Tiny Ocean Plants Offer Biochemical Enigma (for Darwinists)

Phosphorus, number 15 on the periodic table of elements, is considered a basic component of all cell membranes. But the recent discovery of single-celled photosynthetic organisms surviving without the chemical element in their membranes is going to require some major rewrites to biochemistry textbooks.1

Phosphorus is in short supply in the Sargasso Sea, located in the north Atlantic, where researchers from numerous institutions and universities found several autotrophs, including some diatoms and four different genera of photosynthetic bacteria, that can make cell membrane substitutes. In their study published online in Nature, the scientists report that the bacteria substitute a sulfur molecule called sulphoquinovosyldiacylglycerol (SQDG) in place of the standard phosphorus-containing molecule.2 Not only does the bacteria’s SQDG not need phosphorus, but it doesn’t need nitrogen either! These tiny creatures still require phosphorus for their DNA, but they can get along with less of this nutrient by manufacturing their own phospholipid substitutes.

What makes phosphorus a preferred element for membrane construction? These atoms can easily provide their molecule with a negative charge. This way, the oily ends of the phospholipids automatically interlock, while the charged, phosphorus ends automatically orient toward either ocean water outside of the cell, or watery cytoplasm within the cell. The sulfonate group of SQDG, with its negative charge, is functionally similar to the phosphate groups of the phospholipids. Though not as efficient, and perhaps requiring more energy to synthesize, “sulfonic acids of this type are chemically very stable and strongly acidic.”3 Both the stability and acidic charge enable SQDG to perform its required role.

These tiny plant cells can only make this chemical substitution because they have the necessary engineering to do so. They already have all the specified machinery (enzymes), along with the ATP and UTP (energy-providing chemicals), as well as the cofactor DHAP.4 Thus, these plants are well-equipped to survive, even when times are tough. “Cyanobacteria can make membranes that require essentially no nutrients, no phosphorus and no nitrogen. Totally no nutrients at all,” stated lead author Benjamin Van Mooy.1

The new discovery challenges the standard understanding of biochemical processes. Van Mooy, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, said in a press release, “Maybe there is an underlying principle here that we will uncover.”1

Perhaps the most significant principle is that these cells’ “plan B” membranes, which require structures and information storage systems to manufacture, were not invented by any natural process. Rather, they are a backup system that the Creator planned from the beginning. The creation model predicts that more backup systems like these will be discovered.

1. Phytoplankton Cell Membranes Challenge Fundamentals of Biochemistry. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution news release, February 2, 2009.

2. Van Mooy, B. A. S. et al. Phytoplankton in the ocean use non-phosphorus lipids in response to phosphorus scarcity. Nature. Published online February 1, 2009.

3. Howard, K. P. and J. H. Prestegard. 1996. Conformation of Sulfoquinovosyldiacylglycerol Bound to a Magnetically Oriented Membrane System. Biophysical Journal. 71 (5): 2573-2582.

4. Kleppinger-Sparace, K. F., and Mudd, B. J. 1990. Biosynthesis of Sulfoquinovosyldiacylglycerol in Higher Plants. Plant Physiology. 93: 256-263.

There is a growing body of working scientists who favor intelligent design, to include Nobel Laureates. Thus, your lame attempt to excuse the intollerant, jack-booted tactics of the Darwin Party makes you just as guilty as they are:

Nobel Laureates Who Favor Intelligent Design

Compiled by: Sean D. Pitman M.D

1/1/2007

Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor makes the following interesting argument:

“Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially.”

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml

Dr. Robert Gange is a research scientist (cryophisics), engineer, and adjunct professor the David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton. He just so happened to write a pro-creation book entitled, “Origins and Destiny”. Aside from the book itself, the back cover has this interesting endorsement from the late mathematician, physicist, and Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner (1963, physics):

“I was particularly pleased with Dr. Gange’s refusal of the idea of materialism, and the convincing arguments supporting that refusal. In fact, the book will be a welcome response to materialism. Good luck, for a good book!” (http://www.ccel.us/gange.toc.html#Ab)

Wigner also noted in his widely quoted paper, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences, that scientists often take for granted the remarkable—even miraculous—effectiveness of mathematics in describing the real world:

“The enormous usefulness of mathematics is something bordering on the mysterious . . . . There is no rational explanation for it . . . . The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.” - Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13 (1960): 1-14.

Interesting comments for an acclaimed “modern” genius with a Nobel Prize in physics. Such comments seem to mirror Einstein’s well-known observation:

“You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way . . . . [T]he kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the “miracle” which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.” Albert Einstein, Letters to Solovine (New York: Philosophical Library, 1987), 131.

Richard E Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry, as asked to present the keynote address at Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents’ Recognition Program. In his address he discussed the increasing lifespan of humans as a result of cures and treatments for various infections and diseases. He urged his listeners to seriously consider their role as “higher species” on this planet. He also mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creation, Darwin versus the Biblical Genesis account, noting that the burden of proof is on those who do not believe that “Genesis was right, and there was a creation, and that the Creator is still involved”. (1)

After reading the book “Origins of Life” by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (2), among other books by Rana, Richard Smalley make the following endorsement: “ Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred.” (3)

Toward the last days of his life, in an interview with William Dembski, Smalley predicted that ID would be mainstreamed in five years and that evolution, in its conventional materialistic sense, would be dead within ten. Although I am personally just a bit skeptical as to the time frame, it will be interesting to see if his predictions are eventually borne out. (4)

1. http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/story.asp?S=2382961&nav=CcWvRbj5
2. http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Life-Biblical-Evolutionary-Models/dp/1576833445/ref=pd_rhf_p_1/105-8093794-4249248
3. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05100605.html
4. http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1737

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.