Cells Make Decisions as Members of a Superbly Organized Army

Newsweek article “The Secrets of the Human Cell” explains:

Cell_Umberto_Salvagnin

“Each of those 100 trillion cells functions like a walled city. Power plants generate the cell’s energy.

Factories produce proteins, vital units of chemical commerce.

Complex transportation systems guide specific chemicals from point to point within the cell and beyond.

Sentries at the barricades control the export and import markets, and monitor the outside world for signs of danger.

Disciplined biological armies stand ready to grapple with invaders.

A centralized genetic government maintains order. Cells do their work silently, processing prodigious volumes of information with tremendous speed.”

Carl Sagan wrote,

“A living cell is a marvel of detailed and complex architecture. Seen through a microscope there is an appearance of almost frantic activity.

On a deeper level it is known that molecules are being synthesized at an enormous rate. Almost any enzyme catalyzes the synthesis of more than 100 other molecules per second.

In ten minutes, a sizeable fraction of total mass of a metabolizing bacterial cell has been synthesized.ebook

The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.”

From Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design

10 Responses

  1. R says:

    Look at hemoglobin and chlorophyll molecule Iron and Magnezium are the only 2 differences, showing intelligent design rather than pure chance

    • I don’t care for comments by anonymous people named “R.” Use your full name from now on.

      • T says:

        Hey Perry, how about letting people using the name/alias they want? It’s not like his/her comment needed to be source trusted and credited. Your reply is useless and your request excessive.

        • No.

          Cowards post anonymous comments. They get snarky and they say things that don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

          And then they leave.

          Total waste of time. I don’t argue with anonymous cowards anymore. (I did that long enough on Infidels. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels. 90% of those people were anonymous. Their opinions were worthless.)

          (And yes I know some people think that’s a rude or un-Christian thing to say. If so they’ve never studied Jesus or read the book of Proverbs.)

          People who want to have any kind of real conversation here will use their real names. That’s da rules. People who have valuable things to contribute aren’t afraid to use their real names.

  2. Shae Germann says:

    Perry your work is very good. I love that you are challenging the institutional sciences with actual science. Their dogmatic a-priori adherence to old science seems to go unchanged though. Darwinian evolution is not based on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. But a bias assertive, self proclaimed authority in materialism.

    For these materialists, the materialism comes first, the scientific e comes there after.

  3. Edward Tigchelaar says:

    No single celled amoeba crawled out of the primordial swamp as so many of us were taught when the theory of evolution was in its heyday. Why? As the author of the article states a single cell is much more complex than anyone heretofore has given credit to. Conclusion: God in Heaven is he author and creator of Life. Amen.

  4. Michael Champion says:

    There’s one problem with this. I’m not questioning that cells may coordinate with each other for effective actions as they do seem to. But what’s the communication mechanism? This is important to ask for intracellular communication too. The normal model of the cell that fits the standard Darwinian paradigm of no intentional cellular behavior is that different components of the cell randomly bump into each other while floating in its fluid and are designed to fit appropriately. But it does not seem that realistic to assume that they will just happen to bump into each other at a viable rate for cellular function through only passive forces.

    My best guess? It’s probably similar to how movement of the human body is handled. With the human body everyone knows it’s controlled by electrical impulses flowing through the nervous system and directing the movements of the muscles while supplying energy. Yes, oxygen is needed so the resultant ATP can release the energy in its chemical bonds, but that energy is released in the form of electrical impulses as far as i can tell. That explains why nerve compression prevents people from moving if their leg falls asleep or something similar, it makes sense that energy produced in one part of the body is able to transmit through nerves, it is not just localized energy production for muscular movement via ATP, that energy is able to travel elsewhere in the body. Otherwise you couldn’t explain how the energy released from ATP moves the muscles, without the energy itself moving. Some function of electromagnetic fields probably is what allows cells to communicate with each other by reacting to different frequencies of these electromagnetic fields that cells create to relay different messages. I did not exactly originate this idea and did hear it from elsewhere but it seems like a more sound hypothesis overall than the typical Neo-Darwinian model. Yes, pieces of the cell are designed to fit together to accept the right proteins and molecules that are designed to interface with them, but it does not really make sense for those pieces to magically come together at a statistically fast enough rate to accomplish life critical functions in time without an active force doing so. Bacteria adapt at a ludicrous speeds, can that truly be caused by just individual bits in the cell floating around randomly into the right places? You could probably statistically prove that this is impossible if you know anybody with the resources and equipment to do so who’d listen to the suggestion. Maybe i am wrong somehow and they can really randomly float into place that quickly somehow but i haven’t seen the statistical case for it either way if it is out there somewhere and proves that randomness in cells is true. You should recommend this idea to your Neo-Darwinian friends too, if they could prove statistically that the individual proteins in the cell could randomly float around fast enough to accomplish cell functions without also producing random errors that ruin everything as they do so it’d be a great accomplishment for the hardcore materialists.

    Here’s my source on the hypothesis of electromagnetic fields allowing DNA and cells to communicate:
    http://viewzone.com/dnax.html
    I don’t know if this is actually true or not but it seems more logical of a hypothesis than the current neo-darwinian model of the cell.

    • Michael Champion says:

      To be specific, i don’t deny that chemical message communication between different cells and inside the cell happens, the chemical receptors are all there. But the ‘pieces randomly float into place’ explanation does not seem like a viable enough explanation. So the idea of what’s happening in the cell portrayed in that article is that electric charge differences between the proteins and etc that fit together act as a mechanism allowing them to be pulled into the right places. There is also another important objection to the ‘randomly float into place’ argument:Even if the pieces floated around the cell at a fast enough speed to get to the place where x protein needs to fit by chance alone, the chance of them actually locking in correctly by random forces should be extremely low. Imagine for a moment that you put a lock right next to a key which passively floats around in fluid right next to it. Even if it always remains very close to where it’s supposed to be, statistically it’s going to be very unlikely that it passively through random forces will bump into the lock at the exact right angle to get in. You can easily apply the same logic with proteins locking into place, it does not make sense via chance alone.

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *