Does Cell-Building Require Intelligence?


You seem to be barking up the wrong tree because evolution only deals with how life changed after life emerged. If the first lifeform was created by God and the biodiversity we see today evolved from that first life then the theory of evolution would be unchanged.

What is the real reason for denial of evolution?
(Thomas W. Rogers) #2

The point we are trying to make is that from the beginning of living entities, every cell-part required super-intelligence far beyond that of mankind as proven by the 2016 Nobel prize winners in Chemistry.

(Thomas W. Rogers) #3

Super-intelligence “for assembly” I should add.


At what point in the processes of DNA replication, RNA transcription, protein translation, and/or protein folding are you saying a super-intelligence is involved?

(Thomas W. Rogers) #5

Every step of the way as each requires the careful selection, counting, and physical assembly of atoms selected from the adjacent blood vessel that delivers atoms from our digestive system (focusing on human cell construction).

What is the real reason for denial of evolution?
What is the real reason for denial of evolution?

Then you would seem to be rejecting decades of work done in protein chemistry and molecular biology that demonstrates the spontaneous formation of these assemblages. Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things you reject.

What is the real reason for denial of evolution?
What is the real reason for denial of evolution?

In a separate thread, @GodsBiology wrote:


“The detailed biosynthetic pathways of the purine biosynthesis came later in 1950 primarily by the works of Buchanan and G. Rober Greenberg.”

Science went down to the atomic assembly level in 1950. You are nearly 70 years behind the times. We know the atom by atom process of building molecules in cells, and it involves enzymes, not super-intelligences. You can check out the link above for all of the details.

(Tom Larkin) #8

I think you need to be careful of what Francis Collins called a “God of the gaps” philosophy where we state that life / humans are too complex to occur from nature and require divine intervention. The trouble with this argument is when the process is finally explained by science, which it will eventually be, that eliminates the need for a divine presence.

I feel there are many other reasons to believe. Also, I find science to help back the Bible as the Word of God. For example, from the moment of the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was so great, all matter was in the form of photons (God said “Let there be light”) and about 300,000 years later (source Astrophysics for Busy People, deGrasse Tyson), the universe cooled to the point that the building blocks of atoms started to condense out (and God divided the light from the darkness). I find it incredible that this was written 3,000-4,000 years ago. I believe that over time science and the Bible will be viewed in harmony.

(Thomas W. Rogers) #9

Yes, I realize this ‘T_’ . I have been at this for three decades. In addition to evidence supplied by the 2016 Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry, we have determined 7 principles and 18 other intelligent essentials for life that evolution is incapable of providing.
The initial surprise was that science had not gone down to the atomic assembly level before. However, once you begin investigating what has to happen at a cell construction site, you begin to understand all the brilliant plans, choices, decisions, and physical selection and assembly of counted numbers of the right atoms essential for building every molecular machine and other cell-part with great speed and precision.
If you follow the logic and think we may be onto something big, it would be great to have you involved.
This change will not be easy until some of the top minds are persuaded.

Does Cell-Building Require Intelligence?
What is the real reason for denial of evolution?

In case it gets lost in the shuffle, you can look a few posts up to find a response to this material.

(Laura) #11

I apologize for the confusion – this is my first time splitting a thread, but hopefully the two out-of-order posts above will make sense.



Just to give people an idea of the details that science does know, we could look at the specifics of the first step in the purine de novo biosynthesis pathway. This is the pathway that builds the A and G that make up DNA.

The starting materials are simple ones, biochemically speaking. The first reactant is a ribose with a phosphate stuck to it and the second reactant is ATP which is a very common molecule produced by the TCA cycle and adenosine biosynthesis pathway.

This reaction is driven by a enzyme called Ribose-phosphate diphosphokinase. We know what the amino acid sequence of that protein is, we know its secondary and tertiary structures, and we also know where each reactant binds on the protein. It is a hexamer which means it is made up of 6 individual proteins. It looks like this:


Here is the description of the structure of ribose-phosphate diphosphokinase:

In addition, we know that specific diseases are linked to mutations in the gene that codes for ribose-phosphate diphosphokinase.

All of this happens spontaneously and naturally. I’m not sure where a super-intelligence is required in this reaction, but I would like to hear @GodsBiology explain why this requires a super-intelligence.

(Mitchell W McKain) #13

No. Living things build cells all the time without any intelligence. Ah!.. but you think that is because they have a blueprint in their DNA. Actually you would be wrong. There is nothing like a blueprint in DNA. It is more like a blue print and thousand other books thrown into a blender to make a puree. This is because it is not a product of design but the product of a learning process. DNA is simply the accumulation of a lot of random information acquired through learning, some of which has been book-marked as more important and relevant. The information is in there but it did not come from intelligence – not as we usually use that word for human mental capabilities. It is the product of something capable of learning – but that includes viruses and bacteria. You can call that intelligence if you want and I would not object for it really is essentially the same thing in a chemical medium rather than in the symbolism of human language and thought.

But it has been decisively demonstrated that evolutionary algorithms are vastly superior in their ability to make better more efficient and complex devices than mere human intelligence. One of the recent accomplishments is making an AI which can defeat professional players at the game of go which traditional programming methods have consistently failed to accomplish. You can call that intelligence if you want, but I would not. I believe that machine intelligence is possible but I think more is required than simply AI programming.

(Thomas W. Rogers) #14

You have to think this through, ‘T_’ . I know your quotations are what is taught, but the problem is with the “spontaneous” and “natural”. When it comes to finding in the blood vessel adjacent to the cell construction site, the right counted numbers of the right atoms being selected, latched onto, and precisely placed in sequence, this is super intelligent physical work with atoms.
The 2016 Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry were awarded for taking their best shot at building molecular machines using the vast accumulation of science knowledge and sophisticated equipment at their disposal over a 33 year period.
The best molecular machine they completed is almost infinitely more simplistic than any of the molecular machines built into our new cells every day of the week.
We believe this proves that mankind has nowhere near enough intelligence to build our molecular machines, so why would we expect that a theoretical process claiming to use no intelligence at all, could do all this extremely complex work?


You do realize that the vast majority of life on the planet Earth has no blood vessels, right?

Also, the transport of things like glucose into the body is understood, and it happens spontaneously and naturally. For example, Chen et al. (2016). Surely you have done some simply literature searches and read up on how all of these systems work in the body, haven’t you?

All that shows is that humans are not yet capable of building molecular machines comparable to what nature can do.

All you are demonstrating is that your entire thesis is based on bias.

(Thomas W. Rogers) #16

First question re: blood vessels, yes not all living entities have “blood” as we have but all multi-cellular entities have vessels that carry atoms to their cell construction sites.

Second, re: nature building molecular machines that scientists have nowhere near enough intelligence to build: please explain how atoms can be sorted, counted, selected, and precisely assembled into functioning sequences without intelligence.

Third: I don’t consider using facts and logic to be a bias, T_.
I have found that most of the scholars I have talked to, had just not thought through the super-intelligent physical works with atoms that have to be performed at cell construction sites.

(Thomas W. Rogers) #17

Actually all we are rejecting is the theory that all the extremely brilliant and complex physical work with atoms to build cell-parts, cells, and entities can be performed using no intelligence.


The vast majority of life on Earth is single celled.

I already did that in a previous post where I discussed the first step in the de novo biosynthesis pathway for purines. Would you like to discuss the steps in natural and spontaneous replication of DNA in the cell?


Your conclusions based on those facts are biased. You start with the unsupported assumption that if humans can’t do it then nature can’t do it.


Have you ever performed PCR?

(Thomas W. Rogers) #20

For single-cell entities the construction atoms have to be selected from adjacent resources, counted, latched onto, and precisely assembled, don’t they. Then of course, is the little essentiality of adding “Life” to the inanimate atoms.

Whatever “does it” requires super-intelligence (far greater than mankind’s intelligence).

I have been asked to reply to other individuals.