We are not nearly as determined by our genes as once thought.

We are not nearly as determined by our genes as once thought.

Accordingly, even single cells change their metabolic pathways, and the way they use their genes to suit those patterns. That is, they “learn,” and create instructions on the hoof. Genes are used as templates for making vital resources, of course. But directions and outcomes of the system are not controlled by genes. Like colonies of ants or bees, there are deeper dynamical laws at work in the development of forms and variations.

Some have likened the process to an orchestra without a conductor. Physiologist Denis Noble has described it as Dancing to the Tune of Life (the title of his recent book). It is most stunningly displayed in early development. Within hours, the fertilized egg becomes a ball of identical cells—all with the same genome, of course. But the cells are already talking to each other with storms of chemical signals. Through the statistical patterns within the storms, instructions are, again, created de novo. The cells, all with the same genes, multiply into hundreds of starkly different types, moving in a glorious ballet to find just the right places at the right times. That could not have been specified in the fixed linear strings of DNA.

So it has been dawning on us is that there is no prior plan or blueprint for development: Instructions are created on the hoof, far more intelligently than is possible from dumb DNA. That is why today’s molecular biologists are reporting “cognitive resources” in cells; “bio-information intelligence”; “cell intelligence”; “metabolic memory”; and “cell knowledge”—all terms appearing in recent literature.1,2 “Do cells think?” is the title of a 2007 paper in the journal Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.3 On the other hand the assumed developmental “program” coded in a genotype has never been described.

We are not nearly as determined by our genes as once thought.

"The cells, all with the same genes, multiply into hundreds of starkly different types, moving in a glorious ballet to find just the right places at the right times. That could not have been specified in the fixed linear strings of DNA.

So it has been dawning on us is that there is no prior plan or blueprint for development: Instructions are created on the hoof, far more intelligently than is possible from dumb DNA."

I find this very hard to believe. This is claiming that what must be a vast library of coherent organized heirarchical development plans just come into being out of nothing during embryogenesis. A huge amount of complex specified information out of nothing. Organismal development is from fertilized egg cell to complete animal containing hundreds of millions of cells and vast organized machinelike complexity. This is saying that all the information for this process, rather than coming from a preexisting construction plan and "blueprint", comes from the collective intelligence of the cells involved improvising and creating in real time during the development process. 

This is a little like suggesting that multiple Boeing 747s could be manufactured with no preexisting blueprints or other plans, just the intelligence of the technicians and workers involved, somehow creatively coming up with the details of each step of the construction, the tools and parts required, etc. all on the fly while the work progresses. This is preposterous in my opinion both for the 747s and for living organisms. It seems to me that it is self evident that the information conveying the "construction plan" of living organisms must be stored somewhere in the first cell in embryogenesis. It may not all be in the DNA (it has long seemed that the total information in the DNA isn't sufficient), but it must be somewhere in the fertilized egg cell.

I find this very hard to believe. This is claiming that what must be a vast library of coherent organized heirarchical development plans just come into being out of nothing during embryogenesis. A huge amount of complex specified information out of nothing. Organismal development is from fertilized egg cell to complete animal containing hundreds of millions of cells and vast organized machinelike complexity. This is saying that all the information for this process, rather than coming from a preexisting construction plan and "blueprint", comes from the collective intelligence of the cells involved improvising and creating in real time during the development process. 

This is a little like suggesting that multiple Boeing 747s could be manufactured with no preexisting blueprints or other plans, just the intelligence of the technicians and workers involved, somehow creatively coming up with the details of each step of the construction, the tools and parts required, etc. all on the fly while the work progresses. This is preposterous in my opinion both for the 747s and for living organisms. It seems to me that it is self evident that the information conveying the "construction plan" of living organisms must be stored somewhere in the first cell in embryogenesis. It may not all be in the DNA (it has long seemed that the total information in the DNA isn't sufficient), but it must be somewhere in the fertilized egg cell.

Everytime you find something related to biologically incredible remember this: Evolution is smarter than you are.

It seems to me that it is self evident that the information conveying the "construction plan" of living organisms must be stored somewhere in the first cell in embryogenesis. It may not all be in the DNA (it has long seemed that the total information in the DNA isn't sufficient), but it must be somewhere in the fertilized egg cell.

I think we can all agree that the "construction plan" must definitely be stored somewhere. But just where? As an example, something like Sheldrake's morphogenic fields might be an idea. I'm not entirely convinced that he's correct, but the idea at least gives some illustration of a possible way of considering the problem. There are other aspects to consider too, such as life events affecting the parents somehow passing those effects to the offspring, but again, just how is not clear.

I think we can all agree that the "construction plan" must definitely be stored somewhere. But just where? As an example, something like Sheldrake's morphogenic fields might be an idea. I'm not entirely convinced that he's correct, but the idea at least gives some illustration of a possible way of considering the problem. There are other aspects to consider too, such as life events affecting the parents somehow passing those effects to the offspring, but again, just how is not clear.

It turns out that the DNA may still contain most of the "construction plan" information. I checked, and the human genome apparently contains around 2.9 billion base pairs, equivalent to 725MB of data. This is approximately the capacity of one data CD. To put this in perspective, the amount of text on an average print page (when converted into HTML) is 1 kilobyte (KB), and one meter (or close to a yard) of shelved books is about 100 megabytes. So the human genome contains data equivalent to about 23 feet of shelved books. That's a lot of data. Of course, some of that data is really "junk DNA" (though not anywhere near as much as Darwinists have thought), and some of it has other biological functions than construction plans. But even considering these factors there seems to be enough data capacity to explain the storage of a large portion of the data required for organismal development. It is mind boggling to consider the routine biological feat during embryogenesis of reading exactly the right information out correctly from just the right places in the DNA, where the indexing to find just the right data must change rapidly each moment. Exactly the right line on the right page in the right book, every time, changing every second.

To avoid impossible data storage requirements much of the fine structure of very complex organs like the brain must be efficiently encoded and compressed with no data loss, so that repeated fine structural details don't take up all the storage space. Also, it has been discovered that the genetic machinery implements sophisticated data compression techniques such as overlapping frames. Seemingly endless layers of complexity keep being revealed by new research - all the result of a blind RM + NS process?

It turns out that the DNA may still contain most of the "construction plan" information. I checked, and the human genome apparently contains around 2.9 billion base pairs, equivalent to 725MB of data. This is approximately the capacity of one data CD. To put this in perspective, the amount of text on an average print page (when converted into HTML) is 1 kilobyte (KB), and one meter (or close to a yard) of shelved books is about 100 megabytes. So the human genome contains data equivalent to about 23 feet of shelved books. That's a lot of data. Of course, some of that data is really "junk DNA" (though not anywhere near as much as Darwinists have thought), and some of it has other biological functions than construction plans. But even considering these factors there seems to be enough data capacity to explain the storage of a large portion of the data required for organismal development. It is mind boggling to consider the routine biological feat during embryogenesis of reading exactly the right information out correctly from just the right places in the DNA, where the indexing to find just the right data must change rapidly each moment. Exactly the right line on the right page in the right book, every time, changing every second.

To avoid impossible data storage requirements much of the fine structure of very complex organs like the brain must be efficiently encoded and compressed with no data loss, so that repeated fine structural details don't take up all the storage space. Also, it has been discovered that the genetic machinery implements sophisticated data compression techniques such as overlapping frames. Seemingly endless layers of complexity keep being revealed by new research - all the result of a blind RM + NS process?

The bold part.  Consider all the different congenital birth defects such as: structural birth defects, disease, mental defects.  To state nature gets it exactly right is a tiny bit overstated don't you think? Also keep in mind nature has no obligations to do things as simply as you think it should or to put it another way, complexity don't mean what you think.  I have a "vague" feeling" you're drawing to a conclusion to suit a soothing philosophical need. Oh, and this.

This is from a Susan Mazur interview with Denis Noble, at https://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-maz...84211.html:

"The reasons I think we’re talking about replacement rather than extension (of the Modern Synthesis of Darwinism) are several.... 

The second reason (that the Modern Synthesis of Darwinism must be replaced) is a much more conceptual issue. I think that as a gene-centric view of evolution, the modern synthesis has got causality in biology wrong. Genes, after all, if they’re defined as DNA sequences, are purely passive. DNA on its own does absolutely nothing until activated by the rest of the system through transcription factors, markers of one kind or another, interactions with the proteins. So on its own, DNA is not a cause in an active sense. I think it is better described as a passive data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires.”

I think this points out the central mystery of biology, the mystery of what really is "life", i.e. what is the essence of a living organism that makes it more than simply the sum of its parts (that is, the individual cells and the genetic data in its DNA). During development what is it that actually does the finding, the reading, the translating, the implementing by regulation, etc. etc., of the genetic data and instructions? Whatever it is it gives the strong impression of being an agent or entity of some sort with properties including intentionality and purpose.

This is from a Susan Mazur interview with Denis Noble, at https://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-maz...84211.html:


I think this points out the central mystery of biology, the mystery of what really is "life", i.e. what is the essence of a living organism that makes it more than simply the sum of its parts (that is, the individual cells and the genetic data in its DNA). During development what is it that actually does the finding, the reading, the translating, the implementing by regulation, etc. etc., of the genetic data and instructions? Whatever it is it gives the strong impression of being an agent or entity of some sort with properties including intentionality and purpose.

One wonders what this supposed entity's intention was in these cases? 
Cyclopia goat

One wonders what this supposed entity's intention was in these cases? 
Cyclopia goat

I typically don't comment on these types of things. However, in my opinion, this is wildly inappropriate. It seems that you are using people’s genetic deformities as a way to suit your own agenda, which is quite repugnant. There are other ways to present your own worldview without resorting to his kind of behavior.