Something regarding your inquiry about how cells know what to do:
In experiments with fish, frogs, and salamanders (chosen because they have great powers of regeneration), Sperry demonstrated that individual nerve fibers (which are actually different cells) behave as if each is chemically different from every other, and these chemical differences are matched in the brain. The result is that in an animal whose optic nerves are severed and then allowed to regenerate, the thousands of individual fibers that make up each optic nerve grow back into the brain and there make the same connections they had before. The animal is then able to see as if the nerves had never been severed. Proof that no adaptive reorganization of the neural circuits is involved in regeneration consisted of showing that if an eye whose optic nerve is severed is also rotated in its socket, the world seen by the eye after regeneration is still upside down and backwards. Furthermore, as in the case of the rat with the crossed nerves, no amount of retraining makes it see correctly: the animal invariably strikes to the left when it sees a worm on its right. The conclusion that the circuitry of the brain is fixed in early development is supported by much more evidence than I can summarize here. It has given rise to a field of research focused on "axonal guidance". Sperry's result concerning the chemical individuality of each nerve fiber has been confirmed by modern molecular methods. It is a result that is loaded with meanings at many levels--from immediate consequences for neurosurgery to large and still not fully explored implications for evolution and development, and even for social-political questions. It raises other fascinating and still unsolved questions. For example, the capacity to learn obviously implies some neural plasticity. But given the basic determinism of the brain that Sperry uncovered, what does learning actually consist of at the cellular and chemical level? These and other questions posed by his findings are now being studied, and no doubt they will continue to be worked on for a long time in the future. ( Work of Roger Sperry)
Rudder- I think the question was deeper about how cells know what to do- excuse me if I’m wrong- but I think he was asking how all this information arose in the first place. You posted some interesting information that I would like to point out only further shows that highly complex system information is present on all levels, and that there is a tremendous amount of highly complex and specificly organized information at work in even just one species- let along a couple hundred thousand species. While it’s true there are some common trans-species systems that operate similarly, it’s also true that there are vast vast species specific syatems at work on all levels from the larger syatems all the way down to the microscopic and furhter that are so highly specialized that they are unique to certain species only.
I don’t know- to me it just begs the question about where all these highly specific and uniquely complex systems originated from- where they go their gene information from etc. And I wonder how the literally billions of complexities could all rapidly accumulate through a random process of gene mistakes to account for all the 100’s of 1000’s of species specific complexities that exist. Some systems even on the molecular levels operate with many smaller system specific processes working quite flawlessly-
We tend to look at the larger examples of species, and point out anectdotal evidences, and think that’s enough, but my gosh, the billions of species specific complexities that are present from the observable with hte naked eye, all the way down to the molecular levels kinda just begs the question of how it was possible for all these to take place through mere gene mistakes when it’s even a bit of a stretch of faith to account for just a few larger ones in a few million years.
I dunno- Folks accuse ID of being nothign but faith and apologetics when infact secular evolution science relies almost extensively on faith when explaining how they think evolution happened. There must have been a time of extremely rapid, organized directional forces at work to get all these systems working- thew amount of mutations must have been absolutely unbelievably massive in number for nature to get it all right and working properly
Just some thoughts- not railing on your post- but just wanted to point out I trhink he was asking a deeper question about how cells would know what to do- I think he meant how did they evolve the instructions in massive numbers to know what their functions was so to speak.