Monday, September 30, 2024

Scientists Squander Their Credibility When They Groundlessly Say "We Must..."

An ideal situation would be one where scientists would only speak reliably whenever they said "we must." If such a state of affairs existed, then whenever scientists had to issue an urgent warning, people would have great trust in what they claimed.  For example, if it was very necessary for carbon emissions to be sharply reduced, scientists might then tell us that carbon emissions must be sharply reduced; and people would say something like this:

"So, we have been warned, and we must do as the scientists say. You know how careful scientists are about saying 'we must.' A scientist will only say that we must do something, when such a thing is unquestionably necessary." 

But sadly such a state of affairs does not exist. Many scientists are very careless in saying that "we must" do some thing, and many scientists tell us that we must do something when there is no necessity at all in us doing such a thing. 

scientist wish list

A great example of scientists improperly saying "we must" appeared on August 21 of this year. On that date we had a great  example of why you simply cannot trust scientists to speak objectively on topics whenever they have a vested interest in creating some idea that some type of research is important. We had an article on www.space.com entitled "Perseverance rover's Mars samples must be brought back to Earth, scientists stress." The article was referring to samples of soil and rock that have been collected on Mars by the Perseverance rover.  Below is the story headline. 

bad scientist recommendation

Below this headline  we had a quote by a scientist simultaneously misspeaking and also using a very bad argument: 

" 'These samples are the reason why our mission was flown,' said planetary scientist David Shuster of the University of California, Berkeley, in a statement. Shuster is a member of NASA's science team for the collection and analysis of these samples."

No, gathering samples to be picked up a later Mars mission was not the reason why the Perseverance mission was flown. That mission was always an affair with a variety of undertakings, most of which consisted of a rover going around on Mars and photographing things, the release of a helicopter probe, and the analysis of soil and rock samples with a SHERLOC scientific instrument. And even if billions had been spent to run a mission with the sole purpose of collecting samples for retrieval by a later mission, that would not justify spending 11 billion dollars on a sample retrieval mission. Similarly, if your wife tells you to stop wasting money trying to build a perpetual motion machine, you do not justify more expenditures with an argument such as "I must spend $500,000 more to finish the machine, because I already spent $500,000 on it." That type of reasoning is called the fallacy of the sunk cost. 

The quote in the www.space.com article has a link to another article, which gives a fuller quote by Shuster. We have some additional lines by him, in which his logic sounds even more vaporous. We read this:

" 'These samples are the reason why our mission was flown,' said paper co-author David Shuster, professor of earth and planetary science at the University of California, Berkeley, and a member of NASA’s science team for sample collection. 'This is exactly what everyone was hoping to accomplish. And we’ve accomplished it. These are what we went looking for.' ”

The article has a picture showing this supposedly grand accomplishment. We see on Mars a tube filled with dirt:


Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS

Shuster's reasoning here (as quoted in the article) sounds as weak as a cobweb. So some dirt on Mars was put into tubes and the tubes dumped on the ground, and now we must spend 11 billion dollars or more to retrieve such tubes because the dumping of such tubes was "what everyone was hoping to accomplish"?  Talk about cringe-worthy scientist reasoning. 

Shuster seems to think that it was some great triumph that dirt was dumped on Mars, a triumph that must be followed up on regardless of an exorbitant price tag. The visual below seems to depict this thinking:


Senselessly, the www.space.com article tells us this about a proposed 11 billion dollar mission to retrieve these dumped tubes: "Yet, no matter how daunting such a mission sounds, it's essential for planetary science to be achieved with these Mars rock subjects." No, it is not essential at all. There is no reason to think that anything particularly interesting is in such tubes, and no reason why these particular tubes have to be retrieved. 

The article then contains this extremely misleading statement:

"Now, a new research paper presents an initial analysis of some of the samples, conducted by the rover itself, to illustrate why exactly it is so vital that we bring the samples back to Earth. The research paper concerns itself with seven samples of sediment collected from the delta of the river that once flowed into the lake that filled Jezero 3.5 billion years ago.:

The statement is extremely misleading because the very paper referred to does pretty much the exact opposite of what the statement above claims. Rather than showing "why exactly it is so vital that we bring the samples back to Earth," the paper gives us reason to think that there is nothing of any great scientific interest in such samples. The paper reveals that it failed to find any sign of organic molecules in any of the samples it studied. 

We read this in the www.space.com article:

"The new report describes Perseverance's examination of the sampled materials. It did not detect organic materials, but Shuster isn't downhearted.  'We did not clearly observe organic compounds in these key samples,' said Shuster. 'But just because that instrument did not detect organic compounds does not mean that they are not in these samples. It just means they weren't at a concentration detectable by the rover instrumentation in those particular rocks."

Yeah, right -- and just because I don't see any fairy castles in my photos when I photograph clouds in the sky, that does not prove that the fairy castles are not there, because they could be too high up in the sky for them to show up in my photos. 

The "new report " is a scientific paper reporting an utter failure to detect anything with astrobiology potential, but it has the "give-you-the-wrong-idea" title of "Astrobiological Potential of Rocks Acquired by the Perseverance Rover at a Sedimentary Fan Front in Jezero Crater, Mars."  We read in the paper that the Perseverance Rover instruments used could have detected organic molecules with amounts greater than 10 parts per million. But it found no such organic molecules. Earthly soil, by comparison, is often 5% organic molecules, or 50,000 parts per million. 

The reported failure to detect organic compounds in the samples analyzed by Perseverance is an extremely strong indicator suggesting with high probability that there is nothing of any biological interest in the Mars sample tubes. The www.space.com article has misled us very badly. Instead of the scientific paper telling "why exactly it is so vital that we bring the samples back to Earth," the scientific paper has actually given us a very strong reason for thinking that it will be a waste of billions of dollars to retrieve these Mars sample tubes, which will have nothing of any biological interest.  The mere existence of organic molecules does nothing to prove life ever existed, but when life exists, organic molecules exist in huge numbers. Whenever there's a great rarity of organic molecules on some place beyond Earth, you have a "life probably never existed there" situation. 

The scientific paper states the following, and all you have to do is put two and two together to realize the meaning for whether it is important to retrieve the sample tubes dumped on Mars:

"Given that one of the major objectives of the Mars 2020 mission is to find and collect materials that, among other potential biosignatures, preserve organic compounds (Farley et al., 2020), the astrobiological potential of the collected samples increases with their organic content. However, the SHERLOC instrument on Perseverance has not detected unambiguous organic signals to date (Scheller et al., 2024)."

NASA has put the Mars sample retrieval on hold partially because people at NASA realized that soon after such a mission would be finished, astronauts might well be traveling to Mars, making the unmanned sample retrieval mission look like a waste of 11 billion dollars. That's all the more reason why there's no "must" at all in the "we must" quoted in the headline above. 

Elsewhere in the article Shuster gives us this statement trying but failing to justify the claim that "sedimentary rocks are important": " 'Sedimentary rocks are important because they were transported by water, deposited into a standing body of water and subsequently modified by chemistry that involved liquid water on the surface of Mars at some point in the past,' said Shuster." This fails to give any explanation of why billions of dollars should be spent to retrieve sedimentary rocks. 

What we have here is scientists damaging the credibility of scientists, by claiming "we must" when there is no compelling reason for action. Given the extreme rarity of organic molecules on Mars, and given an utter failure to find any amino acids (the simplest building components of life) on Mars, there is no reason for thinking that the retrieval of the sample tubes dumped on Mars is any kind of necessity or even an important scientific priority.  The more scientists tell us "we must" when there is no "we must," the less credible scientists will be when there is some really important "we must" that they must communicate to the public. 

A recent BBC article has a headline of " 'Human race needs to expand beyond Earth,' says Prof Brian Cox."  In the article Cox gives us only the weakest reasoning to support such a "we must" claim. Regarding asteroid mining, he says, "it's extremely important that we do it, and as quickly as possible."  No, asteroid mining is no great priority, and we can get along okay without it, by reducing metal consumption.  In the article Cox says "it is probable that we are the only advanced civilization in the Milky Way at the moment, and possibly the only one that has ever existed in the galaxy."  He then says this:

“If that's true, though, then our expansion beyond this planet becomes an obligation. Because if we don't do that, nobody's doing it. So if we don't go out to the stars, nobody's ever going out to the stars in this galaxy. So it becomes of overriding importance to begin to take those first steps.”


Huh? We must go out to the stars, because if we don't do it, no one else will in our galaxy?  This reasoning makes no sense. Again a scientist is giving very bad reasoning to try to back up an unjustified "we must" claim. Similar reasoning might be something like this: "I must try to build a mountain-sized upside-down pyramid, because if I don't do it, no one else will."


At the "Not Even Wrong" blog, mathematician Peter Woit recently asks, "Whose job is it to explain to the public that they were misled by overenthusiastic scientists?" For years Woit has taken on the job of explaining to the public how the public is being misled by a belief community of overenthusiastic physicists called string theorists.  But he has never broadened his scope to a more general treatment of all the different types of belief communities of overenthusiastic scientists who are misleading the public, largely to serve their own vested interests. He should read my 61 posts with a tag of "overblown hype" to get ideas on how he might broaden his very narrow critique which has covered only a small fraction of the overenthusiastic scientists misleading the public. 

Thursday, September 26, 2024

Naked-Eye Sightings of Mysterious Orbs (Part 8)

 Below are some posts I have published about people reporting they saw mysterious orbs with the naked eye:


Let us look at some more cases of this type.  

The report below is contained on page 1 of the May, 1934 edition of The International Psychic Gazette, and seems to be a repetition of an account that appeared in the prestigious Times of London. 

"PIRANO, a little town on the Istrian coast, peopled by fishermen and sailors, is greatly excited over a mysterious emanation of light which has roused the imagination and religious sentiments of the populace (says the Times.)

A woman, Anna Morano, was admitted to the local hospital some time ago suffering from asthma and hysterical attacks. About the middle of last month a nurse noted in the ward where the woman was sleeping with six or seven others an intense light of brief duration which came from the bed of the woman in the region of her chest. All the lights of the hospital were out and the windows closed. The nurse informed the doctors of what she had seen and the patient was watched.

For several successive evenings the luminous phenomenon was repeated. Sometimes the light was directed upwards and took the form of a globe, which shone in the darkness of the ward on to the nearest beds and even on to the walls, but at other times it lighted only the face of the patient and was in the form of rays. It was also seen to assume the appearance of broken rays resembling lightning. Its duration was invariably three or four seconds.

The Times also published a letter from Mr. R. H. Jackson, M .R .C. S., of Bridgeway, Bakewell, stating that a nurse described to him the case of a private patient who was lying in a comatose state for some days. A light resembling a small luminous globe floated into the room, and, after remaining a minute or two over the patient, disappeared. She did not mention the incident to the family, but discovered later that an old maidservant who shared duty with her had also seen it on several occasions."

The International Psychic Gazette story speculates that the strange sightings were "spirit lights."

 You will read very few accounts of the paranormal as strange as the account below:

https://digitalcollections.lib.umanitoba.ca/islandora/object/uofm%3A2964732?solr%5Bquery

We read of a house in which unexplained water puddles were found. A paranormal investigator was brought in. Soon things much spookier were reported, as we read in the clip below:

Most people have heard of near-death experiences in which someone has a close brush with death, and reports having some striking paranormal-seeming experience that might include seeing his body from outside of it or a trip through some mysterious tunnel leading to some mystical realm where dead relatives are encountered, or events such as a rapid life review or encountering a Being of light. Much rarer than such accounts are accounts that have been called shared-death experiences. Such experiences were discussed in the 2010 book Glimpses of Eternity: Sharing a Loved One's Passage From This Life to the Next by Raymond Moody Jr.  In these "shared-death experience" accounts, a person in good health present when someone is dying may report some paranormal-seeming or mystical-experience far different from normal human consciousness. 

On page 34 we have this account: "When his grandfather died, the young man was astounded to see 'a golden ball of light' rise from his chest and pass through the ceiling."   Another orb-related account is found on page 69.  On the day of a mother's death, a son recalls that "a globe of bright light formed around us," with scenes from the mother's life mysteriously projected on this globe. 

The site www.adcrf.org is the site of an Afterdeath Communication Research Foundation organization. The site documents experiences that are often called "after-death communication." Such experiences include a wide variety of experiences in which someone may feel that there is some causal connection between the experience and a deceased person. These include things such as dreams of the deceased,  a feeling of presence involving a deceased person, or some synchronicity experience similar to the one I reported here and here

In a recent experience reported on the site, a person states this:

"I knew when Barbara died. She walked up to a pitch black wall and opened a door. Beyond the door was bright white light. Before she went through the door, she said 'see you later.' Very soon after that, I felt and saw a very strong bond of 100% commitment between us. It's an unbreakable bond. A day or so after that, I see her blue orb with her telepathic talking to me. I knew it was her. This was in the evening when I was watching TV."

On HBO Max there is a series "Black Files Declassified" which has some interesting episodes. Episode 2 of Season 2 is entitled "Secrets of the Paranormal." The host interviews an investigator (M. J. Banias) who says he has seen strange things at Skinwalker Ranch.  At the 10:10  mark the investigator says, "There's been a lot of ghost lights, blue orbs and you'll see footprints, and you'll hear things behind you, but there's nothing there."

For another report of orbs being reported at Skinwalker Ranch, see my post here

At the 1:50 mark in the program, host Mike Baker claims there was something called an Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Application Program, and that "its focus was on the paranormal, including ... ghosts and floating orbs." This claim comes from Banias. 

The approach taken by host Mike Baker in the rest of the episode seems like a ridiculous one. He spends almost the entire episode rounding up some people who try to advance very dubious-sounding theories that secret government high-energy projects produced orb sightings. 

In the HBO Max TV series "UFO Witness,"  Episode 2 of Season 2 has a theme of orb sightings. We hear near the beginning, "Sightings of glowing orb-shaped craft are on the rise," followed by the question "What do these aliens want?"  The narrator seems to be jumping to conclusions here, assuming that any orb seen in the sky is some craft from another planet.  We don't know what causes naked eye sightings of orbs. 

"There's definitely light orbs in the sky," says one of the hosts, while in Auburn, Massachusetts (USA). Another host says, "Specifically there's been many sightings of a UFO that looks like a glowing orb."  A narration then says (at the 1:43 mark) this: "In 2021 alone 48 glowing orb-shaped UFO's were spotted from New York to Maine."  We hear an eyewitness account by a woman named Samantha Dick who in 2021 around 4 AM  saw a bright color-changing orange orb "like a blob of lava" floating about, one she captured in a video that seems to show something very bright hanging in the air. 

Around the 28:15 mark someone says, "You have a lot of these people that have these interactions with these orbs, and are experiencing missing time."  In a UFO encounter, a person will sometimes claim "missing time" involving a few hours that he can't account for. 

In Episode 4 of Season 2, a woman says at about the 30:00 mark, "On my reservation we see these glowing orbs of light every night." 

Early in the first episode of Season 1 of another TV series "Aliens in Alaska" we have an account by a couple who saw a big orange orb in the sky, describing it as extremely bright. We see some video footage showing such an orb in the sky. At the 17:20 mark of the second episode of Season 1a witness tells of seeing an orange sky orb going back and forth, and then suddenly disappearing. We have a similar report around the 39:00 mark and the 40:00 mark. At the 12:48 mark in Episode 4, Colei Stockton recalls seeing a bright orange ball of light in the night sky, one that soon disappeared.  She says it was followed by a sighting of a huge ship in the sky. Around the 22:04 mark a witness says he saw two orange orbs in the sky. 

Below is part of a newspaper account from July 24, 1952:

orb sighting

You can read the story using the link below:

Below is a newspaper account from 1952, describing a "spooky, glowing ball of light."

crowd gathers to see mystery orb

You can read the full account using the link below:

 Below is a photo from an article in the Oklahoma City Times of March 26, 1918. 

angel in sky newspaper story

You can read the original account here:

The account below of a luminous ball occurred in a 1936 newspaper account you can read using the link below:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87093008/1936-02-27/ed-1/seq-1/


phantom light

 Below is a newspaper account of a sighting of a mysterious orb. You can read the full account here (under the headline "Mr. Schulz Views Weird Spectacle"):

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86083264/1906-08-09/ed-1/seq-2/#date1=1756&index


How are the professors of our universities responding to all the reports of paranormal phenomena that keep arriving so abundantly? The visual below depicts the "head buried in the sand" approach of these authorities:

professor reacting to the paranormal

Sunday, September 22, 2024

This University President Said He Saw His Wife's Ghost at Least 20 Times, Having Long Conversations

Below is the first third of a long remarkable account that appeared on the front page of the mainstream Evening Public Ledger of Philadelphia on December 22, 1919. The witness is almost as prestigious a figure as you could have found in that city at the time: Russell H. Conwell, the president of one of the city's main universities (Temple University):

apparition of wife

Below is the second third of the account:

You can read the start of the account here:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045211/1919-12-22/ed-1/seq-1/

The rest of the account can be read here:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045211/1919-12-22/ed-1/seq-20/

At the link above we read this account of the first of Conwell's sightings of the apparition of his deceased wife (Sarah):

"The figure, or apparition, persisted for a few moments -without change of position, and as the conviction grew that he was really face to face with a discarnate spirit he endeavored to concentrate his mind on the message or words that the spirit was uttering. Little by little the voice became faintly audible and finally became fairly distinct. 

Then suddenly the form disappeared.

This, and subsequently, was always accomplished instantly and without any preliminary indication of departure....In all the spirit, or apparition, appeared at least twenty or more times." 

We read this about the second appearance of the apparition:

"The following morning the figure was seated on the side of the bed when he awoke, just as it had been on the preceding morning. Convinced now that he was facing a disembodied spirit and not a figment of the imagination, he concentrated all his faculties on the voice and words of his visitor. The voice was unmistakably that of his departed wife. She spoke just as she had done while alive....She spoke with the same knowledge of his affairs, the same intimacy, and the same deep personal interest in his work."

We next read this account of the wife's apparition engaging in long conversations with Conwell:

conversation with ghost

The conversations were apparently about earthly matters, and Conwell says in the newspaper account that he regrets not asking more questions about life after death. 

Next we read of a remarkable test. Conwell's maid hid a pen in the house, in a spot Conwell was not aware of. Apparently asked to indicate where the hidden pen was, the apparition reportedly indicated the correct spot where the pen was hid:

After this experimental triumph, the apparition was never seen again. Conwell states in the article that the events happened four years earlier. 

A web page at Temple University says this:

"Temple's first president, Russell Conwell, was pastor of Grace Baptist Church and founder of Temple College. The temporary Board of Trustees elected him president of the faculty October 14, 1887, and he served until December 6, 1925, the date of his death."

Another page at Temple University make it clear that Conwell was the founder of Temple University, which started out as Temple College.  We can understand why he might have wanted to keep quiet about this series of apparition sightings. In academia there is a taboo against making reports of apparitions, and in many parts of academia there is also a taboo against seriously and fairly studying such accounts in a thorough and scholarly way. Moreover, members of the Baptist congregation at this time typically did not believe that the souls of the deceased survived, but believed instead that the dead are silent and unconscious, awaiting a physical resurrection that will occur in the Last Days. 

All in all, the account must stand as one of the most powerful pieces of evidence against the hallucination theory of apparitions. We have an extremely credible and prestigious person not just claiming to see one time an apparition of his wife, but claiming to see such an apparition 20+ times. In almost all of these cases extensive conversations seem to be occurring. The witness reporting this was a high-functioning and very prestigious member of society, who we can safely assume was not psychotic while these events occurred. The successful test with the hidden pen (with a location unknown to Conwell) is some nice "icing on the cake." 

Russel H. Conwell was so weighty and accomplished a figure that in 1926 (a year after his death) there appeared a 474-page biography of his life, which you can read for free using the link here. The biographer seems to have never read the newspaper account mentioned above (or seems to have made no mention of Conwell's apparition experiences).

Russel H. Conwell

Below is a photo of Conwell's wife Sarah, who died in 1910. If you believe Conwell's account, we should regard her as being one of the most talkative ghosts in the history of ghosts. 


Cromwell is not the only respected academic figure and reverend to report seeing an apparition, and to report having a long conversation with an apparition. The newspaper account below refers to two  apparition sightings claimed by the Reverend Isaac K. Funk, who is the same Funk in the famous Funk and Wagnall's dictionary. He claims to have seen the ghost of the famous preacher Henry Ward Beecher, and to have also had long conversations with an unidentified apparition: 

ghost of Beecher

You can read the account here:


Funk was the author of the long very interesting account of paranormal experience entitled "The Widow's Mite and Other Psychic Phenomena," which can read online for free using the link here

Apparently quite a few people claimed to have seen the ghost of Henry Ward Beecher, the same figure who Funk said he saw as an apparition. 

Wednesday, September 18, 2024

Human Anatomy Structures and the Cell Types Each Requires

Biologists have misled us in many different ways. I describe dozens of those ways in my post here. One of the worst ways in which biologists have misled us is by again and again visually misrepresenting the degree of complexity and organization in cells.  Again and again in the books and articles and school lessons of biologists, we see phony cell diagrams that make cells look 1,000 times simpler than they are. Such diagrams give people the idea that cells contain only a few components called organelles.  Most of the more complex cells in the human body contain more than 100,000 organelles, of many different types.

misleading cell diagram

Schematic diagrams of cells are constantly misleading us by depicting cells with only a few organelles. Specifically:

  • A cell diagram will typically depict a cell as having only one or a few mitochondria, but human cells typically have many thousands of mitochondria, as many as a million.
  • A cell diagram will typically depict a cell as having only only one or a few lysosomes, but human cells typically have hundreds of lysosomes.
  • A cell diagram will typically depict a cell as having only a few ribosomes, but a human cell may have up to 10 million ribosomes.
  • A cell diagram will typically depict one or a few stacks of a Golgi apparatus, each with only a few cisternae. But a cell will typically have between 10 and 20 stacks, each having as many as 60 cisternae.
  • A cell diagram will rarely even depict a microtubule, although according to the paper here "cells can contain from just a few to many hundreds of microtubules (Aikawa, 1971; Osborn & Weber, 1976)." 
  • The membranes of cells are extremely complicated structures, consisting of four layers, with each layer being populated by many types of proteins each consisting of hundreds of well-arranged parts.  Some of this complexity could easily be shown by a "closeup circle" in a cell diagram, showing a closeup of part of the membrane.  But we rarely see any such depiction of the complexity of the cell membrane,  and cell diagrams almost always have cell membranes depicted as featureless things looking as simple as the surface of a balloon. 
  • The cytosol of a cell is typically depicted as if it were a simple fluid like water. But the cytosol is actually loaded with many types of complex protein molecules needed for cell function. 

There is no excuse for the continuation of misleading cell diagrams in the literature of biology. For the past twenty years it has been easy to use computer graphics to make very sophisticated high-resolution diagrams capable of properly representing the complexity of cells. But almost no one is creating such diagrams, and we continue to see most cell diagrams looking like something hand-painted in the 1950's.  

The type of cell diagrams we usually see in biology literature are misrepresentations as absurd as trying to depict gigantic skyscrapers like the Empire State Building or the 828-meter-tall Burj Khalifa tower  by using ridiculously simplistic diagrams like this:


It is easy to understand why such misrepresentations continue.  Addicted to socially constructed triumphal boasts that they understand biological origins, boasts that depict themselves as Grand Lords of Explanation, biologists do not want us to properly understand the mountainous degrees of organization and complexity in human bodies and all of the more complex types of human cells. The more we understand such stratospheric levels of organization and complexity, the less likely we will be to believe the claims of biologists that such things originated from blind accidental processes.  A very important relation you should remember is that the more functionally organized something is and the more hierarchically organized that thing is, the less credible is any claim of an accidental origin of such a thing.  For example, it is easy to construct a credible theory of how a "house of cards" consisting of only two cards diagonally leaning against each other might arise by accident, but impossible to construct a credible theory of how a triangular house of cards consisting of 18 well-arranged cards with three cards rows could ever arise by accidental processes such as someone throwing a third of a deck of cards into the air.

                    You can't get this accidentally 

On the day I started to write this post I read once again what I read many times every month: a glaring example of a biologist lying. The biologist who I won't name was attacking a very serious thinker who says that Darwinism is utterly insufficient to explain the origin of biological innovations. As part of his rebuttal, the biologist drew attention to a claim of the Darwinism critic, the claim that new anatomical structures require new cell types. The biologist told us that such a claim was false. But the biologist lied. In general, new types of anatomical structures do require some new cell types. Typically a new type of anatomical structure will require some combination of cell types used elsewhere in the body and also one or more cell types used only by that anatomical structure.  

To prove my point, I present the table below. In the left column, we see the main types of anatomical structures in the human body. In the right column we see only some of the cell types that are needed for such structures. Almost every type of anatomical structure listed requires at least one cell type used only by that structure. Most of the cell types that are listed are used by only one of the anatomical structures. My source for the information below is mainly the wikipedia.org article on human cell types, which you can read here.  The listing here is by no means comprehensive, and I'm sure a complete list would list many additional cell types in the "cell types required" column. 


Anatomical structure

Cell Types Required

Duodenum

Brunner's gland cell

Respiratory Tract

Insulated goblet cell, "ciliated, non-ciliated secretory cells, and basal cells" (link). 

Digestive Tract

Insulated goblet cell, enterocytes, chief cells, enteric glial cells 

Stomach

Foveolar cell, chief cell, parietal cell, Enterochromaffin cell, Enterochromaffin-like cell

Pancreas

Pancreatic acinar cell, Centroacinar cell, Pancreatic stellate cell, alpha cell, beta cell, delta cell, epislon cell

Small intestine

Paneth cell, tuft cells

Lungs

Type II pneumocyte, Club cell, Type I pneumocyte,  Kultschitzky's cells

Gall bladder

Gall bladder epithelial cell

Tongue

Von Ebner's gland cell, surface epithelial cell, taste receptor cells

Ear

Ceruminous gland cell, Planum semilunar epithelial cell, Organ of Corti interdental epithelial cell, Elastic cartilage chondrocyte, Inner pillar cells of organ of Corti, Outer pillar cells of the organ of Corti, Inner phalangeal cells of organ of Corti, Outer hair cells of vestibular system of ear, Inner hair cells of vestibular system of ear, Outer phalangeal cells of organ of Corti, Border cells of organ of Corti, Hensen's cells of organ of Corti

Nose

Bowman's gland cell,Olfactory epithelium supporting cells, Olfactory ensheathing cells

Cornea (eye)

Surface epithelial cell, Corneal fibroblasts

Iris (eye)

Smooth muscle cell, iris pigment epithelium, stroma

Retina (eye)

Retina horizontal cells, cone cells, rod cells, bipolar cells, ganglion cells, horizontal cells, amacrine cells

Adrenal gland

Chromaffin cells

Mouth

Surface epithelial cell, stromal cells, endothelial cells

Nasal cavity

Surface epithelial cell, squamous cells

Salivary glands

Striated duct cell, acinar cells, ductal cells, myoepithelial cells

Mammary glands, breasts

Lactiferous duct cell, myoepithetial cell 

Central nervous system

Many types of neurons, stellate cell, microglial cell

Heart

White fat cell, cardiac muscle cell, SA node cell, Purkinje fiber cell

Ovary

Theca Interna cell, Corpus luteum cell, Granulosa lutein cells, Theca lutein cells

Male reproductive system (e.g. testes)

Leydig cell, seminal vessicle cell,Bulbourethral gland cell, duct cell, efferent duct cells, Epididymal principal cell, Epididymal basal cell, Spermatid, Spermatocyte, 

Spermatogonium cell, Spermatozoon, Sertoli cell

Prostate gland

Prostate gland cell, duct cell

Female reproductive system

Oogonium/oocyte, granulosa cell,  

Vagina

Bartholin's gland cell, basal cells, parabasal cells, superficial squamous flat cells

Uterus

Uterus endometrium cell

Urethra

Gland of Littré cell

Kidney

Macula densa cell, Peripolar cell, Principal cell, Mesangial cell, Kidney distal tubal cell, Intercalated cell, Interstitial kidney cells

Urinary system

Parietal epithelial cell,Podocyte,

Proximal tubule brush border cell, Loop of Henle thin segment cell

Bladder

Transitional epithelium, urothelial cells, 

Circulatory system

Endothelial cells, vascular smooth muscle cells, lymphatic endothelial cells

Tendons

Tendon fibroblasts,

Bones (including bone marrow)

Erythrocyte, monocyte,Bone marrow reticular tissue fibroblasts.Osteoblast/osteocyte,

Osteoprogenitor cell, Megakaryocyte, osteoclast


Liver

Hepatic stellate cell, liver lipocyte, Kupffer cells, Cholangiocytes, progenitor cells, NK cells

Intevertebral disc

Nucleus pulposus cell

Adipose organ (fat system)


White fat cell, brown fat cell

Muscles

Red skeletal muscle cell (slow twitch), White skeletal muscle cell (fast twitch), Intermediate skeletal muscle cell,Nuclear bag cell, Nuclear chain cell

Endocrine glands

Myoepithelial cell

Immune system

Macrophages, dendritic cell, Epidermal Langerhans cell, Neutrophil granulocyte, Basophil granulocyte, Mast cell,

Helper T cell, Regulatory T cell,

Cytotoxic T cell, Natural killer T cell, B cell(/lymphocyte), Plasma cell, Natural killer cell

Skin and hair

Epidermal Langerhans cell, Keratinocyte, Epidermal basal cell, Melanocyte, Trichocyte,

Medullary hair shaft cell, Cortical hair shaft cell, Cuticular hair shaft cell, Huxley's layer hair root sheath cell, Henle's layer hair root sheath cell, Outer root sheath hair cell

Thymus

Epithelial reticular cell,

Thryoid/Parathyroid

Thyroid epithelial cell, Parafollicular cell, Parathyroid chief cell

Peripheral nervous system

Schwann cells, Satellite glial cells,

Interneurons

Basket cells, Cartwheel cells, Stellate cells, Golgi cells, Granule cells, Lugaro cells, Unipolar brush cells, Martinotti cells. Chandelier cells, Cajal–Retzius cells, Double-bouquet cells, Neurogliaform cells


Pituitary gland

Corticotropes, Gonadotropes,

Lactotropes, Melanotropes,

Somatotropes, Thyrotropes


Pardon the imperfect formatting above, which is hard to avoid when doing so much copying from an external source which has this information in a table using a different format.  

We can see from the table above that our Darwin-defending biologist was telling us a big fat lie when he claimed that new types of anatomical structures do not require new cell types. In the great majority of cases, major new anatomical structures do require one or more specialized new cell types.  Probably many additional cell types could be listed in the second column of the table above. 

Our Darwinism-defending biologist told us a lie he needed to tell. I can understand exactly why a Darwinism-defending biologist would want to fool people into thinking that major new biological innovations do not require new cell types. The reason is that Darwinism has no credible explanation for the origin of new cell types. Darwinists claim that all the wonders of biology came from random mutations in DNA and its genes. One of the many gigantic problems with that idea is that DNA does not specify how to make a cell or any of the organelles that make up a cell. The diagram below tells the truth about what DNA does and does not specify. DNA does not specify how to make any cell or any of the organelles of such cells. DNA does not even specify how to make any of the protein complexes that are the constituent components of organelles. 

what DNA specifies

The fact is that Darwinism has no credible explanation for the origin of new cell types, which cannot be explained by imagining random mutations. Cells are enormously complex structures, and you could no more get a new cell type by random mutations than you could get a new type of well-functioning motor vehicle by random combinations produced when a tornado passed through an auto parts store. 

So what do you do if you are a Darwinist biologist faced with the problem of explaining the last seven rows in the pyramid shown above? You might feel the need to tell lies. One lie would be the lie that DNA and its genes are a blueprint or recipe or program for making a full human body. That lie has been told abundantly by Darwinist biologists for 70 years, although many other biologists and scientists confess it is false. Another lie might be one like I read on the day I started to write this post, in which a biologist attempted to claim that new types of  anatomical structures don't require new cell types. The table above shows how false such a lie is. 

The table below is derived from a table on this page of the Human Protein Atlas.  We see a list of the types of organelles in the cells of the human body, and how many types of proteins are needed to make up such organelles. The median number of amino acids in a human protein molecule is about 375.  The 2005 paper here gives numbers of 375 and 416 as the median number of amino acids in human proteins.  Each type of protein molecule is a fine-tuned special organization of hundreds or thousands of amino acids, which have to be arranged in a very special way for the protein to be functional, an arrangement as special as the arrangement of characters in a functional paragraph.  

By looking at the number in the second column, you can get an idea of how complex each organelle is. The larger the number in the second column, the more complex that organelle is. Lysosomes are relatively simple organelles, but organelles such as mitochondria and plasma membranes are vastly more complex. Each type of protein requires a special arrangement of hundreds of amino acids, which altogether involves a special arrangement of thousands of atoms. The more complex organelles in cells require a special arrangement of more than a million atoms. The arrangement involved is as special and as hard-to-achieve by chance as the arrangement of characters in a lengthy essay such as this blog post. 

ORGANELLE TYPE

NUMBER OF TYPES OF PROTEINS IN EACH ORGANELLE

Intermediate filaments

163

Actin filaments

237

Focal adhesion sites

138

Microtubules

262

Microtubule ends

6

Cytokinetic bridge

159

Midbody

53

Midbody ring

25

Cleavage furrow

1

Mitotic spindle

93

Centriolar satellite

194

Centrosome

396

Mitochondria

1121

Aggresome

19

Cytosol

4883

Cytoplasmic bodies

73

Rods & Rings

20

Endoplasmic reticulum

542

Golgi apparatus

1163

Vesicles

2238

Peroxisomes

23

Endosomes

17

Lysosomes

19

Lipid droplets

39

Plasma membrane

2074

Cell Junctions

330

Nucleoplasm

6166

Nuclear membrane

276

Nucleoli

1075

Nucleoli fibrillar center

311

Nucleoli rim

151

Nuclear speckles

493

Nuclear bodies

588

Kinetochore

6

Mitotic chromosome

74

Total number of types of proteins used in human cell organelles

13147


Pondering how many types of these organelles there are in human cells, and pondering how high the numbers are in the second column, you might then understand why authorities sometimes say that a human cell has a functional complexity comparable to that of a factory or a city.  Below is a relevant quote by physicist Anthony Aquirre, from page 338 of his book "Cosmological Koans":

"The most elaborate and sophisticated human-designed machines, while quite impressive, are utter child's play compared with the workings of a cell: a cell contains on the order of 100 trillion atoms, and probably billions of quite complex molecules working with amazing precision. The most complex engineered machines -- modern jet aircraft, for example -- have several million parts. Thus, perhaps all the jetliners in the world (without people in them, of course) could compete in functional complexity with a lowly bacterium."

A question closely related to the issue of whether new anatomy structures require new cell types is the question of whether new anatomy structures require new types of genes and new types of proteins.  Whatever answer we get to these questions sheds light on the topic of how easy or difficult it is for new useful anatomical structures to arise. In Table 1 of the paper "A comprehensive functional analysis of tissue specificity of human gene expression," we have the following list which tells us whether new anatomy structures require new types of genes and proteins.  In the paper the table has the same title as below.  The genes referred to are not the total number of genes used in a particular organ or body part, but the "tissue-specific genes" used only by that organ or body part. So, for example, there are apparently 22 genes used only by the liver, and 484 genes used only by the testis.  The "housekeeping" genes are genes not used only by one organ or body part. 
 
Table 1: Number of housekeeping and tissue-specific genes

Housekeeping 2374
Liver 22
Skeletal muscle 37
Fetal liver 16
Testis 484
Placenta 38
Bone marrow 63
Skin 75
Adrenal gland 13
Prostate 14
Trachea 16
Small intestine 35
Peripheral blood lymphocytes 49
Mammary gland 16
Tonsil 24
Thymus 4
Spleen 14
Fetal kidney 5
Thyroid 7
Brain 34
Heart 26
Lung 16
Salivary gland 17
Ovary 15
Pancreas 20
Fetal thymus 8
Colon 9
Spinal cord 24
Retina 190
Kidney 17
Uterus 12
Fetal brain 61
Average 43.8
Average, somatic tissues 30.9

It seems clear from the above table that most new body parts and anatomical innovations appearing in the history of life require multiple new genes, with a new type of body part requiring an average of about 30 new genes. Each new gene specifies a special very hard-to-achieve sequence of hundreds of amino acids needed to produce a new functional protein.  The average amount of new well-arranged genetic information required to make a new body part seems to be roughly equivalent to a special sequence of about 12,000 amino acids, which is about as hard to achieve by chance as 20 pages of functional well-written text, consisting of 30 paragraphs that each have about 400 characters or letters. And such a requirement is only a small fraction of the total innovation required, because the need for the new cell types (not specified in DNA or its genes) is a whole other requirement that is just as enormous. 

Clearly the Darwinist biologist I read was guilty of the most misleading language when he tried to insinuate that no enormous innovation is needed to get new types of anatomical structures. The mention in the table above of how merely one part of the eye (the retina) requires 190 genes used only by that part is a fact that helps to show the enormous failure of typical Darwinist discussions trying to explain the evolution of the eye by Darwinian explanations, discussions that fail to mention the number of eye-specific genes and eye-specific proteins and the complexity of such components.  

Information such as that given you in tables and bullet lists of this post give you the real scoop about the complexity of cells and body parts. Such "give you the real story" information is very hard to find by doing searches on the internet. It is as if for every writer trying to give you the most relevant facts revealing such complexity, there are twenty writers writing as if they were ignorant about such complexity, or were trying to hide such complexity from you.