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 ...
LOL!!!
Good one!
Ah, but if you come across a toad, then surely you can assume that it did not occur "naturally" but was designed.
This is true.
" They see Nature naked and it blinds them."
This is not true. It is a contradiction which invalidates the first claim.
"they see all hows as "as is""
This is false and groundless.
None?
Ever hear of the Nylon-eating bacterium? Not only does it do something never before seen on Earth (there was no nylon for it to eat before the 1930s), we know exactly how it evolved this function.
BTW, I'm not sure of the technical definitions, but to me this sure seems like a case of a mutation both adding information to a genome and subtracting information.
It no longer is efficient at eating sugar, but it can eat nylon, which it couldn't do before.
This is but one example; there are a lot of others. A lot more than "none".
You have turned the analogy backward.
No, I don't. The purpose of the analogy, as used by the "design" people, is to disingenously imply that since it's obviously ludicrous to think of a watch assembling itself through natural processes (because it's not a natural object, and is known to be built by people), that it is equally ludicrous to think that the complexity in living things could have arisen through natural processes.
Where this analogy falls on its face is through its attempt to use a non-living, non-reproducing, non-natural thing (a watch) as a comparison to living, reproducing, natural things (organisms), when those differences make *all* the difference in the world when it comes to the kinds of processes which are at work. Things which reproduce are subject to evolutionary processes, which are very powerful builders of functional complexity, unlike the processes at work on the components of a watch.
The implication is that the watch could not be the product of evolution.
No one claimed that it was. But that's not the point you were actually trying to make -- by analogy, you were dishonestly trying to imply that *living things* couldn't be the product of evolution either, despite the fact that living things *do* indeed evolve.
Mules do not reproduce but are allegedly the product of evolution.
Oh, puh-leaze. They are the product of things which do reproduce, and have been subject to evolution. Don't be coy.
You are also making the same error as a previous poster. You are assuming evolution in your argument to prove evolution.
I'm not making a mistake and neither did he. I am "assuming" evolution because evolution does indeed exist and does indeed occur and does indeed produce functional complexity. These are established facts. Evolution is as real a process as evaporation or oxidation.
Except that evolutionists do not actually make that assumption.
I have not seen enough evidence to distinguish the two theories.
Then speak only for yourself, and stop attacking those of us who are familiar with the evidence.
Therefore I argue against the religious certitude exhibited by both camps.
There is no "religious certitude" in scientific conclusions, which have been reached by testing hypotheses against vast mountains of evidence.
Another repetition of the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
Nonsense -- it's stating a fact. A simple chemical cycle like this is far less complex than the amount of complexity that evolution has been directly observed to be able to produce.
None of the things that exist have been shown how they got there or even how they could have gotten there.
Wow, you really *are* ignorant of the countless research findings in evolution, aren't you? Evolution has been directly observed creating functional complexity countless times. That's a far higher number than the "none" you claim.
They are there and you merely assert evolution because you can't admit of any other possibility.
Stop lying about my reasons for my conclusions, please.
But the lack of other possibilities in your mind is not evidence of your conclusion. That is the fallacy of the false dilemma.
It would be if that were the reason for my conclusion, but it isn't. I strongly advise you to stop posting your insulting, false presumptions about me as if they were facts.
You have demonstrated my thema well.
I was reading through the study you linked to and came across this section:
Although the kai genes are under comprehensive study with regard to the mechanism of action, their evolution has yet to be resolved completely. The kaiC gene has a double-domain structure, and each of the domains has an ATP/GTP-binding site, or Walker's motif (2, 11). Based on its structure and sequence homology, the kaiC genes were classified as a family related to the RecA gene family of ATP-dependent recombinases (12). In addition to the kaiC genes with the typical double-domain structure, there are many single-domain homologous genes in Archaea and Proteobacteria. It was assumed that an ancestral single-domain kaiC gene was horizontally transferred from Bacteria to Archaea and then the double-domain kaiC evolved through duplication and subsequent fusion in Archaea (12). Although the evolution of the kaiC genes has been hypothesized, no data or hypotheses are available regarding the evolution of two other circadian clock genes, kaiA and kaiB. The evidence about the key role of kaiC in cyanobacterial clock regulation (9, 11), along with its homology to archaeal RecA genes, suggests that this gene is evolutionarily the oldest among the three.
Ping us when they get it figured out. Not only are they still trying to show how it evolved; they are still studying the mechanisms and how they work.
Fascinating, don't you think? How did they evolve? Did they evolve? How do they work? How do they filter out the noise from the valuable information?
Perhaps we'll never know.
Timeless Ping
Thanks.
Your misreading of the paper notwithstanding, they've already figured out a lot of it, far more than the vast majority of anti-evolutionists will ever know or grasp.
Ping us when you get God's exact construction methods figured out to anywhere near the kind of detail that the biologists have already achieved.
I don't expect to figure it out. I rely upon scientists like you and the professor to help me understand the technicalities. I was simply marveling at the Clocks. Can't I marvel?
Saturday.
Give your formula a try!
And yet, on this thread there's a total absence of your "arguing against the religious certitude" by the *other* camp, despite many posts by people expressing their confident conclusion of "God did it".
Why is that? And how far back in your posting history will we have to go to find an example of you taking someone to task for that kind of presumption?
Noise doesn't work. If a mutation results generation of noise, it lowers the signal to noise ratio. If it's lowered to far, the organism fails to persist. The original organism continues on.
"Not only are they still trying to show how it evolved; they are still studying the mechanisms and how they work."
This can always be said about something, or other. What's important to note is what is known now and also, to compare it to the state of affairs in knowledge and understanding that existed before.
"Fascinating, don't you think? How did they evolve? Did they evolve? How do they work?"
Subtle. Lack of knowledge and understanding does not negate what is known and understood. In fact, what is known and understood is used to increase the content of that set and reduce the content of the set of unknowns.
100
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.