Does embryo development process require ID?

Jonathan Wells, who is an embryologist and an ID advocate, has a very interesting paper and video on the issue of ontogeny (embryo development)  and  the origins of information needed in the process of cell differentiation…

Wells thinks that a major piece of information needed in the process of embryo development can’t be explained by DNA,  and therefore may require an intervention of an outside source of information, such as ID/God…

If you don’t want to watch the whole video, starting at about 40 min mark is just as good but especially at 43 min.

While Wells had known for a long time that not ALL information needed for embryo development was found in DNA – “… membrane patterns carry ontogenetic information that is specified independently of DNA…” – he has thought that ALL of the needed information was found in the fertilized egg.

Recently, however, he has changed his mind… Now he thinks that at least some information needed for embryo development  has to be added in process of cell differentiation from some unknown information source, beyond classical information source of nature…

As a biologist, Wells can’t explain the source of this information but as a theologian he thinks that necessary insertion of information can be explained by supernatural source; it could come from an immaterial source…

Personally, I think that the missing information problem could be easily explained by considering quantum information…

Most probably know by now that life on the most fundamental level (that we know about or can detect, other than dark energy) is quantum. Since this is the case, it can not only be assumed that quantum information may be involved in embryo development and cell differentiation processes. It could be tested…

If only classical information (non-quantum) is required in process of say…protein folds, and quantum information is not involved in it, then another source of information (classical or other) should be taken into consideration…

However, let’s consider using two identical amino-acid sequences (classical information)  in the process of protein fold when one of the sequences has its quantum information altered  (there are ways of disrupting quantum information) and both of them fold into the same 3 dimensional protein configuration, that could mean that quantum information is probably not required in the process.

But if two different protein folds are created by using the same amino-acid sequence, or the one of the sequences, which gets its quantum information disrupted, doesn’t lead to a protein fold at all, it could very well indicate that quantum information is necessary, if not essential in the life processes, such as embryo development and cell differentiation…

If this is all true, it could be great news for the future of quantum biology… but bad news for Darwinism… but that wouldn’t be anything new, would it?

If I were a Darwinist, I would have to grow a really thick skin to deal with all the beatings that the theory has been getting, especially lately… 😉

27 Replies to “Does embryo development process require ID?”

  1. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Just a few notes:
    The issue of the origins of information is much, much deeper and broader, well beyond the embryo development, cell differentiation issues…
    I think where both Dr. Wells and I agree upon is that whether the additional information needed in the embryo developmental process is supplied by ID/God or Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Information), but we both agree that Darwinists can’t explain the origins of that information… at least not by Darwinian processes…

    If anyone here would like to challenge that, including the paid Darwinian propaganda people, I would like to hear it… I’m sure Jonathan Wells, whose work had quite an influence on my world views back in 2000, would agree…
    I can and see the young/older humble gentleman smiling while he is reading my stuff…

  2. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    BTW: I wish Sal Cordova were here… I know he reads my nonsense but his presence is definitely missed here… I know that he chose a better life , as he sees it, and I can’t judge him for it more than I should judge keiths for abandoning Christianity… Who can blame them?

  3. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: BTW: I wish Sal Cordova were here… I know he reads my nonsense but his presence is definitely missed here… I know that he chose a better life ,

    Well, you know the old saying: If you can’t beat ’em…..

  4. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: Well, you know the old saying: If you can’t beat ’em…..

    What do you know??? You are on the death row … the natural one as I am…

  5. Acartia Acartia
    Ignored
    says:

    If I were a Darwinist, I would have to grow a really thick skin to deal with all the beatings that the theory has been getting, especially lately… 😉

    Thank you for making me laugh after a hard day at work.

  6. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Acartia:
    If I were a Darwinist, I would have to grow a really thick skin to deal with all the beatings that the theory has been getting, especially lately…

    Thank you for making me laugh after a hard day at work.

    It’s a good challenge lacking substance though… Please return when you are not angry just because your beliefs have been threatened…

  7. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: Well, you know the old saying: If you can’t beat ’em…..

    I just hope Sal is Okay… He liked you though….I’m not sure why…Your own daughter is not really friendly… if you know what I mean…

  8. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,
    Out of interest, do you have an opinion on how long it will take for Darwinism to finally totally fall and be replaced with something more reasonable?

  9. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain, to J-Mac:

    Out of interest, do you have an opinion on how long it will take for Darwinism to finally totally fall and be replaced with something more reasonable?

    Yes. Please answer that, J-Mac.

  10. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain:
    J-Mac,
    Out of interest, do you have an opinion on how long it will take for Darwinism to finally totally fall and be replaced with something more reasonable?

    How do you replace an ideology? If Darwinism were based on some kind of scientific evidence, it could be easier…Unfortunately, you are asking me how to replace nonsense such as Nazism or Communism or even Socialism…
    I don’t know how to replace utopias…Panspermia seems the easiest way out for those resisting the truth…
    What do you think?

  11. Acartia Acartia
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Unfortunately, you are asking me how to replace nonsense such as Nazism or Communism or even Socialism…

    …and Christianity.

  12. Acartia Acartia
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: It’s a good challenge lacking substance though… Please return when you are not angry just because your beliefs have been threatened…

    When you start seriously challenging evolution, be sure to let us know. I would hate to miss it.

  13. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    i don’t know if quantum information is a real thing.
    Yet this new information from Wells seems to be suggesting the soul.
    surely the soul is more then information.
    So the only spooky information would be the connections between the soul and the memory/brain.
    So its possiblt a unknown source for info might need a creators touch.
    Indeed the soul being created at conception is why killing a child there by abortion is killing a people. thats why abortion must be illegal and punishable.
    YES evolutionism, though moving in tiny intellectual circles, is being battered these years and , on a probability curve, is unlikely to survive as is.
    They can’t it or come close to justify it being called a theory of science.
    The obscure elite circles it moved in IN the past has been blown up by modern creationism or general skeptics.
    as people get smarter the dumber ideas get rejected.

  14. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    I watched around 5 minutes, and then jumped to the 40:00 point and watched from there.

    I don’t know why J-Mac believes there is something important here. I am unable to see it. Wells makes many assertions, but does not support those assertions with persuasive arguments. So I see him as mostly jumping to conclusions.

    It is mostly an argument from ignorance as in “I don’t know of anything other than an intelligent mind that could do this; therefore it must be the product of an intelligent mind.”

  15. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Byers:

    as people get smarter the dumber ideas get rejected.

    Indeed they do, which is why creationism — which once upon a time was a respectable position — is now laughed at by the evolutionary biology community.

  16. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac has replaced god-did-it with magical-quantum-phenomena-did-it. I’m sure Darwinists are sick worried about it. Oh! No! Another devastating beating from the magical-quantum-phenomena!

  17. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Neil Rickert: I don’t know why J-Mac believes there is something important here. I am unable to see it. Wells makes many assertions, but does not support those assertions with persuasive arguments. So I see him as mostly jumping to conclusions.

    Neil,
    Perhaps you and Robert should read Well’s article that is closer to your compression abilities… It’s subscription access but it might be worth it in your case as you two obviously couldn’t grasp the issue of information carried by membranes and other information sources beyond DNA…
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo38/life-exponential.php

  18. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Byers: Yet this new information from Wells seems to be suggesting the soul.
    surely the soul is more then information.
    So the only spooky information would be the connections between the soul and the memory/brain.

    Yes Robert… Embryo development experiments also involved fruit flies… which according to you must have souls as they are much needed in heaven to spread diseases there… 😉

  19. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Entropy:
    J-Mac has replaced god-did-it with magical-quantum-phenomena-did-it. I’m sure Darwinists are sick worried about it. Oh! No! Another devastating beating from the magical-quantum-phenomena!

    I’m proposing a theory that could very well be verified by an experiment…
    I haven’t seen you proposition any experiments to verify Darwinism, such as to help the gliding snake develop wings, or a swimming bear develop fins…

    What would be your evolutionary prediction of expected evolutionary changes, if any, in pearl divers in Japan that have been spending most of their life under water for hundreds of generations?

    I hope you don’t run away again…;-)

  20. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths:
    Byers:

    Indeed they do, which is why creationism — which once upon a time was a respectable position — is now laughed at by the evolutionary biology community.

    The evolutionary biology community laughing is not the yardstick for determining a intelligence curve taking place to replace wrong ideas. They would just be the conservative old guard .
    In science its always this way. Einstein went on and on about this in his book.

  21. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Byers: The evolutionary biology community laughing is not the yardstick for determining a intelligence curve taking place to replace wrong ideas. They would just be the conservative old guard .
    In science its always this way. Einstein went on and on about this in his book.

    So your estimation as to the expected fall of Darwinism is a generation?

    So, to be specific, how many years would you say it will be until all the “old guard” are gone and a new generation of open-minded scientists takes their place and rewrites the books in a way favourable to creationism/Intelligent Design? Another 10? 20? 30?

    50? 100?

  22. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: I’m proposing a theory that could very well be verified by an experiment…

    As usual you are proposing work for others to do, you give no indication that you yourself are prepared to do actual work. Experiments can be carried out by anyone, you don’t have to believe a certain way. There’s no reason you yourself cannot carry out any experement you design to test darwinism. Not believing in darwinism does not stop you testing it.

    But, as we saw from your “my kids can replicate that experement in their basement” you make a claim then never mention it again. It’s typical for your sort of creationist to propose things that they themselves have no intention of doing. And then you’ll take the fact that nobody bothered to jump at your command as some sort of vindication.

    J-Mac: I hope you don’t run away again…;-)

    Much like you ran away from your claim you could replicate the thought affected interference lines experement in your basement you mean?

    Yes, just like that I suspect.

  23. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: What would be your evolutionary prediction of expected evolutionary changes, if any, in pearl divers in Japan that have been spending most of their life under water for hundreds of generations?

    It may surprise you to learn the environment can change the course of evolution:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_humans
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10721618

    As far as diving goes, however, there do seem to have been some reserarch there also: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(18)30386-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867418303866%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

    As to predictions, well, what are the predictions from your side? If you care to give them we can compare them to what actual science has discovered.

    If you care to give them….

  24. Acartia Acartia
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: I’m proposing a theory that could very well be verified by an experiment…

    I look forward to the peer reviewed papers on these tests.

  25. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: As usual you are proposing work for others to do, you give no indication that you yourself are prepared to do actual work. Experiments can be carried out by anyone, you don’t have to believe a certain way. There’s no reason you yourself cannot carry out any experement you design to test darwinism. Not believing in darwinism does not stop you testing it.

    But, as we saw from your “my kids can replicate that experement in their basement” you make a claim then never mention it again. It’s typical for your sort of creationist to propose things that they themselves have no intention of doing. And then you’ll take the fact that nobody bothered to jump at your command as some sort of vindication.

    Much like you ran away from your claim you could replicate the thought affected interference lines experement in your basement you mean?

    Yes, just like that I suspect.

    The experiments have been performed…
    How do you think I would know that quantum information can be disrupted in the embryo development? I’m not a Darwinist… I don’t bluff…

    Do you have other questions?

  26. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: I’m proposing a theory that could very well be verified by an experiment…
    I haven’t seen you proposition any experiments to verify Darwinism, such as to help the gliding snake develop wings, or a swimming bear develop fins…

    What would be your evolutionary prediction of expected evolutionary changes, if any, in pearl divers in Japan that have been spending most of their life under water for hundreds of generations?

    I hope you don’t run away again…;-)

    I’d really like OMgain to show some real evidence here..

  27. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: As far as diving goes, however, there do seem to have been some reserarch there also: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(18)30386-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867418303866%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

    Good for you OMagain… It looks like scientists assessing the divers noticed that some of them have their spleens enlarged… They naturally assumed that natural selection did it… While that might be true I know much more pleasant way of enlarging a spleen. One of them is called Château Margaux…
    Alan Fox might know something about that 😉

    ETA: No other, real evolutionary changes were observed though one would think that the lungs or the arms should be in the intermediate, evolutionary state at least… unfortunately…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.