It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leukocytes and inflammation response. Impossibly complex events

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
For those of you interested, here's an animation from the minds of Alain Viel and Robert A. Lue at Harvard University. The animation shows the interaction between leukocytes (white blood cells) and the cell walls before, during, and after inflammation triggers a response.

You can view this video, or visit their site for a narriated version of this video. (The narration does help explain what's happening)



The concepts preseted here are astounding. Tying this into the Creationism forum, what's more probable?

  • This is the result of evolution
  • This is a designed function


The interactions between the different cells is amazing. Each cell is a unique organizm in it's own way, yet it is "made" to interact closely with other specific cells for a purposeful function. This gives us a narrow, tiny, miniscule window into how complex the human body is. The odds of this being accidental, even given millions of years of evolution would be astronomicaly impossible.

Of course one of my favorite jokes is, "How did blood clotting evolve?" The answer is not, "Those that didn't have blood clotting died." No, that simply skirts the question. So, watch the short video and try to ponder how these ridiculously complex interactions could be accidental. The complexity exceeds even our best abilities to this day.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by dbates]




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Tying this into the Creationism forum, what's more probable?

  • This is the result of evolution
  • This is a designed function




Well, withuot putting my own interpretation on to this..... your question is very, very flawed. To ask about probability is hopeless. Probability is based on knowledge of how likely something is. Which is in turn based upon knowledge of the "average" behaviour of a sample, or of absolute knoweldge of how something works. Given that your very question is about how something works, the onl way of assigning probability is to know the "average" bahaviour of a sample. This is of course impossible, as there is only one universe, and only one reality. We don't know if other ones would have done more or less similar things or rather different things, and whether those other rather different things are equally unique, or whether it is our universe that is the odd one out.

Simply we do not know how "likely" it is for this to happen at all.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by d60944
Probability is based on knowledge of how likely something is. Which is in turn based upon knowledge of the "average" behaviour of a sample, or of absolute knoweldge of how something works.

That's not quite the correct way to look at probability. Based on Newtonian concepts, if all conditions are know, then there would be no probability. The answer would be a simple equation. 1+2+3 has no probabilities, while 1 + 2 + x has many probabilities. You can only speak of probability if there are unknown factors at work.

Other than that, is this just a noble attempt to skirt the evidence? I suppose if it's undisputable that the machinery is complex, it would be best to avoid discussing the complexity of the machine. Even stripping away the probability aspect, the complexity in comparision to say, a microprocessor, is extremely high. If you wish you can look at it in that light. Compare the complexity to the complexity of man-made items. Man-made items being somewhat crude in comparison. Note that the thread title speaks of complexity, not probability.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by dbates]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
May I ask what your degree is in?

Do you have a scientific background? Have you studied biology?

It appears that you're implying because this seems complex to you that a is not possible to arrive through natural means and the only explanation is that a supernatural being planned and created this arrangement that results in healing.

Isn't that adding even more complexity, that not only did this evolve (we have examples of simpler coagulation and healing schemes in lower animal species) but that supernatural intervention also caused it?

I would suggest that if it was supernaturally inspired would it not have been created more simply and would not all creatures share the same mechanisms?

Why create different and simpler mechanisms for different species of animals?



[edit on 27-11-2007 by Badge01]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Here's a paper that may help you (.pdf file):

Evolution of Blood Coagulation

As you can see they are similar, but human and pufferfish factor 5 are only 41% identical and their factor 8 is only 42% identical.

They also state that they think it's remarkable how stable the coagulation scheme has been over the course of many millions of years.

So maybe a supernatural being created it 400 million years ago and then nature took over and the system evolved into what we find in Humans today?




[edit on 27-11-2007 by Badge01]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
So, the argument from 'it's all so complex', therefore god.

Along with 'I can't believe this evolved', therefore god.

And, finally, 'look, this would be improbable', therefore god.

Firstly, we have talk of probability. What is the probability that this evolved? Some numbers would be good. How do we calculate it?

Secondly, you show that you don't understand evolution by saying 'how these ridiculously complex interactions could be accidental', they wouldn't be. They would have been under the pressure of natural selection. They would have been undirected in the sense of 'think n' poof'.

Thirdly, complexity has been shown to not really be an issue for evolutionary processes.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
May I ask what your degree is in?

Do you have a scientific background?

Hmm, A Bachelor of Science in Computer Science. Yes, that's a scientific degree. I was forced to sit through numerous biology science classes. (with labs - yuck) My entire job deals with problems, the complexity of the solution, and the solutions ability to interact with the rest of the system.


Originally posted by Badge01
It appears that you're implying because this seems complex to you that a is not possible to arrive through natural means

Exactly! I've developed several extremely complex systems. Looking at these interactions, I'm in awe of the complexity. The damaged cell, must pass on this information to the blood vessel cells, which in turn passes the information to the leukocyte. Then, the leukocyte has to change it's state to pass through the blood vessel walls before it can take action where needed.

Creating one complex system is one thing, but creating several that work in unison is just extremely difficult. Do you have any idea how many instructions this would translate to if you wrote this down on paper? Even if you could write all the instructions down, you then have the issue of making the actions take place in the physical world.

Why create different versions of healing for different species? I could show you the same thing from my point of view. Take a computer anti-virus program. The code would vary based on the operating system and the available hardware. Also there's the natural progression from version 1.0 to version x.0. Many times a new version of software is developed without it being rolled out to replace all existing versions.

I have an older computer that's running Windows 98. While Windows XP has some nicer features, the older computer works fine with 98 and doesn't have enough memory to work well with XP.

Speaking of computers, would you ever assume that one of these was an accident? Why then do we see humans, who are exponentionally more complex, as accidents simply because the machine (our body) is biodegradable. Isn't that the true difference between computers and people? If we invented a computer that was completely biodegradable, would it take on the label of evolved? Why wouldn't the intelligent designer want to use existing, natural chemicals and elements to create life? It would be preferable to have units that quit working to disappear on their own.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Secondly, you show that you don't understand evolution by saying 'how these ridiculously complex interactions could be accidental', they wouldn't be. They would have been under the pressure of natural selection.


That's the specific rebuttal I mentioned in my original post.

Why do birds fly? - Because those that didn't died.
Why do giraffes have long necks? - Because those that didn't died off?

This answer is a self-fulfilling proof that does nothing to address the "how" of why things are the way that they are. So then, things are complex because less complex things didn't pass on their genes? It's as if you're lined up at a firing squad of 10,000,000 soldiers who shoot at you at the same time. When all 10,000,000 bullets miss, you just shrug your shoulders and say "Of course they missed, I'm still here right? If they wouldn't have missed I wouldn't be here to talk about it." What you're missing is the analysis of how 10,000,000 bullets missed you. You can't just shrug it of as "it happened." Maybe there was a reason 10,000,000 bullets missed. Were all the soldiers instructed to miss you? Were they all given bad ammunition? By just saying "It is what it is (evolution in a nutshell)" we're missing the why and focusing on the what.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

That's the specific rebuttal I mentioned in my original post.


No, what you want to do is remove the major part of evolution out of the equation - selection. I said nothing about giraffe necks.

For the previous post:

Lets say that computers were able to reproduce, doing so, they also exhibited descent with modification. Moreover, there was a process of competition, within and between computers, and also other things like printers and scanners. And by doing so, those best adapted to the environment and its challenges reproduced more successfully.

Might we then see naturally evolving computers? Would the comparison between humans and computers then be relevant?

[edit on 27-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
OK, I understand, since I have a background in both Biology (BA) and worked as a programmer and systems manager in IT.

Yes it is indeed difficult to imagine the number of lines of code it would take to create such a system of feedback loop inhibition mechanisms.

However my point remains that adding a 'supernatural being' into the mix adds even another level of complexity that make it -truly- hard to believe.

How do you factor in the idea that a supernatural being would create such a complex system - would they not just use 'magic' and have a much simpler system?

For instance borrowing an idea from StarGate SG-1, if there was a supernatural being involved wouldn't we all just have sarcophagi and then when injured, climb in and be healed by supernatural means?

Extending the metaphor of computer programming, don't even the most talented programmers require beta testing and re-writing the code to handle errors?

By presupposing the intervention of a supernatural being who doesn't make mistakes, don't you make it more difficult to accept, knowing how many times code has to be re-done during the debug cycle even for simple programs by talented programmers?

I mean now you're saying that not only is there this incredibly complex system (which isn't so complex that we can't decipher it), but that there is a being who 'invented' this 400 million years ago in one day?

In addition, this implies that the being made it so elegant that certain natural forces would cause it to improve over time from puffer fish to human beings. In effect he created a system called 'natural selection' that was more powerful and more complex than himself, using it to do a job that he couldn't do immediately. (otherwise the systems would be identical in the final finished form, right?)

Finally, though it might seem to be a complex system to you (and it is) the complexity becomes elegant once you have studied the coagulation system.

I have to thank you for the excellent link and the wonderful animation. I'll probably pass this along to one of my former professors who studies transfusion medicine for comment.

(BTW, this is a fascinating subject and I could go on and on, but I'll stop here.)




[edit on 27-11-2007 by Badge01]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Hey dbates, nice video, although to be honest i enjoyed the music far better than the visual feast.

As to your questions, i believe that the answer is simple - Evolution, but not as we know it.

We all know that originally man started out as a single-celled organism, and that after a long time we developed a second cell.

This is apparent in watching the creation of a new life inside the womb (i like to view the womb as an 'artificial environment', as from it we can and have seen the processes involved in the creation of new life), single cells divide via meiosis into partner cells, and repeat until a structure is formed.

As for the various complexities of what goes on inside the body, with the cells and the bio-chemical reactions and so forth, i believe that it comes from that time when human beings (infact all beings on this planet, for that matter) were still an infant race.

If there is one unifying factor for all of life, it is that we have gotten to the point where we are at now because of our capability to solve problems - at a low level of existence it is easier - there's less cells to move around in order to solve problems.

Nowadays, with our absurdly complex neural capabilities and our powerful sensory capabilities, it is difficult to imagine our bodies doing anything new enough that could be termed 'evolution'.

Truly, this is our planet - We have grown capable to survive on it through evolution.*

It may be the case that in the future if we come into contact with aliens, we will be able to tell what kind of planet they come from via close inspection of their anatomy - kinda like mathematics in a way.



*Indeed, why not say that human beings are perfect for this planet?

Provided we don't kill it, of course.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
How do you factor in the idea that a supernatural being would create such a complex system - would they not just use 'magic' and have a much simpler system?

I have no rebuttal for that thought. I wonder the same thing myself. If the creator is perfect, why then is the creation not perfect? If you take this road, then you win the debate hands down. I can only say "I don't know." Of course then you could side-step that with the thought that the creator was proned to making mistakes, or as you said that evolution was the method of creation. Our lack of knowledge of said creator should inhibit us from looking into clues that there could be one.



Lets say that computers were able to reproduce

One word. Terminator!

I guess then you could make some of the same assumptions, but you'd still have signs pointing back to a designer. Even Sky-Net was created.


I don't want anyone to feel that I'm trying to persuade you to my view. I'm simply throwing an idea out there. Bullet holes in the idea are more than welcomed.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Hmmm. This is all terribly consciouness-centric view of complexity though. Which makes all this beg its own question.

For example, as we've mentioned computer chips and computer code being "complex"... well that is all stuff that is produced by humans. Yes, on one hand we accpet that humans are consious and do things by design. Yet at the same time they are also still very much products *of* nature. We don't look at Microsoft Word and say "God did it" - as we know that we did it. We find it easy to say "It's just manmade" without stopping to accept that that also means it is a natural phenomenon just like antihills and isotopes.

This is an artificial distinction, and confuses mere complexity with purposive intent behind it. The purposive intent can only be gleaned if we *KNOW* that complexity would not arise randomly of its own volition. And the absence of other universes to study prevents that knowledge.

Is pi's complexity a sign of intent? Well, the question is meaningless. It just is what it is.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
When you ascribe something to a higher power, such as god, then you've already ended the search for answers. There's no way to test that idea. There's no evidence to even support that idea. But we do have evidence for evolution, and it can be observed how things change throughout time.

I guess that's the big difference here. I don't think any scientists proclaim, "Those traits exist because they increase survivability, and I have nothing on which to base this assumption!". They instead look at how reproduction works:

1) Some genetic mutation gives rise to a specific trait in an organism
2) That organism reproduces and passes on said trait
3) More organisms with that trait reproduce, increasing the population of organisms with the same trait

Since you must be able to survive long enough to reproduce, it can be assumed that the trait either increased survivability or did not impede it. Since the trait is a dominant trait throughout the organisms' species, it's probably also reasonable to assume that a majority of organisms with that trait were able to reproduce and spread their genes.

I mean, really, it's not that complicated. You can even test it to a degree in a laboratory setting and see how it works, or observe species over a long period of time to see what happens. As for why the system is complicated? I'd imagine it's complicated because that's the way it evolved. Does it need to be that complex? Maybe, maybe not. But that's the way it is. It doesn't stop us from learning how it functions, though, and possibly gaining insight into its development.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Since I like to be able to argue both sides of an issue, here's something in support of dbate's contentions.

One might invoke biology or physics to prove something about this case, but now we know about the concept of a virtual world and computer simulations.

So it's entirely possible that we are an extremely sophisticated computer simulation. 'God' wrote the program and is running the simulator.

With that point of view you don't have to postulate how the Earth could only be 6,000 years old - after all it might take many times that for the molton Earth to cool down. 'God' could do it in the simulator simply by clicking with his celestial 'mouse'.

There'd be ample method for 'Man' to be "created" in six days - it wasn't a process that depended on Biology, or Physics - it was just a matter of going to the 'Character Development' module in the simulation and pick a character and giving him basic 'health' points and typing in a 'name' and then clicking the 'generate' button.

But I have to agree with the other poster. What good is it, wrt Science and discovery to conclude that we are the product of 'magic'? That pretty much negates the idea of studying the natural world - if it was created by magic, what's the use?

Another possibility is that the concept of a supreme being is a retelling of a tale handed down describing how a 'Nephilim' type race of giants came down and bred with Female Neanderthals, creating what we know as modern man. To us, especially at the time, a super being would be indistinguishable from 'God'. In that case it would be a lot sooner than a the commonly thought 1-6 million years - it could have been an early Cro-Magnon man, and the date only 10-40,000 years ago.

I don't think there's anything to prevent us from speculating that mankind got a boost to their DNA due to some intervention.

Generally it makes more sense to me that if there was a God, he created 'nature' and 'natural selection' and it's those processes that did the 'evolving' that we seem to see wrt to Man and more primitive ancestors.

So there's no reason that 'God' and evolution have to be mutually exclusive.


2 cents.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Since I like to be able to argue both sides of an issue, here's something in support of dbate's contentions.

One might invoke biology or physics to prove something about this case, but now we know about the concept of a virtual world and computer simulations.

So it's entirely possible that we are an extremely sophisticated computer simulation. 'God' wrote the program and is running the simulator.


The problem with this is that there's absolutely no evidence to support these claims. Even if evidence did exist that suggested this, there's no way to test it or falsify it. It isn't science, it's philosophy.



Generally it makes more sense to me that if there was a God, he created 'nature' and 'natural selection' and it's those processes that did the 'evolving' that we seem to see wrt to Man and more primitive ancestors.

So there's no reason that 'God' and evolution have to be mutually exclusive.


I agree. But, what most creationists would say is that the bible says nothing about evolution, therefore, it didn't happen. They really aren't interested in understanding anything and are perfectly content to attribute everything to magic. I think that's fine for philosophy, but when they call it science, they're just being silly.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
That looks very complex in a structured way. It's like we have our own universe inside of us. Strange how so many complex things come together to create an even more complex creature. You have to have some way to communicate in order to orchestrate such a complex set of instructions. My guess is they use chemicals to communicate but they could also use a frequency we just can't tune into.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Truth is we may never know so lets not pretend we do,its all an grey area, there is no right or wrong answer, however the human body is an impressive complex machine. no matter whom or what brought life about, they are one damn good engineer.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by cloakndagger
 


Well, we have three brains, each one a specific task to perform, it could be through chemicals that cells communicate, it has even been suggested that they can use light as well.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join