vincentfromyay

I am aware that the nervous system is involved in, for example, muscular contraction, and that muscle tissue is basically lots of muscle cells 'glued' (?) together by whatever it is that glues them together, but I'm guessing that the neurons involved are attached to the outer membrane of the outermost cells of the particular muscle (?) rather than the neurons actually affecting the inner working of the cells (?). if this is the case, and the nervous system isn't involved in 'directing' any 'inner cellular processes' are the inner workings of the cell essentially no different than other everyday inorganic chemistry that takes place in the universe in that it is completely deterministic?

what is the relationship between the human nervous system and the processes that take place inside each human cell?

the somatic nervous system is 'responsible' for voluntary actions, such as walking and talking. the autonomic nervous system is 'responsible' for involuntary actions, such as breathing and digesting food. but what of the cellular processes, such as putting together amino acids from the genetic code, or the recombination that takes place during meiosis? or the basic processes of mitosis? does the nervous system have anything to do with such cellular processes?

http://crl.i8.com/Evolution/Dna.html

 

 

 

DNA Molecules and the Odds Against Evolution

Within each cell there is an area called the nucleus which contains the all-important chromosomes. Chromosomes are microscopically small, rod-shaped structures which carry the genes. Within the chromosomes is an even smaller structure called DNA. This is one of the most important chemical substances in the human body -- or in any other living thing. Increasing scientific understanding of DNA molecules has revealed enormous problems for materialism.

 

DNA is a super-molecule which stores coded hereditary information. It consists of two long "chains" of chemical "building blocks" paired together. In humans, the strands of DNA are almost 2 yards long, yet less than a trillionth of an inch thick.

 

In function, DNA is somewhat like a computer program on a floppy disk. It stores and transfers encoded information and instructions. It is said that the DNA of a human stores enough information code to fill 1,000 books -- each with 500 pages of very small, closely-printed type. The DNA code produces a product far more sophisticated than that of any computer. Amazingly, this enormous set of instructions fits with ease within a single cell and routinely directs the formation of entire adult humans, starting with just a single fertilized egg. Even the DNA of a bacterium is highly complex, containing at least 3 million units, all aligned in a very precise, meaningful sequence.

 

DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism -- a miniaturized marvel. the information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an asprin tablet!

 

Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.

 

Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!

 

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."

 

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,

Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX:

J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31).

 

How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old -- and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th Power seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! In other words, probabilities greatly favor those that believe an intelligent designer was responsible for originating even the simplest DNA molecules.

 

Chemist Dr. Grebe: "That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code."

 

Researcher and mathematician I.L Cohen: "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear....Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution vs the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."

 

Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

 

Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point. He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing "a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeng 747 from the materials therein."

 

Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes. many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no know n physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.

 

Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this "master program" could have only originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.

 

Dr Wilder-Smith is an honored scientist who is certainly well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What is his considered opinion as to the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal? "...an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA...is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information." " As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell. There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed it in a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice -- so that the cell builds itself from the information..."

 

One need only look carefully at any living creature to gain some concept of their enormous complexity. If you have a pet, consider the complexities that must be involved -- enabling that "package of matter" to move about, play, remember, show signs of affection, eat, and reproduce!

 

If that is not enough to boggle your mind, imagine being given the task of constructing a similar living pet from carbon, calcium, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. -- the animal's basic constituent parts.

 

If you have ever held a beloved pet in your hands, completely limp and dead, you may have some comprehension of the helplessness of even the most intelligent and sophisticated scientist when it comes to the overwhelming problem of trying to create life.

 

In contrast, the natural world does not have the advantages people bring to the problem. In nature, there are only matter, energy, time, chance and the physical laws -- no guiding force, no purpose, and no goal.

 

Yet, even with all of modern man's accumulated knowledge, advanced tools, and experience, we are still absolutely overwhelmed at the complexities. This is despite the fact that we are certainly not starting from absolute zero in this problem, for there are millions of actual living examples of life to scrutinize.

 

THE INCREDIBLE COMPLEXITY OF MAN

 

All living things are extremely complex, even the tiniest single-celled animals and bacteria. However, none surpasses the overall complexity of the human being. Not only is each person constructed of trillions of molecules and cells, but the human brain alone is filled with billions of cells forming trillions of trillions of connections. The design of the human brain is truly awesome and beyond our understanding. Every cubic inch of the human brain contains at least 100 million nerve cells interconnected by 10 thousand miles of fibers.

 

It has been said that man's 3 pound brain is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the entire universe! Far more complicated than any computer, the human brain is capable of storing and creatively manipulating seemingly infinite amounts of information. Its capabilities and potential stagger the imagination. The more we use it, the better it becomes.

 

The brain capabilities of even the smallest insects are mind-boggling. The tiny speck of a brain found in a little ant, butterfly or bee enable them not only to see, smell, taste and move, but even to fly with great precision. Butterflies routinely navigate enormous distances. Bees and ants carry on complex social organizations, building projects, and communications. These miniature brains put our computers and avionics to shame, in comparison.

 

The marvels of the bodies of both animals and man are evidently endless. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith makes this thought-provoking and humbling statement:

 

"When one considers that the entire chemical information to construct a man, elephant, frog or an orchid was compressed into two minuscule reproductive cells (sperm and egg nuclei), one can only be astounded. In addition to this, all the information is available on the genes to repair the body (not only to construct it) when it is injured. If one were to request an engineer to accomplish this feat of information miniaturization, one would be considered fit for the psychiatric clinic."

 

It is certainly true that a machine carefully made by a craftsman reflects the existence of it's creator. It would be foolish to suggest that time and chance could make a typewriter or a microwave oven, or that the individual parts could form themselves into these complex mechanisms due to the physical properties of matter. Yet, life is far, far more complex than any man-made machine.

 

The more scientists study life, the more they become deeply impressed. Nature is full of intricate design and beauty. In contrast to man-made objects, which look increasingly crude in finish and detail the closer they are viewed (i.e., through powerful microscopes), the closer life is examined the more complex and wondrous it appears.

 

Planet Earth is filled with myriad forms of life, each with enormous levels of complexity. Materialists believe life in all its amazing forms consist merely of atoms and molecules. They believe these atoms and molecules formed themselves into millions of intricate animals and plants. This view was born out of an earlier, more naive period in science when the extreme complexity of living systems was not understood. Even if nature could build the necessary proteins and enzymes, it is far from producing life. There is an enormous difference between producing a building block and producing a fully operating and serviced 100-story skyscraper from those building blocks. Buildings require builders; programs require programmers.

 

Today, most scientists are convinced that life could never have come into being without some form of highly intelligent and powerful designer.

 

THE BOTTOM LINE on the origin of life

 

- During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.

 

- As yet, evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many elements of the cosmos.

 

- It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.

 

- there is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

 

However what do your scientific minds have to say about the above?

“Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry.”

How many scientists (approx.) are convinced of this? And how many are not convinced of this?

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes...”

Are all two thousand required for the very simplest life form?

“Evolutionist Michael Denton: ‘The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.’”

I just saw a book by Michael Denton being promoted on a Duane Gish (Institute for Creationist Research) video on YOutube, and have since read on wikipedia that he is now a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and is not an evolutionist but a proponent of Intelligent Design. Also, as far as I’m aware, the idea that the cell was “thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event” is not a theory taken serious by any proponent of abigenesis (i think that is what is known as a strawman argument).

“Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle.”

How many agree with Hoyle? And how many don’t agree with him?

“Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”

Could you explain why this contradicts the 2^nd law of thermodynamics?

for example, when galileo (or whoever it was) first proposed that bodies will fall at the same rate in a vacuum regardless of mass, how many times did this have to be tested before it became accepted?

(also, is the above example a law?)

(and is it true that Aristotle had said the more massive object will fall faster than the less massive object?)

thanks iNow, i enjoyed that. but i'm still no nearer having my question answered regarding mutations. what is required for going from no eye to the most basic eye in terms of mutation? if an eyeless progentitor has zero genetic info for an eye, how much mutation is required for its progeny to have a basic eye?

thanks pantaz.

thanks ophiolite. so, photoreceptor proteins..? even more basic than an actual light-sensitive cell. any thoughts on the mutation question? could a species have gone from having no 'eye' whatsoever to having something like photoreceptor proteins in one generation?

ah. thanks. do you know which organism then has the most 'basic eye'? and do you have any thoughts on my other questions?

1. is there a theory (or is it known) as to what constitutes the most basic 'eye' in our evolutionary history? is it a single light sensitive cell for example? or something even more basic than that? or is there only speculation on the matter?

2. am i correct in believing that for this 'basic eye' to have appeared on the scene the following must have taken place; an organism with no 'eye' whatsover must have 'given birth' to an organism with the 'basic eye'?

3. if the above is correct, then am i correct in believing that this process must have involved only one mutation? and if so, is that plausible? or is it knowable? demonstrable?

thanks. and please bear with my ignorance as i have no formal education in biology (but i am keen to learn).

...generation to the next?

i understand, in principle at least, how the eye might have evolved from something that very slightly resembled an eye, such as a tiny light sensitive area on a single-celled organism; but i'm struggling to imagine how the said organism could have gone from having no eye at all to having the 'proto-eye' in the first place.

i believe that this came about due to random genetic mutation; but am i right in thinking it came about in just one generation? isn't the 'proto-eye', the tiny light sensitive area (or whatever the proto-eye may be) itself vastly complex, relatively speaking? and isn't it a lot to believe that this could come about due to the mutation or mutations occuring as the result of one organism "giving birth" to another

(if even this early process was the result of lots of mutation over lots of generations, then the first mutation/s would have to be advantageous, so i'm guessin that this first mutation/s is considered as the one/s that led to the 'proto-eye', yeah?)

i haven't studied biology formally, so please bear with any glaring errors here. thanks.

Which body/organisation was responsible for giving the go-ahead to drug companies for a new drug in the UK back in 1998?

Which body is responsible now?

And what is the criteria for a new drug being allowed on the market?

I'm particularly interested in fluoxetine

@PhDwannabe; myquestion is, are there examples of a lack of a neurotransmitter, say,serotonin, causing a problem for someone with depression. Eg, could it bedemonstrated that a depressed person’s inability, or difficulty, in say,getting up out of bed, was due to the electrochemical signal not crossing therelavant synapses due to there not being enough serotonin, or due to theavailable serotonin not being available in the synapse for long enough?

Also in relation to ssri’s not shown to have much moreeffect than placebo; the wiki page on FLUOXETINE says otherwise

@herbread; you said, “...serotonin levels... tendto be lower in people with depression...” is there evidence for this?

how does the decision to get up out of bed lead us to actually getting up out of bed?

i'm particularly interested in serotonin, but also in dopamine and norepinephrine

i've read them described as both. what i want to try to understand is, is the proton and electron simply an electrical charge, nothing more?

or, are they things in their own right, which have an electrical charge?

to use ananalogy. peter can have a cardboard sign with a plus sign written on it. he can give the sign away and still continue to exist himself. he is not an electrical charge; he HAS anelectrical charge (well, a sign with a plus sign written on it).

likewise for electrons. if eddie has a sign with a minus sign on it he can give it away and still exist; is this the case for electrons?

i'm talking about incest between close relatives, eg, father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister

if it doesn't necessarily lead to birth defects, then what is the probability of it leading to defects?

i don't have a degree or any other qualification in biology so if you can answer this can you put it in simple language please. thanks