Posted on 12/10/2008 5:02:34 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
The Delicate Balance of Ear Crystals
by Brian Thomas, M.S.
UCLA researchers have discovered that tiny crystals called otoliths—necessary parts of a properly functioning inner ear—form not as the direct result of a gene product, but rather as the result of the physical, swaying motion of hair-like cilia during development.
As adult vertebrate bodies move about, otoliths are pulled by gravity and enable the detection of movement, which is vital for maintaining balance. The researchers studied these crystals in fish embryos, where they accumulate as gelatinous proteins mixed with calcium carbonate. When fully and properly formed, the crystals lie atop sensitive beds of cilia, which are fine, hair-like cellular extensions that are responsible for translating roll, pitch, and yaw information from the semicircular canals of vertebrates’ ears.
In their study published in Nature, the scientists discovered that otolith formation required more than just genes—in this case, properly functioning cilia.1 This represents another example of an “epigenetic” factor influencing development, whereas a few short years ago scientists thought that purely genetic causes were responsible for the formation of biological structures.
But there is additional significance to this research. The researchers disabled the gene for the protein dynein, the molecular motor responsible for ciliary motion. The result was that the otoliths “did not assemble in the correct site. So not only did ear crystals form in the wrong place, but they were misshapen and abnormally sized,” according to co-author Kent Hill.2 So the crystals, rows of cilia, sensory cells, skull cavities, inner ear membranes, neuron connections, and many other parts must each be correctly formed for vertebrates to detect motion.
Not only are otoliths complex (being a crystalline arrangement of matter), but their timed and directed formation must result in the correct placement, shape, number, and size for balance detection to work at all. The same Creator who “curiously wrought” us in our mothers’ wombs,3 has similarly set up ciliary swaying as the means to build vertebrate ear otoliths. These crystals’ role in maintaining balance, as well as the precise requirements of their construction, shows clear indications of the Creator’s hand.
References
1. Colantonio, J. R. et al. The dynein regulatory complex is required for ciliary motility and otolith biogenesis in the inner ear. Nature. Published online prior to print November 30, 2008, 8.
2. Schmidt, E. Can you hear me now? How the inner ear's sensors are made. UCLA press release, November 30, 2008.
3. Psalm 139:15.
That and a few hundred other false claims made by creationists are dealt with here:
Index to Creationist Claims
Quantum theory defines events in terms of probabilities. Nothing in the physical world is impossible.
You are posting some great article sir. If you’re an evo you have to believe that nature “knows”, or “knew” that there would be motion in order to develop these crystal formations far into the future. And what happened to those poor creatures that never had this? Did they all fall down or travel in haphazard manner until one of them “evolved” these things for balance?
[[Seriously, go to any library (even your kids elementary school library) and check out a book on evolution.]]
I have- and their claims are nothing but unsupported ignorant fantasy that violates biolgy, mathematical, and natural laws- If you wish to beleive they don’t, then you are simply ignoring hte FACTS- but you’re welcom to your beliefs
[[Work your way up to the more complicated ones, but do yourself a favor and don’t trip over the usual bugaboos of “missing links” and so on.]]
Yeah- We wouldn;’t want any of the actual SCIENTIFIC FACTS of the hypothesis getting i nthe way of our beleif in biological impossiblities now would we?
[[The evidence is all there and, by the way, there is none supporting ID beyond your aforementioned opinions and assumptions (along with a solid dose of self-delusion, ignorance and abject stupidity.)]]
No matter how many times you repeat that- it won’t make it true- It appears sir- that it is not I that needs to read up on the issue- but you. Bu5t thanks for playing
By the way- you provided NO evidence to my lasrt request- only generalized OPINIONS that simpyl are NOT supported by the FACTS- per usual- but that’s ok- I fully expected Ya’ll to ignore the tough impossibilites that face your hypothesis once again- you didn’t dissappoint- at least Ya’ll are consistent in your faith
That and a few hundred false claims agaisnt Creationists made by the petty lying talkorigins are listed here: http://www.trueorigin.org/
Nice try Coyoteman- but citing lies as your source of ‘science’ does NOTHING for your credibility- The link above in this post will show talkorigins to be nothign but a pack of lies, half-truths, and blatant outright deciets-
==If you’re an evo you have to believe that nature “knows”, or “knew” that there would be motion in order to develop these crystal formations far into the future.
You are on to something extremely important, and it constitutes one of the greatest challenges to neo-Darwinian/materialist evotion. What you are referring to is referred to as inversely causal meta-information. If you get a chance, give the following two papers a careful read. Trust me, not only will they blow your mind, but they constitute an air-tight case against neo-Darwinian/materialist evolution:
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_109-115.pdf
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_77-83.pdf
What CottShop said!
==And yet that’s exactly how it happened. It’s a miracle!
You are correct, it would constitute a miracle. If you have even a slightly open mind, read the following two papers carefully. Together, they constitute an air-tight case against neo-Darwinian/materialist evolution.
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_109-115.pdf
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_77-83.pdf
That's essentially what Intelligent Design folks are saying. We don't deny the life has changed and evolved over time. However we do point out that random mutation cannot be the mechanism for that change.
ID proponents do NOT believe in a six-earth-day creation of the world. They believe that evolution within a species happens; that is readily observable and is also called adaptation. They also believe that all life on Earth evolved (through a process not yet understood) from lower forms.
Just because some religious fanatics (Discovery Institute, et al) support the concept does NOT invalidate it.
ID proponents are NOT six day creationists! I suggest you read some of the books and theses by microbiologists and others on the ID concept.
I believe there is some kind of natural law that guides the process of evolution. The idea that random chance first created the basic building block of life (the cell) and then produces these complex changes is ludicrous prima facie.
If some want to call this natural law the hand of God, so what? Yeah, THAT part is not scientific; but to search for the governing law is.
To the die-hard darwinists out there, after nearly 100 years of intensive laboratory effort to show how a creature can change into another, why is it that all that can be done is create minor mutations of the same organism? If we, with DIRECTED EFFORT cannot make such a leap happen, how on Earth do you think random chance accomplished it???
In fairness to Charles Darwin, I believe because of the readily observable phenomenon of adaption, that Darwin, with the knowledge of the nineteenth century, made a reasonable theory about macro-evolution. However, in the past 15-20 years, we have discovered how incredibly complex and organized a SINGLE cell is; that the idea that it all could happen by chance with a random lightning bolt in a “primordial soup” is absolutely ludicrous! You might as well believe that lightning could create a brand new corvette out of a scrapyard!
ID DOES NOT eliminate the scientific method; it gives it another hypothesis to investigate. How were the other “natural laws” discovered? To argue that such could never be proven, is the same argument against Darwinism; it's history, and cannot be proven by the scientific method.
The darwinists today are in the same position as the geocentrists were 500 years ago; refusing to acknowledge that the evidence doesn't support their view, and rabidly persecuting alternate theories. The ONLY reason that the idea there is design to life is condemned is because it threatens the atheism that darwinism supports.
It is time to retire Darwin's theory, and examine other ideas. It's time to brainstorm with the evidence we now have, not treat old theories as dogma.
Theories are retired when they no longer explain the data, and when significant data contradict them. That is not the case with the theory of evolution. The evidence supporting that theory keeps getting stronger in spite of what creationists have been claiming for 150 years.
As for "treat old theories as dogma" -- folks who deny scientific findings for religious reasons are in no position to be complaining about dogma.
You didn’t read my post, did you?
There has never been a time when other ideas were not on the table.
Every single post the GGG of CottShop makes has, somewhere at its heart, the findings of mainstream science. Every single attack on evolution is grounded in work done by real scientists, and not creation scientists or ID scientists.
It’s not an ID site. The two papers come from the Journal of Creation. And yes, the argument is air-tight and insurmountable.
ping
I have lots of evolution books up on my FR page. You should read some of them.
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.