Intelligent Design and The Inner Life of the Cell

Studio Daily ^ | Jully 20, 2006 | Beth Marchant

[WhatsItAllAbout]

The Inner Life of a Cell, an eight-minute animation created in NewTek LightWave 3D and Adobe After Effects for Harvard biology students, won’t draw the kind of box office crowds that more ferocious˜and furrier˜digital creations did last Christmas. But it will share a place along side them in SIGGRAPH's Electronic Theatre show, which will run for three days during the 33rd annual exhibition and conference in Boston next month. Created by XVIVO, a scientific animation company near Hartford, CT, the animation illustrates unseen molecular mechanisms and the ones they trigger, specifically how white blood cells sense and respond to their surroundings and external stimuli.

Nuclei, proteins and lipids move with bug-like authority, slithering, gliding and twisting through 3D space. “All of those things that you see in the animation are going on in every one of your cells in your body all the time,” says XVIVO lead animator John Liebler, who worked with company partners David Bolinsky, XVIVO’s medical director, and Mike Astrachan, the project’s production director, to blend the academic data and narrative from Harvard’s faculty into a fluid visual interpretation. “First, we couldn’t have known where to begin with all of this material without significant work done by Alain Viel, Ph.D. [associate director of undergraduate research at Harvard University], who wrote and guided the focus to include the essential processes that needed to be described to complement the curriculum and sustain an interesting narrative. I’ve been in the medical animation field for seven years now, so I’m a little jaded, but I still get surprised by things. For instance, in the animation there’s a motor protein that’s sort of walking along a line, carrying this round sphere of lipids. When I started working on that section I admit I was kind of surprised to see that it really does look like it’s out for a stroll, like a character in a science fiction film or animation. But based on all the data, it’s a completely accurate rendering.”

[NonZeroSum]

How is it scientific to claim truths about the nature of a creator?

It's not scientific to even discuss a creator, because there's no repeatable experiment one could run, or predictions that one could make, based on that theory. So I don't understand why so many creationists insist on doing so in scientific discussions.

If you want to talk about creators, go to Sunday School, or a class on philosophy or comparative religions. Don't expect to see it in a science class.

[sleepy_hollow]

So, the evolutionists should take that discussion to those venues, too? I hope you agree with that.

But if you do, then you'd better read what they have said. Maybe you'll find you are in a sunday school camouflaged as a scientific classroom. That is my assertion, and I see you concveniently have not dealt with most of anything I said.

No problem, you must not be able to argue scientifically. (Just trying to goad you, but in a friendly way, I assure you). See, I'm smiling - :)

[NonZeroSum]

So, the evolutionists should take that discussion to those venues, too?

No.

I hope you agree with that.

Why?

Evolution is a scientific theory. It's something to be taught in science class, not Sunday School. It could be discussed in philosophy, I guess, but only in the context of science versus other belief systems.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

[ghostrider]

Nobody has asked you to focus on unknowns. However it is KNOWN, for example, that the urethra runs through the prostate gland leading to great difficulty in urinating for many men as they age. Human anatomy is well understood. It would be a much better design to run the urethra AROUND the prostate or to have located the prostate somewhere else. CONCLUSION: if urethra placement has been intelligently designed, then it was designed by someone with a twisted sense of humor and/or someone who enjoys the suffering of old men.

Clearly, there is so much that is not yet known about the human body and specifically about the prostrate, but you leap forward with such a strong position. I hope my Urologist does not so quickly conclude that my design is so flawed that he needs to reroute tubes. I can see it now. One tube for urine, one for semen, one tube sperm, one tube for blood. May the Lord save us from from narrow minded intellectuals.

[jas3]

I think you still misunderstand my point. In fact, you further underscore my point.

You seem to be trying to use evolution to disprove the existence of God.

That is 100% inaccurate. I have said nothing whatsoever about the existence of God. I can't imagine how or why you would mutate my assertion that if there is a designer that he is not very good into a different assertion that there is no God.

You say that you never said there was no creator, but you also seem to think you know what "creators" are like by your opinions on what constitutes design or good design or intelligent design. Where do you get this information/knowledge?

It is quite simply to define rules for "good" and "bad" design. The rules are not different from the rules that you might use to evaluate an automobile. You might ask yourself: Is it reliable? What parts will break and when? How much does it cost to maintain? Does it do it's intended job well? Perhaps you might want to redefine the job of the human urethra from emptying the bladder into the job of causing male suffering. In that case you might very well conclude that the urethra is well designed. But in that case it is still not the optimal design to cause suffering. I don't need to know anything about the creator of my car to know that it is or is not well designed. Likewise, I don't need to know that when a child is born with ambiguous genitalia requiring a genetic test to determine the sex of that baby, that that child was not designed well. There are thousands of errors in human development and genetic disorders which are "mistakes". This is why the MAJORITY of pregnancies terminate naturally prior to birth. I contend that no automaker would be considered to be rendering a good design if more than half of its vehicles had to be scrapped on the assembly line. Likewise, I need not know anything about the creator of humans to know that if he chose the current design, he made and continues to make very very many mistakes.

How is it scientific to claim truths about the nature of a creator?

It is scientific to make observations of nature and to report them. If an architect's buildings failed at a 50% rate prior to completion, one might well conclude that he was not doing a good job based on higher standards that could easily be accomplished. Likewise, if God has chosen to design humans at the genetic level, he makes many many mistakes, which humans have already begun correcting.

Where does one go for scientific experiments on the types of creators?

If you accept the assumption that the creator is an Intelligent Designer, than your first stop should be the neonatal care unit of your local teaching hospital. Another stop might be the pediatric oncology ward.

You observe soemthing you find inefficient, and then decide that proves there is no intelligent design, or that the creator has certain qualities/limitations.

I observe something that I find inefficient and conclude that the designer did not do a good job. That is correct. For example the oxygen carrying capacity of red blood cells is quite poor. There are already replacement red blood cells being engineered that would allow humans to hold their breath underwater for 30 minutes or more. That is an IMPROVEMENT to a good design. I saw a little girl with spina bifida who had her urethra routed out her belly button to allow easier catheterization so that she would not die of kidney failure before her 10th birthday. That is an improvement on poor design.

How do you prove this scientifically without having the same/superior knowledge as the creator?

It is quite simple to state that the urethra is not optimally place for draining the bladder in men, just as it is simple to state putting the steering wheel in your car on the floor of the vehicle is not optimal for driving a car. Granted one does need to accept that the purpose of the urethra is to help man urinate. If the purpose is to torture old men, then it is adequately but still not optimally placed.

You are merely projecting your own beliefs (dare I say feelings, hunches, urges?) onto this flawed/limited creator idea you are willing to allow.

I strongly disagree. It is quite simple to see what specific body parts are designed for and even sometimes to correct them when they function improperly due to congenital deformities. To suggest that the deformity is part of the design is to redefine the word design. One could argue that a rock is an excellent design of a car using your refusal to define what intelligent design means.

I would submit that you simply are using evolutionary theory as a metaphysical statement about you own beliefs. I don't think you do it intentionally, but are blind to it by your emotions and beliefs.

Sadly that is not the case. I wish I could get emotional about anything, but alas I cannot. I can certainly understand what most people mean when they use the words "intelligent" and "design". I have merely argued that the human form is not very intelligently designed and is fraught with design problems. I find it hard to believe you can't accept this. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with medicine.

The fact is that evolution is not scientific either if it only leads to metaphysical conclusions that are, themselves, the beliefs being proven.

That point is completely irrelevant to mine. I'm not arguing for evolution. I don't claim to have any knowledge as to where man came from. I am only stating that however man was created....it was a lousy job.

Evolution is about God, not about evolution. Think about it. Read all of the evolutionary giants. They all make pronouncements about God. Why? I submit it is because they are using evolution, not for scientific, but for metaphysical (dare I say religious?) purposes. THey are trying to deal with the problem of evil and evolution is their theodicy, their theory about why "bad things happen to good people."

Still irrelevant to my assertion that man is not intelligently designed. Perhaps God is a bad designer. Why is that so hard to accept?

I know you will chafe at this assertion, but please, then define evolution without reference to the metaphysical.

I have not brought up evolution even once.

Purely scientific discussion does not require a belief, but somehow evolution does, and is still scientific?

Still irrelevant and off topic.

It is a real problem that the evolutionists need to confront. Their logic is flawed, probably fatally.

So go find an evolutionist and have it out with him. I am not promoting evloution. Once again I am only stating that homo sapien is inadequately designed.

By the way, I manage hundreds of scientists and engineers and I also do not buy the notion that the universe is bilions of years old, or that evolution is proven or that there are any transitional forms or homolgies that are conclusive or dating techniques that are without serious flaws, or any of the conventional wisdom. I see lots of problems with the "science" behind theose assertions. I believe that Truth and Reality are to be sought and discerned, not that conventional wisdom should be upheld for its own sake. I may be wrong, but I know I am right or wrong, one or the other. I am not confused about that in the least.

Off topic; still irrelevant.

What say you? Do you believe in trying not to believe?

I don't understand what either question has to do with my assertion that the urethra is poorly designed.

jas3

[jas3]

Nobody has asked you to focus on unknowns. However it is KNOWN, for example, that the urethra runs through the prostate gland leading to great difficulty in urinating for many men as they age. Human anatomy is well understood. It would be a much better design to run the urethra AROUND the prostate or to have located the prostate somewhere else. CONCLUSION: if urethra placement has been intelligently designed, then it was designed by someone with a twisted sense of humor and/or someone who enjoys the suffering of old men.

Clearly, there is so much that is not yet known about the human body and specifically about the prostrate, but you leap forward with such a strong position. I hope my Urologist does not so quickly conclude that my design is so flawed that he needs to reroute tubes. I can see it now. One tube for urine, one for semen, one tube sperm, one tube for blood. May the Lord save us from from narrow minded intellectuals.

The word is prostate, not prostrate. I suggest you ask your urologist if he thinks it would have been better for the urethra to not run through the prostate in the first place. He will surely agree, although it would certainly mean much less business for him. FYI, the tubes for semen and urine do not also carry blood unless you are seriously ill. May the Lord save us from enlarged prostates and bless us with more intellectuals to help us when they become so enlarged that we cannot pee.

jas3

[jas3]

p.s. May the Lord save us from people who are afraid of knowledge and fear intellectuals (such as yourself).

[ghostrider]

The word is prostate, not prostrate. I suggest you ask your urologist if he thinks it would have been better for the urethra to not run through the prostate in the first place. He will surely agree, although it would certainly mean much less business for him.

Har! We both have been "taken to the woodshed." I took your advise and showed your comments to a brother - a physician. His comments were something to the effect that the quality of FR posters seems to have declined since the old days, and I was chastised for wasting my time responding to such nonsense.

[jas3]

The word is prostate, not prostrate. I suggest you ask your urologist if he thinks it would have been better for the urethra to not run through the prostate in the first place. He will surely agree, although it would certainly mean much less business for him.

Har! We both have been "taken to the woodshed." I took your advise and showed your comments to a brother - a physician. His comments were something to the effect that the quality of FR posters seems to have declined since the old days, and I was chastised for wasting my time responding to such nonsense.

Clearly your brother is not a urologist. And my advice (not my "advise") was to speak with a urologist.

jas3

[WhatsItAllAbout]

jas3, I do appreciate you point of view concerning bad design, but the picture is much bigger than your view.

If an Intelligent Designer created the Universe and put in place all the laws of Nature how can we say that the design is bad or flawed when it is what has gotten us to where we are. To state a design is bad you have to fully understand the goals/design parameters being implemented.

I am sure you are familiar with the term "Junk DNA", it is applied to DNA that no one has assign a purpose to. Currently much of our DNA doesn't have a known purpose but our lack of understanding doesn't constitute bad design

We may not be able to see a designer directly, but it should possible to infer a designer as our knowledge of the design increases.

View the video again and then consider is this really poorly designed?

[jas3]

jas3, I do appreciate you point of view concerning bad design, but the picture is much bigger than your view.

I disagree. I think this picture is much bigger than YOUR view. Any text on bioinformatics will reveal multiple examples of homologous genes across other species that are far better than our own species' genes.

If an Intelligent Designer created the Universe and put in place all the laws of Nature how can we say that the design is bad or flawed when it is what has gotten us to where we are.

Quite simply one can state that a design is bad because the qualification for good design is NOT having gotten us to where we are. For example, why is there no security mechanism to protect against non-self mRNA? Why is the genome not encrypted and protected by other security measures enforced in the ribosomes? Were the human genome protected, then there would be no viruses and hundreds of millions would not have died.

To state a design is bad you have to fully understand the goals/design parameters being implemented.

That is almost correct. However one can easily look across species to see alternative designs with far better implementations both at the anatomical and at the genetic level. To state that a design is bad, one merely needs to contemplate designs that are better. Here's a question: would redundancy in single organs such as the liver be a better design? Ask the question to someone who suffers from liver failure.

I am sure you are familiar with the term "Junk DNA", it is applied to DNA that no one has assign a purpose to. Currently much of our DNA doesn't have a known purpose but our lack of understanding doesn't constitute bad design

Since "junk DNA" is highly conserved across species and members of the same species it does serve a purpose. I concur that simply because that purpose has not been elucidated does not make "junk DNA" bad design...but of course, I never argued that "junk DNA" was a bad design.

I will argue that triplet codons is an ineffecient way to encode amino acid sequences. After all, we do not have 4^3 = 64 amino acids. Even assuming a stop codon, we don't have 63 amino acids either.

We may not be able to see a designer directly, but it should possible to infer a designer as our knowledge of the design increases.

That is one possibility, but as man's skill in whole genome design increases, we will certainly improve on the myriad problems with the existing model. After all, my argument is not that the designer doesn't exist, only that he's done a lousy job.

View the video again and then consider is this really poorly designed?

I've seen the video, but doesn't address the fundamental problems of our current design. Why do viruses kill people? Answer: bad design of the mRNA process. Why are children born with deformities? Answer: bad design on thousands of levels. Why do more than half of all pregnancies spontaneously abort? Answer: bad design. Why do people die of CF? Answer: bad design of sodium transport. Why do PKU kids become mentally retarded if they eat a normal diet? Answer: bad design.

jas3

[csense]

Quite simply one can state that a design is bad because the qualification for good design is NOT having gotten us to where we are. For example, why is there no security mechanism to protect against non-self mRNA? Why is the genome not encrypted and protected by other security measures enforced in the ribosomes? Were the human genome protected, then there would be no viruses and hundreds of millions would not have died.

For that matter, why should there be death at all.

The problem with your argument is that you can not know the intent of the designer, which, contrary to your assumptions, does not necessitate perfection...and even if it did, you simply have know way defining such a state. In short, and from our perspective, the state we are in right now is indistinguishable from perfection.

[csense]

...Perfection, is the fulfillment of the Designer's intent.

[jas3]

Quite simply one can state that a design is bad because the qualification for good design is NOT having gotten us to where we are. For example, why is there no security mechanism to protect against non-self mRNA? Why is the genome not encrypted and protected by other security measures enforced in the ribosomes? Were the human genome protected, then there would be no viruses and hundreds of millions would not have died.

For that matter, why should there be death at all.

The problem with your argument is that you can not know the intent of the designer, which, contrary to your assumptions, does not necessitate perfection...and even if it did, you simply have know way defining such a state. In short, and from our perspective, the state we are in right now is indistinguishable from perfection.

You raise an interesting point about death, which I will leave for another thread. However it is quite simple to know that the intent of the designer in creating a heart is to pump blood throughout the body to supply oxygen and remove CO2 from tissues. Do you disagree with that? It is also quite simple to state that eyes are for seeing. Do you agree with that? I will also state that taste buds are for tasting food. Can we agree on that or must we assume per your argument that it is impossible to know anything at all ever?

Please note that I do not require perfection. I am simply giving very specific examples of poor design. That > 50% of all pregnancies terminate because of developmental problems does not imply that I need to see 100% to agree that the design is "good".

I define good design the same way any other engineer might. And humans are not very well designed. Version 2.0 is on the drawing board now, and it will be a vast improvement over our current 0.9 model.

While you may be unable to distinguish man's current state from perfection right now, I suggest you spend a few weekends volunteering at the pediatric oncology ward of your nearest hospital. You will quickly learn to distinguish the human state from perfection.

jas3

[csense]

You're basically reiterating what you previously said. I'm curious though why you seem to think that human suffering is the result of choices made by the designer, rather than the designed.

What is free will, if not a choice between consequences that lie in opposition to each other, and how can free exist if these consequences are not available to us.

What we do, and the choices we make, affect more than just the person...just as what our ancestors have done and the choices they made, affected more than just them....even as the choices you are making here, based on your propositions, Will affect more than just your own individual judgment.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Ping

[jas3]

You're basically reiterating what you previously said. I'm curious though why you seem to think that human suffering is the result of choices made by the designer, rather than the designed.

Is it not obvious to you that a child born with cystic fibrosis was designed badly?

What is free will, if not a choice between consequences that lie in opposition to each other, and how can free exist if these consequences are not available to us.

Is it not equally obvious that a CF child exercised no free will in chosing his condition?

What we do, and the choices we make, affect more than just the person...just as what our ancestors have done and the choices they made, affected more than just them....even as the choices you are making here, based on your propositions, Will affect more than just your own individual judgment.

If the designer created humans such that previous choices that other people have made result in children being born with a genetic defect, then he is chosing to punish the wrong person. Is it not apparent that a child born with his heart outside his body is just a design problem having nothing to do with the choices made by any other human?

jas3

[csense]

s it not obvious to you that a child born with cystic fibrosis was designed badly.

The only thing that is really obvious to me, is that you think it is a design problem.

Look, I think you raise some interesting points here, but in raisng those points, it does not necessarily prompt me to raise my fist in the air and shake it at God.

I don't know why God allows human suffering. All I can do is speculate from my limited vantage point, and hope that these things bring me closer to God, rather than further away...

[NonZeroSum]

Look, I think you raise some interesting points here, but in raisng those points, it does not necessarily prompt me to raise my fist in the air and shake it at God.

Who's asking you to?

We're just asking that you not insist that the belief that "God did it" be taught in science class. It may be true--there's no scientific way to determine that one way or the other--but it's not science.

[csense]

We're just asking that you not insist that the belief that "God did it" be taught in science class.

I've never advocated such a thing, nor do I intend to. Personally, I think philosophy should be taught before any kind of science is introduced. It certainly would raise the level of discussion of both sides, and clear the air as to exactly what constitutes science, something that again, seems to be lacking to some degree or another on both sides.