THE SECRETS OF INTELLIGENCE MIGHT BE FOUND WITHIN A SINGLE CELL

It is a common misconception that the term “intelligence” automatically implies the existence of a designer.  This is a flatly false conclusion relying on an unjustified inference.  The term “intelligence” in Intelligent Design is inferred from the design information itself, which is called “Complex Specified Information” or CSI by ID proponents.  The suggestion that CSI is observed in biological life is a perfectly valid and logical deduction.   Click here for the technical definitions of ID Theory.

Is it possible that there might be designers?  Yes, however, this is an entirely philosophical issue that does not involve ID Theory due to the lack of data on any designers.  ID Theory is not based upon philosophical conjectures, but offers its own natural explanations that are often overlooked by mainstream science.

Just like the Big Bang Theory requires no supernatural deity for the scientific theory to be workable, so likewise Intelligent Design Theory does not require a designer.  It is very possible that DNA might have been transported to Earth by a meteorite, or extraterrestrials might have inadvertently deposited the first cell from which all life on Earth derived.  There is yet one more natural conjecture offered by Intelligent Design proponents to explain the source of original design information.  The idea is inspired from what is known as REDUCTIONISM.

Is it possible that a cell is its only independent miniature brain? The author of this article, Brian Ford, suggests a far out ID hypothesis that each cell is an independent source of intelligence. The hypothesized ID conjecture is an application inspired by reductionism.  ID advocates discuss this subject further here.

Biological reductionism is by no means a preferred or popular view within the ID community. It is simply a scientific conjecture that is a possible source of intelligence. It is also one of several reasons why ID Theory is science because this happens to be a legitimate research field in molecular biology, although not a very successful or promising area of study.

ID Theory is looking for a missing mechanism that would lead to greater complexity. This probably isn’t it, but it is a thought-provoking idea of someone who thinks outside the box.

Reductionism

Reductionism is a natural explanation for how genetic information increases.

The following is the article posted on 26 April 2010 in New Scientist in its entirety by Brian J. Ford, located here.

THE SECRETS OF INTELLIGENCE LIE WITHIN A SINGLE CELL

LATE at night on a sultry evening, I watch intently as the predator senses its prey, gathers itself, and strikes. It could be a polecat, or even a mantis – but in fact it’s a microbe. The microscopic world of the single, living cell mirrors our own in so many ways: cells are essentially autonomous, sentient and ingenious. In the lives of single cells we can perceive the roots of our own intelligence.

Molecular biology and genetics have driven the biosciences, but have not given us the miraculous new insights we were led to expect. From professional biologists to schoolchildren, people are concentrating on the minutiae of what goes on in the deepest recesses of the cell. For me, however, this misses out on life in the round: it is only when we look at the living cell as a whole organism that wonderful realities emerge that will alter our perception not only of how single cells enact their intricate lives but what we humans truly are.

The problem is that whole-cell biology is not popular. Microscopy is hell-bent on increased resolution and ever higher magnification, as though we could learn more about animal behavior by putting a bacon sandwich under lenses of increasing power. We know much about what goes on within parts of a cell, but so much less about how whole cells conduct their lives.

Currently, cell biology deals largely with the components within cells, and systems biology with how the components interact. There is nothing to counterbalance this reductionism with a focus on how whole cells behave. Molecular biology and genetics are the wrong sciences to tackle the task.

Let’s take a look at some of the evidence for ingenuity and intelligence in cells that is missing from the curriculum. Take the red algae Rhodophyta, in which many species carry out remarkable repairs to damaged cells. Cut a filament of Antithamnion cells so the cell is cut across and the cytoplasm escapes into the surrounding aquatic medium. All that remains are two fragments of empty, disrupted cell wall lying adjacent to, but separate from, each other. Within 24 hours, however, the adjacent cells have made good the damage, the empty cell space has been restored to full activity, and the cell walls meticulously realigned and seamlessly repaired.

The only place where this can happen is in the lab. In nature, the broken ends of the severed cell would nearly always end up remote from each other, so selection in favor of an automatic repair mechanism through Darwinian evolution would be impossible. Yet something amazing is happening here: because the damage to the Antithamnion filament is unforeseeable, the organism faces a situation for which it has not been able to adapt, and is therefore unable to call upon inbuilt responses. It has to use some sort of problem-solving ingenuity instead.

We regard amoebas as simple and crude. Yet many types of amoeba construct glassy shells by picking up sand grains from the mud in which they live. The typical Difflugia shell, for example, is shaped like a vase, and has a remarkable symmetry.

Compare this with the better known behavior of a caddis fly larva. This maggot hunts around the bottom of the pond for suitable scraps of detritus with which to construct a home. Waterlogged wood is cemented together with pondweed until the larva has formed a protective covering for its nakedness. You might think this comparable to the home built by the testate amoeba, yet the amoeba lacks the jaws, eyes, muscles, limbs, cement glands and brain the caddis fly larva relies on for its skills. We just don’t know how this single-celled organism builds its shell, and molecular biology can never tell us why. While the home of the caddis fly larva is crude and roughly assembled, that of the testate amoeba is meticulously crafted – and it’s all made by a single cell.

The products of the caddis fly larva and the amoeba, and the powers of red algae, are about more than ingenuity: they pose important questions about cell intelligence. After all, whole living cells are primarily autonomous, and carry out their daily tasks with little external mediation. They are not subservient nanobots, they create and regulate activity, respond to current conditions and, crucially, take decisions to deal with unforeseen difficulties.
Whole living cells are not subservient nanobots, they respond and take decisions

Just how far this conceptual revolution about cells could take us becomes clearer with more complex animals, such as humans. Here, conventional wisdom is that everything is ultimately controlled by the brain. But cells in the liver, for example, reproduce at just the right rate to replace cells lost through attrition; follicular cells create new hair; bone marrow cells produce new circulating blood cells at a rate of millions per minute. And so on and on. In fact, around 90 per cent of this kind of cell activity is invisible to the brain, and the cells are indifferent to its actions. The brain is an irrelevance to most somatic cells.

So where does that leave the neuron, the most highly evolved cell we know? It ought to be in an interesting and privileged place. After all, neurons are so specialized that they have virtually abandoned division and reproduction. Yet we model this cell as little more than an organic transistor, an on/off switch. But if a red alga can “work out” how to solve problems, or an amoeba construct a stone home with all the “ingenuity” of a master builder, how can the human neuron be so lowly?

Unraveling brain structure and function has come to mean understanding the interrelationship between neurons, rather than understanding the neurons themselves. My hunch is that the brain’s power will turn out to derive from data processing within the neuron rather than activity between neurons.

And networks of neurons enhance the effect of those neurons “thinking” between themselves. I think the neuron’s action potentials are rather like a language neurons use to transmit processed data from one to the next.

Back in 2004, we set out to record these potentials, from neurons cultured in the lab. They emit electrical signals of around 40 hertz, which sound like a buzzing, irritating noise played back as audio files. I used some specialist software to distinguish the signal within the noise – and to produce sound from within each peak that is closer to the frequency of a human voice and therefore more revealing to the ear.

Listening to the results reprocessed at around 300 Hz, the audio files have the hypnotic quality of sea birds calling. There is a sense that each spike is modulated subtly within itself, and it sounds as if there are discrete signals in which one neuron in some sense “addresses” another. Could we be eavesdropping on the language of the brain?

For me, the brain is not a supercomputer in which the neurons are transistors; rather it is as if each individual neuron is itself a computer, and the brain a vast community of microscopic computers. But even this model is probably too simplistic since the neuron processes data flexibly and on disparate levels, and is therefore far superior to any digital system. If I am right, the human brain may be a trillion times more capable than we imagine, and “artificial intelligence” a grandiose misnomer.

I think it is time to acknowledge fully that living cells make us what we are, and to abandon reductionist thinking in favor of the study of whole cells. Reductionism has us peering ever closer at the fibers in the paper of a musical score, and analyzing the printer’s ink. I want us to experience the symphony.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in MOLECULAR BIOLOGY. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to THE SECRETS OF INTELLIGENCE MIGHT BE FOUND WITHIN A SINGLE CELL

  1. I do not know if it’s just me or if everyone else encountering problems with your site. It appears as if some of the written text in your content are running off the screen. Can someone else please provide feedback and let me know if this is happening to them as well? This might be a problem with my internet browser because I’ve had this
    happen previously. Kudos

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s