Unbeliever
New member
stipe said:
Billions of years is a "short time of operation?"
Cell Trends
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Billions of years is a "short time of operation?"
aharvey
New member
This thread, incidentally, reminds me of that stretch where bob b posted new releases concerning fossil discoveries pushing back the first known dates for various groups of organisms, with the implication that this was something not explainable by evolutionary theory. As if it were theoretically possible for a new fossil discovery to push forward the first known date for a group of organisms!
Similarly, given our previous state of knowledge, it is hard to imagine how additional research into cell function would leave us with a simpler view than we had before!
Similarly, given our previous state of knowledge, it is hard to imagine how additional research into cell function would leave us with a simpler view than we had before!
aharvey
New member
You mean like teammates, working towards a common goal? If so, then you're technically correct but have made a nonsensical point; if not, your latest statement is incorrect as well. Natural selection cannot generate variation, it can only reduce existing variation; mutations generate variation, but cannot distinguish "good" mutations from "bad" ones. Each fulfills a complementary role in the evolutionary process.stipe said:
Unbeliever
New member
stipe said:
Observed by whom? Modern humans have only been around for an incredibly small fraction of that time.
02/21/2001 Biological Motor Has Tight Specifications
Scientific American has an article about dynein, a protein essential to cell division, which the article describes as a protein motor composed of 12 parts. Researchers have found that “in order to function properly, dynein’s components must have a certain form and must fit together in a particular way. Problems with even a single component, it turns out, can have disastrous effects.” This line of research may help lead to anticancer treatments by disarming dynein in cancer cells. Click here for the Ohio University press release with further details.
Here is another bona fide case of irreducible complexity: twelve parts that are each essential to a functioning motor. Remove or harm just one of them and it doesn’t work. There is no way such a system could have formed by slow, gradual changes as evolutionary theory demands. Just think . . . your body is filled with little motors running smoothly, doing their job without your conscious thought, but if they broke, you would be dead. Fascinating, Captain.
Scientific American has an article about dynein, a protein essential to cell division, which the article describes as a protein motor composed of 12 parts. Researchers have found that “in order to function properly, dynein’s components must have a certain form and must fit together in a particular way. Problems with even a single component, it turns out, can have disastrous effects.” This line of research may help lead to anticancer treatments by disarming dynein in cancer cells. Click here for the Ohio University press release with further details.
Here is another bona fide case of irreducible complexity: twelve parts that are each essential to a functioning motor. Remove or harm just one of them and it doesn’t work. There is no way such a system could have formed by slow, gradual changes as evolutionary theory demands. Just think . . . your body is filled with little motors running smoothly, doing their job without your conscious thought, but if they broke, you would be dead. Fascinating, Captain.
aharvey
New member
Is it really impossible to imagine that current function may not be original function?bob b said:
And I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the exact same processes that render life So Incredibly Complex that they require a supernatural origin are not So Incredibly Complex that they can function without continuous supernatural intervention, and in fact are fully vested natural processes.
Imagine this one.
Genetic Potential Increases 02/22/2001
New findings provide further evidence that the old “one gene – one enzyme” paradigm is incorrect. Researchers at Johns Hopkins have found that two genes in combination can make multiple proteins through a process called trans-splicing. Apparently messenger RNA can simultaneously read both halves of a DNA molecule in opposite directions and splice them together. This increases the protein-generating potential of the human genome, which was announced earlier this week to have fewer genes (around 30,000) than expected.
This means the DNA stores vastly more information than could be stored on one strand, the other being just a template. It is just one of many marvels sure to come out of our ongoing investigation of the genetic code. The whole story of transcription by messenger RNA to transfer RNA to protein, accompanied by a host of specialized enzymes, is dazzlingly complex and exquisite in its precision and speed. How do these little blind molecules know how to do these things? Truly amazing.
Genetic Potential Increases 02/22/2001
New findings provide further evidence that the old “one gene – one enzyme” paradigm is incorrect. Researchers at Johns Hopkins have found that two genes in combination can make multiple proteins through a process called trans-splicing. Apparently messenger RNA can simultaneously read both halves of a DNA molecule in opposite directions and splice them together. This increases the protein-generating potential of the human genome, which was announced earlier this week to have fewer genes (around 30,000) than expected.
This means the DNA stores vastly more information than could be stored on one strand, the other being just a template. It is just one of many marvels sure to come out of our ongoing investigation of the genetic code. The whole story of transcription by messenger RNA to transfer RNA to protein, accompanied by a host of specialized enzymes, is dazzlingly complex and exquisite in its precision and speed. How do these little blind molecules know how to do these things? Truly amazing.
dont need to. i know how to do long division. the process of mutation and natural selection acting to change organisms shoudl be observable given the amount of change that needs to have happened and the time that has been available.SUTG said:
Eight down. 292 to go. Wait, since I started posting on this thread 3 more have been discovered, so we still have 295 to go.
Newly-Published Human Genome Reveals Mysteries 02/12/2001
The Los Angeles Times has two stories about surprising discoveries being made now that the fully-mapped human genome is being published (on Charles Darwin’s birthday, by the way). The first is that differences between humans are small. The other is that our functional genome is only about twice that of a fly or roundworm and only a hundred more genes than a mouse. Apparently the rest of our genome contains a great deal of transposed material from other species, which may explain much of so-called “junk DNA.” Nature is providing a new online news and information service on the human genome, the Genome Gateway, and also has several gene-related stories on its daily Nature Science Update page. Not to be outdone, Science has a special issue devoted to the human genome, free to all users.
We are on the leading edge of a major revolution in our understanding of genetics. Apparently the vast majority of genes code for the intricate biochemistry that goes on within cells regardless of species. The new findings will also stimulate discussion of the role of transposons (transposable genes between species) that may relate to our ability to adapt to new environments - an original role, perhaps, for viruses before the Fall? Scientists may find, additionally, that genes alone are insufficient to explain our makeup. The ongoing discoveries are sure to raise many questions while at the same time revealing important new truths. Already, as expected, the evolutionists are trying to force-fit their preconceived notions into the data and claim support for common descent. Let’s resolve to keep the data independent of the philosophy and let it speak for itself. As Jonathan Wells concluded his excellent book Icons of Evolution, Dobzhansky’s claim that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” should be scuttled in favor of “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of the evidence.”
Newly-Published Human Genome Reveals Mysteries 02/12/2001
The Los Angeles Times has two stories about surprising discoveries being made now that the fully-mapped human genome is being published (on Charles Darwin’s birthday, by the way). The first is that differences between humans are small. The other is that our functional genome is only about twice that of a fly or roundworm and only a hundred more genes than a mouse. Apparently the rest of our genome contains a great deal of transposed material from other species, which may explain much of so-called “junk DNA.” Nature is providing a new online news and information service on the human genome, the Genome Gateway, and also has several gene-related stories on its daily Nature Science Update page. Not to be outdone, Science has a special issue devoted to the human genome, free to all users.
We are on the leading edge of a major revolution in our understanding of genetics. Apparently the vast majority of genes code for the intricate biochemistry that goes on within cells regardless of species. The new findings will also stimulate discussion of the role of transposons (transposable genes between species) that may relate to our ability to adapt to new environments - an original role, perhaps, for viruses before the Fall? Scientists may find, additionally, that genes alone are insufficient to explain our makeup. The ongoing discoveries are sure to raise many questions while at the same time revealing important new truths. Already, as expected, the evolutionists are trying to force-fit their preconceived notions into the data and claim support for common descent. Let’s resolve to keep the data independent of the philosophy and let it speak for itself. As Jonathan Wells concluded his excellent book Icons of Evolution, Dobzhansky’s claim that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” should be scuttled in favor of “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of the evidence.”
bob b said:
See my bolded. Is it your position that God tells each little blind molecule what to do each time it does something?
It is perhaps one thing to believe as you do that the universe was made in a week only a few thousand years ago, that God created everything including these little molecules and then set things in motion, your belief is simply wrong and based on faith in an old book rather than evidence, however to imply that these molecules are to "know" something is clearly beyond a lack of knowledge.
It appears that perhaps I could use some instuction on how to change fonts/bold etc. Sorry, I have no idea how to clean up my post and not have it in a bold type face