Cell Trends
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Interesting bit of trivia, I guess. But how does this work in the favor of the biblical "explanation"? Help me put it in the context of your religious tale..bob b said:
Were such harmful mutations "designed" by the Demiurge after The Fall, or they were designed from the beginning and expected to occur "naturally" even in the Edenic environment, but He simply removed people's "Edenic" immunity to such mutants? I suspect you're gonna pick the latter option -- however the two options are morally equivalent from the perspective of a Omniscient Intentional Designer: they both show that the Demiurge was the one who actually planned and orchestrated the apparition of complex microorganisms potentially harmful or fatal for the cream of his creation (i.e. human kind). Obviously, He was the one who "corrupted" His own creation, not people -- and He did it for a "noble" purpose, you'd think -- that is, to fatally punish the disobedience of His children, such that later on He can boast that He has something to "save" them from (essentially, Himself). Is that your theory? Nothing new here, of course.
I apologize for dragging this a bit off-topic.. I'm trying to put bob b's scientific tidbits in a moral-religious perspective (this is the "Religion" forum after all). He seems a little shy at explaining the relationship between the plethora of scientific clippings he pasted in this thread and his Unified Biblical Theory of the Designer-Person
snowy said:
I don't know the answer to this mystery any more than anyone else does, but there is one piece of hard scientific evidence that intriques me: namely the Earth's magnetic field, which shields us from the mutation causing effects of cosmic rays, has been declining rapidly, 10% since it first started to be directly measured (about 150 years ago).
-------
More data.
This one is for you computer geeks (like me I might add)
http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/09/cellular_software.html#more
Eye Does Image Processing 03/28/2001
A scientist at U C Berkeley claims that stacks of cells in the retina process the image received by the photoreceptors, then sends 12 parallel data sets to the brain that contain only the bare essentials of the image. “What the eye sends to the brain are mere outlines of the visual world, sketchy impressions that make our vivid visual experience all the more amazing,” the report claims.
Whether or not this hypothesis is true that the retina sends a stripped-down version of the image remains to be seen; it’s probably much more complex than that. It seems doubtful that the brain is interpolating all the fine detail you are seeing right now, considering the millions of photoreceptors in the retina. Read this article, though, to get a feel for the mind-boggling processes at work in the eye. No wonder it gave Darwin cold shudders.
Protein Sequencing Makes Winning Lottery Look Easy 04/04/2001
In the world of protein molecules, it is possible for two totally different proteins to perform the same function, much like you can open a jar with your hand or with a wrench. But while discussing this fact, Nature Science Update today makes some surprising admissions about the improbability of getting a usable protein by chance. In an article about bioengineering, author John Whitfield states: “If you wanted to make a working protein, but didn’t know where to start, how many rolls of the biochemical dice would it take to get lucky? One hundred billion, say Anthony Keefe and Jack Szostak, of the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who’ve tried it to hunt out proteins to do a predetermined job from a vast number of random genes.
“These sort of odds make buying a lottery ticket seem like a sound investment. They suggest, says Ronald Breaker, a molecular biologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, that you’d have to strain a sizeable quantity of primordial soup before you found something that evolution could get its teeth into.”
And yet it happened! This is the degree of faith in chance that an evolutionist must have. The author goes on to discuss how humans can select a workable protein by artificial selection (a form on intelligent design), but implies that somehow, somewhere, against all odds, it must have happened by chance at the origin of life. (Notice also how he personifies evolution as if it had teeth.)
The problem is far worse for evolution than Whitfield portrays. Getting even one protein that is usable for life’s intricate functions is astronomically improbable, but you would need hundreds of them, all matching, to get a complete cell complex enough to replicate all its parts! This is a minimum requirement for a naturalistic origin of life. The reader is referred to Evolution: Possible or Impossible? by James F.
Coppedge, available at this site.
In the world of protein molecules, it is possible for two totally different proteins to perform the same function, much like you can open a jar with your hand or with a wrench. But while discussing this fact, Nature Science Update today makes some surprising admissions about the improbability of getting a usable protein by chance. In an article about bioengineering, author John Whitfield states: “If you wanted to make a working protein, but didn’t know where to start, how many rolls of the biochemical dice would it take to get lucky? One hundred billion, say Anthony Keefe and Jack Szostak, of the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who’ve tried it to hunt out proteins to do a predetermined job from a vast number of random genes.
“These sort of odds make buying a lottery ticket seem like a sound investment. They suggest, says Ronald Breaker, a molecular biologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, that you’d have to strain a sizeable quantity of primordial soup before you found something that evolution could get its teeth into.”
And yet it happened! This is the degree of faith in chance that an evolutionist must have. The author goes on to discuss how humans can select a workable protein by artificial selection (a form on intelligent design), but implies that somehow, somewhere, against all odds, it must have happened by chance at the origin of life. (Notice also how he personifies evolution as if it had teeth.)
The problem is far worse for evolution than Whitfield portrays. Getting even one protein that is usable for life’s intricate functions is astronomically improbable, but you would need hundreds of them, all matching, to get a complete cell complex enough to replicate all its parts! This is a minimum requirement for a naturalistic origin of life. The reader is referred to Evolution: Possible or Impossible? by James F.
Coppedge, available at this site.
Our Humanness: Gene Sequence, Gene Activity, or Something More? 04/24/2001
Both Nature and Scientific American summarized today the flavor of discussions from the Human Genome Meeting that just concluded in Edinburgh; apparently, it is not the sequence of our genes, but the amount of activity in the way they are expressed, that makes us human. Gene sequences between humans and chimpanzees differ by as little as 1.3%. Something else is clearly involved in making us what we are. A German scientist found that although the sequences of genes in apes and people are similar, their expression in the brain is poles apart. The genomes of all mammals are so similar that “it’s hard to understand how they can produce such different animals, says Sue Povey, who works on human gene mapping at University College London in England. What drives similar genes to have such divergent degrees of expression, if it is not DNA? No one knows. On April 27, ABC News posted a story about the relation of the genome to the “proteome,” the protein library, with some illustrations of how proteins work.
We are seeing a major paradigm shift in the works. For years we have assumed that differences in the genetic code (genotype) account for the differences in body plan (phenotype) and behavior. Apparently, things are not so simple. There is no correlation between size of the genome and complexity of the organism, as explained in a recent ICR News Commentary: a single-celled Paramecium, for instance, has twice the DNA of a human. We are likely to see a whirlwind of new theories to explain the connection between our DNA and ourselves. Don’t expect to find a soul encoded in A, C, G, or T.
Both Nature and Scientific American summarized today the flavor of discussions from the Human Genome Meeting that just concluded in Edinburgh; apparently, it is not the sequence of our genes, but the amount of activity in the way they are expressed, that makes us human. Gene sequences between humans and chimpanzees differ by as little as 1.3%. Something else is clearly involved in making us what we are. A German scientist found that although the sequences of genes in apes and people are similar, their expression in the brain is poles apart. The genomes of all mammals are so similar that “it’s hard to understand how they can produce such different animals, says Sue Povey, who works on human gene mapping at University College London in England. What drives similar genes to have such divergent degrees of expression, if it is not DNA? No one knows. On April 27, ABC News posted a story about the relation of the genome to the “proteome,” the protein library, with some illustrations of how proteins work.
We are seeing a major paradigm shift in the works. For years we have assumed that differences in the genetic code (genotype) account for the differences in body plan (phenotype) and behavior. Apparently, things are not so simple. There is no correlation between size of the genome and complexity of the organism, as explained in a recent ICR News Commentary: a single-celled Paramecium, for instance, has twice the DNA of a human. We are likely to see a whirlwind of new theories to explain the connection between our DNA and ourselves. Don’t expect to find a soul encoded in A, C, G, or T.
Eye Neurons See Their Way to the Brain 04/20/2001
Through a series of clever experiments on frogs and fruit flies, researchers at the University of Utah have identified some of the genes responsible for the development of eyes and their nerve connections to the brain. Without the genes, the neurons seem to get lost and go in circles, but with the gene, the neurons “see” their way to the proper connection point in the brain.
How do microscopic neurons know where to drive their growing tips to the proper destination? Imagine hundreds of computer cables in a tangled mass moving unerringly to the right socket so that a computer network comes to life, and you get an idea of the complexity involved in a lowly tadpole’s optic nerve. The genes provide detailed instructions to the growing neuron tip to guide it through the maze of chemical signals. See also our March 8 story on this subject.
Through a series of clever experiments on frogs and fruit flies, researchers at the University of Utah have identified some of the genes responsible for the development of eyes and their nerve connections to the brain. Without the genes, the neurons seem to get lost and go in circles, but with the gene, the neurons “see” their way to the proper connection point in the brain.
How do microscopic neurons know where to drive their growing tips to the proper destination? Imagine hundreds of computer cables in a tangled mass moving unerringly to the right socket so that a computer network comes to life, and you get an idea of the complexity involved in a lowly tadpole’s optic nerve. The genes provide detailed instructions to the growing neuron tip to guide it through the maze of chemical signals. See also our March 8 story on this subject.
(Some people cannot see something even when it is staring them right in the face)
-------------------
Article 04/17/2001: Tom Bethell, writing for the American Spectator an article entitled “The Road to Nowhere” (reproduced on the Discovery Institute website, claims “The genome isn’t a code, and we can”t read it.” He reports how the human genome is far more complex than earlier claimed, because the old one-gene one-protein hypothesis appears to be incorrect; a gene can code for several tens of proteins. This means the difference between man and apes cannot be simply correlated to the difference in gene count, for instance. The article contains statements by Dr. David Baltimore, James Watson and other prominent DNA scientists to the effect that it may be many decades before we understand how the human genome works and what it says; predictions that our computers could crack the code appear overly optimistic.
Cell News 04/16/2001: Two articles from the Journal of Cell Biology on wonders in the cell, summarized in EurekAlert: (1) A story about control mechanisms involved in cell division, and (2) A story about how yeast cells are able to keep their nuclei in the center. There is also (3) this story summarized in Science Now describing how plants can sense the cold and adjust their processes to keep from freezing. And on April 18, (4) EurekAlert published a summary of a study that explores how white blood cells are able to find their way to infected areas.
-------------------
Article 04/17/2001: Tom Bethell, writing for the American Spectator an article entitled “The Road to Nowhere” (reproduced on the Discovery Institute website, claims “The genome isn’t a code, and we can”t read it.” He reports how the human genome is far more complex than earlier claimed, because the old one-gene one-protein hypothesis appears to be incorrect; a gene can code for several tens of proteins. This means the difference between man and apes cannot be simply correlated to the difference in gene count, for instance. The article contains statements by Dr. David Baltimore, James Watson and other prominent DNA scientists to the effect that it may be many decades before we understand how the human genome works and what it says; predictions that our computers could crack the code appear overly optimistic.
Cell News 04/16/2001: Two articles from the Journal of Cell Biology on wonders in the cell, summarized in EurekAlert: (1) A story about control mechanisms involved in cell division, and (2) A story about how yeast cells are able to keep their nuclei in the center. There is also (3) this story summarized in Science Now describing how plants can sense the cold and adjust their processes to keep from freezing. And on April 18, (4) EurekAlert published a summary of a study that explores how white blood cells are able to find their way to infected areas.
Common Ancestor of Plant Carbon-Fixing Found? 04/16/2001
A report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claims that a protein similar to the one that fixes carbon from CO2 has been found in green sulfur bacteria. The protein appears to perform some other functions in the bacterium as well.
More evolutionary storytelling here. A bacterium may be small, but it is not primitive. To claim that this miniature factory evolved into higher plants is like claiming a Palm Pilot evolved into an Internet Server.
A report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claims that a protein similar to the one that fixes carbon from CO2 has been found in green sulfur bacteria. The protein appears to perform some other functions in the bacterium as well.
More evolutionary storytelling here. A bacterium may be small, but it is not primitive. To claim that this miniature factory evolved into higher plants is like claiming a Palm Pilot evolved into an Internet Server.
in the beginning there was one little bunch of cells that were able to reproduce ...
4 billion years later after X* stages of evolution we have life as we know it.
what is 4 billion divided by X?
*X = im not sure how to express this ... the number of mutation/natural selection cycles necessary to account for everything bob is posting
4 billion years later after X* stages of evolution we have life as we know it.
what is 4 billion divided by X?
*X = im not sure how to express this ... the number of mutation/natural selection cycles necessary to account for everything bob is posting
I sympathize because everything prior to the appearance of multicell creature fossils seems to be missing (cells do not seem to fossilize very well, except in dinosaur bones where they don't seem to even deteriorate).
And yet, as this thread is demonstrating, all the "heavy poofing" (cells) seems to have taken place in that unknown (and unknowable) period.
BTW, this book review, Implausible Life, sounds interesting:
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v10i12f.htm
i know what youre saying and i wish youd just come out and say it ...bob b said:I sympathize because everything prior to the appearance of multicell creature fossils seems to be missing (cells do not seem to fossilize very well, except in dinosaur bones where they don't seem to even deteriorate).
we evolved the ability to form optical links from our eyes to our brains before we evlved eyes ... thats what youre saying isnt it?
right?
RIGHT??
:chuckle:
ARG!!!! .. smiley number 4.
