruses, so they would see things differently (if they could see). Maybe, just maybe, he simply designed the first viruses and bacteria to work out their own ways of survival.

DAVID: The bold is close to my thinking. God gave bacteria defense mechanisms and designed viruses to survive with incomplete DNA. As for good and bad, that is our human analysis when bacteria and viruses arrive in the wrong places. God knew that would happen and we have amazing immune systems.

I have already pointed out that “good” and “bad” depend on whose eyes you look through. You continue to depict an all-powerful, all-knowing God who does his best to correct the errors produced by the system he designed but, despite what I agree is an amazing immune system, he sometimes fails, as we know from the current pandemic. I suggest that an all-powerful, all-knowing God who creates life from scratch would create precisely what he wants to create – not something that defies his wishes.

dhw: (under “Zombies”) Why do you think your kind God designed such horrifying methods of survival? Or do you think maybe he allowed viruses to work out their own ways to survive? And while you ponder these questions, do you think the zombification of caterpillars is part of the goal of evolving humans and our food?

DAVID: All part of God's plan. Certainly viruses are. And the zombie caterpillars are in their own necessary ecosystem.

dhw: According to you, God only had one plan: to design humans and their food. All ecosystems are “necessary” for the survival of the life forms within them, but do you believe that the zombie caterpillars were/are “necessary” for us humans and our food?

DAVID: Part of their own ecosystem.

Precisely, as were the countless extinct life forms which were part of their own ecosystem and had no connection with what you say was your God’s one and only purpose: humans and our food/econiches.

Stem cells

QUOTE: "Self-generated gradients have now made sense of perplexing behavior in cancer cells, fish embryos, immune cells, bacteria, slime mold, and more — and findings are accumulating rapidly."

DAVID: I simply imagine each cell has a GPS system with the proper endpoint presented which they must follow Just like we use in our cars to reach an intended destination. The designer at work.

dhw: Why do you think your God designed a GPS system for cancer cells?

DAVID: He didn't. Cancer cells are molecular genome mistakes using available normal systems to their advantage. I noted the neat switch trick using my GPS quote above from a different discussion.

dhw: The quote above says that self-generated gradients explain cancer cells, and you compared it to a GPS guiding the cells to their intended destination (now bolded), as designed by your God. So I just wondered why your God would have given guidance to cancer cells, as the article states (now bolded).

DAVID: The article does not invoke God. Cancer cells simply usurp available God-given machinery from their previously normal cell basis.

It is you who invoke God in your interpretation of the article, which would mean your God provided cancer cells – like all the other cells in the list - with a GPS system. Or are you coming round to thinking that, like viruses, maybe they work out their own route to survival?

How cells communicate

DAVID: Yes, this is the system God wanted and probably had to do it this way as the only system that would work. He fully knew its warts and carefully gave us editing systems for molecular processes and immune systems for the warring aspects. Your complaints simply ask God to do it better. Accept that He can't.

dhw: Thank you for saying “probably”. At least that leaves open the possibility that your all-powerful God might have been able to design something different, which is the most I can ask of you. You believe he designed “good” and “bad” viruses, and despite his kind efforts, sometimes the “bad” viruses win. Why should I accept your belief that your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent the bad viruses from winning? But maybe, just maybe, your God did not design the good and the bad. After all, what’s good for us may be bad for certain viruses, so they would see things differently (if they could see). Maybe, just maybe, he simply designed the first viruses and bacteria to work out their own ways of survival.

The bold is close to my thinking. God gave bacteria defense mechanisms and designed viruses to survive with incomplete DNA. As for good and bad, that is our human analysis when bacteria and viruses arrive in the wrong places. God knew that would happen and we have amazing immune systems.

dhw: (under “Zombies”) Why do you think your kind God designed such horrifying methods of survival? Or do you think maybe he allowed viruses to work out their own ways to survive? And while you ponder these questions, do you think the zombification of caterpillars is part of the goal of evolving humans and our food?

DAVID: All part of God's plan. Certainly viruses are. And the zombie caterpillars are in their own necessary ecosystem.

dhw: According to you, God only had one plan: to design humans and their food. All ecosystems are “necessary” for the survival of the life forms within them, but do you believe that the zombie caterpillars were/are “necessary” for us humans and our food?

Part of their own ecosystem.

Stem cells

QUOTE: "Self-generated gradients have now made sense of perplexing behavior in cancer cells, fish embryos, immune cells, bacteria, slime mold, and more — and findings are accumulating rapidly."

DAVID: I simply imagine each cell has a GPS system with the proper endpoint presented which they must follow Just like we use in our cars to reach an intended destination. The designer at work.

dhw: Why do you think your God designed a GPS system for cancer cells?

DAVID: He didn't. Cancer cells are molecular genome mistakes using available normal systems to their advantage. I noted the neat switch trick using my GPS quote above from a different discussion.

dhw: he quote above says that self-generated gradients explain cancer cells, and yes, you compared it to a GPS guiding the cells to their intended destination (now bolded), as designed by your God. So I just wondered why your God would have given guidance to cancer cells, as the article states (now bolded).

The article does not invoke God. Cancer cells simply usurp available God-given machinery from their previously normal cell basis.

This discussion veered right off subject, and really belongs to the thread on David's theory. but I'll leave it here for the time being.

dhw: Forgive me, but you are simply repeating at length the fact that you believe your all-powerful God to be incapable of providing a system without war (bolded). You confirm that the system he designed makes mistakes which despite his omnipotence he sometimes couldn’t correct, and you repeat your belief that “real” life would be impossible if everything worked perfectly. My personal view of an all-powerful God is that he would design what he wanted to design, and so the system we have is the system he wanted. I’m sorry if that seems exceptionally odd to you.

DAVID: Yes, this is the system God wanted and probably had to do it this way as the only system that would work. He fully knew its warts and carefully gave us editing systems for molecular processes and immune systems for the warring aspects. Your complaints simply ask God to do it better. Accept that He can't.

Thank you for saying “probably”. At least that leaves open the possibility that your all-powerful God might have been able to design something different, which is the most I can ask of you. You believe he designed “good” and “bad” viruses, and despite his kind efforts, sometimes the “bad” viruses win. Why should I accept your belief that your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent the bad viruses from winning? But maybe, just maybe, your God did not design the good and the bad. After all, what’s good for us may be bad for certain viruses, so they would see things differently (if they could see). Maybe, just maybe, he simply designed the first viruses and bacteria to work out their own ways of survival.

dhw: (under “Zombies”) Why do you think your kind God designed such horrifying methods of survival? Or do you think maybe he allowed viruses to work out their own ways to survive? And while you ponder these questions, do you think the zombification of caterpillars is part of the goal of evolving humans and our food?

DAVID: All part of God's plan. Certainly viruses are. And the zombie caterpillars are in their own necessary ecosystem.

According to you, God only had one plan: to design humans and their food. All ecosystems are “necessary” for the survival of the life forms within them, but do you believe that the zombie caterpillars were/are “necessary” for us humans and our food?

Stem cells

QUOTE: "Self-generated gradients have now made sense of perplexing behavior in cancer cells, fish embryos, immune cells, bacteria, slime mold, and more — and findings are accumulating rapidly."

DAVID: I simply imagine each cell has a GPS system with the proper endpoint presented which they must follow Just like we use in our cars to reach an intended destination. The designer at work.

dhw: Why do you think your God designed a GPS system for cancer cells?

DAVID: He didn't. Cancer cells are molecular genome mistakes using available normal systems to their advantage. I noted the neat switch trick using my GPS quote above from a different discussion.

The quote above says that self-generated gradients explain cancer cells, and yes, you compared it to a GPS guiding the cells to their intended destination (now bolded), as designed by your God. So I just wondered why your God would have given guidance to cancer cells, as the article states (now bolded).

How cells communicate

DAVID: Your view is exceptionally odd. The bacteria which always do good are here since the beginning of life and those that play no necessary role for us didn't leave. WE must have those good ones and put up with the bad ones with our very efficient immune system. You want a perfection for God, and He can't give it to you in a warring living system at the necessary bacterial level. Religions view God as pure and perfect, but what He produced in life makes mistakes, which He obviously anticipated and corrected except, rarely when it isn't. We see molecular mistakes in life's processes and bugs where they shouldn't. Life is a dynamic homeostatic system with required high speed reactions. A rigid controlled system at the molecular level or at the organismal relationship level can't be all there is and have real life. We live with what we have to have.

dhw: Forgive me, but you are simply repeating at length the fact that you believe your all-powerful God to be incapable of providing a system without war (bolded). You confirm that the system he designed makes mistakes which despite his omnipotence he sometimes couldn’t correct, and you repeat your belief that “real” life would be impossible if everything worked perfectly. My personal view of an all-powerful God is that he would design what he wanted to design, and so the system we have is the system he wanted. I’m sorry if that seems exceptionally odd to you.

Yes, this is the system God wanted and probably had to do it this way as the only system that would work. He fully knew its warts and carefully gave us editing systems for molecular processes and immune systems for the warring aspects. Your complaints simply ask God to do it better. Accept that He can't.

Zombies

DAVID: We've seen this many times before. Think leaf-chewing ants and fungus. We are just another of ways viruses fight to survive. All part of the biological warfare in our form of life.

dhw: Just to clarify: You are absolutely right, the system your God designed is riddled with such warlike examples. Why do you think your kind God designed such horrifying methods of survival? Or do you think maybe he allowed viruses to work out their own ways to survive? And while you ponder these questions, do you think the zombification of caterpillars is part of the goal of evolving humans and our food?

All part of God's plan. Certainly viruses are. And the zombie caterpillars are in their own necessary ecosystem.

Stem cells

QUOTE: "Self-generated gradients have now made sense of perplexing behavior in cancer cells, fish embryos, immune cells, bacteria, slime mold, and more — and findings are accumulating rapidly."

DAVID: I simply imagine each cell has a GPS system with the proper endpoint presented which they must follow. Just like we use in our cars to reach an intended destination. The designer at work.

dhw: Why do you think your God designed a GPS system for cancer cells?

He didn't. Cancer cells are molecular genome mistakes using available normal systems to their advantage. I noted the neat switch trick using my GPS quote above from a different discussion.

DAVID: God's immune systems works perfectly, but some bugs (covid) are tough to beat. Be reasonable in your views. God is not ALL BAD.

dhw: How can you say it works perfectly when millions of people die because the immune system cannot cope with your God’s specially designed bugs? This does not mean God is ALL BAD! It means that there is a problem for people who think he is all good (theodicy). Your solution to the problem appears to be to pretend that there is no problem. Is that what your books have taught you?

DAVID: I have never pretended there is no problem. We've had months of theodicy discussions.

dhw: See above: “God’s immune system works perfectly….” and “99+% of all of us are just fine. My glass is full, yours half empty.” Not much of an answer to the question of why – according to you - your God chose to design bugs that kill millions of people, is it?

DAVID: Bacterial warring way spills over on us when bugs get into the wrong places. Life started with bacteria and viruses fighting. […]

dhw: […] So your all-powerful God created nothing but good bugs, only he was powerless to stop some of them turning nasty, but he presented cells with a list of instructions to deal with the nasty ones, only sometimes his instructions didn’t work, so he left it to humans to do what he, despite his omnipotence, was unable to do. Don’t you find this just a little odd?

DAVID: Your view is exceptionally odd. The bacteria which always do good are here since the beginning of life and those that play no necessary role for us didn't leave. WE must have those good ones and put up with the bad ones with our very efficient immune system. You want a perfection for God, and He can't give it to you in a warring living system at the necessary bacterial level. Religions view God as pure and perfect, but what He produced in life makes mistakes, which He obviously anticipated and corrected except, rarely when it isn't. We see molecular mistakes in life's processes and bugs where they shouldn't. Life is a dynamic homeostatic system with required high speed reactions. A rigid controlled system at the molecular level or at the organismal relationship level can't be all there is and have real life. We live with what we have to have.

Forgive me, but you are simply repeating at length the fact that you believe your all-powerful God to be incapable of providing a system without war (bolded). You confirm that the system he designed makes mistakes which despite his omnipotence he sometimes couldn’t correct, and you repeat your belief that “real” life would be impossible if everything worked perfectly. My personal view of an all-powerful God is that he would design what he wanted to design, and so the system we have is the system he wanted. I’m sorry if that seems exceptionally odd to you.

Zombies

DAVID: We've seen this many times before. Think leaf-chewing ants and fungus. We are just another of ways viruses fight to survive. All part of the biological warfare in our form of life.

Just to clarify: You are absolutely right, the system your God designed is riddled with such warlike examples. Why do you think your kind God designed such horrifying methods of survival? Or do you think maybe he allowed viruses to work out their own ways to survive? And while you ponder these questions, do you think the zombification of caterpillars is part of the goal of evolving humans and our food?

Stem cells

QUOTE: "Self-generated gradients have now made sense of perplexing behavior in cancer cells, fish embryos, immune cells, bacteria, slime mold, and more — and findings are accumulating rapidly."

DAVID: I simply imagine each cell has a GPS system with the proper endpoint presented which they must follow. Just like we use in our cars to reach an intended destination. The designer at work.

Why do you think your God designed a GPS system for cancer cells?

Riboswitches

DAVID: Another of God's designed switch mechanisms for precise controls. Note the required speed! Not surprising, a mistake can happen. dhw doesn't understand the import in theodicy discussions.

Answered above, in the paragraph beginning “Forgive me…”

How cells communicate

DAVID: God's immune systems works perfectly, but some bugs (covid) are tough to beat. Be reasonable in your views. God is not ALL BAD.

dhw: How can you say it works perfectly when millions of people die because the immune system cannot cope with your God’s specially designed bugs? This does not mean God is ALL BAD! It means that there is a problem for people who think he is all good (theodicy). Your solution to the problem appears to be to pretend that there is no problem. Is that what your books have taught you?

DAVID: I have never pretended there is no problem. We've had months of theodicy discussions.

dhw: See above: “God’s immune system works perfectly….” and “99+% of all of us are just fine. My glass is full, yours half empty.” Not much of an answer to the question of why – according to you - your God chose to design bugs that kill millions of people, is it?

Bacterial warring way spills over on us when bugs get into the wrong places. Life started with bacteria and viruses fighting.

DAVID: […] So stop sneering at the immune system God provided. Our God-given brains can use God's immune mechanism system producing useful antibodies and boost its effectiveness.

dhw: I am not sneering at the system. I am asking why you think your God designed a system that created such suffering in the first place. But I do sneer at your theory that your all-powerful, kind God would try but fail to provide protection against “bad” viruses, and would have to rely on humans to achieve what he failed to achieve. I would find it far more convincing if he endowed cells with the intelligence to work out their own cures, but THEY sometimes fail, as opposed to him failing.

DAVID: Surprise, God did provide a great systems of immune reactions! As the article shows.

dhw: Surprise: great though that system undoubtedly is, the fact remains (a) that despite your God being all-knowing and all-powerful, it doesn’t always work, and (b) that your kind God created all those nasty bugs in the first place.

DAVID: They get into the wrong places following their proper purposes. God anticipated this and gave us our immune system.

dhw: So your all-powerful God created nothing but good bugs, only he was powerless to stop some of them turning nasty, but he presented cells with a list of instructions to deal with the nasty ones, only sometimes his instructions didn’t work, so he left it to humans to do what he, despite his omnipotence, was unable to do. Don’t you find this just a little odd?

Your view is exceptionally odd. The bacteria which always do good are here since the beginning of life and those that play no necessary role for us didn't leave. WE must have those good ones and put up with the bad ones with our very efficient immune system. You want a perfection for God, and He can't give it to you in a warring living system at the necessary bacterial level. Religions view God as pure and perfect, but what He produced in life makes mistakes, which He obviously anticipated and corrected except, rarely when it isn't. We see molecular mistakes in life's processes and bugs where they shouldn't. Life is a dynamic homeostatic system with required high speed reactions. A rigid controlled system at the molecular level or at the organismal relationship level can't be all there is and have real life. We live with what we have to have.

DAVID: God's immune systems works perfectly, but some bugs (covid) are tough to beat. Be reasonable in your views. God is not ALL BAD.

dhw: How can you say it works perfectly when millions of people die because the immune system cannot cope with your God’s specially designed bugs? This does not mean God is ALL BAD! It means that there is a problem for people who think he is all good (theodicy). Your solution to the problem appears to be to pretend that there is no problem. Is that what your books have taught you?

DAVID: I have never pretended there is no problem. We've had months of theodicy discussions.

See above: “God’s immune system works perfectly….” and “99+% of all of us are just fine. My glass is full, yours half empty.” Not much of an answer to the question of why – according to you - your God chose to design bugs that kill millions of people, is it?

DAVID: […] So stop sneering at the immune system God provided. Our God-given brains can use God's immune mechanism system producing useful antibodies and boost its effectiveness.

dhw: I am not sneering at the system. I am asking why you think your God designed a system that created such suffering in the first place. But I do sneer at your theory that your all-powerful, kind God would try but fail to provide protection against “bad” viruses, and would have to rely on humans to achieve what he failed to achieve. I would find it far more convincing if he endowed cells with the intelligence to work out their own cures, but THEY sometimes fail, as opposed to him failing.

DAVID: Surprise, God did provide a great systems of immune reactions! As the article shows.

dhw: Surprise: great though that system undoubtedly is, the fact remains (a) that despite your God being all-knowing and all-powerful, it doesn’t always work, and (b) that your kind God created all those nasty bugs in the first place.

DAVID: They get into the wrong places following their proper purposes. God anticipated this and gave us our immune system.

So your all-powerful God created nothing but good bugs, only he was powerless to stop some of them turning nasty, but he presented cells with a list of instructions to deal with the nasty ones, only sometimes his instructions didn’t work, so he left it to humans to do what he, despite his omnipotence, was unable to do. Don’t you find this just a little odd?

How cells communicate

DAVID: God's immune systems works perfectly, but some bugs (covid) are tough to beat. Be reasonable in your views. God is not ALL BAD.

dhw: How can you say it works perfectly when millions of people die because the immune system cannot cope with your God’s specially designed bugs? This does not mean God is ALL BAD! It means that there is a problem for people who think he is all good (theodicy). Your solution to the problem appears to be to pretend that there is no problem. Is that what your books have taught you?

I have never pretended there is no problem. We've had months of theodicy discussions

DAVID: […] So stop sneering at the immune system God provided. Our God-given brains can use God's immune mechanism system producing useful antibodies and boost its effectiveness.

dhw: I am not sneering at the system. I am asking why you think your God designed a system that created such suffering in the first place. But I do sneer at your theory that your all-powerful, kind God would try but fail to provide protection against “bad” viruses, and would have to rely on humans to achieve what he failed to achieve. I would find it far more convincing if he endowed cells with the intelligence to work out their own cures, but THEY sometimes fail, as opposed to him failing.

DAVID: Surprise, God did provide a great systems of immune reactions! As the article shows.

dhw: Surprise: great though that system undoubtedly is, the fact remains (a) that despite your God being all-knowing and all-powerful, it doesn’t always work, and (b) that your kind God created all those nasty bugs in the first place.

They get into the wrong places following their proper purposes. God anticipated this and gave us our immune system.

DAVID: You are mixing how we respond scientifically with how innate immunity works. Lots of times our onboard stuff works just fine immediately. Covid is the kind that takes our scientific intervention with our God-given brains.

dhw: I have no doubt that lots of times infections are recognized and immediately dealt with, because they have been dealt with in the past and the remedies are already present. The problems arise with NEW dangers and the need for NEW means of eliminating them. Then it turns out that what you call your God’s “instructions” don’t work.

DAVID: God's immune systems works perfectly, but some bugs (covid) are tough to beat. Be reasonable in your views. God is not ALL BAD.

How can you say it works perfectly when millions of people die because the immune system cannot cope with your God’s specially designed bugs? This does not mean God is ALL BAD! It means that there is a problem for people who think he is all good (theodicy). Your solution to the problem appears to be to pretend that there is no problem. Is that what your books have taught you?

DAVID: […] So stop sneering at the immune system God provided. Our God-given brains can use God's immune mechanism system producing useful antibodies and boost its effectiveness.

dhw: I am not sneering at the system. I am asking why you think your God designed a system that created such suffering in the first place. But I do sneer at your theory that your all-powerful, kind God would try but fail to provide protection against “bad” viruses, and would have to rely on humans to achieve what he failed to achieve. I would find it far more convincing if he endowed cells with the intelligence to work out their own cures, but THEY sometimes fail, as opposed to him failing.

DAVID: Surprise, God did provide a great systems of immune reactions! As the article shows.

Surprise: great though that system undoubtedly is, the fact remains (a) that despite your God being all-knowing and all-powerful, it doesn’t always work, and (b) that your kind God created all those nasty bugs in the first place.

I have switched “bird migration” to “More miscellany” as it has no direct connection to cellular intelligence.

How cells communicate

DAVID: You are mixing how we respond scientifically with how innate immunity works. Lots of times our onboard stuff works just fine immediately. Covid is the kind that takes our scientific intervention with our God-given brains.

dhw: I have no doubt that lots of times infections are recognized and immediately dealt with, because they have been dealt with in the past and the remedies are already present. The problems arise with NEW dangers and the need for NEW means of eliminating them. Then it turns out that what you call your God’s “instructions” don’t work.

God's immune systems works perfectly, but some bugs (covid) are tough to beat. Be reasonable in your views. God is not ALL BAD.

DAVID: See article how God's immunity works by itself with covid:
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-potent-alpaca-nanobodies-neutralize-sars-cov-.html

QUOTE: "Researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden have developed a novel strategy for identifying potent miniature antibodies, so-called nanobodies, against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. The approach led to the discovery of multiple nanobodies that in cell cultures and mice effectively blocked infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants."

DAVID: So stop sneering at the immune system God provided. Our God-given brains can use God's immune mechanism system producing useful antibodies and boost its effectiveness.

dhw: I am not sneering at the system. I am asking why you think your God designed a system that created such suffering in the first place. But I do sneer at your theory that your all-powerful, kind God would try but fail to provide protection against “bad” viruses, and would have to rely on humans to achieve what he failed to achieve. I would find it far more convincing if he endowed cells with the intelligence to work out their own cures, but THEY sometimes fail, as opposed to him failing.

Surprise, God did provide a great systems of immune reactions! As the article shows.