Magic embryology (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 04, 2013, 15:22 (2426 days ago)

The two insides of the body, right and left are not the same and can be found to be flipped backwards (situs inversus). Darwin does not explain the complexity of embryology:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/science/growing-left-growing-right-how-a-body-breaks-...

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 13, 2017, 18:28 (773 days ago) @ David Turell

Take a look at this graphic to see an amazing layer of programming in the early embryo., which of course continues throughout development of the fetus:

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/51010/title/Infographic--How-Emb...

In the first hours after fertilization, maternal factors residing in the oocyte cytoplasm dictate early development. But soon, the zygote’s genes start to take over. This maternal-to-zygotic transition involves massive epigenetic reprogramming, from the overall structure of the chromatin to the complete resetting of methylation on the genome. (Note: Most of the information depicted below is based on studies of mouse embryos; there are some differences in the timing of these events in human embryos.)

In sperm, chromatin is very compact; the overall accessibility of the chromatin in the oocyte, which is still undergoing meiosis, is unclear. Shortly after fertilization, chromatin in both pronuclei undergoes major restructuring, taking on an open configuration before reestablishing local and global organizational features.

Following fertilization, the vast majority of methyl marks?on the genome are removed. The paternal genome undergoes rapid, active demethylation, while the maternal genome loses its methylation passively over the first couple of cell divisions. Simultaneously, the embryonic genome begins to acquire tissue-specific DNA methyl marks as the cells start to differentiate.

Messenger RNAs packaged in the oocyte are gradually depleted over the first week of development. Meanwhile, the zygotic genome undergoes multiple rounds of activation, with the genes expressed early on playing key roles in embryonic organization and cell-fate determination.

By the four-cell stage, some cells begin to express genes that drive them to become the embryonic lineage that will form the fetus, while other cells begin to express genes associated with the extraembryonic lineage that becomes the placenta.

After fertilization, the genomes donated by the sperm and the egg lose many of the organizational features of their chromatin, which must be reestablished in the early embryo. One recent study showed that the paternal pronucleus of the single-cell zygote contained global features known as compartments, in which more-active regions of the genome associate with other active regions, while less-active regions associate more closely with one another. The maternal pronucleus, however, largely lacked compartments. In this study, both pronuclei had local features known as topologically associated domains (TADs), though other studies have failed to identify these organizational characteristics until later in the first week of development.

There are likely many mechanisms governing the global demethylation of the zygotic genome following fertilization. One mechanism at play in the paternal pronucleus involves the excision of the methylated DNA by breaking and repairing the double helix. As those breaks are repaired, nonmethylated cytosines are inserted where methyl marks used to reside. One recent study showed that if these breaks are not repaired, the embryo delays the first cell division.

Recent research has shown that cell-fate bias stems from methylation of arginine 26 on histone 3 (H3R26), which lengthens the time certain transcription factors remain on the DNA. Longer binding promotes expression of genes such as Sox21 that drive cells to become the embryonic lineage (blue) that will form the fetus, while cells with shorter binding form the extraembryonic lineage (green) that becomes the placenta.

Comment: This is an example of precise cellular (zygote) programming. DNA plays a major role but other factors and layers are in play. It is obvious all of klife may b e programmed in this way. Darwin does not explain any of this by his chance process theory.

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 21, 2018, 21:32 (734 days ago) @ David Turell

I've posted this two times without comment from anyone. When a species advances to a new form there must be enormous changes in the embryology mechanism. Imagine a new Volkswagen that changes from the beetle form. Think of all the machinery that has to be changed before the new model can appear. This article points out the problems for Darwin theory evolution:

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/01/how-embryonic-development-bears-on.html

"In order for evolution to have occurred, the intricate embryonic development stages of species must have evolved. Indeed, the developmental pathways of the species would be crucial in such a process. If we are to believe the evolutionary claim that the species spontaneously arose, then untold embryonic development pathways must have somehow undergone massive change. But while evolutionists expected the study of such evolution of development to yield great insight into the evolutionary process and history, it has underwhelmed. (my bold)

"This shortcoming is well known, as exemplified in this 2015 paper:

"First, traditional comparative approaches to the evolution of development—whether focused on the morphological or on the molecular/genetic level—are reaching their limits in terms of explanatory power.

"Except that this is an overstatement. To say that comparative approaches “are reaching their limits in terms of explanatory power” is to suggest that there was, at one time, some significant level of explanatory power provided. That would be a very optimistic interpretation of the data.

"The paper continues:

"The more we learn about the evolution of pattern-forming gene networks, or the ontogeny of complex morphological traits, the more it becomes clear that it is less than straightforward to conclude anything about evolutionary origins or dynamics based on such comparisons alone.

“'Less than straightforward”? Let’s be clear—a more accurate descriptor would be “impossible.” In fact, the evidence does not reveal an evolutionary history, but rather is supported by the theory. Evolutionary theory does not follow the data, as Huxley prescribed, but rather the data follow the theory.

"The paper continues:

"On the one hand, homoplasy or convergent evolution abounds at all levels of investigation. One of the most lauded major insights of EvoDevo is that a common toolkit of genes and signaling pathways is reused over and over again to create a large diversity of different body plans, shapes, and organs.

"Most lauded major insights? That would be the mother of all euphemisms. Evolutionists are always rationalizing devastating contradictions as teachable moments, and here we have yet another example. To cast the nonsensical finding of a “common toolkit” as a “major insight” is laughable.

"This becomes clear as the paper continues:

"Because of this, similarities in gene expression patterns or morphological structure often do not necessarily imply common ancestry, since they may as well reflect the frequent reuse of the same regulatory or morphogenetic modules. (my bold)

"Profound similarities “do not necessarily imply common ancestry.” We have now entered a Lewis Carroll world, as Sober would put it. The whole point of evolution was that such similarities revealed and mandated common descent. But now, we have the exact opposite, as similarities cannot be due to common descent, but must have arisen independently. And this is an “insight”? A fundamental prediction is demolished and evolutionists do not skip a beat. This is not science.

"But it gets worse:

"On the other hand, developmental system drift allows conserved networks to change considerably in terms of their component genes and regulatory interactions without changing the phenotypic outcomes such systems produce. This means that even functionally conserved regulatory networks can become unrecognizably divergent at the molecular and genetic level, especially across large evolutionary time spans.

"We have now reached the height of absurdity. First, profound developmental similarities were found which could not be ascribed to common descent. Now we find that those developmental pathways which can (theoretically) be ascribed to common descent are profoundly different."

Comment: Hunter does not believe in common descent, but points raised by the original article are from Darwin scientists. Embryology is one of the black holes of Darwin theory. The original paper is a complex discussion:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4357653/

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by dhw, Monday, January 22, 2018, 14:30 (733 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've posted this two times without comment from anyone. When a species advances to a new form there must be enormous changes in the embryology mechanism. Imagine a new Volkswagen that changes from the beetle form. Think of all the machinery that has to be changed before the new model can appear. This article points out the problems for Darwin theory evolution:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/01/how-embryonic-development-bears-on.html

I don’t recall seeing it, but since I am the only person commenting on your posts, I can only plead that I can’t comment on everything! But I do my best, and I’m sorry to have let you down.

Since you yourself believe in common descent, I presume that what you endorse is the argument that the enormous changes cannot be the result of chance. I agree. You know my hypothesis (not dogma and not even belief, but an alternative to hypotheses such as Darwin’s random mutations and your own divine 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or dabbling). However, since you want me to comment, I can only repeat it: ALL evolutionary changes can be explained by the inventive intelligence of cells and cell communities, which work together to produce new forms out of old (common descent, which you accept). Convergent evolution is responsible for similar solutions to similar problems (i.e. intelligent beings will think in similar ways). It may well be that a God designed this inventive intelligence in the first place. I cannot see any problem in the article that would not be resolved by my hypothesis. I can’t find the author’s own explanation, but perhaps you have not reproduced that. If so, does he mention your computer programme or the dabbling?

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by David Turell @, Monday, January 22, 2018, 15:00 (733 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've posted this two times without comment from anyone. When a species advances to a new form there must be enormous changes in the embryology mechanism. Imagine a new Volkswagen that changes from the beetle form. Think of all the machinery that has to be changed before the new model can appear. This article points out the problems for Darwin theory evolution:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/01/how-embryonic-development-bears-on.html

dhw:I don’t recall seeing it, but since I am the only person commenting on your posts, I can only plead that I can’t comment on everything! But I do my best, and I’m sorry to have let you down.

Since you yourself believe in common descent, I presume that what you endorse is the argument that the enormous changes cannot be the result of chance. I agree. You know my hypothesis (not dogma and not even belief, but an alternative to hypotheses such as Darwin’s random mutations and your own divine 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or dabbling). However, since you want me to comment, I can only repeat it: ALL evolutionary changes can be explained by the inventive intelligence of cells and cell communities, which work together to produce new forms out of old (common descent, which you accept). Convergent evolution is responsible for similar solutions to similar problems (i.e. intelligent beings will think in similar ways). It may well be that a God designed this inventive intelligence in the first place. I cannot see any problem in the article that would not be resolved by my hypothesis. I can’t find the author’s own explanation, but perhaps you have not reproduced that. If so, does he mention your computer programme or the dabbling?

Hunter is a confirmed anti-Darwinist. He doesn't believe in common descent. He and I disagree. But what I find fascinating about him is the fallacies he uncovers in Darwin scientist thinking as in this article, as they twist theories about the latest findings to conform to the underlying principles develop from Darwin theory.

But the other point of his article is how does evolution invent the new factory proceses to manufacture the latest phenotype in a series of new species. Looking at how humans do it, one designer presents a shape of the new Volkswagen, someone else designs the machines to stamp out the sheet steel or plastic. Another set of engineers design the advanced motor, and another group design the machines to make some of the new parts. In nature changes in DNA and other layers produce the new forms. You suggest cell committees contain the intellect to do this. I have never understood this wishful thinking. A designer is required, obviously.

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by dhw, Tuesday, January 23, 2018, 12:52 (733 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: Since you yourself believe in common descent, I presume that what you endorse is the argument that the enormous changes cannot be the result of chance. I agree. You know my hypothesis (not dogma and not even belief, but an alternative to hypotheses such as Darwin’s random mutations and your own divine 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or dabbling).

DAVID: But the other point of his article is how does evolution invent the new factory proceses to manufacture the latest phenotype in a series of new species. Looking at how humans do it, one designer presents a shape of the new Volkswagen, someone else designs the machines to stamp out the sheet steel or plastic. Another set of engineers design the advanced motor, and another group design the machines to make some of the new parts. In nature changes in DNA and other layers produce the new forms. You suggest cell committees contain the intellect to do this. I have never understood this wishful thinking. A designer is required, obviously.

I like the VW analogy. Any major change in an organism will require exactly the same cooperation between the different cell communities, whether your God preprogrammed/dabbled it, or they worked it out for themselves (with the intelligence that God may have given them). I don’t mind your little joke of always substituting “committees” for communities in order to conjure up an unlikely human image, but I will not let you get away with “wishful thinking”. I have nothing to gain from this hypothesis, which at all times allows for the existence of your God. I am simply looking for an explanation of how evolution works, and I find your own hypothesis as illogical as you do (since your ultimate argument seems to be that God’s logic must be different from ours). I am equally unconvinced by Darwin’s hypothesis of random mutations. The intelligent cell is not “wishful thinking” – my hypothesis grew from the findings of some eminent scientists, but I have always acknowledged that there is no evidence that cell communities are capable of the major changes required for speciation. There is no evidence for your divine preprogramming/dabbling hypothesis either. Nobody knows the truth, which is why we continue to look for it. Anyone who firmly believes in his/her hypothesis and rejects alternatives is, I think, far more open to the charge of “wishful thinking” than someone who offers his own as an alternative, and not as dogma or belief. But perhaps you didn’t read the lines at the head of this post.

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 23, 2018, 14:50 (732 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: But the other point of his article is how does evolution invent the new factory proceses to manufacture the latest phenotype in a series of new species. Looking at how humans do it, one designer presents a shape of the new Volkswagen, someone else designs the machines to stamp out the sheet steel or plastic. Another set of engineers design the advanced motor, and another group design the machines to make some of the new parts. In nature changes in DNA and other layers produce the new forms. You suggest cell committees contain the intellect to do this. I have never understood this wishful thinking. A designer is required, obviously.

dhw: I like the VW analogy. Any major change in an organism will require exactly the same cooperation between the different cell communities, whether your God preprogrammed/dabbled it, or they worked it out for themselves (with the intelligence that God may have given them). I don’t mind your little joke of always substituting “committees” for communities in order to conjure up an unlikely human image, but I will not let you get away with “wishful thinking”. I have nothing to gain from this hypothesis, which at all times allows for the existence of your God. I am simply looking for an explanation of how evolution works, and I find your own hypothesis as illogical as you do (since your ultimate argument seems to be that God’s logic must be different from ours). I am equally unconvinced by Darwin’s hypothesis of random mutations. The intelligent cell is not “wishful thinking” – my hypothesis grew from the findings of some eminent scientists, but I have always acknowledged that there is no evidence that cell communities are capable of the major changes required for speciation. There is no evidence for your divine preprogramming/dabbling hypothesis either. Nobody knows the truth, which is why we continue to look for it. Anyone who firmly believes in his/her hypothesis and rejects alternatives is, I think, far more open to the charge of “wishful thinking” than someone who offers his own as an alternative, and not as dogma or belief. But perhaps you didn’t read the lines at the head of this post.

You sure try hard and drag God in when it looks good to do so. And drag in prejudiced Darwinist scientists to stress your points. I'll stick with my own comment: logically a designer is required.

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by dhw, Wednesday, January 24, 2018, 13:57 (732 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The intelligent cell is not “wishful thinking” – my hypothesis grew from the findings of some eminent scientists, but I have always acknowledged that there is no evidence that cell communities are capable of the major changes required for speciation. There is no evidence for your divine preprogramming/dabbling hypothesis either. Nobody knows the truth, which is why we continue to look for it. Anyone who firmly believes in his/her hypothesis and rejects alternatives is, I think, far more open to the charge of “wishful thinking” than someone who offers his own as an alternative, and not as dogma or belief.

DAVID: You sure try hard and drag God in when it looks good to do so. And drag in prejudiced Darwinist scientists to stress your points. I'll stick with my own comment: logically a designer is required.

I am an agnostic. Any hypothesis I come up with must make allowances for the existence of God. I have no quarrel with your belief in a designer. I challenge your interpretation of his possible motives and methods, which on several occasions you have admitted is illogical (hence the claim that God’s logic must be different from human logic). As for “prejudiced” scientists, you have agreed that there is a 50/50 chance that they are right, since nobody can tell from the outside whether intelligent behaviour stems from intelligence or from preprogramming. If you think these dedicated scientists, who have spent a lifetime studying cell behaviour, are prejudiced because they opt for the 50% you don’t like, I’m afraid your espousal of the other 50% makes you just as prejudiced.

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 24, 2018, 15:17 (731 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: I am an agnostic. Any hypothesis I come up with must make allowances for the existence of God. I have no quarrel with your belief in a designer. I challenge your interpretation of his possible motives and methods, which on several occasions you have admitted is illogical (hence the claim that God’s logic must be different from human logic). As for “prejudiced” scientists, you have agreed that there is a 50/50 chance that they are right, since nobody can tell from the outside whether intelligent behaviour stems from intelligence or from preprogramming. If you think these dedicated scientists, who have spent a lifetime studying cell behaviour, are prejudiced because they opt for the 50% you don’t like, I’m afraid your espousal of the other 50% makes you just as prejudiced.

My background in biochemistry allows me to disagree with your scientists on the basis of more than prejudice. You cannot deny their Darwin bias. My ID science folks agree with me.

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by dhw, Friday, January 26, 2018, 13:31 (730 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As for “prejudiced” scientists, you have agreed that there is a 50/50 chance that they are right, since nobody can tell from the outside whether intelligent behaviour stems from intelligence or from preprogramming. If you think these dedicated scientists, who have spent a lifetime studying cell behaviour, are prejudiced because they opt for the 50% you don’t like, I’m afraid your espousal of the other 50% makes you just as prejudiced.

DAVID: My background in biochemistry allows me to disagree with your scientists on the basis of more than prejudice. You cannot deny their Darwin bias. My ID science folks agree with me.

Cellular intelligence plays no part in Darwin’s theory, and I do not believe for one second that “my” scientists’ conclusions have been influenced by a belief in common descent – a belief you share with them. The concept actually provides a potentially devastating blow to Darwin’s hypothesis of random mutations. And I cannot see why you think experts with both background and foreground in cytogenetics, biochemistry, biology, bacterial genetics, cell biology etc., who share your belief in common descent, are prejudiced, whereas you, with your background in biochemistry and your firm belief in divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, are not.

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 27, 2018, 00:22 (729 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As for “prejudiced” scientists, you have agreed that there is a 50/50 chance that they are right, since nobody can tell from the outside whether intelligent behaviour stems from intelligence or from preprogramming. If you think these dedicated scientists, who have spent a lifetime studying cell behaviour, are prejudiced because they opt for the 50% you don’t like, I’m afraid your espousal of the other 50% makes you just as prejudiced.

DAVID: My background in biochemistry allows me to disagree with your scientists on the basis of more than prejudice. You cannot deny their Darwin bias. My ID science folks agree with me.

dhw: Cellular intelligence plays no part in Darwin’s theory, and I do not believe for one second that “my” scientists’ conclusions have been influenced by a belief in common descent – a belief you share with them. The concept actually provides a potentially devastating blow to Darwin’s hypothesis of random mutations. And I cannot see why you think experts with both background and foreground in cytogenetics, biochemistry, biology, bacterial genetics, cell biology etc., who share your belief in common descent, are prejudiced, whereas you, with your background in biochemistry and your firm belief in divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, are not.

We are left with our same disagreement. Common descent is not the issue. It is the total Neo-Darwin synthesis from the 1950's, about which I have presented many articles on the current discussions and disagreements, because the newer science doesn't fit the earlier suppositions. Your folks come from that era. Much of this has been revealed by Susan Mazur's reporting:

http://www.suzanmazur.com/

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by dhw, Saturday, January 27, 2018, 13:22 (729 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Cellular intelligence plays no part in Darwin’s theory, and I do not believe for one second that “my” scientists’ conclusions have been influenced by a belief in common descent – a belief you share with them. The concept actually provides a potentially devastating blow to Darwin’s hypothesis of random mutations. And I cannot see why you think experts with both background and foreground in cytogenetics, biochemistry, biology, bacterial genetics, cell biology etc., who share your belief in common descent, are prejudiced, whereas you, with your background in biochemistry and your firm belief in divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, are not.

DAVID: We are left with our same disagreement. Common descent is not the issue. It is the total Neo-Darwin synthesis from the 1950's, about which I have presented many articles on the current discussions and disagreements, because the newer science doesn't fit the earlier suppositions. Your folks come from that era. Much of this has been revealed by Susan Mazur's reporting:

Red herring. “My” scientists say cells are intelligent. You accuse them of prejudice because you say they believe(d) in the Neo-Darwin synthesis of the 1950s, the essence of which is that the whole of evolution can be explained by random mutations and natural selection; this has nothing whatsoever to do with cellular intelligence. You say cells are not intelligent, because you believe God preprogrammed or dabbled everything that cells have done and still do. All of you believe that science supports you. If their belief in Neo-Darwinism makes them prejudiced (which I do not believe for one instant), then by the same token your belief in divine preprogramming makes you prejudiced. Please don’t answer with a reading list.

Magic embryology:extensive programming on display

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 27, 2018, 14:55 (728 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: We are left with our same disagreement. Common descent is not the issue. It is the total Neo-Darwin synthesis from the 1950's, about which I have presented many articles on the current discussions and disagreements, because the newer science doesn't fit the earlier suppositions. Your folks come from that era. Much of this has been revealed by Susan Mazur's reporting:

dhw: Red herring. “My” scientists say cells are intelligent. You accuse them of prejudice because you say they believe(d) in the Neo-Darwin synthesis of the 1950s, the essence of which is that the whole of evolution can be explained by random mutations and natural selection; this has nothing whatsoever to do with cellular intelligence. You say cells are not intelligent, because you believe God preprogrammed or dabbled everything that cells have done and still do. All of you believe that science supports you. If their belief in Neo-Darwinism makes them prejudiced (which I do not believe for one instant), then by the same token your belief in divine preprogramming makes you prejudiced. Please don’t answer with a reading list.

No point in continuing. We should agree to disagree and move on.

Magic embryology: forming fetus totally unexplained

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 27, 2018, 21:33 (728 days ago) @ David Turell

Scientists currently have no explanation for the development of animal form:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160831085527.htm

Abstract: " We present a plausible account of the origin of the archetypal vertebrate bauplan. We offer a theoretical reconstruction of the geometrically regular structure of the blastula resulting from the sequential subdivision of the egg, followed by mechanical deformations of the blastula in subsequent stages of gastrulation. We suggest that the formation of the vertebrate bauplan during development, as well as fixation of its variants over the course of evolution, have been constrained and guided by global mechanical biases. Arguably, the role of such biases in directing morphology—though all but neglected in previous accounts of both development and macroevolution—is critical to any substantive explanation for the origin of the archetypal vertebrate bauplan. We surmise that the blastula inherently preserves the underlying geometry of the cuboidal array of eight cells produced by the first three cleavages that ultimately define the medial-lateral, dorsal-ventral, and anterior-posterior axes of the future body plan. Through graphical depictions, we demonstrate the formation of principal structures of the vertebrate body via mechanical deformation of predictable geometrical patterns during gastrulation. The descriptive rigor of our model is supported through comparisons with previous characterizations of the embryonic and adult vertebrate bauplane. Though speculative, the model addresses the poignant absence in the literature of any plausible account of the origin of vertebrate morphology. A robust solution to the problem of morphogenesis—currently an elusive goal—will only emerge from consideration of both top-down (e.g., the mechanical constraints and geometric properties considered here) and bottom-up (e.g., molecular and mechano-chemical) influences." (my bold)

Another review of it:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160831085527.htm

"Embryo geometry, developed by a team from the University of San Diego, Mount Holyoke College, Evergreen State College, and Chem-Tainer Industries, Inc.. in the USA, looks at animal complexity generally and the vertebrate body in particular as more the products of mechanical forces and the laws of geometry than solely the outcome of random genetic mutation.

"'At the suggestion of evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, preliminary attempts at a solution to this problem were undertaken over many years. But these -- as well as other, similar efforts -- were met with strong opposition by supporters of the Neo-Darwinian interpretation of natural selection," commented senior author Stuart Pivar. "We hope that the theory of embryo geometry will stimulate further investigation by biologists of all stripes across a variety of fields."

"Anatomists have long postulated that animal complexity arises during development of the embryo -- called embryogenesis -- but despite detailed descriptions of the embryonic stages of all major types of animal, the evolution of organismal complexity and its expression during individual development have remained mysterious processes -- until now.

"The researchers behind embryo geometry have shown that the vertebrate embryo could conceivably arise from mechanical deformation of the blastula, a ball of cells formed when the fertilized egg divides. As these cells proliferate, the ball increases in volume and surface area, altering its geometry. The theory posits that the blastula retains the geometry of the original eight cells produced by the first three divisions of the egg, which themselves determine the three axes of the vertebrate body.

***

"These illustrations explain how the vertebrate body might plausibly arise from a single cell, both over evolutionary time, and during individual embryogenesis."

Comment: Daarwinism has no explanation for embryogenesis. No genes are found to controlthe formation of animals or plants, thus the result to proposing mechanical factors which somehow create a completely organized living individual. This is the black box of Darwin theory as Cornelius Hunter observed. Perhaps through a mechanism at a quatnum level designed by God.

Magic embryology: forming fetus totally unexplained

by David Turell @, Monday, April 16, 2018, 00:50 (650 days ago) @ David Turell

The original paper is here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610716300542?via%3Dihub

"Abstract
We present a plausible account of the origin of the archetypal vertebrate bauplan. We offer a theoretical reconstruction of the geometrically regular structure of the blastula resulting from the sequential subdivision of the egg, followed by mechanical deformations of the blastula in subsequent stages of gastrulation. We suggest that the formation of the vertebrate bauplan during development, as well as fixation of its variants over the course of evolution, have been constrained and guided by global mechanical biases. Arguably, the role of such biases in directing morphology—though all but neglected in previous accounts of both development and macroevolution—is critical to any substantive explanation for the origin of the archetypal vertebrate bauplan. We surmise that the blastula inherently preserves the underlying geometry of the cuboidal array of eight cells produced by the first three cleavages that ultimately define the medial-lateral, dorsal-ventral, and anterior-posterior axes of the future body plan. Through graphical depictions, we demonstrate the formation of principal structures of the vertebrate body via mechanical deformation of predictable geometrical patterns during gastrulation. The descriptive rigor of our model is supported through comparisons with previous characterizations of the embryonic and adult vertebrate bauplane. Though speculative, the model addresses the poignant absence in the literature of any plausible account of the origin of vertebrate morphology. A robust solution to the problem of morphogenesis—currently an elusive goal—will only emerge from consideration of both top-down (e.g., the mechanical constraints and geometric properties considered here) and bottom-up (e.g., molecular and mechano-chemical) influences."

***

"From conclusion:

The causal account that the model provides for the development of complex vertebrate morphology is necessarily presented by a speculative series of schematic images representing sequences of key mechanical events during embryogenesis, akin to a series of blueprints. The vast—and largely non-pictorial—literature on this subject does not offer a global mechanism to explain the rise of diverse forms of animal phyla. Though highly speculative, the model offered here may suggest just such a mechanism. The homologous morphological resemblance among the phyla may, in fact, be due as much to the inevitable topological trajectory of the confined expansion of a primordial spherical membrane as it is to common ancestry. Accordingly, the choices available to natural selection may be limited to the possible variations in proportions of the body parts of otherwise relatively conservative and invariant phyletic forms, rather than simply provided by random genetic mutations resulting from errors in transcription. Animal form may thus be seen as the product of physical forces—or biases—acting upon cells and populations of cells with very specific and constrained geometric properties, rather than arising solely from the vagaries of chance."(my bold)

Comment: Note the bold. Not Darwin. As can be seen embryogesnesis is not explained. The authors' initial point about their theory:

"Though neither rigorous nor exhaustive in an empirical sense, our model offers an intuitive and plausible description of the emergence of form via simple geometrical and mechanical forces and constraints. The model provides a template, or roadmap, for further investigation, subject to confirmation (or refutation) by interested researchers."

Magic embryology: forming a blastocyst envelope:

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 01, 2018, 23:01 (542 days ago) @ David Turell

Shortly after fertilization of the egg a hollow sphere of cells appear which need an envelope:

https://www.the-scientist.com/the-literature/these-molecules-zipper-embryos-closed-6454...

"Not long after egg meets sperm, the resulting mulberry-like mass of cells morphs into a hollow sphere called a blastocyst, sealing itself off from the external environment before implantation. If such sealing doesn’t happen, pregnancy can fail, but “the precise mechanisms that give rise to embryo sealing prior to blastocyst formation remained incompletely understood,” says cell biologist Maté Biro of the University of New South Wales.

"Biro and his colleagues used advanced imaging techniques to study live, fully intact mouse embryos as they developed in a Petri dish and found that rings of the protein actin form across the ball of cells and help to zipper the embryo closed in a multistep process. First, microtubules at the outward-facing poles of the cells pull actin proteins into rings that expand across each cell. Then, when one ring touches another ring, motor proteins called myosins accumulate along the regions where the rings touch. There they continue to build up, pushing the edges of the rings together, zippering them shut and sealing the outside of the ball of cells from its external environment, Biro and colleagues report in Cell.

“'Following the observation of the expanding actin rings, we realized just how beautiful and intricate the coordination between all the outer cells of the embryo is,” Biro tells The Scientist. “Such consistency and coordination does not happen simply by chance.”

"It’s now clear that filamentous actin and the plasma membrane are “the rails of the zipper,” notes study coauthor Nicolas Plachta of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research in Singapore, while myosin motors “drive the advancement of the zipper and allow for the recruitment of [additional myosin and other components] that then tightly seal the junction.”

"The phenomenon is the opposite of another mechanism by which cells generate mechanical force: the formation of purse string–like actin rings, according to Gabriel Galea, who studies cellular mechanobiology at University College London and was not involved in the study. Those rings typically form through “collaboration” between neighboring cells, with each cell forming a small proportion of the overall structure, which can ultimately help the cells contract and then divide. In the new study, the actin rings instead form in individual cells and expand to coalesce as they join the cell’s neighboring rings. “Not only does this reveal the ‘birth’ of cytoskeleton-bound cell-cell junctions in the early embryo, but also identifies cellular processes likely to be unique to these early stages of development which could cause infertility or early embryo loss if defective,” Galea writes in an email to The Scientist."

Comment: This occurs with no relation to being exposed to nature, so there is no way for natural selection to act on it. Only design can be considered.

Magic embryology: seed to plant needs complex steps

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 02, 2018, 22:12 (541 days ago) @ David Turell

A seed is tough and doesn't want to become a weak seedling unless the right conditions are present. A rapid process occurs controlled by chemical signals:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-seed-hours-survive.html

"During germination, the embryo within a seed must develop into a young seedling capable of photosynthesis in less than 48 hours. During this time, it relies solely on its internal reserves, which are quickly consumed. It must therefore rapidly create functional chloroplasts, cellular organelles that will enable it to produce sugars to ensure its survival. Such a mechanism ensures a rapid transition to autonomous growth, as soon as the seed decides to germinate.

"The surprising propagation and diversification of flowering plants in terrestrial environments are mainly due to the appearance of seeds during evolution. The embryo, which is dormant, is encapsulated and protected in a very resistant structure, which facilitates its dispersion. At this stage, it cannot perform photosynthesis and, during germination, it will thus consume the nutritive reserves stored in the seed. This process induces the transformation of a strong embryo into a fragile seedling. "This is a critical stage in the life of a plant, which is closely regulated, notably by the growth hormone gibberellic acid (GA). The production of this hormone is repressed when external conditions are unfavorable," explains Luis Lopez-Molina, Professor at the Department of Botany and Plant Biology of the UNIGE Faculty of Science.

"The awakening of the embryo causes the differentiation of its proplastids into chloroplasts, biological factories capable of producing sugar thanks to photosynthesis. "Thousands of different proteins must be imported into the developing chloroplasts, and this process can only take place in the presence of a protein called TOC159. If it is lacking, the plant will be depleted in chloroplasts and will remain albino," explains Felix Kessler, director of the Plant Physiology Lab and vice-rector of the UniNE.

"How does the seed decide whether to keep the embryo in a protected state or, on the contrary, to take a chance and let it germinate? "We have discovered that, as long as GA is suppressed, a mechanism is set up, which ensures that TOC159 proteins are transported to the cellular waste bin in order to be degraded," explains Venkatasalam Shanmugabalaji, researcher within the Neuchâtel group and first author of the study. In addition, other proteins
needed for photosynthesis, of which TOC159 facilitates importation, suffer the same fate.

"When external conditions become favorable for germination, the GA concentration increases in the seed. The biologists discovered that high concentrations of this hormone indirectly block the degradation of TOC159 proteins. The latter can therefore be inserted into the membrane of the proplastids and enable the import of photosynthetic proteins cargoes, which also escape the cellular waste bin.

"The genesis of the first functional chloroplasts, implemented in less than 48 hours, therefore ensures a rapid transition from a growth depending on the embryo's reserves to an autonomous development. This high-performance mechanism contributes to the survival of the seedling in an inhospitable environment, in which it will have to face many challenges."

Comment: How did seeded plants evolve if such complex controls are required to ensure a speedy reaction in a short time if the conditions are right. The series of engries I've presented today support my claim that all forms of life are too complex for chance evolution to work.

Magic embryology: egg sends protein signal to guide sperm

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 04, 2018, 23:07 (539 days ago) @ David Turell

That signal has finally been found:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-scientists-elusive-molecule-sperm-egg.html

"More than 100 years ago, MBL Director F.R. Lillie of the University of Chicago discovered that eggs from marine invertebrates release a chemical factor that attracts sperm, a process called chemotaxis. Sperm, for their part, swim up a chemical gradient to reach the egg, assisted by a pulsatile rise in calcium ion (Ca2+) concentration in the sperm tail that controls its beating.

"In past years, many of the cellular components that translate chemoattractant stimulation into a Ca2+ response have been revealed, but a crucial ingredient has been missing. A prerequisite for Ca2+ ions from the sperm's environment being able to enter the tail is that the sperm cell's pH becomes more alkaline. The molecule that brings about this change in pH has been elusive.

"In this new report, U. Benjamin Kaupp, a MBL Whitman Center Scientist from the Center of Advanced European Studies (Caesar) in Bonn, Germany, identifies this molecule. Kaupp spent 18 summers at the MBL conducting research in the footsteps of F.R. Lillie's original quest.

***

"The molecule that Kaupp and colleagues identified allows sodium ions to flow into the sperm cell and, in exchange, transports protons out of the cell. Such so-called sodium/proton exchangers have been known for a long time, but this one is special. It is a chimaera that shares structural features with ion channels, called pacemaker channels, which control our heartbeat and electrical activity in the brain.

"This sodium/proton exchange in the sperm cell, like in the pacemaker channels, is activated by a stretch of positively charged amino acids called the voltage sensor. When sperm capture chemoattractant molecules, the voltage becomes more negative, because potassium channels open and potassium ions leave the cell. The voltage-sensor registers this voltage change and the exchanger begins exporting protons from the cell; the cell's interior becomes more alkaline. When this mechanism is disabled, the Ca2+ pulses in the sperm tail are suppressed, and sperm are lost on their voyage to the egg. "

Comment: this article shows the complexity that sexual reproduction requires. How did it happen when early life had the simpler process of splitting single cells, although that process is itself very complex? This supports the concept that evolution contains a complexification mechanism as a driving force.

Magic embryology: physical forces form organs

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 05, 2018, 21:04 (507 days ago) @ David Turell

Out of an original jumble of cells organs take shape and form guided by physical shapes and forces:

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-uncover-tissues-sculpted-embryogenesis.html

"'In a nutshell, we discovered a fundamental physical mechanism that cells use to mold embryonic tissues into their functional 3-D shapes," said Campàs, a professor of mechanical engineering in UCSB's College of Engineering who holds the Duncan & Suzanne Mellichamp Chair in Systems Biology.

***

"Cells coordinate by exchanging biochemical signals, but they also hold to and push on each other to build the body structures we need to live, such as the eyes, lungs and heart. And, as it turns out, sculpting the embryo is not far from glass molding or 3-D printing. In their new work,"A fluid-to-solid jamming transition underlies vertebrate body axis elongation," published in the journal Nature, Campàs and colleagues reveal that cell collectives switch from fluid to solid states in a controlled manner to build the vertebrate embryo, in a way similar to how we mold glass into vases or 3-D print our favorite items. Or, if you like, we 3-D print ourselves, from the inside.

"Most objects begin as fluids. From metallic structures to gelatin desserts, their shape is made by pouring the molten original materials into molds, then cooling them to get the solid objects we use. As in a Chihuly glass sculpture, made by carefully melting portions of glass to slowly reshape it into life, cells in certain regions of the embryo are more active and 'melt' the tissue into a fluid state that can be restructured. Once done, cells 'cool down' to settle the tissue shape, Campàs explained.

"'The transition from fluid to solid tissue states that we observed is known in physics as 'jamming'," Campàs said. "Jamming transitions are a very general phenomena that happens when particles in disordered systems, such as foams, emulsions or glasses, are forced together or cooled down."

***

"Zebrafish, like other vertebrates, start off from a largely shapeless bunch of cells and need to transform the body into an elongated shape, with the head at one end and tail at the other," Campàs said. The physical reorganization of the cells behind this process had always been something of a mystery. Surprisingly, researchers found that the cell collectives making the tissue were physically like a foam (yes, as in beer froth) that jammed during development to 'freeze' the tissue architecture and set its shape.

"These observations confirm a remarkable intuition made by Victorian-era Scottish mathematician D'Arcy Thompson 100 years ago in his seminal work "On Growth and Form."
"He was convinced that some of the physical mechanisms that give shapes to inert materials were also at play to shape living organisms. Remarkably, he compared groups of cells to foams and even the shaping of cells and tissues to glassblowing," Campàs said. A century ago, there were no instruments that could directly test the ideas Thompson proposed, Campàs added, though Thompson's work continues to be cited to this day."

Comment: Getting to fertilized egg to whole new organism requires major planned processes which are all coordinated in achieving the new whole one. There is no way a Darwin process could have developed this process. It is totally unexplained from an evolutionary standpoint. It had to be designed from the beginning.

Magic embryology: physical forces form organs

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, September 06, 2018, 04:05 (507 days ago) @ David Turell

Out of an original jumble of cells organs take shape and form guided by physical shapes and forces:

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-uncover-tissues-sculpted-embryogenesis.html

"'In a nutshell, we discovered a fundamental physical mechanism that cells use to mold embryonic tissues into their functional 3-D shapes," said Campàs, a professor of mechanical engineering in UCSB's College of Engineering who holds the Duncan & Suzanne Mellichamp Chair in Systems Biology.

***

"Cells coordinate by exchanging biochemical signals, but they also hold to and push on each other to build the body structures we need to live, such as the eyes, lungs and heart. And, as it turns out, sculpting the embryo is not far from glass molding or 3-D printing. In their new work,"A fluid-to-solid jamming transition underlies vertebrate body axis elongation," published in the journal Nature, Campàs and colleagues reveal that cell collectives switch from fluid to solid states in a controlled manner to build the vertebrate embryo, in a way similar to how we mold glass into vases or 3-D print our favorite items. Or, if you like, we 3-D print ourselves, from the inside.

"Most objects begin as fluids. From metallic structures to gelatin desserts, their shape is made by pouring the molten original materials into molds, then cooling them to get the solid objects we use. As in a Chihuly glass sculpture, made by carefully melting portions of glass to slowly reshape it into life, cells in certain regions of the embryo are more active and 'melt' the tissue into a fluid state that can be restructured. Once done, cells 'cool down' to settle the tissue shape, Campàs explained.

"'The transition from fluid to solid tissue states that we observed is known in physics as 'jamming'," Campàs said. "Jamming transitions are a very general phenomena that happens when particles in disordered systems, such as foams, emulsions or glasses, are forced together or cooled down."

***

"Zebrafish, like other vertebrates, start off from a largely shapeless bunch of cells and need to transform the body into an elongated shape, with the head at one end and tail at the other," Campàs said. The physical reorganization of the cells behind this process had always been something of a mystery. Surprisingly, researchers found that the cell collectives making the tissue were physically like a foam (yes, as in beer froth) that jammed during development to 'freeze' the tissue architecture and set its shape.

"These observations confirm a remarkable intuition made by Victorian-era Scottish mathematician D'Arcy Thompson 100 years ago in his seminal work "On Growth and Form."
"He was convinced that some of the physical mechanisms that give shapes to inert materials were also at play to shape living organisms. Remarkably, he compared groups of cells to foams and even the shaping of cells and tissues to glassblowing," Campàs said. A century ago, there were no instruments that could directly test the ideas Thompson proposed, Campàs added, though Thompson's work continues to be cited to this day."

Comment: Getting to fertilized egg to whole new organism requires major planned processes which are all coordinated in achieving the new whole one. There is no way a Darwin process could have developed this process. It is totally unexplained from an evolutionary standpoint. It had to be designed from the beginning.

Even at the lowest possible element, we contain at least 4 pieces of information during development space (x,y,z) and time. How can that be explained?

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

Magic embryology: physical forces form organs

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 06, 2018, 14:00 (507 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Out of an original jumble of cells organs take shape and form guided by physical shapes and forces:

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-uncover-tissues-sculpted-embryogenesis.html

"'In a nutshell, we discovered a fundamental physical mechanism that cells use to mold embryonic tissues into their functional 3-D shapes," said Campàs, a professor of mechanical engineering in UCSB's College of Engineering who holds the Duncan & Suzanne Mellichamp Chair in Systems Biology.

***

"Cells coordinate by exchanging biochemical signals, but they also hold to and push on each other to build the body structures we need to live, such as the eyes, lungs and heart. And, as it turns out, sculpting the embryo is not far from glass molding or 3-D printing. In their new work,"A fluid-to-solid jamming transition underlies vertebrate body axis elongation," published in the journal Nature, Campàs and colleagues reveal that cell collectives switch from fluid to solid states in a controlled manner to build the vertebrate embryo, in a way similar to how we mold glass into vases or 3-D print our favorite items. Or, if you like, we 3-D print ourselves, from the inside.

"Most objects begin as fluids. From metallic structures to gelatin desserts, their shape is made by pouring the molten original materials into molds, then cooling them to get the solid objects we use. As in a Chihuly glass sculpture, made by carefully melting portions of glass to slowly reshape it into life, cells in certain regions of the embryo are more active and 'melt' the tissue into a fluid state that can be restructured. Once done, cells 'cool down' to settle the tissue shape, Campàs explained.

"'The transition from fluid to solid tissue states that we observed is known in physics as 'jamming'," Campàs said. "Jamming transitions are a very general phenomena that happens when particles in disordered systems, such as foams, emulsions or glasses, are forced together or cooled down."

***

"Zebrafish, like other vertebrates, start off from a largely shapeless bunch of cells and need to transform the body into an elongated shape, with the head at one end and tail at the other," Campàs said. The physical reorganization of the cells behind this process had always been something of a mystery. Surprisingly, researchers found that the cell collectives making the tissue were physically like a foam (yes, as in beer froth) that jammed during development to 'freeze' the tissue architecture and set its shape.

"These observations confirm a remarkable intuition made by Victorian-era Scottish mathematician D'Arcy Thompson 100 years ago in his seminal work "On Growth and Form."
"He was convinced that some of the physical mechanisms that give shapes to inert materials were also at play to shape living organisms. Remarkably, he compared groups of cells to foams and even the shaping of cells and tissues to glassblowing," Campàs said. A century ago, there were no instruments that could directly test the ideas Thompson proposed, Campàs added, though Thompson's work continues to be cited to this day."

Comment: Getting to fertilized egg to whole new organism requires major planned processes which are all coordinated in achieving the new whole one. There is no way a Darwin process could have developed this process. It is totally unexplained from an evolutionary standpoint. It had to be designed from the beginning.


Tony: Even at the lowest possible element, we contain at least 4 pieces of information during development space (x,y,z) and time. How can that be explained?

Not by chance

Magic embryology: physical forces form organs

by dhw, Monday, September 10, 2018, 09:38 (503 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Out of an original jumble of cells organs take shape and form guided by physical shapes and forces:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-uncover-tissues-sculpted-embryogenesis.html

QUOTES: "'In a nutshell, we discovered a fundamental physical mechanism that cells use to mold embryonic tissues into their functional 3-D shapes."
"Cells coordinate by exchanging biochemical signals, but they also hold to and push on each other to build the body structures we need to live, such as the eyes, lungs and heart. And, as it turns out, sculpting the embryo is not far from glass molding or 3-D printing.

DAVID: Getting to fertilized egg to whole new organism requires major planned processes which are all coordinated in achieving the new whole one. There is no way a Darwin process could have developed this process. It is totally unexplained from an evolutionary standpoint. It had to be designed from the beginning.

Cells coordinate or cooperate in using an amazingly flexible mechanism to create new structures as well as to repeat existing ones. This discovery suggests that from the very beginning cells had the "fundamental physical mechanism" to produce all the varieties of life in evolution’s history, and they also had the means of cooperating in order to use that mechanism. You claim that every twist and turn in the history of cellular cooperation was divinely preprogrammed or dabbled, but as it is impossible to tell the difference between automatic and autonomous behaviour, this cooperation could just as well be brought about by interaction between intelligent organisms (cells) - allowing, as always, for both mechanism and intelligence to be the work of your designer God. This ties in with the entry under "Immunity" (and thank you for both articles):

QUOTES: Macrophages are cells critical to the immune system – and new imaging reveals how they actively monitor their surroundings, searching for invaders.

The cells are highly specialised. They are the body’s frontline troops when it comes to detecting, combatting and destroying invading bacteria and other unwanted microbes.

“'This is discovery science at the cutting edge of microscopy and reveals how much we still have to learn about how cells function.'

I am struck by the parallel with ant communities – different types of ant/cell perform different functions within the colony/body, and it is the task of certain ants/cells to be the frontline troops in detecting, combating and destroying any invaders. It would be interesting to know how many people believe ants to be automatons, and if they opt for ant intelligence, to ask how they differentiate between ant and cellular behaviour.

Magic embryology: physical forces form organs

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, September 10, 2018, 17:15 (502 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Out of an original jumble of cells organs take shape and form guided by physical shapes and forces:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-uncover-tissues-sculpted-embryogenesis.html

QUOTES: "'In a nutshell, we discovered a fundamental physical mechanism that cells use to mold embryonic tissues into their functional 3-D shapes."
"Cells coordinate by exchanging biochemical signals, but they also hold to and push on each other to build the body structures we need to live, such as the eyes, lungs and heart. And, as it turns out, sculpting the embryo is not far from glass molding or 3-D printing.

DAVID: Getting to fertilized egg to whole new organism requires major planned processes which are all coordinated in achieving the new whole one. There is no way a Darwin process could have developed this process. It is totally unexplained from an evolutionary standpoint. It had to be designed from the beginning.

Cells coordinate or cooperate in using an amazingly flexible mechanism to create new structures as well as to repeat existing ones. This discovery suggests that from the very beginning cells had the "fundamental physical mechanism" to produce all the varieties of life in evolution’s history, and they also had the means of cooperating in order to use that mechanism. You claim that every twist and turn in the history of cellular cooperation was divinely preprogrammed or dabbled, but as it is impossible to tell the difference between automatic and autonomous behaviour, this cooperation could just as well be brought about by interaction between intelligent organisms (cells) - allowing, as always, for both mechanism and intelligence to be the work of your designer God. This ties in with the entry under "Immunity" (and thank you for both articles):

QUOTES: Macrophages are cells critical to the immune system – and new imaging reveals how they actively monitor their surroundings, searching for invaders.

The cells are highly specialised. They are the body’s frontline troops when it comes to detecting, combatting and destroying invading bacteria and other unwanted microbes.

“'This is discovery science at the cutting edge of microscopy and reveals how much we still have to learn about how cells function.'

DHW I am struck by the parallel with ant communities – different types of ant/cell perform different functions within the colony/body, and it is the task of certain ants/cells to be the frontline troops in detecting, combating and destroying any invaders. It would be interesting to know how many people believe ants to be automatons, and if they opt for ant intelligence, to ask how they differentiate between ant and cellular behaviour.

Yes, but their function is set, it is static.

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

Magic embryology: physical forces form organs

by David Turell @, Monday, September 10, 2018, 21:41 (502 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DAVID: Out of an original jumble of cells organs take shape and form guided by physical shapes and forces:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-uncover-tissues-sculpted-embryogenesis.html

QUOTES: "'In a nutshell, we discovered a fundamental physical mechanism that cells use to mold embryonic tissues into their functional 3-D shapes."
"Cells coordinate by exchanging biochemical signals, but they also hold to and push on each other to build the body structures we need to live, such as the eyes, lungs and heart. And, as it turns out, sculpting the embryo is not far from glass molding or 3-D printing.

DAVID: Getting to fertilized egg to whole new organism requires major planned processes which are all coordinated in achieving the new whole one. There is no way a Darwin process could have developed this process. It is totally unexplained from an evolutionary standpoint. It had to be designed from the beginning.

Cells coordinate or cooperate in using an amazingly flexible mechanism to create new structures as well as to repeat existing ones. This discovery suggests that from the very beginning cells had the "fundamental physical mechanism" to produce all the varieties of life in evolution’s history, and they also had the means of cooperating in order to use that mechanism. You claim that every twist and turn in the history of cellular cooperation was divinely preprogrammed or dabbled, but as it is impossible to tell the difference between automatic and autonomous behaviour, this cooperation could just as well be brought about by interaction between intelligent organisms (cells) - allowing, as always, for both mechanism and intelligence to be the work of your designer God. This ties in with the entry under "Immunity" (and thank you for both articles):

QUOTES: Macrophages are cells critical to the immune system – and new imaging reveals how they actively monitor their surroundings, searching for invaders.

The cells are highly specialised. They are the body’s frontline troops when it comes to detecting, combatting and destroying invading bacteria and other unwanted microbes.

“'This is discovery science at the cutting edge of microscopy and reveals how much we still have to learn about how cells function.'

DHW I am struck by the parallel with ant communities – different types of ant/cell perform different functions within the colony/body, and it is the task of certain ants/cells to be the frontline troops in detecting, combating and destroying any invaders. It would be interesting to know how many people believe ants to be automatons, and if they opt for ant intelligence, to ask how they differentiate between ant and cellular behaviour.


Tony: Yes, but their function is set, it is static.

Agree. In studies their reaction is always the same and automatic.

Magic embryology: physical forces form organs

by David Turell @, Monday, September 10, 2018, 21:33 (502 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Out of an original jumble of cells organs take shape and form guided by physical shapes and forces:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-uncover-tissues-sculpted-embryogenesis.html

QUOTES: "'In a nutshell, we discovered a fundamental physical mechanism that cells use to mold embryonic tissues into their functional 3-D shapes."
"Cells coordinate by exchanging biochemical signals, but they also hold to and push on each other to build the body structures we need to live, such as the eyes, lungs and heart. And, as it turns out, sculpting the embryo is not far from glass molding or 3-D printing.

DAVID: Getting to fertilized egg to whole new organism requires major planned processes which are all coordinated in achieving the new whole one. There is no way a Darwin process could have developed this process. It is totally unexplained from an evolutionary standpoint. It had to be designed from the beginning.

dhw: Cells coordinate or cooperate in using an amazingly flexible mechanism to create new structures as well as to repeat existing ones. This discovery suggests that from the very beginning cells had the "fundamental physical mechanism" to produce all the varieties of life in evolution’s history, and they also had the means of cooperating in order to use that mechanism.

And who or what gave those early cells such amazing ability? Did they teach themselves? It is more logical they were designed that way.

dhw: You claim that every twist and turn in the history of cellular cooperation was divinely preprogrammed or dabbled, but as it is impossible to tell the difference between automatic and autonomous behaviour, this cooperation could just as well be brought about by interaction between intelligent organisms (cells) - allowing, as always, for both mechanism and intelligence to be the work of your designer God.

It didn't come without a designer.

dhw: This ties in with the entry under "Immunity" (and thank you for both articles):

dhw: QUOTES: Macrophages are cells critical to the immune system – and new imaging reveals how they actively monitor their surroundings, searching for invaders.

The cells are highly specialised. They are the body’s frontline troops when it comes to detecting, combatting and destroying invading bacteria and other unwanted microbes.

“'This is discovery science at the cutting edge of microscopy and reveals how much we still have to learn about how cells function.'

I am struck by the parallel with ant communities – different types of ant/cell perform different functions within the colony/body, and it is the task of certain ants/cells to be the frontline troops in detecting, combating and destroying any invaders. It would be interesting to know how many people believe ants to be automatons, and if they opt for ant intelligence, to ask how they differentiate between ant and cellular behaviour.

It is easy to see that automatic programmed action can be the answer. In ants automatic individual action has been shown in studies I have presented.

Magic embryology: physical forces form organs

by dhw, Tuesday, September 11, 2018, 13:15 (502 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Cells coordinate or cooperate in using an amazingly flexible mechanism to create new structures as well as to repeat existing ones. This discovery suggests that from the very beginning cells had the "fundamental physical mechanism" to produce all the varieties of life in evolution’s history, and they also had the means of cooperating in order to use that mechanism.

DAVID: And who or what gave those early cells such amazing ability? Did they teach themselves? It is more logical they were designed that way.

Why do you ask this question, when you quote one possible answer below? We are not discussing the origin of life, but the mechanism of evolution.

dhw: You claim that every twist and turn in the history of cellular cooperation was divinely preprogrammed or dabbled, but as it is impossible to tell the difference between automatic and autonomous behaviour, this cooperation could just as well be brought about by interaction between intelligent organisms (cells) - allowing, as always, for both mechanism and intelligence to be the work of your designer God.

DAVID: It didn't come without a designer.

Belief in a single, unknown, unknowable, sourceless, eternal designer is a matter of faith, as is belief in chance.

dhw: This ties in with the entry under "Immunity" (and thank you for both articles):

dhw: QUOTES: Macrophages are cells critical to the immune system – and new imaging reveals how they actively monitor their surroundings, searching for invaders.
The cells are highly specialised. They are the body’s frontline troops when it comes to detecting, combatting and destroying invading bacteria and other unwanted microbes.
“'This is discovery science at the cutting edge of microscopy and reveals how much we still have to learn about how cells function.
'”

dhw: I am struck by the parallel with ant communities – different types of ant/cell perform different functions within the colony/body, and it is the task of certain ants/cells to be the frontline troops in detecting, combating and destroying any invaders. It would be interesting to know how many people believe ants to be automatons, and if they opt for ant intelligence, to ask how they differentiate between ant and cellular behaviour.

TONY: Yes, but their function is set, it is static.

DAVID: Agree. In studies their reaction is always the same and automatic.

You are talking of functions that are already established. Firstly, that does not explain how those functions originated, and secondly, the fulfilment even of those functions requires the ability to deal with new threats.

DAVID: It is easy to see that automatic programmed action can be the answer. In ants automatic individual action has been shown in studies I have presented.

The studies you have presented show no such thing. They show the automatic use of chemicals as ants and cells put their highly sophisticated strategies into practice, just as humans use chemicals to implement their thoughts. And the studies certainly do not prove that the highly sophisticated strategies used to cope with ever changing conditions were preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago.

Magic embryology: physical forces form organs

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 11, 2018, 14:02 (502 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Yes, but their function is set, it is static.

DAVID: Agree. In studies their reaction is always the same and automatic.

dhw: You are talking of functions that are already established. Firstly, that does not explain how those functions originated, and secondly, the fulfilment even of those functions requires the ability to deal with new threats.

DAVID: It is easy to see that automatic programmed action can be the answer. In ants automatic individual action has been shown in studies I have presented.

dhw: The studies you have presented show no such thing. They show the automatic use of chemicals as ants and cells put their highly sophisticated strategies into practice, just as humans use chemicals to implement their thoughts. And the studies certainly do not prove that the highly sophisticated strategies used to cope with ever changing conditions were preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago.

You have forgotten. The study on ants travelling quotes the authors as saying the individual ants acted automatically in their roles.

Magic embryology: physical forces form organs

by dhw, Wednesday, September 12, 2018, 09:00 (501 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is easy to see that automatic programmed action can be the answer. In ants automatic individual action has been shown in studies I have presented.

dhw: The studies you have presented show no such thing. They show the automatic use of chemicals as ants and cells put their highly sophisticated strategies into practice, just as humans use chemicals to implement their thoughts. And the studies certainly do not prove that the highly sophisticated strategies used to cope with ever changing conditions were preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago.

DAVID: You have forgotten. The study on ants travelling quotes the authors as saying the individual ants acted automatically in their roles.

There have been dozens of studies of ants, and you and I always reach opposite conclusions from them! In any case, since when did you accept the verdict of authors? Shapiro has studied bacteria and says they are intelligent, but do you take his word for it?

Magic embryology: physical forces form organs

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 12, 2018, 14:48 (501 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is easy to see that automatic programmed action can be the answer. In ants automatic individual action has been shown in studies I have presented.

dhw: The studies you have presented show no such thing. They show the automatic use of chemicals as ants and cells put their highly sophisticated strategies into practice, just as humans use chemicals to implement their thoughts. And the studies certainly do not prove that the highly sophisticated strategies used to cope with ever changing conditions were preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago.

DAVID: You have forgotten. The study on ants travelling quotes the authors as saying the individual ants acted automatically in their roles.

dhw: There have been dozens of studies of ants, and you and I always reach opposite conclusions from them! In any case, since when did you accept the verdict of authors? Shapiro has studied bacteria and says they are intelligent, but do you take his word for it?

I analyze results and reach my own conclusions when I have a proper background of training. I accept Shapiro's findings, not his interpretation. As for ants, all I can do is quote the author's conclusions, as you do with Shapiro.

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by David Turell @, Monday, September 17, 2018, 21:14 (495 days ago) @ David Turell

How does the embryo maintain symmetry in growth is shown:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mammals-maintain-symmetry-during-develop...

"Species with symmetrical body plans have been roaming the earth for about 400 million years. Human beings have long shown an intense interest in this property in our own species—

***

"Now scientists have gone a step further. Alberto Roselló-Díez, a developmental biologist currently at the Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute at Monash University, led a study of how a mouse fetus maintains symmetry as it develops. By making one of the fetus’s limbs grow more slowly than the other, the team observed how cells communicate to ultimately correct the asymmetry. No study had successfully examined this phenomenon until now.

"After a year of failed attempts, Roselló-Díez and his team created a model in mice. Borrowing a technique previously developed for modifying cells in a laboratory dish, the researchers injected into the mouse fetus’s left hind leg a type of cell that restricted the leg’s growth. They found that the cells surrounding the suppressed tissue communicated with the placenta, which then signaled the rest of the organism’s tissues—including the other hind leg—to slow their growth until the hindered limb caught up. Then, uniform growth resumed.

"Think of this process as a “three-legged race,” says Kim Cooper, a cell and developmental biologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study. “If one person is going faster, it’s harder to stay in sync. This placenta mechanism makes it possible for the slower one to catch up,” Cooper says.


"The study offers insight into limb development and so-called catch-up growth. But the research also raises new questions: for example, once the limb has reached the same level of growth, how does the other limb know to start growing again? “We kind of expect symmetry in our limbs,” says Adrian Halme, a cell biologist at the University of Virginia, who was also not involved with the study. “But how they achieve that symmetry is really striking.'”

Comment: In placental embryology the control systems have to be designed, when one recognizes that there is no competition for survival of the fittest as Darwin proposes. The fetus is in as safe place for its development and that development must have feedback loop controls. From my standpoint embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin style chance evolution.

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 00:42 (495 days ago) @ David Turell

How does the embryo maintain symmetry in growth is shown:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mammals-maintain-symmetry-during-develop...

"Species with symmetrical body plans have been roaming the earth for about 400 million years. Human beings have long shown an intense interest in this property in our own species—

***

"Now scientists have gone a step further. Alberto Roselló-Díez, a developmental biologist currently at the Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute at Monash University, led a study of how a mouse fetus maintains symmetry as it develops. By making one of the fetus’s limbs grow more slowly than the other, the team observed how cells communicate to ultimately correct the asymmetry. No study had successfully examined this phenomenon until now.

"After a year of failed attempts, Roselló-Díez and his team created a model in mice. Borrowing a technique previously developed for modifying cells in a laboratory dish, the researchers injected into the mouse fetus’s left hind leg a type of cell that restricted the leg’s growth. They found that the cells surrounding the suppressed tissue communicated with the placenta, which then signaled the rest of the organism’s tissues—including the other hind leg—to slow their growth until the hindered limb caught up. Then, uniform growth resumed.

"Think of this process as a “three-legged race,” says Kim Cooper, a cell and developmental biologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study. “If one person is going faster, it’s harder to stay in sync. This placenta mechanism makes it possible for the slower one to catch up,” Cooper says.


"The study offers insight into limb development and so-called catch-up growth. But the research also raises new questions: for example, once the limb has reached the same level of growth, how does the other limb know to start growing again? “We kind of expect symmetry in our limbs,” says Adrian Halme, a cell biologist at the University of Virginia, who was also not involved with the study. “But how they achieve that symmetry is really striking.'”

David Comment: In placental embryology the control systems have to be designed, when one recognizes that there is no competition for survival of the fittest as Darwin proposes. The fetus is in as safe place for its development and that development must have feedback loop controls. From my standpoint embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin style chance evolution.

And there is no other way to explain that mechanism than design. Fascinating.

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

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by dhw, Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 13:33 (495 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

David’s comment: In placental embryology the control systems have to be designed, when one recognizes that there is no competition for survival of the fittest as Darwin proposes. The fetus is in as safe place for its development and that development must have feedback loop controls. From my standpoint embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin style chance evolution.

TONY: And there is no other way to explain that mechanism than design. Fascinating.

DAVID: (Under "plant immunity") Immunity processes are necessary from the appearance of any organism, or infections will run roughshod over then and they will not survive. Only design can do this.

Thank you for these extremely illuminating articles. I have complete sympathy with the comments you both make about design, but how would you both feel if every time you mentioned design as opposed to chance, I redressed the balance by repeating the following exchange (taken from “pointy eggs”)?

Dhw: The choice is between your magically intelligent God and magically intelligent matter, either innately intelligent – panpsychism – or having originated by chance, though in both cases evolving. “Logically I strongly doubt” any form of magic, which is why I am an agnostic, but as I keep admitting, I am wrong one way or the other.

DAVID: Granted, and logical.

DAVID: (under "Junk DNA”): There is very little junk DNA, to the disappointment of Darwinists.

Another of your mantras repeated ad nauseam, so let me repeat ad nauseam that the less junk DNA there is, the more evidence we have of natural selection at work, whereby what is useful survives, which would be to the delight of Darwinists who realized it.

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 15:28 (494 days ago) @ dhw

David’s comment: In placental embryology the control systems have to be designed, when one recognizes that there is no competition for survival of the fittest as Darwin proposes. The fetus is in as safe place for its development and that development must have feedback loop controls. From my standpoint embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin style chance evolution.

TONY: And there is no other way to explain that mechanism than design. Fascinating.

DAVID: (Under "plant immunity") Immunity processes are necessary from the appearance of any organism, or infections will run roughshod over then and they will not survive. Only design can do this.

Thank you for these extremely illuminating articles. I have complete sympathy with the comments you both make about design, but how would you both feel if every time you mentioned design as opposed to chance, I redressed the balance by repeating the following exchange (taken from “pointy eggs”)?

Dhw: The choice is between your magically intelligent God and magically intelligent matter, either innately intelligent – panpsychism – or having originated by chance, though in both cases evolving. “Logically I strongly doubt” any form of magic, which is why I am an agnostic, but as I keep admitting, I am wrong one way or the other.

DAVID: Granted, and logical.

DAVID: (under "Junk DNA”): There is very little junk DNA, to the disappointment of Darwinists.

dhw: Another of your mantras repeated ad nauseam, so let me repeat ad nauseam that the less junk DNA there is, the more evidence we have of natural selection at work, whereby what is useful survives, which would be to the delight of Darwinists who realized it.

And I have repeatedly told you, that devote Darwinists have said if DNA is not junk Darwinism is dead. Their point is chance is proven by the appearance of junk which is discarded DNA due to changes as a result of natural selection. Junk, in their view, shows helter-skelter development. Perhaps they will come to accept your logic, which is not theirs. And finally do you really believe in evolution thru natural selection by competition and survival of the fittest?

Magic embryology: more junk has function

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 18:09 (494 days ago) @ David Turell

Darwinists consider transposons as junk. It isn't:

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-genes-deletion-genome.html

"Transposons are pieces of DNA that move around in the genome, transported by enzymes called transposases that bind to them. As transposons jump around during evolution, host organisms can acquire the genes they carry and use them to gain new functions in a process known as domestication.

"Transposases from a family called PiggyBac have repeatedly been domesticated in various organisms. Although their function is poorly understood, they are known to play an essential role in the reproduction of ciliates, such as Paramecium.

***

"'We knew that PiggyMac, a domesticated transposase in the PiggyBac family, was responsible for cleaving the DNA, but what we didn't know is exactly how the removal machinery is accurately positioned at the ends of this DNA," explains lead author Julien Bischerour, researcher at the Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell, CNRS, University of Paris-Saclay, France.

"In this study, the team identified five further groups of the PiggyBac family of transposases that work together with PiggyMac to accurately delete specific pieces of DNA in the Paramecium genome. By silencing the different domesticated PiggyBac transposases, they found that each group plays an architectural role and is essential for the movement of PiggyMac to the cell nucleus during reproduction and subsequent gene removal.

"Moreover, blocking the activity of the PiggyBac transposases caused a number of errors in the removal process. This showed that some family members retained activity, but the process became less efficient and accurate. It also revealed insights into the preferred lengths of DNA cleaved by these molecules. The fact that some sequences were mechanistically difficult to remove shed new light on potential constraints on gene deletion in Paramecium during evolution.

"'Our discovery of novel PiggyMac partners, coded by five groups of duplicated genes in the Paramecium genome, brings new insight into the removal mechanism of these non-coding sequences by transposases and deeper understanding of the machinery involved," explains senior author Mireille Bétermier, researcher at the Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell, CNRS, University of Paris-Saclay. "Based on our work, future investigations into human domesticated transposases should take into consideration the possibility that these molecules may be involved together in the same cellular function.'"

Comment: More function found for transposions which have been considered part of non-coding 'junk' DNA by Darwinists.

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by dhw, Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 10:09 (494 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: (under "Junk DNA”): There is very little junk DNA, to the disappointment of Darwinists.

dhw: Another of your mantras repeated ad nauseam, so let me repeat ad nauseam that the less junk DNA there is, the more evidence we have of natural selection at work, whereby what is useful survives, which would be to the delight of Darwinists who realized it.

DAVID: And I have repeatedly told you, that devote Darwinists have said if DNA is not junk Darwinism is dead. Their point is chance is proven by the appearance of junk which is discarded DNA due to changes as a result of natural selection. Junk, in their view, shows helter-skelter development. Perhaps they will come to accept your logic, which is not theirs.

I know what they say. I do wish you would respond to my logic and not to theirs.

DAVID: And finally do you really believe in evolution thru natural selection by competition and survival of the fittest?

And through cooperation, and through intelligent innovation by means of a mechanism possibly designed by your God, with the possibility that if your God exists, he may occasionally have dabbled. I’m surprised you don’t know this already. I know you believe in evolution by way of a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every non-dabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the whole history of life, and somehow every one was geared to the production of the brain of Homo sapiens. We have spent years discussing both versions.

TONY: We would of course point to the fact that the complexity is irreducible, unless of course you can show an evolutionary pathway that could conceivably lead to that mechanism, which I can not see. Not to say it doesn't exist, but the complexity in terms of timing and chemical messaging necessary is staggering.

The complexity is indeed staggering, as is that of the single cell, but the argument that it is irreducible is not a fact. It is a theory. Behe believes it, and lots of other scientists do not. I personally am not in any position to trace an evolutionary pathway from the single cell (which you agree was the first form of material life) to all the complexities of us humans. Nor, I suspect, are you in a position to trace a pathway from pure energy to conscious energy to the spawning of its spirit son to the spawning of more spirits to the spawning of material cells to the spawning of every innovation in the history of material life. However, I can imagine that over the course of 3.8 billion years, cells used their possibly God-given intelligence to cooperate in forming increasingly complex organs and organisms.

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 15:00 (494 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: (under "Junk DNA”): There is very little junk DNA, to the disappointment of Darwinists.

dhw: Another of your mantras repeated ad nauseam, so let me repeat ad nauseam that the less junk DNA there is, the more evidence we have of natural selection at work, whereby what is useful survives, which would be to the delight of Darwinists who realized it.

DAVID: And I have repeatedly told you, that devote Darwinists have said if DNA is not junk Darwinism is dead. Their point is chance is proven by the appearance of junk which is discarded DNA due to changes as a result of natural selection. Junk, in their view, shows helter-skelter development. Perhaps they will come to accept your logic, which is not theirs.

dhw: I know what they say. I do wish you would respond to my logic and not to theirs.

Your logic implies natural selection has power which I think does not exist. Junk implies chance evolution very directly, a point they must defend. If chance disappears, what is left? If you read their papers you would understand.


DAVID: And finally do you really believe in evolution thru natural selection by competition and survival of the fittest?

dhw: And through cooperation, and through intelligent innovation by means of a mechanism possibly designed by your God, with the possibility that if your God exists, he may occasionally have dabbled. I’m surprised you don’t know this already. I know you believe in evolution by way of a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every non-dabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the whole history of life, and somehow every one was geared to the production of the brain of Homo sapiens. We have spent years discussing both versions.

I have my beliefs and you yours.


TONY: We would of course point to the fact that the complexity is irreducible, unless of course you can show an evolutionary pathway that could conceivably lead to that mechanism, which I can not see. Not to say it doesn't exist, but the complexity in terms of timing and chemical messaging necessary is staggering.

dhw: The complexity is indeed staggering, as is that of the single cell, but the argument that it is irreducible is not a fact. It is a theory. Behe believes it, and lots of other scientists do not. I personally am not in any position to trace an evolutionary pathway from the single cell (which you agree was the first form of material life) to all the complexities of us humans. Nor, I suspect, are you in a position to trace a pathway from pure energy to conscious energy to the spawning of its spirit son to the spawning of more spirits to the spawning of material cells to the spawning of every innovation in the history of material life. However, I can imagine that over the course of 3.8 billion years, cells used their possibly God-given intelligence to cooperate in forming increasingly complex organs and organisms.

Yes, imagine what is not logical. It is too complex as Tony describes.

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by dhw, Thursday, September 20, 2018, 12:12 (493 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have repeatedly told you, that devote Darwinists have said if DNA is not junk Darwinism is dead. Their point is chance is proven by the appearance of junk which is discarded DNA due to changes as a result of natural selection. Junk, in their view, shows helter-skelter development. Perhaps they will come to accept your logic, which is not theirs.

dhw: I know what they say. I do wish you would respond to my logic and not to theirs.

DAVID: Your logic implies natural selection has power which I think does not exist. Junk implies chance evolution very directly, a point they must defend. If chance disappears, what is left? If you read their papers you would understand.

My argument does not attribute any power whatsoever to natural selection. Natural selection simply means that it is natural for useful things to survive and useless things not to survive. Therefore if there is no junk, this clearly means that whatever has survived is useful and what is useless has not survived. It’s self-evident, and it presents no problem to Darwinism.

TONY: We would of course point to the fact that the complexity is irreducible, unless of course you can show an evolutionary pathway that could conceivably lead to that mechanism, which I can not see. Not to say it doesn't exist, but the complexity in terms of timing and chemical messaging necessary is staggering.

dhw: The complexity is indeed staggering, as is that of the single cell, but the argument that it is irreducible is not a fact. It is a theory. Behe believes it, and lots of other scientists do not. I personally am not in any position to trace an evolutionary pathway from the single cell (which you agree was the first form of material life) to all the complexities of us humans. Nor, I suspect, are you in a position to trace a pathway from pure energy to conscious energy to the spawning of its spirit son to the spawning of more spirits to the spawning of material cells to the spawning of every innovation in the history of material life. However, I can imagine that over the course of 3.8 billion years, cells used their possibly God-given intelligence to cooperate in forming increasingly complex organs and organisms.

DAVID: Yes, imagine what is not logical. It is too complex as Tony describes.

Firstly, I was correcting Tony: irreducible complexity is a theory not a fact. Nobody knows how all these complexities arose, and the argument that we cannot “show” an evolutionary pathway from one organ or organism to another can be applied to any theory: e.g. you cannot “show” an unknown sourceless power designing every single complexity. We ONLY have theories. May I ask if you find Tony’s “spawning” theory logical?

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 20, 2018, 18:01 (492 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your logic implies natural selection has power which I think does not exist. Junk implies chance evolution very directly, a point they must defend. If chance disappears, what is left? If you read their papers you would understand.

dhw: My argument does not attribute any power whatsoever to natural selection. Natural selection simply means that it is natural for useful things to survive and useless things not to survive. Therefore if there is no junk, this clearly means that whatever has survived is useful and what is useless has not survived. It’s self-evident, and it presents no problem to Darwinism.

Atheistic Darwinism relies on the truth of chance mutation causing an advance in fitness. In their view chance mutations that are good are rare, but they attach to the DNA and therefore an enormous amount of useless DNA proves their point! It is all mindless chance. And they have stated, without junk, Darwin is dead!


TONY: We would of course point to the fact that the complexity is irreducible, unless of course you can show an evolutionary pathway that could conceivably lead to that mechanism, which I can not see. Not to say it doesn't exist, but the complexity in terms of timing and chemical messaging necessary is staggering.

dhw: The complexity is indeed staggering, as is that of the single cell, but the argument that it is irreducible is not a fact. It is a theory. Behe believes it, and lots of other scientists do not. I personally am not in any position to trace an evolutionary pathway from the single cell (which you agree was the first form of material life) to all the complexities of us humans. Nor, I suspect, are you in a position to trace a pathway from pure energy to conscious energy to the spawning of its spirit son to the spawning of more spirits to the spawning of material cells to the spawning of every innovation in the history of material life. However, I can imagine that over the course of 3.8 billion years, cells used their possibly God-given intelligence to cooperate in forming increasingly complex organs and organisms.

DAVID: Yes, imagine what is not logical. It is too complex as Tony describes.

dhw: Firstly, I was correcting Tony: irreducible complexity is a theory not a fact. Nobody knows how all these complexities arose, and the argument that we cannot “show” an evolutionary pathway from one organ or organism to another can be applied to any theory: e.g. you cannot “show” an unknown sourceless power designing every single complexity. We ONLY have theories. May I ask if you find Tony’s “spawning” theory logical?

Tony and I use different reference sources, obviously, Bible vs. pure science. we generally agree on a designer, and I can't fault his theories from his sources as illogical.

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by dhw, Friday, September 21, 2018, 15:31 (491 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Atheistic Darwinism relies on the truth of chance mutation causing an advance in fitness. In their view chance mutations that are good are rare, but they attach to the DNA and therefore an enormous amount of useless DNA proves their point! It is all mindless chance. And they have stated, without junk, Darwin is dead!

You are behind the times. Here is Dawkins’ volte face:

Egnorance: Richard Dawkins on junk DNA in 2009. …
http://www.egnorance.blogspot.com/2013/02/richard-dawkins-on-junk-dna-in-2009...

Dawkins in 2009:
"It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene -- a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something -- unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us...
Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.
"

The 2009 iteration of Richard Dawkins asserts confidently that most of the genome is junk, just as Darwinism predicts! What an embarrassment to Darwin doubters!

Dawkins in 2012:
"I have noticed that there are some creationists who are jumping on [the ENCODE results] because they think that's awkward for Darwinism. Quite the contrary it's exactly what a Darwinist would hope for, to find usefulness in the living world.... (dhw's bold)

Whereas we thought that only a minority of the genome was doing something, namely that minority which actually codes for protein, and now we find that actually the majority of it is doing something. What it's doing is calling into action the protein-coding genes. So you can think of the protein-coding genes as being sort of the toolbox of subroutines which is pretty much common to all mammals -- mice and men have the same number, roughly speaking, of protein-coding genes and that's always been a bit of a blow to self-esteem of humanity. But the point is that that was just the subroutines that are called into being; the program that's calling them into action is the rest [of the genome] which had previously been written off as junk."


TONY: The options for DHW's question always seem to devolve to:
Is it more plausible that:
• A) The laws of govern all energy, matter, and information, spontaneously spring into existence followed by, or perhaps part and parcel with, all matter becoming simultaneously intelligent and then said intelligent matter communicated and designed, all life, with its vastly more complex systems, and so on.
• B) A single intellect emerged once out of eternal form of energy, taking time beyond measure to become capable of bringing another single entity into existence, both of which were energy and information only (non-material). The two intelligences over time, worked together to develop/birth/spawn more similar to themselves (non-material), eventually learning to manifest energy and information into the material universe we know.
• C) Flip a coin...there was no intelligence, guidance, planning, or outside influence at all. Stuff just happened.

A is inaccurate. My hypothesis is that energy and matter are the eternal first cause, constantly giving rise to endless combinations. Intelligence “somehow” evolved through these changes, just as your first cause God energy “somehow” simply has his intelligence. If you want to pin me down, I actually find it impossible to believe that all matter is intelligent, but I do not find the idea that some matter evolved intelligence any more or any less plausible than that first cause energy already had intelligence. From the moment when matter intelligently coalesced to form the first living organisms, your account is correct.

I do not accept C. I believe that stuff happened because of intelligence, but I do not know whether that intelligence was there from the beginning (your God) or evolved out of impersonal energy and materials eternally entering into new combinations.

dhw: (under "pointy eggs") First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

DAVID: Agreed, and you can't pick one.

You’ve got it.

Xxxxxx

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, September 21, 2018, 20:18 (491 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Atheistic Darwinism relies on the truth of chance mutation causing an advance in fitness. In their view chance mutations that are good are rare, but they attach to the DNA and therefore an enormous amount of useless DNA proves their point! It is all mindless chance. And they have stated, without junk, Darwin is dead!

You are behind the times. Here is Dawkins’ volte face:

Egnorance: Richard Dawkins on junk DNA in 2009. …
http://www.egnorance.blogspot.com/2013/02/richard-dawkins-on-junk-dna-in-2009...

Dawkins in 2009:
"It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene -- a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something -- unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us...
Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.
"

The 2009 iteration of Richard Dawkins asserts confidently that most of the genome is junk, just as Darwinism predicts! What an embarrassment to Darwin doubters!

Dawkins in 2012:
"I have noticed that there are some creationists who are jumping on [the ENCODE results] because they think that's awkward for Darwinism. Quite the contrary it's exactly what a Darwinist would hope for, to find usefulness in the living world.... (dhw's bold)

Whereas we thought that only a minority of the genome was doing something, namely that minority which actually codes for protein, and now we find that actually the majority of it is doing something. What it's doing is calling into action the protein-coding genes. So you can think of the protein-coding genes as being sort of the toolbox of subroutines which is pretty much common to all mammals -- mice and men have the same number, roughly speaking, of protein-coding genes and that's always been a bit of a blow to self-esteem of humanity. But the point is that that was just the subroutines that are called into being; the program that's calling them into action is the rest [of the genome] which had previously been written off as junk."


TONY: The options for DHW's question always seem to devolve to:
Is it more plausible that:
• A) The laws of govern all energy, matter, and information, spontaneously spring into existence followed by, or perhaps part and parcel with, all matter becoming simultaneously intelligent and then said intelligent matter communicated and designed, all life, with its vastly more complex systems, and so on.
• B) A single intellect emerged once out of eternal form of energy, taking time beyond measure to become capable of bringing another single entity into existence, both of which were energy and information only (non-material). The two intelligences over time, worked together to develop/birth/spawn more similar to themselves (non-material), eventually learning to manifest energy and information into the material universe we know.
• C) Flip a coin...there was no intelligence, guidance, planning, or outside influence at all. Stuff just happened.

DHW: A is inaccurate. My hypothesis is that energy and matter are the eternal first cause, constantly giving rise to endless combinations. Intelligence “somehow” evolved through these changes, just as your first cause God energy “somehow” simply has his intelligence. If you want to pin me down, I actually find it impossible to believe that all matter is intelligent, but I do not find the idea that some matter evolved intelligence any more or any less plausible than that first cause energy already had intelligence. From the moment when matter intelligently coalesced to form the first living organisms, your account is correct.

I do not accept C. I believe that stuff happened because of intelligence, but I do not know whether that intelligence was there from the beginning (your God) or evolved out of impersonal energy and materials eternally entering into new combinations.

I think energy always existed. I think the entity referred to as God, is comprised of that energy. However, I do not assert that his intelligence has always existed. The energy itself is eternal, and in that sense, God is eternal, having neither a beginning nor an end. However, I am perfectly ok with the concept that the information that comprises his intellect developed slowly over unimaginably long periods of time.

dhw: (under "pointy eggs") First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.

DAVID: Agreed, and you can't pick one.

You’ve got it.

Xxxxxx

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

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by David Turell @, Friday, September 21, 2018, 21:00 (491 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: A is inaccurate. My hypothesis is that energy and matter are the eternal first cause, constantly giving rise to endless combinations. Intelligence “somehow” evolved through these changes, just as your first cause God energy “somehow” simply has his intelligence. If you want to pin me down, I actually find it impossible to believe that all matter is intelligent, but I do not find the idea that some matter evolved intelligence any more or any less plausible than that first cause energy already had intelligence. From the moment when matter intelligently coalesced to form the first living organisms, your account is correct.

I do not accept C. I believe that stuff happened because of intelligence, but I do not know whether that intelligence was there from the beginning (your God) or evolved out of impersonal energy and materials eternally entering into new combinations.


Tony: I think energy always existed. I think the entity referred to as God, is comprised of that energy. However, I do not assert that his intelligence has always existed. The energy itself is eternal, and in that sense, God is eternal, having neither a beginning nor an end. However, I am perfectly ok with the concept that the information that comprises his intellect developed slowly over unimaginably long periods of time.

I'm of the opinion that God is eternal energy and always had His knowledge and there have been more than this universe in the past, in that universes stretch back to a previous eternity. We are in the current iteration.

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, September 22, 2018, 00:21 (491 days ago) @ David Turell

DHW: A is inaccurate. My hypothesis is that energy and matter are the eternal first cause, constantly giving rise to endless combinations. Intelligence “somehow” evolved through these changes, just as your first cause God energy “somehow” simply has his intelligence. If you want to pin me down, I actually find it impossible to believe that all matter is intelligent, but I do not find the idea that some matter evolved intelligence any more or any less plausible than that first cause energy already had intelligence. From the moment when matter intelligently coalesced to form the first living organisms, your account is correct.

I do not accept C. I believe that stuff happened because of intelligence, but I do not know whether that intelligence was there from the beginning (your God) or evolved out of impersonal energy and materials eternally entering into new combinations.


Tony: I think energy always existed. I think the entity referred to as God, is comprised of that energy. However, I do not assert that his intelligence has always existed. The energy itself is eternal, and in that sense, God is eternal, having neither a beginning nor an end. However, I am perfectly ok with the concept that the information that comprises his intellect developed slowly over unimaginably long periods of time.


David: I'm of the opinion that God is eternal energy and always had His knowledge and there have been more than this universe in the past, in that universes stretch back to a previous eternity. We are in the current iteration.

I could even go with the first part of that, though the answer is likely moot, even if we did have it. I don't think the time scales are fathomable really by humans in any significant way.

However, the latter part I have a harder time with. I see evidence of a designer everywhere. What evidence is there for prior universes?

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

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 22, 2018, 15:51 (490 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: A is inaccurate. My hypothesis is that energy and matter are the eternal first cause, constantly giving rise to endless combinations. Intelligence “somehow” evolved through these changes, just as your first cause God energy “somehow” simply has his intelligence. If you want to pin me down, I actually find it impossible to believe that all matter is intelligent, but I do not find the idea that some matter evolved intelligence any more or any less plausible than that first cause energy already had intelligence. From the moment when matter intelligently coalesced to form the first living organisms, your account is correct.

I do not accept C. I believe that stuff happened because of intelligence, but I do not know whether that intelligence was there from the beginning (your God) or evolved out of impersonal energy and materials eternally entering into new combinations.


Tony: I think energy always existed. I think the entity referred to as God, is comprised of that energy. However, I do not assert that his intelligence has always existed. The energy itself is eternal, and in that sense, God is eternal, having neither a beginning nor an end. However, I am perfectly ok with the concept that the information that comprises his intellect developed slowly over unimaginably long periods of time.


David: I'm of the opinion that God is eternal energy and always had His knowledge and there have been more than this universe in the past, in that universes stretch back to a previous eternity. We are in the current iteration.


Tony: I could even go with the first part of that, though the answer is likely moot, even if we did have it. I don't think the time scales are fathomable really by humans in any significant way.

However, the latter part I have a harder time with. I see evidence of a designer everywhere. What evidence is there for prior universes?

My statement is based on First Cause as a concept. Nothingness cannot become somethingness. Therefore a creating God is eternal. As for evidence of a previous universe, that is not possible since we are fully contained in this one. So only God contains the evidence, and I don't see that He will impart it to us.

Magic embryology: placenta invades Mother

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 04, 2018, 15:18 (417 days ago) @ David Turell

The entire process is magical. the Mother's uterus is attacked but not harmed and as mentioned before the placenta has effects on the growing fetus:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/health/placenta-pregnancy-health.html?emc=edit_th_18...

"The placenta may be dismissed as “afterbirth,” deemed an afterthought in discussions about pregnancy and even relegated, literally, to the trash bin. But at long last it is beginning to get its due.

"In the past three weeks, scientists have published three significant studies of this ephemeral organ. One gave a detailed analysis of all the genes expressed, or converted into functioning proteins, in the placenta; another experimented with a way to silence that expression when it causes trouble. In the third, researchers created mini-placentas, three-dimensional clusters of cells, or organoids, that mimic the real thing in the lab, and can be used as models for studying it.

***

“'The missing link between complications during pregnancy and development of the fetal brain has been hiding in plain sight for a long time,” said Dr. Daniel R. Weinberger, director of the Lieber Institute for Brain Development in Baltimore, Md. “It’s the placenta.”

"During the course of human pregnancy, the placenta grows from a few cells into an organ weighing more than a pound. It often is compared to an aggressive cancer. But a more apt metaphor might be a military invasion, as 90 percent of the placenta is made up of cells not from the mother but from the fetus.

"Early in gestation, the fertilized egg implants itself in the mother’s uterine lining and sends out a few cells to breach it. These foot soldiers produce proteins that disarm the mother’s defenses, destroy the smooth muscles that line her blood vessels and dilate and redirect the vessels to feed the embryo. As the placental beachhead grows, its cells specialize to do the work of heart, lungs, liver and kidneys until the fetus can fend for itself. Groups of cells exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide; provide nutrients and hormones; protect the fetus from harmful stress, germs and chemicals; and remove waste.

"This incursion fails as often as 20 percent of the time, and when it does, it can cause severe complications for the fetus, at birth and afterward. It may also forecast trouble for the mother’s health later in life: pre-eclampsia can portend heart disease and stroke, and gestational diabetes can signal later obesity and metabolic disease."

Comment: This has to be designed. A foreign system, 90% fetal, invades the Mother like a cancer, and yet they cooperate. This is an arrangement that cannot ever be stepwise, but must be carefully designed. God at work.

Magic embryology: placental role in diet and oxygen

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 19, 2019, 20:03 (371 days ago) @ David Turell

If diet is poor and oxygen is low, the placenta makes adjustments:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-placentas-mothers-poor-diets-oxygen.html

"The placenta develops during pregnancy and connects the developing baby to the mother. It serves as the lungs, kidneys, gut and liver for growing babies and carries oxygen and nutrients to the fetus whilst secreting hormones and discarding waste. (my bold)

***

"Dr. Sferruzzi-Perri said: "The study analysed how mitochondria in the placenta may alter their function to support both the needs of the placenta and the rapidly growing fetus during a healthy pregnancy, and when the mother is challenged by a less desirable environment.

"'We found that in the placenta, mitochondria have a remarkable ability to adapt and compensate for environmental impacts such as when women are living in low oxygen areas at high altitude and not eating enough of a healthy diet during pregnancy."

"Changing lifestyles in society which see women consuming nutritionally deficient diets during pregnancy can cause pregnancy complications and living at high altitudes above 2500m in places such as Bolivia, Peru, Tibet and Ethiopia restricts oxygen levels. It is estimated that around two per cent of the human population—140 million people—live in areas with low oxygen.

***

"The team of scientists introduced challenges—known as hypoxic conditions—in the laboratory. They used the mouse as a model, as its placenta develops and functions in a similar way to humans, looking at how the placenta and their mitochondria reacted and what impact this had on the growth of the fetus.

"Dr. Sferruzzi-Perri explained: "Mitochondria in the placenta work out how to use oxygen and nutrients in the most efficient way so there is still sufficient for transfer to the fetus even in challenged pregnancies. When the placenta cannot compensate for the challenges then this can lead complications such as fetal growth restriction."

"'We know that there is a lasting impact on the health of babies born with fetal growth restriction because organs and tissues like the heart, pancreas, muscles, and liver, are very sensitive when they are developing in the womb. If those organs don't grow properly they are more likely to malfunction in later life."

"The aim of the study—the first of its kind—was to understand what is required for a healthy placenta to perform its vital functions during pregnancy.

"Dr. Sferruzzi-Perri added: "Our findings show mitochondria are really important determinants of placental function and support of fetal growth. The next step would be to target mitochondria in the placenta to alter their function and improve pregnancy success in women where we know the outcome might be poor."

"When babies are born with fetal growth restriction, the team had previously found the buffering mechanism of the placenta was insufficient during pregnancy."

Comment: The evolution of uterine/placental birth was a tremendous advance in reproduction and I know of no research explaining how it might have evolved. Note my bold. The placenta has multiple functions to ensure proper survival of the developing fetus. It had to appear designed for all its functions when uterine pregnancy appeared. Only a designer can create this type of evolutionary advance.

Magic embryology: placental role in diet and oxygen

by dhw, Sunday, January 20, 2019, 12:30 (371 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: "Dr. Sferruzzi-Perri said: "The study analysed how mitochondria in the placenta may alter their function to support both the needs of the placenta and the rapidly growing fetus during a healthy pregnancy, and when the mother is challenged by a less desirable environment. (dhw’s bold)

"'We found that in the placenta, mitochondria have a remarkable ability to adapt and compensate for environmental impacts such as when women are living in low oxygen areas at high altitude and not eating enough of a healthy diet during pregnancy." (dhw’s bold)

"Dr. Sferruzzi-Perri explained: "Mitochondria in the placenta work out how to use oxygen and nutrients in the most efficient way so there is still sufficient for transfer to the fetus even in challenged pregnancies.." (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: The evolution of uterine/placental birth was a tremendous advance in reproduction and I know of no research explaining how it might have evolved. [The placenta] had to appear designed for all its functions when uterine pregnancy appeared. Only a designer can create this type of evolutionary advance.

We need to be clear about the subject of design. Do you mean that your God included placenta changes in the complete set of instructions given to the first cells but not included in the passive code of DNA, or that he personally dabbled each variation? Or could it be that he gave all cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to work out their own variations?
Xxxx

DAVID’s comment (under plant root branching controls:) Life' s processes always require specifically design protein molecules. I have previously entered research on root receptors that guide where to grow for water and nutrients. Always a series of protein molecules reacting automatically in a standardized progression.

But since DNA is a passive code, and you agree that the organism uses DNA to make the proteins it requires, do you not think it possible that your God gave plant cells the autonomous ability to make the proteins they require – or were these preprogrammed or divinely dabbled. (Please bear in mind that were are talking about how all these processes arose in the first place: once a successful system has been established, of course it will be repeated automatically until things go wrong and there are new problems to solve.)

Under Hermit crab penises

QUOTE: He hypothesized that larger penises may have evolved in this species, which uses extensively remodeled shells and for which sex is particularly dangerous, to minimize the distance they need to come out of their shells in order to mate.

So what do you reckon? Your God, in order to be able to design Homo sapiens, 1) preprogrammed the crab’s large penis 3.8 billion years ago (but not in the DNA, which is simply a passive code); 2) did a dabble?;or 3) do you think it’s possible that he gave the cell communities of the crab the autonomous ability to enlarge its penis in order to improve its chances of survival?

Magic embryology: information and instructions

by David Turell @, Monday, January 28, 2019, 23:07 (362 days ago) @ dhw

A new study on how the fertilized egg gets itself started:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-kick-starting-genome-early.html

"After the fertilisation of an egg cell, two become one; two sets of genetic information combine to form a genome. We can think of the egg and sperm as information capsules with stored instructions for starting a new life, but post fertilisation, what kick starts the interpretation of these instructions? (my bold)

***

"Poetically, waking up the genome occurs through events called the minor wave and major wave. Researchers knew that a transcription factor (a protein that binds DNA to promote expression) called Dux activated a range of genes in the second major wave but not what initiated Dux or the genome activation in the first place.

"'Genome activation is the first things that the embryo has to do," says Dr. Melanie Eckersley-Maslin, a postdoctoral researcher at the Babraham Institute. "Despite it being crucial to the formation of the embryo, we know surprisingly little about it. The 2C-like system provides an experimental approximation of those very early embryo cells and allows us to use the full arsenal of research techniques available to tease apart what is happening."

The researchers started by screening for factors that increased the number of the rare 2C-like cells in a population of mouse embryonic stem cells—indicating positive factors that were able to promote genome activation. The researchers identified two proteins called Development Pluripotency Associated 2 (Dppa2) and 4 (Dppa4).

"Looking at what we have discovered about Dppa2 and Dppa4 they fit the profile of being responsible for kick-starting the expression of the new genome," explains Dr. Eckersley-Maslin. "The proteins are already present in the egg, so already there before the new embryo is formed, and if we delete the Dppa2 and 4 genes from the genome, we see a loss of 2C-like cells and the loss of the Dux-initiated wave of genome expression."

The model proposed by the research connects genome activation with epigenetic reprogramming of the cells that eventually form the sperm and eggs, forming a connected chain of events that secures Dppa2 and 4 expression in egg cells ready to initiate genome activation when the time is right. (my bold)


Comment: It is all set to start making a fetus as these proteins act automatically as noted by the bolds above. Information and instructions ready to go.

Magic embryology: growing mouse kidney in rats

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 05, 2019, 18:03 (354 days ago) @ David Turell

Using mouse stem cells and some lab tricks:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-02-closer-made-to-order-human-kidneys.html

"But researchers have been working on ways to grow healthy organs outside the human body. One such method, called blastocyst complementation, has already produced promising results. Researchers take blastocysts, the clusters of cells formed several days after egg fertilization, from mutant animals missing specific organs and inject them with stem cells from a normal donor, not necessarily of the same species. The stem cells then differentiate to form the entire missing organ in the resulting animal. The new organ retains the characteristics of the original stem cell donor, and can thus potentially be used in transplantation therapy.

***

"After implantation into pseudo-pregnant rats, the complemented blastocysts matured into normal fetuses. Remarkably, more than two thirds of the resulting rat neonates contained a pair of kidneys derived from the mouse stem cells. Further screening showed that all of the kidneys were structurally intact, and at least half could potentially produce urine.

"'Our findings confirm that interspecific blastocyst complementation is a viable method for kidney generation," says study corresponding author Masumi Hirabayashi. "In the future, this approach could be used to generate human stem cell-derived organs in livestock, potentially extending the lifespan and improving the quality of life of millions of people worldwide."

"In summary, he chronic global shortage of donor kidneys leaves many end-stage renal disease patients reliant on continued dialysis treatment. To address the donor kidney shortage, a team led by researchers at the National Institute for Physiological Sciences in Japan attempted to grow mouse kidneys inside rats using transplanted stem cells. The resulting kidneys appeared to be functional, providing proof-of-concept validation that this approach could be used to generate human kidneys inside livestock. "

Comment: The stem cells (blastocyst cells) must follow exact directions in their genomes to make perfectly functioning kidneys. This is the expectation of the authors of this study. True automaticity of cells following instructions to make perfectly functional kidneys. These cells cannot decide to anything different, but if there is an abnormal stress they must ignore it or, if they adapt in some way, they may produce an anomaly that is not functional.

All the processes of life must follow instructions or result in an aberration that is not viable. This is the theory behind my position on automaticity.

Magic embryology: special macrophages thin heart valves

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 24, 2019, 01:47 (336 days ago) @ David Turell

How heart valves are made so thin is discovered. It shows how complex embryological processes are:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190221130250.htm

"UCLA researchers have identified for the first time the origin of an immune cell that plays a critical role in the formation of healthy heart valves.

"'Ever since we discovered that the heart tube produces some blood progenitor cells, we have been trying to figure out why," Nakano said. "Blood progenitor cells are generated in much greater numbers in other parts of the developing embryo. Having the heart tube produce blood progenitor cells is like having a small, not-very-productive factory just down the street from a larger, more productive factory. If both factories produce the same thing -- in this case blood progenitor cells -- why not just have one big factory?"

***

"Macrophages ("big eaters" in Greek) reside in tissues and travel around the body in the blood, seeking out and consuming harmful, damaged or unnecessary cells. Previous research had shown that macrophages exist in the heart valves, but Nakano's team was the first to discover their role there: eating up excess cells to make the valves paper-thin and hyper-efficient. This process begins in the developing embryo and continues after birth; the macrophages remain in the valves to help keep them in shape throughout the lifecycle.
"Macrophages were known to exist in heart valves, but nobody had nailed down when they arrived there and where they came from until we watched them develop in the heart tube," Nakano said.

"To test just how essential heart-derived macrophages are to valve formation and remodeling, the scientists blocked their production to see if it had any effect. They found that the other macrophages in the body -- those from circulating blood -- traveled to the heart, but they weren't very effective at remodeling the valves. Without the heart-derived macrophages, the heart valves remained thick and unwieldy.

"'This showed us that the macrophages that are generated in the heart tube are particularly adept at eating up excess tissue," Nakano said. "This makes them essential not just to heart valve formation, but to heart valve maintenance throughout life.'"

Comment: Early evolution had fluids moving around body cavities due to organ movements such as muscles. Later as heart tubes developed they contracted to move fluid. Eventually those tubes were twisted and eventually formed chambers to manage a back and forth circulation . Valves had to be added to control flow in one circular direction, with the delicate valves leaflets paper thin to move very quickly because the heart beats are timed by the second. Most human pulses average rest rates that are an average 70 per minute. I can't image all of this complexity happened by chance.

Magic embryology: special chemicals used to signal

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 03, 2019, 01:28 (329 days ago) @ David Turell

In addition to physical stresses between growing tissues there are chemical signals:

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-embryos-proteins.html

"How cells in developing embryos communicate depends a great deal on context, according to scientists at Rice University.

"They found that a protein signaling pathway known as WNT and its interactions are far more dynamic than once thought as the response of different cell types to the same signals is dramatically different.

"Researchers already knew that WNT, which carries messages across the cell membrane, is central to the early development of organisms and later helps stabilize cells in adults. Now they're gaining a more complete picture of the pathway's function.

"Near the start of life, WNT signals provide key developmental cues from outside the cell, according to Rice bioscientist Aryeh Warmflash and graduate student and lead author Joseph Massey. These extracellular WNT signals help direct cell differentiation by triggering beta-catenin proteins that affect gene expression in the cell's nucleus.

"They found the WNT pathway not only listens for signals from a wider range of triggers than previously known but that while it is influencing the identities of new cell types during embryonic development, those new cell types are themselves beginning to change how they interpret WNT signals.

"'To do that in the right place and at the right time, they have to have some kind of positional timing cues, and share information with each other," he said

***

"'The WNT pathway is different in stem cells and differentiated cells. Cells probably tune the dynamics of the WNT pathway to make it perform different functions in different contexts."

"'We found that the signaling dynamics—how the cells respond to signaling cues—in pluripotent cells is very different from what happens in some of the other cell types we looked at," Massey said. "Not only that, whenever pluripotent cells begin to differentiate to a type of cells called the primitive streak, the response to the signal is also very different."
The primitive streak is a structure that forms early in the development of an embryo, establishes the organism's bilateral symmetry and serves as the focal point of gastrulation, where multiple layers of differentiation begin.

"'Our research highlights for the first time for this signaling pathway that the dynamics, the way the cells interpret these signals, is very much context-dependent," Massey said.

"The researchers investigated some of the causes of these changing dynamics. They found that by altering levels of activin and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), both members of the TGF beta "superfamily" of growth factor proteins, they were able to change the dynamics of beta-catenin signaling. As TGFb factors are also involved in cellular differentiation, this is a possible cause of the changing dynamics of WNT signaling during development, Warmflash said.
The experiments demonstrated one way that beta-catenin signaling in stem cells adapts to a constantly changing environment.

"'What's interesting is that all of these developmental pathways are, throughout the course of an organism's development, recycled for different roles," Massey said. "At the beginning, the WNT signaling pathway is perhaps specifying different tissues to become the right type of tissue in the right place. Later on, it's maintaining homeostasis or other processes in the adult.


"'What natural pathways do is much more intricate and complex than anything people have been able to build," he said. "If you can understand it, you can use it.'" (my bold)

Comment: Embryo development is highly complex as this study shows. Note my bold. Fetal formation is smarter than we are. Not by chance.

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by David Turell @, Friday, September 21, 2018, 20:36 (491 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Atheistic Darwinism relies on the truth of chance mutation causing an advance in fitness. In their view chance mutations that are good are rare, but they attach to the DNA and therefore an enormous amount of useless DNA proves their point! It is all mindless chance. And they have stated, without junk, Darwin is dead!

dhw: You are behind the times. Here is Dawkins’ volte face:

Egnorance: Richard Dawkins on junk DNA in 2009. …
http://www.egnorance.blogspot.com/2013/02/richard-dawkins-on-junk-dna-in-2009...

Dawkins in 2009:
"It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene -- a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something -- unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us...
Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.
"

The 2009 iteration of Richard Dawkins asserts confidently that most of the genome is junk, just as Darwinism predicts! What an embarrassment to Darwin doubters!

Dawkins in 2012:
"I have noticed that there are some creationists who are jumping on [the ENCODE results] because they think that's awkward for Darwinism. Quite the contrary it's exactly what a Darwinist would hope for, to find usefulness in the living world.... (dhw's bold)

Whereas we thought that only a minority of the genome was doing something, namely that minority which actually codes for protein, and now we find that actually the majority of it is doing something. What it's doing is calling into action the protein-coding genes. So you can think of the protein-coding genes as being sort of the toolbox of subroutines which is pretty much common to all mammals -- mice and men have the same number, roughly speaking, of protein-coding genes and that's always been a bit of a blow to self-esteem of humanity. But the point is that that was just the subroutines that are called into being; the program that's calling them into action is the rest [of the genome] which had previously been written off as junk."

I've read all Dawkins ' stuff. A quick backtrack from his previous views. Graur and Moran are still active with others claiming the death of junk kills Darwin.

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, September 20, 2018, 22:35 (492 days ago) @ dhw

HW: Firstly, I was correcting Tony: irreducible complexity is a theory not a fact. Nobody knows how all these complexities arose, and the argument that we cannot “show” an evolutionary pathway from one organ or organism to another can be applied to any theory: e.g. you cannot “show” an unknown source-less power designing every single complexity. We ONLY have theories. May I ask if you find Tony’s “spawning” theory logical?

The options for DHW's question always seem to devolve to:

Is it more plausible that:

  • A) The laws of govern all energy, matter, and information, spontaneously spring into existence followed by, or perhaps part and parcel with, all matter becoming simultaneously intelligent and then said intelligent matter communicated and designed, all life, with its vastly more complex systems, and so on.
  • B) A single intellect emerged once out of eternal form of energy, taking time beyond measure to become capable of bringing another single entity into existence, both of which were energy and information only (non-material). The two intelligences over time, worked together to develop/birth/spawn more similar to themselves (non-material), eventually learning to manifest energy and information into the material universe we know.
  • C) Flip a coin...there was no intelligence, guidance, planning, or outside influence at all. Stuff just happened.

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

Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 05:14 (494 days ago) @ dhw

David’s comment: In placental embryology the control systems have to be designed, when one recognizes that there is no competition for survival of the fittest as Darwin proposes. The fetus is in as safe place for its development and that development must have feedback loop controls. From my standpoint embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin style chance evolution.

TONY: And there is no other way to explain that mechanism than design. Fascinating.

DAVID: (Under "plant immunity") Immunity processes are necessary from the appearance of any organism, or infections will run roughshod over then and they will not survive. Only design can do this.

Thank you for these extremely illuminating articles. I have complete sympathy with the comments you both make about design, but how would you both feel if every time you mentioned design as opposed to chance, I redressed the balance by repeating the following exchange (taken from “pointy eggs”)?

Dhw: The choice is between your magically intelligent God and magically intelligent matter, either innately intelligent – panpsychism – or having originated by chance, though in both cases evolving. “Logically I strongly doubt” any form of magic, which is why I am an agnostic, but as I keep admitting, I am wrong one way or the other.

DAVID: Granted, and logical.

DAVID: (under "Junk DNA”): There is very little junk DNA, to the disappointment of Darwinists.

DHW: Another of your mantras repeated ad nauseam, so let me repeat ad nauseam that the less junk DNA there is, the more evidence we have of natural selection at work, whereby what is useful survives, which would be to the delight of Darwinists who realized it.

We would of course point to the fact that the complexity is irreducible, unless of course you can show an evolutionary pathway that could conceivably lead to that mechanism, which I can not see. Not to say it doesn't exist, but the complexity in terms of timing and chemical messaging necessary is staggering.

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

Magic embryology: it is all in the timing

by David Turell @, Friday, October 19, 2018, 20:51 (463 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Making a fetus involves the timing of DNA expression and particular protein productions all in 3-D. This is an interview with a scientist studying how embryology works:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/stem-cell-researcher-renee-reijo-pera-studies-embryonic-...

Q: But developmental timing is important not just for the immediate survival of the embryo, but for health and disease further down the line, right?

"Yes, that’s one of our big hypotheses, because of the role timing plays in deciding the fates of cells. The idea is that development starts with a certain timeline. If a cell does not make it to a certain stage on time, its cell fate can change, and it’s typically thrown out of the tissue. It’s expelled and it dies.

"In a paper in Nature Genetics in 2016, for instance, we identified nearly 150 new genes, many of which were retroviral, that get expressed very early on in human stem cells. Then, when we turned some of the retroviral genes off, we found it changed the fate of the cells. Instead of becoming embryonic stem cells — which ultimately give rise to the fetus — the cells could only contribute to the trophectoderm layer, which gives rise to the tissues that attach the embryo to the uterus. The trophectoderm is made up in part of “bad” cells that won’t make it as part of the fetus.

"Which means that part of the puzzle on timing and which cells become part of the embryo and which become part of the extra-embryonic tissue depends on human-specific sequences that we inherited from retroviral integration.

Q: That seems surprising — that viral DNA would play such an important role so early in development.

Over the course of evolution, viruses have been in us and on us and changing us continually. We wrote another paper in Nature with Joanna Wysocka at Stanford, suggesting that these viral sequences have another, second effect: that they not only contribute to cell fate but also help the embryo get rid of viral infections.

In both cases, then, it seems like we have a cleanup system early in development that’s viral-based.

Q: You also study factors that determine whether or not cells will become germ cells. What’s at play there?

"In a paper published in Nature Cell Biology in April, we identified a triad of proteins that interact to help form primordial germ cells and maintain the primordial germ cell fate.

"We knew that the protein OCT4 is one of the master regulators of embryonic development and cell fate. But how do you tell if an embryonic cell will form a primordial germ cell, given that both express OCT4? We thought OCT4 could be acting with different partners in specific ways to enable the birth of the germ line.
"
That’s what a decision looks like in cells. You can think of it as a fulcrum: The stem cell sits in the middle, and if OCT4 and the other proteins are acting in concert, that fulcrum will tilt toward the germ line. If one of the proteins isn’t present in the right amount, we found that the cells instead become ectoderm, embryonic tissue that typically gives rise to neurons. It’s a delicate balance. We’re now starting to unpack each protein’s actual function in embryonic and germ cell development, and we’re studying how other transcription factors might be involved."

Comment: Darwin could not comment about embryology, as the science didn't exist. But the intricacies of embryology in timing of various tissues in production and requirement in 3-D for proper placement of the geography of a whole organism is still mostly a mystery. An embryo is not like a new auto on a production line, where one section is added at a time. In embryology the whole organism is having all different parts all at the same time, once the basic stem cells are organized in position. All of this requires design. Chance attempts won't work.

Magic embryology: What guides cell development, placement?

by David Turell @, Friday, March 15, 2019, 01:12 (317 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

There must be a blueprint, but where is it? Cells seem to make optimal decisions based on many stimuli that are chemical, physical force and positional:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-math-that-tells-cells-what-they-are-20190313/

"It’s now known that some form of positional information makes genes variously switch on and off throughout the embryo, giving cells distinct identities based on their location. But the signals carrying that information seem to fluctuate wildly and chaotically — the opposite of what you might expect for an important guiding influence.

***

"The same precision and reproducibility emerge from a sea of noise again and again in a range of cellular processes. That mounting evidence is leading some biologists to a bold hypothesis: that where information is concerned, cells might often find solutions to life’s challenges that are not just good but optimal — that cells extract as much useful information from their complex surroundings as is theoretically possible.

***

"For decades, scientists have been studying fruit fly larvae for clues about how development unfolds. Some details became apparent early on: A cascade of genetic signals establishes a pattern along the larva’s head-to-tail axis. Signaling molecules called morphogens then diffuse through the embryonic tissues, eventually defining the formation of body parts.

"Particularly important in the fly are four “gap” genes, which are expressed separately in broad, overlapping domains along the axis. The proteins they make in turn help regulate the expression of “pair-rule” genes, which create an extremely precise, periodic striped pattern along the embryo. The stripes establish the groundwork for the later division of the body into segments.

***

"That prompted a group at Princeton University, led by the biophysicists Thomas Gregor and William Bialek, to suspect something else: that the cells could instead get all the information they needed to define the positions of pair-rule stripes from the expression levels of the gap genes alone, even though those are not periodic and therefore not an obvious source for such precise instructions.

"And that’s just what they found.

***

"Even given the limited number of molecules and underlying noise of the system, the varying concentrations of the gap genes was sufficient to differentiate two neighboring cells in the head-to-tail axis — and the rest of the gene network seemed to be transmitting that information optimally.

"But new work shows if the cells can make optimal use of the information available, they can determine their location early, from the gap genes expression alone.

***

"How the cells do it remains a mystery. Right now, “the whole thing is kind of wonderful and magical,” said John Reinitz, a systems biologist at the University of Chicago.

***

'The findings provide a fresh perspective on Waddington’s idea of a developmental landscape. According to Gregor, their work indicates that there’s no need for 20 questions or a gradual refinement of knowledge after all. The landscape “is steep from the beginning,” he said. All the information is already there.

***

"if these regulatory regions need to perform an optimal decoding function, that potentially limits how they can evolve — and in turn, how an entire organism can evolve. “We have this one example … which is the life that evolved on this planet,” Kondev said, and because of that, the important constraints on what life can be are unknown. Finding that cells show Bayesian behavior could be a hint that processing information effectively may be “a general principle that makes a bunch of atoms stuck together loosely behave like the thing that we think is life.”

***

“'I don’t think optimization is an aesthetic or philosophical idea. It’s a very concrete idea,” Bialek said. “Optimization principles have time and again pointed to interesting things to measure.” Whether or not they are correct, he considers them productive to think about.

“'Of course, the difficulty is that in many other systems, the property being decoded is more difficult than one-dimensional position [along the embryo’s axis],” Walczak said. “The problem is harder to define.”

"That’s what made the system Bialek and his colleagues studied so tantalizing. “There aren’t many examples in biology where a high-level idea, like information in this case, leads to a mathematical formula” that is then testable in experiments on living cells, Kondev said."

Comment: Note the important use of information which is guiding the making of an embryo. A blueprint exists in an orchestrated mass of stimuli. As in a symphony, it has to written by a composer.

Magic embryology: What guides nerve pathways to muscles?

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 23, 2019, 17:48 (308 days ago) @ David Turell

Controls are described:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-03-mountaineers-nerves-expert-guidance.html

"...the nervous system relies on elaborate timing and location of guidance cues for neuronal axons—threadlike projections—to successfully reach their destinations in the body. Now, Salk Institute researchers discover how neurons navigate a tricky cellular environment by listening for directions, while simultaneously filtering out inappropriate instructions to avoid getting lost.

"'There are 100 trillion connections in the nervous system governed by 20,000 genes, of which roughly 10 gene families are known to be involved in controlling axon guidance. We wanted to understand the clever genetic systems nature has employed to wire the most complicated biological machine in the universe," says Salk Professor Samuel Pfaff, senior author and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. "Thus, we set out to examine how motor neurons find their connections with muscles in the body, which is critical for our brain to relay information to our muscles to allow for movement."

"The brain controls hundreds of different muscles to allow for precise movement. During development, motor neurons in the spinal cord extend their axons outside of the central nervous system to connect with muscle cells in the body. Every motor neuron relies on a set of genes to ensure the axon grows correctly to the muscle.

***

"Upon closer investigation, the scientists found that these motor neurons climbed up the edge of the spinal cord rather than properly exiting to meet their muscle targets. The team pinpointed the gene causing this detrimental mutation as p190, which was previously known to play a role in cancer suppression, but had not been implicated in establishing neuronal connections during development.

"The researchers set up a series of experiments to examine how p190 affects axons leaving the spinal cord. They found that, although axons are normally attracted to a protein in the spinal cord called netrin, during a short time window p190 acts as a blinder, so the axons disregard netrin and are led outside of the spinal cord. After the axons safely leave the central nervous system, this blinder is removed. Without p190, the axons are attracted to netrin and do not properly leave the spinal cord, so never connect with muscles.

"Pfaff, holder of the Benjamin H. Lewis Chair, adds, "These results provide mechanistic insight into the unimagined complexity that cells use to communicate with one another.'"

Comment: Another feedback loop to control development which still has to show how an exact path to the correct muscles is fully controlled over the distance: in a six-foot human flexing his big toe the route is roughly six feet!

Magic embryology: guiding body orientation

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 19, 2019, 18:55 (251 days ago) @ David Turell

The zygote, as a ball of symmetrical cells, must establish head, tail, left and right to develop any organism in the correct shape. Controls found:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190517115147.htm

"Even before the fertilised egg or zygote can start dividing into daughter cells that form the future tissues and organs during the development of a multicellular organism, the symmetrical zygote needs to become asymmetrical or polarised in shape and molecular organisation. The master switch that triggers the symmetry breaking process in the zygotes of the nematode worm, Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans), was identified in a recent study,

***

"Structurally, cells acquire top and bottom or front and rear surfaces, while at the molecular level, special protein groups called polarity regulators move to distinct regions in the cell cortex (a layer beneath the cell membrane). As a result, different cell regions acquire specific architectures and functions.

***

"... his team previously revealed how forces generated on the cortex by the contractions of the actin cytoskeleton (a filamentous framework made of actin and myosin proteins) could direct the movement of polarity regulators to their destined locations. Shortly after fertilisation, actomyosin contractions in the cortex puts the surface of the zygote under tension. Upon symmetry breaking, spatially-controlled inhibition of actomyosin contractions lead to an imbalance in the surface tension, causing the cortical cytoskeletal networks to flow and transport the polarity regulators.

***

"After using a technique called RNA interference to block the synthesis of specific proteins involved in the polarisation process, and observing the effects in live zygotes, they singled out a protein called Aurora-A (AIR-1 in C. elegans) as the master switch for symmetry breaking.

"Aurora-A is a kinase (a type of protein that regulates the activity of other proteins by adding a phosphate molecule to them) that has well-known roles in controlling cell division by assembling centrosomes -- a cellular organelle that organises microtubule filaments and facilitates cell-cycle progression.

"The researchers identified a two-stage process by which Aurora-A influences actomyosin contraction to initiate symmetry breaking and establish cell polarity. In the first stage, Aurora-A accumulates around centrosomes and suppresses actomyosin contractions locally in the surrounding cortex. This creates force differences along different regions of the cortex, and the resulting cortical flow transports myosins and other polarity proteins to the front of the zygote, thereby creating front-rear asymmetry. In the second stage, Aurora-A diffuses into the cytoplasm and suppresses actomyosin contractions across the entire cortex. This prevents further cortex flows or movement of polarity regulators, effectively locking them in place.

***

"The single master switch, Aurora-A, creates 'polar lights' that cover one of the cell poles for symmetry breaking."

"Intriguingly, the research team discovered that the role of Aurora-A in cell polarisation was independent of its role in centrosome assembly and cell-cycle progression. Through fruitful collaborations with colleagues at NUS, including Associate Professor Yusuke Toyama (MBI) and Professor Thorsten Wohland (NUS Department of Biological Sciences), who brought their expertise in laser ablation and fluorescence correlation spectroscopy respectively, they demonstrated that the local accumulation of Aurora-A was sufficient to induce symmetry breaking via its kinase activity, regardless of the involvement of centrosomes."

Comment: This is a complex process, which had to have been designed, or the embryos would not proceed properly. No way it could have been developed by chance trial. The Aurora-A is an enzyme which has two roles, which is unusual in itself. Further it should be realized any enzyme is a giant molecule, and one must ask how does an unguided chance evolutionary hunt and find such an exact protein molecule? Only a designer fits.

Magic embryology: What guides cell development, placement?

by David Turell @, Monday, August 12, 2019, 17:42 (166 days ago) @ David Turell

More mechanical and spatial factors are recognized:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/for-embryos-cells-size-can-determine-fate-20190812/

"The developing embryo is a finely tuned machine. Its cells know what to do, and when to do it. They know to grow or shrink, to divide or lie dormant, to come together into a beating heart or hurtle through the bloodstream in search of a distant invader. And they know to do all that without a central command station or an objective map of their surroundings to guide them.

"Instead, cells are left to devise their own strategies for calculating precisely where to go and what to become. Those calculations depend on a veritable cocktail of signals, some of which have long been established as obviously important — chemical and electrical gradients, the activity of gene networks, patterns of overlap between spreading fields of molecules.

"But recently experts have also started to pay attention to another, often overlooked set of factors: physical constraints such as size. In new work published today in Nature Physics, a team of researchers reported that during the early development of the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans, a mechanism based on the size of embryonic cells helps to determine the type of mature tissues they will eventually produce.

"While examining the biochemical process that triggers cells to divide either asymmetrically or symmetrically, the scientists discovered that size was the ruling element — namely, that the size of the cells dictated the pattern that led to one kind of division or another, and ultimately to one kind of lineage or another. “The biology is actually exploiting this fact … to generate a set of outcomes that are required for the development of the organism,” said Martin Howard, ... In this case, cells used innate constraints on their size to specify the lineage that would later give rise to the worm’s sex cells. But more broadly, the findings also point to the possibility of a role for physical cues in the behavior of stem cells and the operation of other developmental systems.

***

"For instance, when the worm embryo is still a single cell, proteins on its outer membrane create two uneven, yin-and-yang-like domains that tell the cell where to split. That system for designating asymmetric cell division is called polarity. One lineage of embryonic cells in C. elegans (known as the P lineage) uses polarity to divide asymmetrically four times; the fifth division is then symmetric, permanently establishing the germline responsible for egg and sperm cells.

***

"By controlling the sizes of the initial embryos, the team was then able to show that there was a minimum size threshold for the P lineage cells, below which they could not set up the polarization pattern. Those smaller cells lost the ability to polarize after just three cell divisions, not four. “Just by manipulating the size of the embryo, we’ve taken a cell that normally would be able to polarize and divide asymmetrically and turned it into a cell that doesn’t polarize and divides symmetrically,” Goehring said.

***

"Cells have seemingly evolved to take advantage of the intrinsic limitations of their patterning process — using it as a ruler of sorts — to determine whether to become germ cells. “The specification [of the germ cells] is a kind of self-organized property of the patterning system,” Howard said.

"And that’s a “genuinely interesting” way to think about the system, said Timothy Saunders, a biophysicist at the Mechanobiology Institute of the National University of Singapore who was not involved in the study. “This idea, that by just simply making things smaller you can naturally switch the type of division, is very neat.”

"These findings come at a time when scientists are widening their view of what controls biological systems to encompass more than genetics alone. “The gene does not exist in a vacuum,” Saunders said. “And we’re realizing more and more that the mechanical environment in which those genes are operating matters” — including for decisions about cell fate."

Comment: It is obvious embryonic cells are controlled by chemical and physical influences. but an overall body plan has to exist. Darwin does not explain the development of embryology in any of his theories. It is magical and strongly suggests that only design fits.

Magic embryology: What guides limbs? electric patterns

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 08, 2019, 05:08 (110 days ago) @ David Turell

A new discovery for the guidance of form:

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-voltage-gated-calcium-channels-electric.html

"Prior studies have shown remarkable electrical patterns in developing embryos, some of which act like blueprints of the tissues and organs that eventually take shape as the embryo matures. The electrical patterns are created by cells pumping charged ions into and out of the cell membrane, creating a voltage potential across the membrane barrier. In analogy to cells of the nervous system, the membrane voltage potentials spread via electrical synapses and provide a way for cells to communicate with their neighbors and coordinate activity.

"The new study, conducted in mouse and chicken embryos, demonstrates that a voltage gated calcium channel (VGCC) embedded in the cell membrane, and triggered by voltage to allow calcium ions (Ca2+) to flow into the cell, sets off the expression of genes that guide differentiation to mature cells.

***

"The study now points to a role for VGCCs in 'reading out' the bioelectric patterns of an embryo to set the genetic and protein expression machinery in play for body development.
The researchers looked at the developing limbs of both mice and chicken embryos and found that while the limb bud is initially hyperpolarized, with 1000-fold more calcium ions outside cells than inside, the core of the growing limb becomes depolarized as cartilage forms; (calcium ions flow into the cells to neutralize voltage). They found that the depolarization is mediated by VGCCs, allowing calcium ions to flow inward, which in turn activate a genetic transcription factor called NFATc1, which in turn initiates expression of other genes required for differentiation into mature cartilage cells. The VCGG studied (Cav1.2) was found to be essential for normal cartilage formation, while NFATc1 was confirmed to promote the differentiation of cartilage cells in vitro.

"Looking at the role of Cav1.2 more closely, the researchers discovered that it primarily plays a part in the early stages of cell differentiation into cartilage. Other VGCCs may be involved at later stages of development, and other transcription factors may be activated by the increase in intracellular calcium during the process of cartilage and bone formation, according to the researchers.

"'It's clear that while we have discovered an essential role for voltage gated calcium channels in reading the embryo's bioelectric pattern, we will need to continue work to understand the role of many different ion channels and genetic factors throughout all stages of development," said Cliff Tabin, associate of the Allen Discovery Center at Tufts and chairman of the Depertment of Genetics in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School.

"'We are just beginning to understand how the 'software' of embryonic development (the electrical patterns) are created and interpreted by the 'hardware' (the cells' genes and proteins) to enable the cells to cooperate and organize into a highly-patterned body," said Michael Levin, Vannevar Bush Professor of Biology in the School of Arts & Sciences and director of the Allen Discovery Center at Tufts."

Comment: Embryos just don't grow. They are design coded to follow designed plans electrically laid out..

Magic embryology: developing an immune and blood systems

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 09, 2019, 18:32 (108 days ago) @ David Turell

Early stem cells are tracked in embryos to learn how the systems develop:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-10-cell-human-liver-reveals-blood.html

"In a world first, scientists have created the human developmental liver cell atlas that provides crucial insights into how the blood and immune systems develop in the foetus. It maps changes in the cellular landscape of the developing liver between the first and second trimesters of pregnancy, including how stem cells from the liver seed other tissues to support the high demand for oxygen needed for growth.

***

"Until now, it was unknown precisely how the blood and immune systems develop in humans—a process known as haematopoiesis. As adults, it is bone marrow that creates our blood and immune cells. But in early embryonic life, the yolk sac and liver play a major role in making blood and immune cells. These cells subsequently seed peripheral tissues such as skin, kidney and finally bone marrow.

***

"A developing foetus requires huge amounts of oxygen to fuel growth. The research discovered that during development, 'mother' haematopoietic stem cells stay in the liver. But as the liver alone cannot supply sufficient red blood cells, the next generation 'daughter' cells—known as progenitor cells—travel to other tissues. They mature in places such as the skin, where they develop into red blood cells to help meet the high demand for oxygen.

"Dr. Elisa Laurenti, a senior author from the Wellcome—MRC Cambridge Stem Cell Institute and the Department of Haematology at the University of Cambridge, said: "We knew that as adults age our immune system changes. This study shows how the liver's ability to make blood and immune cells changes in a very short space of time, even between seven and 17 weeks post-conception. If we can understand what makes the stem cells in the liver so good at making red blood cells, it will have important implications for regenerative medicine.'"

Comment: these early cells are following a planned outline of development. Embryology is the science of understanding how sex produces multicellular organisms. When life was single celled, splitting was a simple sort of reproduction. Having two individuals contribute genes requires that a design plan be set up for each new reproduction of an individual which is not different from the parents, but of course, it might produce some variability. That is a point Darwin used, the variability, but Darwin simply accepted sexual reproduction, and could not explain how a chance evolutionary process could create such a complex mechanism like embryology.It had to be designed.

Magic embryology: developing brain neuron clusters

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 09, 2019, 18:48 (108 days ago) @ David Turell

More evidence of design planning in creating an embryo's brain:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191009095826.htm

"Neurons are not randomly arranged in the human brain. In the cortex, they are organized in interconnected clusters with high intrinsic connectivity. This modular connectivity structure, in which clusters eventually serve as functional units, is formed in early phases of development. The underlying self-organization process is regulated by neuronal activity but the detailed mechanisms are still poorly understood. Based on in vitro studies and computational modeling, neuroscientists ....show how neuronal outgrowth and migration interact in shaping network architecture and the degree of modularity in mature networks.

***

"Neurons are sociable cells that, on the long run, die in isolation. During development, they therefore grow out cellular processes, termed neurites, to establish synaptic connections with other neurons. Once they receive sufficient or too much synaptic input, however, they stop growing or shrink. By this, neurons avoid long-term over-excitation. It is widely assumed among researchers that neuronal growth is hereby controlled to stabilize neuronal activity at a specific target level.

"Yet, to increase the probability of connections, neurons cannot only grow out their neurites but are also able to migrate towards other neurons. "In computer simulations we show that migration and neurite outgrowth may interact to shape specific mesoscale network architectures" says Samora Okujeni. The interaction regulates the relation between local connectivity within clusters and long-range inter-cluster connectivity and thereby the degree of network modularity. "This, in turn, influences the generation and spatiotemporal patterns of spontaneous activity." Such interdependencies may be crucial for the proper development of the cortex.

***

"'Cytoskeletal dynamics are not directly controlled by action potential activity but indirectly through an associated calcium influx that influences the balance between growth and degradation." Okujeni explains. "Modularity increased the overall rate of action potentials but decreased their synchronization across the network that effectively determines the calcium influx per action potential. Given this dependence, we estimated that all network structures attain a similar target level of calcium influx during development.'"

Comment: more evidence of a highly designed plan for neurons to follow, ending up in a highly coordinated functional clusters, helping to explain how the brain works so efficiently.

Magic embryology: how stem cells follow genetic instructions

by David Turell @, Friday, November 08, 2019, 19:36 (78 days ago) @ David Turell

It is all automatic:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191107122638.htm

"All cells in the body contain the same genetic material. The difference between cells therefore depends solely on which genes are expressed or 'turned on'. Now, researchers have gained new insights into how genes are turned on and off and how the cells ''forget their past'' while developing into a specific cell in the body. This new knowledge will be crucial for stem cell therapy and potentially treating people with cancer.

***

"'We previously thought that transcription factors drive the process that determines whether a gene is expressed and subsequently translated into the corresponding protein. Our new results show that transcription factors may be more analogous to being the memory of the cell. As long as the transcription factors are connected to a gene, the gene can be read (turned on), but the external signals received by the cells seem to determine whether the gene is turned on or off. As soon as the transcription factors are gone, the cells can no longer return to their point of origin," explains Josh Brickman, Professor and Group Leader, DanStem, University of Copenhagen.

***

"The researchers developed a stem cell model to mimic a cell's response to signaling and used it to, for first time, precisely determine the sequence of the events involved in a gene being turned on and off in response to a signal in stem cells. The researchers were able to describe how genes are turned on and off and under what circumstances a cell can develop in a certain direction but then elect to return to the starting-point.

***

"'Transcription factors are still a key signal, but they do not drive the process, as previously thought. Once they are there, the gene can be read, and they remain in place for a while after the gene is read. And when they are gone, the window in which the gene can be read can be closed again. You can compare it with the vapour trails you see in the sky when an airplane has passed. They linger for a while but slowly dissipate again," explains first author, William Hamilton, Assistant Professor at DanStem."

Comment: All an automatic process, which is the way cells work

Magic embryology: little understood

by David Turell @, Monday, December 09, 2019, 15:38 (47 days ago) @ David Turell

Specific software must underlie embryological formation of a form from the fertilized egg. New species must have new software to run the show:

https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion--interdisciplinary-approach-neede...

Physicists, geneticists, computer scientists, and biologists are working together to gain a full appreciation of the intricacies of organismal growth and form.

***

"Over the past 20 years, researchers have made tremendous progress in identifying specific genes necessary for development, mostly by chronicling mutations or deletions of genes that lead to the onset of diseases and anatomical defects. But this information is just the tip of the iceberg. While the genome specifies the crucial “parts list” for individual cells, researchers have much to learn about the signaling events that coordinate the collaborative cellular processes to create and repair complex anatomies.

"In the post-genomic era, it is becoming clear that the next step beyond identifying the genetically specified hardware of the body involves understanding the physiological software: the mechanisms that enable cells and tissues to make decisions and implement swarm dynamics that remodel organ-level structure. Often, the same anatomical outcome can arise from a range of diverse starting conditions. For example, normal frog faces can arise even when tadpole faces have their craniofacial tissues in scrambled positions. To understand this anatomical convergence toward the correct target morphology, researchers must incorporate the deep insights of physics and computer science into cell and developmental biology and remember that evolution exploits physical forces such as biomechanics and bioelectrics. (my bold)

***

"...we work to identify new scientific hypotheses (for example, the idea that anatomical goals are represented by biophysical “memories” in tissues) and experimental tools that will reveal entirely new areas of life science. The dynamic control of biological shape is a problem that requires cross-disciplinary collaboration and the synthesis of data from an array of model systems.

***

"Our core mission is to uncover and exploit the computational layer between the genome and resulting anatomy." (my bold)

Comment: These quotes are from an article that explains how a new lab is working on morphogenesis. The key points show that the missing ingredient is how the software makes new forms, and this can be applied to embryology and to the creation of new species. It requires the development of new software. It is not really magic. It must be new software, that is new information as the term 'computational layer' implies in computer terms. Those changed instructions must be put into stem cells, but also be centrally located to coordinate the whole new construction. New software must be created by precise planning and code-writing. Only a mind can create the new software.

Magic embryology: video egg to organism in 6 minutes

by David Turell @, Monday, December 23, 2019, 15:01 (33 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology: signals that connect neurons

by David Turell @, Monday, December 23, 2019, 19:08 (33 days ago) @ David Turell

Neurons send branches to many other neurons to make the interpretive networks. Chemical signals are used:

"The brain's complex tangle of interconnected nerve cells processes visual images, recalls memories, controls motor function, and coordinates countless other functions. A major goal of neuroscience is understanding how the brain is "wired"—in other words, how do all of its neurons know how they should connect to each other to achieve optimum function?

***

"In the 1960s, Caltech neuroscientist and Nobel Laureate Roger Sperry proposed that neural circuit assembly is guided by interactions between cell-surface proteins—proteins that sit on the outer surface of neurons and other cells. Sperry's hypothesis, which was based on his experiments on optic pathways in frog and fish brains, was that these proteins act like signposts, labeling individual neurons in the brain as appropriate targets for neurons in the eye. The new work from the Zinn laboratory identifies brain and eye cell-surface proteins in Drosophila that have these signpost functions.

"Several years ago, researchers at Stanford and in the Zinn group at Caltech expressed each of 200 different Drosophila cell-surface proteins in lab dishes and characterized all the binding reactions among these proteins that occur in a test tube (about 40,000 possible combinations).

"The work revealed that two families of cell-surface proteins, dubbed Dprs and DIPs, have a particular affinity for one another and that members of both families are found on the surfaces of neurons. Researchers in the Zinn laboratory have been trying to understand how this interaction plays a role in neural development.

***

"They found that, when neural connections are being made in the developing visual system, the target neurons are generated in excess and compete for their photoreceptor partners. This matching is possible because of the interaction between Dpr11 on the photoreceptors and DIP-gamma on the target neurons. Thus, if the two proteins were not both expressed (as was the case, for example, in flies with mutations in either the dpr11 or DIP-gamma genes), the target neurons died and the neural circuit did not develop correctly. Analysis of the neural connections in mutant flies suggests that they should have defects in color vision.

***

"Though the researchers have discovered that this specific Dpr/DIP pairing is critical for proper neural-circuit formation, any given neuron expresses about 250 different cell-surface proteins, making the analysis of how cell-surface proteins control connectivity very complex. Future work will continue to study how synaptic connectivity is determined by pairings between Dprs and DIPs and other cell-surface proteins, with the ultimate goal of understanding the information required to create the entire wiring diagram of the fly brain."

Comment: Another complex arrangement to guide development of neuronal connections, all pre-planned by instructions that produce these specific protein signals and make each new brain about the same. There must be an underlying plan to be followed. this cannot be designed by chance.

Magic embryology: rules for growing a new fetus

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 21, 2020, 22:14 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

Partly involves 3-D mechanical pressures, but the whole process is very poorly understood:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610716300542?via%3Dihub

From the abstract:
"We surmise that the blastula inherently preserves the underlying geometry of the cuboidal array of eight cells produced by the first three cleavages that ultimately define the medial-lateral, dorsal-ventral, and anterior-posterior axes of the future body plan. Through graphical depictions, we demonstrate the formation of principal structures of the vertebrate body via mechanical deformation of predictable geometrical patterns during gastrulation. The descriptive rigor of our model is supported through comparisons with previous characterizations of the embryonic and adult vertebrate bauplane. Though speculative, the model addresses the poignant absence in the literature of any plausible account of the origin of vertebrate morphology. A robust solution to the problem of morphogenesis—currently an elusive goal—will only emerge from consideration of both top-down (e.g., the mechanical constraints and geometric properties considered here) and bottom-up (e.g., molecular and mechano-chemical) influences."

In the conclusion, which admits no one yet knows how this all works, they add the following comment about t he comparative anatomy of related groups (homology):

"...there are currently no other causative global mechanical models of morphogenesis extant in the modern literature. The causal account that the model provides for the development of complex vertebrate morphology is necessarily presented by a speculative series of schematic images representing sequences of key mechanical events during embryogenesis, akin to a series of blueprints. The vast—and largely non-pictorial—literature on this subject does not offer a global mechanism to explain the rise of diverse forms of animal phyla. Though highly speculative, the model offered here may suggest just such a mechanism. The homologous morphological resemblance among the phyla may, in fact, be due as much to the inevitable topological trajectory of the confined expansion of a primordial spherical membrane as it is to common ancestry. Accordingly, the choices available to natural selection may be limited to the possible variations in proportions of the body parts of otherwise relatively conservative and invariant phyletic forms, rather than simply provided by random genetic mutations resulting from errors in transcription. Animal form may thus be seen as the product of physical forces—or biases—acting upon cells and populations of cells with very specific and constrained geometric properties, rather than arising solely from the vagaries of chance. " (my bolds)

Comment: Note the bolded comments, which imply there are underlying physical principles that guide these processes as well as genetic instructions, and therefore any chance events are not allowed. Certainly sounds designed by a designer.

Magic embryology: rules for growing a new fetus

by dhw, Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 14:35 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: The vast—and largely non-pictorial—literature on this subject does not offer a global mechanism to explain the rise of diverse forms of animal phyla. Though highly speculative, the model offered here may suggest just such a mechanism. The homologous morphological resemblance among the phyla may, in fact, be due as much to the inevitable topological trajectory of the confined expansion of a primordial spherical membrane as it is to common ancestry. Accordingly, the choices available to natural selection may be limited to the possible variations in proportions of the body parts of otherwise relatively conservative and invariant phyletic forms, rather than simply provided by random genetic mutations resulting from errors in transcription. Animal form may thus be seen as the product of physical forces—or biases—acting upon cells and populations of cells with very specific and constrained geometric properties, rather than arising solely from the vagaries of chance. " (David’s bolds)

DAVID: Note the bolded comments, which imply there are underlying physical principles that guide these processes as well as genetic instructions, and therefore any chance events are not allowed. Certainly sounds designed by a designer.

Your second bold is a clear indication that the author believes changing environmental conditions influence the behaviour of cell communities (he calls them “populations), though their “constrained properties” can hardly explain innovation. It is perfectly possible that your “underlying physical principles” may be guided by underlying mental activities. I am not sufficiently au fait with the terminology to understand your first bold, but I’d have thought that all the resemblances were EVIDENCE of common descent. Since you have bolded it, perhaps you can summarize the gist for me. As you know, I am as sceptical as you about “chance” being the driving force of evolution.

Magic embryology: rules for growing a new fetus

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 16:27 (3 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: The vast—and largely non-pictorial—literature on this subject does not offer a global mechanism to explain the rise of diverse forms of animal phyla. Though highly speculative, the model offered here may suggest just such a mechanism. The homologous morphological resemblance among the phyla may, in fact, be due as much to the inevitable topological trajectory of the confined expansion of a primordial spherical membrane as it is to common ancestry. Accordingly, the choices available to natural selection may be limited to the possible variations in proportions of the body parts of otherwise relatively conservative and invariant phyletic forms, rather than simply provided by random genetic mutations resulting from errors in transcription. Animal form may thus be seen as the product of physical forces—or biases—acting upon cells and populations of cells with very specific and constrained geometric properties, rather than arising solely from the vagaries of chance. " (David’s bolds)

DAVID: Note the bolded comments, which imply there are underlying physical principles that guide these processes as well as genetic instructions, and therefore any chance events are not allowed. Certainly sounds designed by a designer.

dhw: Your second bold is a clear indication that the author believes changing environmental conditions influence the behaviour of cell communities (he calls them “populations), though their “constrained properties” can hardly explain innovation. It is perfectly possible that your “underlying physical principles” may be guided by underlying mental activities. I am not sufficiently au fait with the terminology to understand your first bold, but I’d have thought that all the resemblances were EVIDENCE of common descent. Since you have bolded it, perhaps you can summarize the gist for me. As you know, I am as sceptical as you about “chance” being the driving force of evolution.

Homologies are similar formations in structure and for common descent he assumes the lookalikes are all set up by the same physical shaping forces all through time.

Magic embryology: rules for growing a new fetus

by dhw, Thursday, January 23, 2020, 10:01 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: The vast—and largely non-pictorial—literature on this subject does not offer a global mechanism to explain the rise of diverse forms of animal phyla. Though highly speculative, the model offered here may suggest just such a mechanism.The homologous morphological resemblance among the phyla may, in fact, be due as much to the inevitable topological trajectory of the confined expansion of a primordial spherical membrane as it is to common ancestry. Accordingly, the choices available to natural selection may be limited to the possible variations in proportions of the body parts of otherwise relatively conservative and invariant phyletic forms, rather than simply provided by random genetic mutations resulting from errors in transcription.bAnimal form may thus be seen as the product of physical forces—or biases—acting upon cells and populations of cells with very specific and constrained geometric properties, rather than arising solely from the vagaries of chance." (David’s bolds)

DAVID: Note the bolded comments, which imply there are underlying physical principles that guide these processes as well as genetic instructions, and therefore any chance events are not allowed. Certainly sounds designed by a designer.

dhw: Your second bold is a clear indication that the author believes changing environmental conditions influence the behaviour of cell communities (he calls them “populations), though their “constrained properties” can hardly explain innovation. It is perfectly possible that your “underlying physical principles” may be guided by underlying mental activities. I am not sufficiently au fait with the terminology to understand your first bold, but I’d have thought that all the resemblances were EVIDENCE of common descent. Since you have bolded it, perhaps you can summarize the gist for me. As you know, I am as sceptical as you about “chance” being the driving force of evolution.

DAVID: Homologies are similar formations in structure and for common descent he assumes the lookalikes are all set up by the same physical shaping forces all through time.

Thank you, but I understand “homologies” – it’s the “topogical trajectory” etc. that I don’t understand. But we agree about chance and common descent, so let’s leave it at that.

Magic embryology: rules for growing a new fetus

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 23, 2020, 22:34 (2 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: The vast—and largely non-pictorial—literature on this subject does not offer a global mechanism to explain the rise of diverse forms of animal phyla. Though highly speculative, the model offered here may suggest just such a mechanism.The homologous morphological resemblance among the phyla may, in fact, be due as much to the inevitable topological trajectory of the confined expansion of a primordial spherical membrane as it is to common ancestry. Accordingly, the choices available to natural selection may be limited to the possible variations in proportions of the body parts of otherwise relatively conservative and invariant phyletic forms, rather than simply provided by random genetic mutations resulting from errors in transcription.bAnimal form may thus be seen as the product of physical forces—or biases—acting upon cells and populations of cells with very specific and constrained geometric properties, rather than arising solely from the vagaries of chance." (David’s bolds)

DAVID: Note the bolded comments, which imply there are underlying physical principles that guide these processes as well as genetic instructions, and therefore any chance events are not allowed. Certainly sounds designed by a designer.

dhw: Your second bold is a clear indication that the author believes changing environmental conditions influence the behaviour of cell communities (he calls them “populations), though their “constrained properties” can hardly explain innovation. It is perfectly possible that your “underlying physical principles” may be guided by underlying mental activities. I am not sufficiently au fait with the terminology to understand your first bold, but I’d have thought that all the resemblances were EVIDENCE of common descent. Since you have bolded it, perhaps you can summarize the gist for me. As you know, I am as sceptical as you about “chance” being the driving force of evolution.

DAVID: Homologies are similar formations in structure and for common descent he assumes the lookalikes are all set up by the same physical shaping forces all through time.

dhw: Thank you, but I understand “homologies” – it’s the “topogical trajectory” etc. that I don’t understand. But we agree about chance and common descent, so let’s leave it at that.

Sorry about that. 'Topological trajectories' means shaping forms of organs and bodies from forces in tissues already in prior existence resulting in forcing more directional cell growth.

Magic embryology: rules for growing a new fetus

by dhw, Friday, January 24, 2020, 11:41 (1 day, 15 hours, 27 min. ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: The homologous morphological resemblance among the phyla may, in fact, be due as much to the inevitable topological trajectory of the confined expansion of a primordial spherical membrane as it is to common ancestry.

DAVID: Homologies are similar formations in structure and for common descent he assumes the lookalikes are all set up by the same physical shaping forces all through time.

dhw: Thank you, but I understand “homologies” – it’s the “topogical trajectory” etc. that I don’t understand. But we agree about chance and common descent, so let’s leave it at that.

DAVID: Sorry about that. 'Topological trajectories' means shaping forms of organs and bodies from forces in tissues already in prior existence resulting in forcing more directional cell growth.

Thank you. Topology = the anatomy of any specific bodily area, structure or part. So if I may put this in plain English, they are saying that the similar formations are due to the fact that changes take place in existing structures though these remain basically the same. In that case, the similarities are not “due” partly to common descent; the similarities are the evidence for common descent!

Magic embryology: rules for growing a new fetus

by David Turell @, Friday, January 24, 2020, 20:39 (1 day, 6 hours, 29 min. ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: The homologous morphological resemblance among the phyla may, in fact, be due as much to the inevitable topological trajectory of the confined expansion of a primordial spherical membrane as it is to common ancestry.

DAVID: Homologies are similar formations in structure and for common descent he assumes the lookalikes are all set up by the same physical shaping forces all through time.

dhw: Thank you, but I understand “homologies” – it’s the “topogical trajectory” etc. that I don’t understand. But we agree about chance and common descent, so let’s leave it at that.

DAVID: Sorry about that. 'Topological trajectories' means shaping forms of organs and bodies from forces in tissues already in prior existence resulting in forcing more directional cell growth.

dhw: Thank you. Topology = the anatomy of any specific bodily area, structure or part. So if I may put this in plain English, they are saying that the similar formations are due to the fact that changes take place in existing structures though these remain basically the same. In that case, the similarities are not “due” partly to common descent; the similarities are the evidence for common descent!

The forces have to act on what exists in the very early embryo, which generally reflects the past shapes, result, the appearance of common descent as part of the process. We agree.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum