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.”

[jas3]

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.

You might want to talk with the parents of a child with CF to see if they also think it is a design problem. Also, ask the child with CF too. Then ask a doctor how a single mutation in sodium transport leads to the conditions called CF. Once you understand the cause of the disease, you will see that it is a just a simple design problem.

Then you need to go back to my definition of "good" and "bad" design. Several times I have been asked on this thread how one can possibly ever know what the motives of the creator are. And several times I have stated that I don't need to know the motives to determine whether or not the design is "good". For example, if the intent of the creator is to cause suffering, there are other errors that are far worse than CF. For example, some babies are born without deformed faces, such as Treacher Collins Syndrome. This syndrome causes more suffering than CF for the afflicted because TCS kids live longer than CF kids. If the intent is to make children suffer, then CF is not the most effective way to do so.

I don't need to know what the intent of the designer of the vehicle called the "Le Car" is to know it is a poor car. One can easily access its capabilities. It has a horrible service record due to poor design. You might argue that the car was intentionally created to break down to cause human suffering. I would argue that if the car maker intended to cause suffering, that it might have made the seats burst into flames causing burns to the driver and the passenger, which would cause more suffering than the Le Car does when it is just sitting in one's driveway not working.

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.

Where in the world did that point come from. Nobody wants you to raise your fist in the air and shake it at anyone.

This goes back to the original post about using one's brain versus using one's gut. There is absolutely no reason to get emotional here and to shake your fist at anything. Simply look at the design of humans and note that they are not designed very well. That's it. Save your fist shaking for another time.

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...

I don't know why either. I do know that if his intent is to cause suffering, he's not doing a very good job of that either. He could cause far more suffering if he were more like the Old Testament God smiting entire peoples. My only point is that if one is intent on using the term "Intelligent Design" then one needs to come to grips with the FACT that the design is not very good. It is better than NO design, but it is not so great either.



jas3

[csense]

You might want to talk with the parents of a child with CF to see if they also think it is a design problem. Also, ask the child with CF too.

Perhaps. I would be more interested in asking them what what they have learned from their experiences, and if given a chance, would they relinquish that knowledge for a better design.

You might be surprised at the answers

[jas3]

Perhaps. I would be more interested in asking them what what they have learned from their experiences, and if given a chance, would they relinquish that knowledge for a better design.

You might be surprised at the answers

That's lovely of you, but having worked with CF kids and their parents for years, I can tell you that given the chance, EVERY parent would want the same child without CF.

jas3

[csense]

I'm referring to all abnormalities in general, but, thanks for the subtle kick in the face anyway....

[jas3]

I'm referring to all abnormalities in general, but, thanks for the subtle kick in the face anyway....

You're welcome. You certainly deserved it.

jas3

[csense]

If you think my comment was disrespectful to parents and children, or whomever else is associated with this particular condition, then I offer my apologies.

[jas3]

If you think my comment was disrespectful to parents and children, or whomever else is associated with this particular condition, then I offer my apologies.

Apology accepted.

jas3

[WhatsItAllAbout]

"Humans will be designing our own cells in a few years, and they will borrow from nature, but will also VASTLY improve upon so called "intelligent" design."

"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."



Even though you have discounted my earlier statements, I must reiterate; "If we begin to design life from scratch and improve that life as you have said. That proves beyond a doubt that an Intelligent Designer(in human form) exists."

That being the case it is not far fetch to believe in the Intelligent Designer Version 1.0 no matter how critical we may be of his design, especially since we can look in the mirror and come face to face with the Intelligent Designer version 2.0

[jas3]

Even though you have discounted my earlier statements, I must reiterate; "If we begin to design life from scratch and improve that life as you have said. That proves beyond a doubt that an Intelligent Designer(in human form) exists."

Yes, it will prove than MAN is an Intelligent Designer once it happens. It won't prove anything about any previously designed genomes.

That being the case it is not far fetch to believe in the Intelligent Designer Version 1.0 no matter how critical we may be of his design, especially since we can look in the mirror and come face to face with the Intelligent Designer version 2.0

I am not saying that there isn't a designer of version 0.9. I am stating that it is not a very good design. I am also stating that just because man will design new flora and fauna from scratch does not at all prove that man was well designed.

jas3

[WhatsItAllAbout]

Jas3, Your focus seems to be on the perceived failures of the design? What are your thoughts on the success. I mean when you think of going from a single cell to a 10 Trillion cell adult it is astounding.

I would tend to say that is a pretty good design in and of it's self.

But then to put the finished product out into the world and have it survive and reproduce that is truly a good design.

[jas3]

Jas3, Your focus seems to be on the perceived failures of the design? What are your thoughts on the success. I mean when you think of going from a single cell to a 10 Trillion cell adult it is astounding.

The success is interesting it in so much as it works when it works. But my point is only that given what humans know about design, the human genome....it fact ALL genomes are a great big mess. If one were a computer programmer, he would be fired for writing such poor code. In a world where design is created by an intelligence specifically for a set of functions, the genome would look NOTHING like what it looks like now. I am not stating that there is not a creator. I am stating that EITHER there is not an INTELLIGENT designor OR there is a a POOR designor OR the designor pretty much lets things play out without much in the way of intervention (or there is no designor).

I would tend to say that is a pretty good design in and of it's self.

Then you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes good design. It is not so much the end product as the process itself that belies a good design. Go back to my example about car manufacturing. Yes, it is great when a human turns out well, but think how many turn out badly. If any human manufacturer made as many mistakes and had to scrap so many production models, he would be fired.

But then to put the finished product out into the world and have it survive and reproduce that is truly a good design.

Right but until very very recently very few of those finished products survived to reproduce at all. And even today, more than half of all such products are scrapped before birth. What is amazing is not so much the design as the fact that any species survive this design at all, i.e. the design is not intelligent. It is not efficient. It is not rational. It works...but only barely. And that is hardly an "intelligent" design.

jas3

[Southerngl]

>>>The information content of the DNA code had to come from somewhere. And it seems unlikely to have sprung up spontaneously or through random mutations.>>>


Read post #5 of this thread to me. This is why I hesitate on posting. The being mocked for disbelieving something becuase it 'just doesn't feel right' is embarrassing.

[Southerngl]

>>>Could someone please explain to me why it is that ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive? Does no one think that maybe this universe was set into motion by a "creator", with the laws we've discovered, and processes like evolution, as tools for its development?>>>

Because there is a huge misconception amongst Evolutionists that if you believe in God, that you must also believe that the world was poofed into existence 10K or so years ago. For some reason, most cannot put their mind around a broader version of 'believing in God'.

[WhatsItAllAbout]

Using your Car factory as an example. If I could build a Factory that could produce Cars without any additional input from me, and adapt (maybe badly based upon your opinion) to meet the market demands, and before it reached its obsolete date builds 2 or 3 new factories as replacements I would tend to say I had a good design. Even if as you say 50% of the production has to be scrapped and recycled the overall success far out weighs the scrap rate.

I am not implying that the defects in humanity are inconsequential, since in the Judeo Christian view it is the down trodden, castoffs, malformed and rejected that have the most valued position.

I would say even in Nature as in Life we learn more from our mistakes than our successes.

Being a programmer by Trade I also take exception to your comments concerning the state of the Genome. Legacy code is a part of most programmers’ life, and even if we do not like it or even under stand it, it still serves a purpose.

Granted if you want to start from scratch the code would use the latest language and best practices of the day, but 20 years from now it will become out dated and you are right back to where you started with a program that works but could be improved upon.

[moatilliatta]

Could someone please explain to me why it is that ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive? Does no one think that maybe this universe was set into motion by a "creator", with the laws we've discovered, and processes like evolution, as tools for its development?

Intelligent Design, as generally presented by its proponents, goes beyond saying that a 'creator' could have set things in motion and use evolution by natural selection as means of creating life, and argues that aspects of living entities exhibit evidence of complex structures that could not be produced through natural selection and instead must have been designed 'as is' by an intelligent designer.

The term Intelligent Design could be redefined in the manner you suggest to make it consitent with Darwinian evolution and it's likely much of the current controversy would disappear, but most of the vocal supporters of ID are explicit in promoting the view that ID is an alternative to evolution, so its unlikely they'd accept such a redefinition.

[jonathanmo]

Since no one bothered to respond to your cogent and thorough post, let me just say to you "Well Done".

[WhatsItAllAbout]

"Since no one bothered to respond to your cogent and thorough post, let me just say to you "Well Done"."

I will reference my post #94. Just because a design may be perceived as bad, doesn't make it so. You would have to have a complete understanding of all circumstances and variables involved in getting the design to the point you have observed it.

Roll the clock forward a few thousand years and with the help of Jas3's Intelligent Designer Version 2.0 perfection may be attained for that point in time.

But go forward a few more thousand years and Jas3 Version 2.0 could start harping about the lousy design and how he would fix it.

The fact that life exists is the best evidence for a good design, not perfect, but good.

[alstewartfan]

It is not at all clear to me that a life without death and suffering would be fulfilling for us humans. If you think we are self-absorbed NOW, just imagine the elimination of the possibility of loss and sorrow from our lives! We'd soon become an uncaring and miserable lot, yearning for a way to escape.
As for those persuaded by the absurd TOE(volution), if you think that redundancy must be indicative of a sloppy or mediocre "designer" god at best, I say that all of you brilliant scientists should join forces. I mean, you can eliminate all the "junk" you have discerned, and start with all the simple elements of life we know and create that perfect "simple" cell. I know you guys can do it! Bob

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

bttt

[Rummenigge]

There's more then one thing we currently don't understand.

But if you look at what we understood yesterday you'll find that we don't only see much clearer but the knowledge of men is developing faster and faster.

It's not easy to leave a room for god in this because we are aware that in the past men put god in every equation they did not solve up to their time.

I think we should find god in the action of people and not in their creation, biological existance and the chemistry involved.

There's only one finding in hard science that indicates devine existance so far:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030630.html