Cells

[Devolution]

Cellular Circuit Boards Circumvent Evolutionary Causes
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

The human body has trillions of cells, each one equipped with about a billion molecules. The cells must interact constantly through countless chemical reactions in order for the body to survive and function. What keeps all those tiny machines operating smoothly together?

Biochemists have been trying to answer that question for a long time, and a new study in the journal Science reviewed the vital housekeeping activities of “scaffold proteins.”1 These serve as docking stations for other proteins, switching centers for cellular communication networks, and much more. Some perform multiple functions at the same time. Clearly, scaffold proteins were not the products of mindless evolution, but of intentional creation.

The study used a plethora of action verbs to describe the activities of these proteins. “They physically assemble” other protein complexes, “control” pathways, “insulate…signaling proteins from competing inputs,” “organize other classes of molecules,” “coordinate communication” between adjacent cells, “build preformed assemblies,” “mediate key functional changes,” “target or anchor” protein complexes, “coordinate assembly-line processes,” “coordinate complex feedback loops in signaling pathways,” “orient” other molecules to facilitate their precise chemical reactions, “gate information flow,” and “modulate” the three-dimensional shapes of other proteins.1

In sum, “scaffold proteins are analogous to circuit boards—modular platforms that wire together components and direct the flow of information—and can program complex signaling behaviors.” They “appear to provide a simple and elegant solution for determining the specificity of information flow in intracellular networks.”1

Cells would not function without scaffold proteins, which are “all-or-nothing” structures within themselves. This means that they require a minimum set of precise specifications in order to function. Some of those specifications include their three-dimensional shapes, which must be precisely matched to the shapes of other proteins, like locks with keys.

And once those proteins have latched on to the scaffolds, the orientation of and spacing between those proteins must be just right for them to interact properly. Some scaffold proteins hold more than five other proteins in place—like a single door lock designed to accept multiple keys. What are the odds that one portion of an evolving protein would accidentally fold into just the right shape to accommodate another protein, let alone the odds that five areas on that protein would find themselves similarly precisely shaped—and electronically fitted—so that nature could begin to “select” it?2

The study’s authors described several examples of scaffold proteins that had been intentionally mutated in order to discern their function. In each case, the scaffold was rendered either less effective or ineffective, showing that altering the scaffolds is detrimental to cells. And evolution would require multiple alterations if scaffold proteins evolved from simpler, smaller proteins.

But scaffold proteins also play key roles in larger all-or-nothing biochemical communication networks and construction pathways. For example, the authors described how, without the coordinating effects of scaffold proteins, nerves would not function properly and yeast cells would not be able to reproduce.

Since vital cell systems depend on them, scaffold proteins had to have been put in place all at once. They had to have been the product of intentional engineering, not nature. And the high degree of engineering they represent could only have been accomplished by a Master Engineer, such as the Creator God described in the Bible.

[Devolution]

Cells: Sophisticated and God-Designed
by Frank Sherwin, M.A. *

God has created man with 100 trillion cells, each of which is a wonder of microminiaturization. The biochemical processes that occur moment by moment are nothing less than astounding. The bewildering complexity of these tiny functional units was acknowledged even before recent discoveries of how cells operate at the nanotechnological level.

If you could build a motor one millionth of a millimetre across, you could fit a billion billion of them on a teaspoon. It seems incredible, but biological systems already use molecular motors on this scale.1

Indeed, “it seems incredible” to suggest that such sophistication is the result of chance, time, and genetic mistakes!

A 1997 Nature article by Steven Block detailed the “Real engines of creation” that included a discussion of sub-cellular structures composed of springs, rotary joints, and levers–all made of protein.2 The awareness of cellular sophistication has only increased by orders of magnitude since then, further demolishing the increasingly anemic Darwinian explanations for the origin of cells.

The cell or plasma membrane surrounding each cell has been called living because of its extremely precise selectivity–allowing or actively pumping some materials in or out, but not others. Complicated but efficient protein molecules “float” in the midst of this bilipid membrane. Some extend halfway and others all the way through the two interconnected membrane layers.

For the cell to remain alive, there must also be a constant exchange of materials from the outside of the cell to the inside, and vice versa. For example, among many other ions, potassium is critical for cellular function and homeostasis.3 A precisely shaped and charged potassium gate found in the cell membrane is known to have a latch that rotates much like an iris! It also has switches and pulleys.4 Working in exquisite harmony, the four principal parts of the gate–collectively called the Kir channel–are designed to selectively allow millions of potassium ions per second to pass through the gate while keeping out legions of pesky gatecrashers (other ions).

Cellular machines are not the stuff of randomness, but reveal unparalleled sophistication emanating from the mind of the wise Creator. Consider this quote describing the transfer of an electron to a heme portion of a ubiquitous protein involved in ATP (energy) production in living systems:

This [electron] loading increases the redox potentials of both hemes a and a3, which allows electron equilibration between them at the same rate. Then, in 0.8 milliseconds, another proton is transferred from the inside to the heme a3/CuB center, and the electron is transferred to CuB. Finally, in 2.6 millisesconds, the preloaded proton is released from the pump site to the opposite side of the membrane.5

Is it logical to attribute such overwhelmingly complicated machinery to genetic mistakes “guided” by natural happenstance? No. Cellular research increasingly unveils amazing discoveries that should cause Darwinists to consider Paul's proclamation to the church in Rome: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Sadly, for many biologists it doesn't matter what the burgeoning evidence shows. Those with a secular worldview must avoid pursuing the obvious design implication and therefore give glory to the creation instead of the Creator to whom it is due.

[Devolution]

Disaster Recovery Plan Found in Cells
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

The Internet search engines Google and Yahoo! have massive server farms that are all interconnected in a network configuration called “cloud computing.” These systems are engineered with fault tolerance features so that if one server breaks down it does not impair the operation of the whole, since another server has all the data ready to go in no time. Although mankind has learned through hard experience to structure networks this way, it turns out that biological systems have been equipped all along with their own disaster recovery backups.

A research team led by Carnegie Mellon University computational biologist Ziv Bar-Joseph found evidence for these built-in fault tolerance features in cells. The research showed that essential regulatory DNA sequences, like the ones that tell the cell which genes need to become active at what time and for how long, are backed up “to a degree we hadn’t appreciated.”1

Certain experimental observations had previously befuddled cell biologists, who thought that the informational redundancy in DNA served no practical purpose, except perhaps as fodder for further evolutionary changes. However, when master genes were purposefully wrecked one by one, all different kinds of cells continued living, as though the genes were still there. Bar-Joseph found the answer to the puzzle—there are backup copies of these key, or “master,” genetic sequences.

Researchers then removed both primary and backup copies of master genes to test their hypothesis. They found very noticeable effects as sets of genes under regulatory control failed to activate. These backup copies were part of a dynamic fault tolerance plan that focused on the disaster recovery of key regulatory gene sequences.

Anthony Gitter, lead author of the study, said that “for the most part cells are very robust machines,…robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail.”1

Interestingly, however, the research report avoided asking where these amazing biological plans came from. Since Google and Yahoo! server systems were purposefully engineered to include various levels of fault tolerance, it makes sense that similar features in cells also required purposeful engineering. The natural, random processes observed in the world are not capable of engineering such “robust” cellular machines.

However, a Creator as wise, powerful, and benevolent as the One described in the Bible could—and did.

[Devolution]

First Cell's Survival Odds Not in Evolution's Favor
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

How did life begin? For those who reject the testimony of Genesis, the search is restricted to clues in nature.

One such clue is the minimum essentials required for growth and reproduction. If that number is small enough, then life might conceivably have formed by chance.

The 2008 documentary movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presented 250 proteins as an estimated minimum required for cell function. The odds of that many forming by chance was equated to a man winning at a slot machine 250 consecutive times.

But the real odds are much more staggering. Molecular biologist Doug Axe said, “We're talking about something that's staggeringly improbable: roughly one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.”1 Based on new research, Axe may have to quadruple those already impossible odds.

A team of biologists at the Stanford University School of Medicine employed a new method to estimate the minimum genetic information required for the survival of bacteria called Caulobacter crescentus, which are commonly used in labs. They used a novel technique that marked specific DNA mutations in surviving mutant bacteria. Then they mapped the Caulobacter genome to discover the areas that did not tolerate mutation.

The researchers found 480 essential protein-coding genes, plus 532 other essential regions, on the bacterial DNA, according to a Stanford press release.2 Most of those 532 regions regulate gene expression, 91 regions have unknown functions, and the remainder are genes of unknown but necessary function.

Thus, this experiment found that the number of DNA regions required for the basic life of this bacterium was 1,000, which is four times larger than the 250 proteins estimated in Expelled.3

If the origin and survival of the first cell were miserably unsolvable by any machinations of natural law before, they are even less solvable now. And what nature alone cannot explain must logically be explained by the supernatural, just like Genesis has said all along.

[Stu]

Quote

Clearly, scaffold proteins were not the products of mindless evolution, but of intentional creation.

Clearly not.

Quote

What are the odds that one portion of an evolving protein would accidentally fold into just the right shape to accommodate another protein, let alone the odds that five areas on that protein would find themselves similarly precisely shaped—and electronically fitted—so that nature could begin to “select” it?

Good question. What are the odds?

Quote

Since vital cell systems depend on them, scaffold proteins had to have been put in place all at once.

Obviously not.

Quote

They had to have been the product of intentional engineering, not nature.

No they didn’t.

Quote

And the high degree of engineering they represent could only have been accomplished by a Master Engineer

Obviously wrong.

Quote

…the bewildering complexity…

Speak for yourself.

Quote

Indeed, “it seems incredible” to suggest that such sophistication is the result of chance, time, and genetic mistakes!

And it seems to be a strawman argument, too.

Quote

The awareness of cellular sophistication has only increased by orders of magnitude since then, further demolishing the increasingly anemic Darwinian explanations for the origin of cells.

Darwin explained biological sophistication completely.

Quote

Cellular machines are not the stuff of randomness

Indeed they are not.

Quote

Is it logical to attribute such overwhelmingly complicated machinery to genetic mistakes “guided” by natural happenstance? No.

It’s not only logical, it’s what the evidence says is actually happening.

Quote

Sadly, for many biologists it doesn't matter what the burgeoning evidence shows.

Example please, or retract with apology.

Quote

…obvious design implication…

It might seem obvious, but it is wrong.

Quote

Certain experimental observations had previously befuddled cell biologists

…and creationists.

Quote

Since Google and Yahoo! server systems were purposefully engineered to include various levels of fault tolerance, it makes sense that similar features in cells also required purposeful engineering.

This is the logical fallacy of false analogy. Computer systems are designed, biological systems aren’t.

Quote

The natural, random processes observed in the world are not capable of engineering such “robust” cellular machines.

Says Brian Thomas, M.S.? Hilarious.

Quote

However, a Creator as wise, powerful, and benevolent as the One described in the Bible could—and did.

But notice no creationist has ever explained how. It’s done by magic apparently. Meantime, Darwin explained it based on evidence.

Quote

First Cell's Survival Odds Not in Evolution's Favor

Strawman. Evolution works on populations. The first cell is not a population.

Quote

The 2008 documentary movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presented 250 proteins as an estimated minimum required for cell function. The odds of that many forming by chance was equated to a man winning at a slot machine 250 consecutive times.

Micelles survive and reproduce in a way that looks like cell division, and they are balls of fatty acid molecules with no contents at all, save a bit of water.

Quote

But the real odds are much more staggering. Molecular biologist Doug Axe said, “We're talking about something that's staggeringly improbable: roughly one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.”

Another ID strawman. No biologist would claim 250 proteins coming into existence simultaneously.

Quote

And what nature alone cannot explain must logically be explained by the supernatural The logical fallacy of false dilemma.

Quote

If the origin and survi val of the first cell were miserably unsolvable by any machinations of natural law before, they are even less solvable now.

Actually the question of the first cell is better understood than it was in the past. Of course no creationist ever got off his backside and actually contributed to the research…or was honest enough to give a scientific theory of creation. What a load of morons and lying cretins.

Stuart

[Devolution]

Quote (Stu @ June 02 2012,16:09)

Quote Clearly, scaffold proteins were not the products of mindless evolution, but of intentional creation. Clearly not. Quote What are the odds that one portion of an evolving protein would accidentally fold into just the right shape to accommodate another protein, let alone the odds that five areas on that protein would find themselves similarly precisely shaped—and electronically fitted—so that nature could begin to “select” it? Good question.  What are the odds? Quote Since vital cell systems depend on them, scaffold proteins had to have been put in place all at once. Obviously not. Quote They had to have been the product of intentional engineering, not nature. No they didn’t. Quote And the high degree of engineering they represent could only have been accomplished by a Master Engineer Obviously wrong. Quote …the bewildering complexity… Speak for yourself. Quote Indeed, “it seems incredible” to suggest that such sophistication is the result of chance, time, and genetic mistakes! And it seems to be a strawman argument, too. Quote The awareness of cellular sophistication has only increased by orders of magnitude since then, further demolishing the increasingly anemic Darwinian explanations for the origin of cells. Darwin explained biological sophistication completely. Quote Cellular machines are not the stuff of randomness Indeed they are not. Quote Is it logical to attribute such overwhelmingly complicated machinery to genetic mistakes “guided” by natural happenstance? No. It’s not only logical, it’s what the evidence says is actually happening. Quote Sadly, for many biologists it doesn't matter what the burgeoning evidence shows. Example please, or retract with apology. Quote …obvious design implication… It might seem obvious, but it is wrong. Quote Certain experimental observations had previously befuddled cell biologists …and creationists. Quote Since Google and Yahoo! server systems were purposefully engineered to include various levels of fault tolerance, it makes sense that similar features in cells also required purposeful engineering. This is the logical fallacy of false analogy.  Computer systems are designed, biological systems aren’t. Quote The natural, random processes observed in the world are not capable of engineering such “robust” cellular machines. Says Brian Thomas, M.S.?  Hilarious. Quote However, a Creator as wise, powerful, and benevolent as the One described in the Bible could—and did. But notice no creationist has ever explained how.  It’s done by magic apparently.  Meantime, Darwin explained it based on evidence. Quote First Cell's Survival Odds Not in Evolution's Favor Strawman.  Evolution works on populations.  The first cell is not a population. Quote The 2008 documentary movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presented 250 proteins as an estimated minimum required for cell function. The odds of that many forming by chance was equated to a man winning at a slot machine 250 consecutive times. Micelles survive and reproduce in a way that looks like cell division, and they are balls of fatty acid molecules with no contents at all, save a bit of water. Quote But the real odds are much more staggering. Molecular biologist Doug Axe said, “We're talking about something that's staggeringly improbable: roughly one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.” Another ID strawman.  No biologist would claim 250 proteins coming into existence simultaneously. Quote And what nature alone cannot explain must logically be explained by the supernatural The logical fallacy of false dilemma. Quote If the origin and survival of the first cell were miserably unsolvable by any machinations of natural law before, they are even less solvable now. Actually the question of the first cell is better understood than it was in the past.  Of course no creationist ever got off his backside and actually contributed to the research…or was honest enough to give a scientific theory of creation.  What a load of morons and lying cretins. Stuart

Thanks for your input Stu.

[Wakeup]

Quote (Stu @ June 02 2012,16:09)

Quote Clearly, scaffold proteins were not the products of mindless evolution, but of intentional creation. Clearly not. Quote What are the odds that one portion of an evolving protein would accidentally fold into just the right shape to accommodate another protein, let alone the odds that five areas on that protein would find themselves similarly precisely shaped—and electronically fitted—so that nature could begin to “select” it? Good question.  What are the odds? Quote Since vital cell systems depend on them, scaffold proteins had to have been put in place all at once. Obviously not. Quote They had to have been the product of intentional engineering, not nature. No they didn’t. Quote And the high degree of engineering they represent could only have been accomplished by a Master Engineer Obviously wrong. Quote …the bewildering complexity… Speak for yourself. Quote Indeed, “it seems incredible” to suggest that such sophistication is the result of chance, time, and genetic mistakes! And it seems to be a strawman argument, too. Quote The awareness of cellular sophistication has only increased by orders of magnitude since then, further demolishing the increasingly anemic Darwinian explanations for the origin of cells. Darwin explained biological sophistication completely. Quote Cellular machines are not the stuff of randomness Indeed they are not. Quote Is it logical to attribute such overwhelmingly complicated machinery to genetic mistakes “guided” by natural happenstance? No. It’s not only logical, it’s what the evidence says is actually happening. Quote Sadly, for many biologists it doesn't matter what the burgeoning evidence shows. Example please, or retract with apology. Quote …obvious design implication… It might seem obvious, but it is wrong. Quote Certain experimental observations had previously befuddled cell biologists …and creationists. Quote Since Google and Yahoo! server systems were purposefully engineered to include various levels of fault tolerance, it makes sense that similar features in cells also required purposeful engineering. This is the logical fallacy of false analogy.  Computer systems are designed, biological systems aren’t. Quote The natural, random processes observed in the world are not capable of engineering such “robust” cellular machines. Says Brian Thomas, M.S.?  Hilarious. Quote However, a Creator as wise, powerful, and benevolent as the One described in the Bible could—and did. But notice no creationist has ever explained how.  It’s done by magic apparently.  Meantime, Darwin explained it based on evidence. Quote First Cell's Survival Odds Not in Evolution's Favor Strawman.  Evolution works on populations.  The first cell is not a population. Quote The 2008 documentary movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presented 250 proteins as an estimated minimum required for cell function. The odds of that many forming by chance was equated to a man winning at a slot machine 250 consecutive times. Micelles survive and reproduce in a way that looks like cell division, and they are balls of fatty acid molecules with no contents at all, save a bit of water. Quote But the real odds are much more staggering. Molecular biologist Doug Axe said, “We're talking about something that's staggeringly improbable: roughly one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.” Another ID strawman.  No biologist would claim 250 proteins coming into existence simultaneously. Quote And what nature alone cannot explain must logically be explained by the supernatural The logical fallacy of false dilemma. Quote If the origin and survival of the first cell were miserably unsolvable by any machinations of natural law before, they are even less solvable now. Actually the question of the first cell is better understood than it was in the past.  Of course no creationist ever got off his backside and actually contributed to the research…or was honest enough to give a scientific theory of creation.  What a load of morons and lying cretins. Stuart

Yes thanks stu,that was very interesting and educational.

wakeup.

[Stu]

Quote (Devolution @ June 02 2012,16:46)

Quote (Stu @ June 02 2012,16:09) Quote Clearly, scaffold proteins were not the products of mindless evolution, but of intentional creation. Clearly not. Quote What are the odds that one portion of an evolving protein would accidentally fold into just the right shape to accommodate another protein, let alone the odds that five areas on that protein would find themselves similarly precisely shaped—and electronically fitted—so that nature could begin to “select” it? Good question.  What are the odds? Quote Since vital cell systems depend on them, scaffold proteins had to have been put in place all at once. Obviously not. Quote They had to have been the product of intentional engineering, not nature. No they didn’t. Quote And the high degree of engineering they represent could only have been accomplished by a Master Engineer Obviously wrong. Quote …the bewildering complexity… Speak for yourself. Quote Indeed, “it seems incredible” to suggest that such sophistication is the result of chance, time, and genetic mistakes! And it seems to be a strawman argument, too. Quote The awareness of cellular sophistication has only increased by orders of magnitude since then, further demolishing the increasingly anemic Darwinian explanations for the origin of cells. Darwin explained biological sophistication completely. Quote Cellular machines are not the stuff of randomness Indeed they are not. Quote Is it logical to attribute such overwhelmingly complicated machinery to genetic mistakes “guided” by natural happenstance? No. It’s not only logical, it’s what the evidence says is actually happening. Quote Sadly, for many biologists it doesn't matter what the burgeoning evidence shows. Example please, or retract with apology. Quote …obvious design implication… It might seem obvious, but it is wrong. Quote Certain experimental observations had previously befuddled cell biologists …and creationists. Quote Since Google and Yahoo! server systems were purposefully engineered to include various levels of fault tolerance, it makes sense that similar features in cells also required purposeful engineering. This is the logical fallacy of false analogy.  Computer systems are designed, biological systems aren’t. Quote The natural, random processes observed in the world are not capable of engineering such “robust” cellular machines. Says Brian Thomas, M.S.?  Hilarious. Quote However, a Creator as wise, powerful, and benevolent as the One described in the Bible could—and did. But notice no creationist has ever explained how.  It’s done by magic apparently.  Meantime, Darwin explained it based on evidence. Quote First Cell's Survival Odds Not in Evolution's Favor Strawman.  Evolution works on populations.  The first cell is not a population. Quote The 2008 documentary movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presented 250 proteins as an estimated minimum required for cell function. The odds of that many forming by chance was equated to a man winning at a slot machine 250 consecutive times. Micelles survive and reproduce in a way that looks like cell division, and they are balls of fatty acid molecules with no contents at all, save a bit of water. Quote But the real odds are much more staggering. Molecular biologist Doug Axe said, “We're talking about something that's staggeringly improbable: roughly one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.” Another ID strawman.  No biologist would claim 250 proteins coming into existence simultaneously. Quote And what nature alone cannot explain must logically be explained by the supernatural The logical fallacy of false dilemma. Quote If the origin and survival of the first cell were miserably unsolvable by any machinations of natural law before, they are even less solvable now. Actually the question of the first cell is better understood than it was in the past.  Of course no creationist ever got off his backside and actually contributed to the research…or was honest enough to give a scientific theory of creation.  What a load of morons and lying cretins. Stuart Thanks for your input Stu.

Do you withdraw and apologise on behalf of this Mr. Brian Thomas M.S, regarding his claim that for many biologists it doesn't matter what the burgeoning evidence shows, or do you agree with me that he is another fatuous lying cretin creationist?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

HI Stu

What does “burgeoning evidence” mean? It sounds like it's not actual evidence at this time is that correct? If so isn't the person that wrote the article speaking about the burgeoning evidence of creation?

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ June 04 2012,10:41)

HI Stu What does “burgeoning evidence” mean? It sounds like it's not actual evidence at this time is that correct? If so isn't the person that wrote the article speaking about the burgeoning evidence of creation?

I should have been a little more careful with my quotation:

Do you withdraw and apologise on behalf of this Mr. Brian Thomas M.S, regarding his claim that “for many biologists it doesn't matter what the burgeoning evidence shows”, or do you agree with me that he is another fatuous lying cretin creationist?

The evidence is that ID is a religious fantasy story, and Darwin was right no matter what biological example you consider.

Not sure what relevance “creation” has. That's a religious fantasy story too.

Stuart

[Author]

Posts