Cell Trends
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Proteins Are Vastly More Complicated than Previously Realized 05/03/2001
That’s the title of a report today on NewsWise.com SciNews. Biochemists are realizing that proteins are not just static 3-D shapes; they are subject to dynamic forces of stretching, pushing and pulling that affect their function. Protein folding has been likened to a kind of delicate origami, but researchers at the University of Washington take the analogy further: “Imagine trying to fold a delicate origami crane from silk paper - while you’re in a wind tunnel. In fact, imagine trying to fold the origami in a wind tunnel while countless other hands are also pulling at the paper. And yet, that’s comparable in complexity to what the hundreds of thousands of cells and proteins are doing in your body right now.” Dr. Viola Vogel is in the forefront of this new field that studies how protein functions change under dynamic stresses. “We are very excited about this because we believe a new field is being born: non-equilibrium protein structure-function analysis. It’s very exciting to think about how nature regulates and controls function. We went from viewing the cell as a bag full of proteins a decade ago to a view of the cell as a dynamic place where proteins assemble and change under mechanical forces,” she says. An update summary 05/29/2001 in Scientific American claims that proteins are moving all the time, very fast, and that these motions affect their functions.
The pit just keeps getting deeper and deeper for the evolutionist. Having to explain the complexity of DNA and static protein molecules was bad enough; now this. The article states, “proteins and cells are locked together at numerous contact points. The movement of a cell stretches the proteins around it, and vice versa . . . scientists are going to have to study how protein structures change when stretched before they understand how the body functions.” And each cell in your body has nearly 100,000 different kinds of protein molecules!
That’s the title of a report today on NewsWise.com SciNews. Biochemists are realizing that proteins are not just static 3-D shapes; they are subject to dynamic forces of stretching, pushing and pulling that affect their function. Protein folding has been likened to a kind of delicate origami, but researchers at the University of Washington take the analogy further: “Imagine trying to fold a delicate origami crane from silk paper - while you’re in a wind tunnel. In fact, imagine trying to fold the origami in a wind tunnel while countless other hands are also pulling at the paper. And yet, that’s comparable in complexity to what the hundreds of thousands of cells and proteins are doing in your body right now.” Dr. Viola Vogel is in the forefront of this new field that studies how protein functions change under dynamic stresses. “We are very excited about this because we believe a new field is being born: non-equilibrium protein structure-function analysis. It’s very exciting to think about how nature regulates and controls function. We went from viewing the cell as a bag full of proteins a decade ago to a view of the cell as a dynamic place where proteins assemble and change under mechanical forces,” she says. An update summary 05/29/2001 in Scientific American claims that proteins are moving all the time, very fast, and that these motions affect their functions.
The pit just keeps getting deeper and deeper for the evolutionist. Having to explain the complexity of DNA and static protein molecules was bad enough; now this. The article states, “proteins and cells are locked together at numerous contact points. The movement of a cell stretches the proteins around it, and vice versa . . . scientists are going to have to study how protein structures change when stretched before they understand how the body functions.” And each cell in your body has nearly 100,000 different kinds of protein molecules!
Johnny said:
The opening posting in this thread stated the purpose, namely, provide evidence to support my opinion that researchers are discovering more and more subsystems and complexity in cells as time goes on.
So far nobody has posted anything which would disagree with this opinion. So what is there to discuss?
And there is still more than five years of research articles to be posted. :chuckle:
Astrobiologists Give Up on Primordial Soup, Look to Comets 05/21/2001
A feature story in Science News May 19, 2001 (pp. 317-319) deals with origin of life woes. In “Cosmic Chemistry Gets Creative,” Jessica Gorman rounds up the usual suspects (McKay, Chyba, Bada, et al) to put a positive spin on a desperate situation: the old Miller primordial soup theory appears dead, so they are looking to seeding earth with prebiotic chemicals via comets. Scientists are blasting material together to try to form building blocks of life in hypothetical comets, and see if they could survive the fiery plunge to earth.
Anyone who has followed astrobiology or origin of life studies for the past few decades should be appalled that it has come to this – that evolutionists would actually consider comets and meteorites as their last hope to get prebiotic compounds to earth. After Miller’s spark-chamber apparatus became one of the icons of evolution, evolutionists were triumphant that a theory for a naturalistic origin of life was now within their reach. Since then, everything has been against them: oxygen in the atmosphere, inhospitable earth, meteorite devastation, too little time, and most of all, incomprehensible complexity in even the simplest living organisms. And yet this article, and almost all like it from NASA to National Geographic, never presents even the slightest hint that there is another explanation, and that a majority of Americans believe it! Our challenge as creationists is to help atheists see the elephant in the living room.
A feature story in Science News May 19, 2001 (pp. 317-319) deals with origin of life woes. In “Cosmic Chemistry Gets Creative,” Jessica Gorman rounds up the usual suspects (McKay, Chyba, Bada, et al) to put a positive spin on a desperate situation: the old Miller primordial soup theory appears dead, so they are looking to seeding earth with prebiotic chemicals via comets. Scientists are blasting material together to try to form building blocks of life in hypothetical comets, and see if they could survive the fiery plunge to earth.
Anyone who has followed astrobiology or origin of life studies for the past few decades should be appalled that it has come to this – that evolutionists would actually consider comets and meteorites as their last hope to get prebiotic compounds to earth. After Miller’s spark-chamber apparatus became one of the icons of evolution, evolutionists were triumphant that a theory for a naturalistic origin of life was now within their reach. Since then, everything has been against them: oxygen in the atmosphere, inhospitable earth, meteorite devastation, too little time, and most of all, incomprehensible complexity in even the simplest living organisms. And yet this article, and almost all like it from NASA to National Geographic, never presents even the slightest hint that there is another explanation, and that a majority of Americans believe it! Our challenge as creationists is to help atheists see the elephant in the living room.
Distributed Shipping Design Found in Nerve Cells 05/25/2001
Researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have found that dendrites, the long stems on neurons, have the ability to manufacture their own proteins. Erin M. Schuman, Institute investigator from CalTech, remarked on the economy and efficiency of this design: “It’s like the difference between centralized and distributed freight shipping,” she said. “With central shipping, you need a huge number of trucks that drive all over town, moving freight from a central factory. But with distributed shipping, you have multiple distribution centers that serve local populations, with far less transport involved.”
There appears to be no end in sight for the design wonders we will find in living cells, and the frayed nerves these will cause for evolutionists.
Researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have found that dendrites, the long stems on neurons, have the ability to manufacture their own proteins. Erin M. Schuman, Institute investigator from CalTech, remarked on the economy and efficiency of this design: “It’s like the difference between centralized and distributed freight shipping,” she said. “With central shipping, you need a huge number of trucks that drive all over town, moving freight from a central factory. But with distributed shipping, you have multiple distribution centers that serve local populations, with far less transport involved.”
There appears to be no end in sight for the design wonders we will find in living cells, and the frayed nerves these will cause for evolutionists.
PNAS Explores How Cells Transport Freight 06/19/2001
The June 19 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has a colloquium section devoted to molecular kinesis, a fancy term for the study of how cells ship their freight around, such as from nucleus to cytoplasm and back.
If you are not too frightened by technical jargon, glance through some of the abstracts to get just a feel for how complex cells are. You don’t have to understand biochemistry to get the point: cells are dazzlingly complex, with multitudes of finely-tuned operations and functions all harmonizing together. Some common themes in the colloquium are: (1) Cells are much more complex than we previously thought; (2) There is still much we don’t know; (3) Any slip-ups in the machinery mean disease or death. Now, look at a rock, a cloud, or jar of salt water. See any processes anything that complex going on in any of these objects? The difference in complexity between life and non-life is monumental. Yet evolutionists are compelled by their world view and a priori assumptions to believe that, somehow, these marvels arose from rocks, clouds, and salt water, and some unknown impersonal energy source, without any intelligence or directing purpose whatsoever.
Recently in casual conversation, an evolutionist was asked about the complexity of life as an argument for a Designer. He agreed scientists do not have answers, but resorted to faith in what science will discover someday. When shown that the probability is vanishingly small to get a reproducing cell by chance, such as Hoyle’s estimate of 1 chance in 10exp40,000, he replied, “So there is a chance! You just said it, one chance in 10exp40,000. That means it is not impossible, by definition!” If you can see the fallacy in this reasoning, you have just unmasked the evolutionary bias for what it is: willful unbelief, in spite of the evidence. Let’s hope this evolutionist is not a gamblin’ man.
The June 19 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has a colloquium section devoted to molecular kinesis, a fancy term for the study of how cells ship their freight around, such as from nucleus to cytoplasm and back.
If you are not too frightened by technical jargon, glance through some of the abstracts to get just a feel for how complex cells are. You don’t have to understand biochemistry to get the point: cells are dazzlingly complex, with multitudes of finely-tuned operations and functions all harmonizing together. Some common themes in the colloquium are: (1) Cells are much more complex than we previously thought; (2) There is still much we don’t know; (3) Any slip-ups in the machinery mean disease or death. Now, look at a rock, a cloud, or jar of salt water. See any processes anything that complex going on in any of these objects? The difference in complexity between life and non-life is monumental. Yet evolutionists are compelled by their world view and a priori assumptions to believe that, somehow, these marvels arose from rocks, clouds, and salt water, and some unknown impersonal energy source, without any intelligence or directing purpose whatsoever.
Recently in casual conversation, an evolutionist was asked about the complexity of life as an argument for a Designer. He agreed scientists do not have answers, but resorted to faith in what science will discover someday. When shown that the probability is vanishingly small to get a reproducing cell by chance, such as Hoyle’s estimate of 1 chance in 10exp40,000, he replied, “So there is a chance! You just said it, one chance in 10exp40,000. That means it is not impossible, by definition!” If you can see the fallacy in this reasoning, you have just unmasked the evolutionary bias for what it is: willful unbelief, in spite of the evidence. Let’s hope this evolutionist is not a gamblin’ man.
SUTG
New member
stipe said:
You can get a good enough estimate by just chopping off ten zeros, since a billion has ten digits. (1,000,000,000)
So, you can just guesstimate it to be 10^39,990, and you'd be close enough for most purposes. It is a pretty big number, although not near as large as 10^40,000, which is approximately 4 billion times larger.
Cells Use Triple Fail-Safe Systems During Division 06/28/2001
During cell division, when millions of DNA base pairs are duplicating, a lot could go wrong and lead to runaway duplication – e.g., cancer. Now, scientists have found at least three mechanisms that drastically reduce the chance of failure. According to Scientific American. Joachim Li at the University of California, San Francisco, said, “We eventually demonstrated that not one or two but at least three distinct controls have to be turned off simultaneously for cells to start replicating again. This is unlikely to happen by accident, so this multilayered protection is virtually fail-safe. That’s what you want when there is no room for error.”
The remarkable thing is not that errors occur in a world governed by Murphy’s Law, but that they occur so rarely. Consider how many billions of organisms each with trillions of cells reproduce themselves over the ages nearly flawlessly. If it were not for tight security and fail-safe controls, the first generation would never even make it to birth, and natural selection would be helpless.
All we have to do to help thinking people realize evolution is untenable is to just keep reporting stories like this. Unless these controls existed from the start, life could never have survived. It is not just this story but a thousand others that proclaim Intelligent Design.
During cell division, when millions of DNA base pairs are duplicating, a lot could go wrong and lead to runaway duplication – e.g., cancer. Now, scientists have found at least three mechanisms that drastically reduce the chance of failure. According to Scientific American. Joachim Li at the University of California, San Francisco, said, “We eventually demonstrated that not one or two but at least three distinct controls have to be turned off simultaneously for cells to start replicating again. This is unlikely to happen by accident, so this multilayered protection is virtually fail-safe. That’s what you want when there is no room for error.”
The remarkable thing is not that errors occur in a world governed by Murphy’s Law, but that they occur so rarely. Consider how many billions of organisms each with trillions of cells reproduce themselves over the ages nearly flawlessly. If it were not for tight security and fail-safe controls, the first generation would never even make it to birth, and natural selection would be helpless.
All we have to do to help thinking people realize evolution is untenable is to just keep reporting stories like this. Unless these controls existed from the start, life could never have survived. It is not just this story but a thousand others that proclaim Intelligent Design.
SUTG
New member
Bacteria Genes Evolved, Not Hopped, into Human Genome 06/25/2001
Evolutionists have come up with an explanation for 113 genes that were earlier reported to be candidates for horizontal gene transfer from bacteria to humans. They say that the genes have a common ancestor, but that some lines lost the gene. The explanation is published in Nature Science Update, which claims that “the gold standard for establishing whether horizontal gene transfer has occurred is drawing up evolutionary trees to trace a candidate gene’s inheritance.”
Do you see the circular reasoning here? Evolution is the “gold standard” by which all explanations must be judged! If the explanation does not fit the assumption of evolution, out it goes.
Evolutionists have come up with an explanation for 113 genes that were earlier reported to be candidates for horizontal gene transfer from bacteria to humans. They say that the genes have a common ancestor, but that some lines lost the gene. The explanation is published in Nature Science Update, which claims that “the gold standard for establishing whether horizontal gene transfer has occurred is drawing up evolutionary trees to trace a candidate gene’s inheritance.”
Do you see the circular reasoning here? Evolution is the “gold standard” by which all explanations must be judged! If the explanation does not fit the assumption of evolution, out it goes.