Posted on 01/13/2006 7:25:46 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Just as a pocket watch requires a complex system of gears and springs to keep it ticking precisely, individual cells have a network of proteins and genes that maintain their own internal clock -- a 24-hour rhythm that, in humans, regulates metabolism, cell division, and hormone production, as well as the wake-sleep cycle. Studying this "circadian" rhythm in fruit flies, which have genes that are similar to our own, scientists have constructed a basic model of how the cellular timekeeper works. But now, a new report in this week's issue of the journal Science turns the old model on its head: By providing a glimpse into living cells, Rockefeller University researchers have uncovered a previously undetected clock inside the circadian clock. The scientists made the finding with a rarely used technique called FRET, which enabled them to follow circadian proteins over an extended period of time and watch the clock as it ticks away in a living cell.
[snip]
The movie allowed them to follow the interactions between Period and Timeless with a resolution never before possible. They discovered that, rather than randomly colliding, the two proteins bind together in the cytoplasm almost immediately and create what Young and Meyer refer to as an "interval timer." Then, six hours after coming together, the complexes rapidly break apart and the proteins move into the nucleus singly, all of them within minutes of each other. "Some switch is thrown at six hours that lets the complex explode. The proteins pop apart and roll into the nucleus," Young says. "Somehow, implanted within the system is a timer, formed by Period and Timeless, that counts off six hours. You have a clock within a clock." He notes that this precise timer shows how carefully orchestrated interactions between proteins really are.
(Excerpt) Read more at eurekalert.org ...
Not something a gentleman would ask of a lady.
Give me your very best shot.
Try reading the links that have already been posted in this thread, by myself and others.
IN crossing a health, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer.
But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.
Well, I guess that shoots down your Occam's Razor argument, eh?
"No one designed it. It just happened. There is no designer and no beginning. The evolutionists will explain it in greater detail. :)"
Are all those even more awesome nuclear explosions in stars "designed" by God too? But science explains them being natural events. What to believe, religious philosophy regarding magical creation, or science... hmm...
"It's a FESTIVUS Miracle! "
Anything not apparent is "magic" or miracle. Fortunately, lets hope, the professionals in the fields don't dwell into supernatural explanations, and try to get real answers.
I sure wouldn't want my doctor to go supernatural and pray for the cure. Would you?
Alexander The Great (student of Aristotle) used the famous iodine-clock reaction to coordinate his troops in battle, thus giving him an advantage over his opponents. Each head of a group would meet with Alexander and all would dip strips of cloth into the iodine solution at the same time. Then they would tie these around their spears. The bands of cloth around the spears were known as Alexander's rag time-bands.
LOL, perfect for a Friday PM.
You can, of course, hope, but I wouldn't bet that way.
That's the entire argument for ID. Glad to have you on our side.
Talk about beating swords into ploughshares!
Yep. The scientists will have to explain it.
There's nobody at the Discovery Institute that can.
Lot cheaper than platinum
(you have freepmail)
" Evolution is as real a process as evaporation or oxidation."
Why..., why.... That makes you and Evaporationist (or maybe an oxidationist), or an Eva instead of and Evo. Didn't realize you'd had a sex change lately.
Somebody doesn't "believe" in chemoautotrophs? You got a link. I'd like to see that and send them a plant.
Damn; plant = bug.
sigh
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.