ICR article image.
Posted on 04/08/2014 8:28:14 AM PDT by fishtank
Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
Scientists believe that the study of genes that encode the proteins for molecular motors will help solve the mysteries of evolution. However, the result of a study published in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution has only served to support the predictions of special creation—that unique variants of cellular complexity and innovation exist at all levels of life.1
Molecular motors are important features of eukaryotic cells that are formed by a variety of protein types. One group of molecular motors is called the myosins, which have recently been studied in everything from one-celled eukaryotes to humans. The goal of this and many other studies has been the ever-elusive characterization of the mythical Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA).2
The fictional LECA creature represents the final stage of a transition between a bacterial-archaeal prokaryote (the smallest and simplest organism) and a one-celled eukaryote (a cell with a nucleus and other organelles). The main problem with this idea is that, not only does no such creature exist, but eukaryotes also contain molecular similarities to both bacteria and archaea—prokaryotes that are found in completely separate domains of cellular life. Another major problem is that many complex molecular and cellular features unique among eukaryotes are not found in any prokaryotes. Because of this elaborate mosaic of cellular features, the development of any evolutionary story for the origin of eukaryotes has been fraught with much difficulty.
Researchers had hoped to find that matters would be clarified by myosin proteins derived from the DNA sequences of different single-celled eukaryotes, such as flagellated protozoa (protozoa with a whip-like tail), amoeboid protozoa, and algae.1 Instead of finding a pattern of evolving myosin "motor" genes (simple to complex) as life seemingly became more advanced, they found that the highest numbers of different types of myosin genes were found in single-celled eukaryotes. The authors stated, "The number of myosin genes varies markedly between lineages [types of eukaryotes]," and "holozoan genomes, as well as some amoebozoans and heterokonts, have the highest numbers of myosins of all eukaryotes. In particular, the haptophyte Emiliania huxleyi has the highest number of myosin genes (53), followed by the ichthyosporean Pirum gemmata (43), the filasterean M. vibrans (39), and the metazoan Homo sapiens (38)."1
The end result of all this labor was ultimately counterproductive to the formation of any sort of evolutionary tree. The researchers stated, "We do not aim to infer a eukaryotic tree of life from the myosin genomic content."1 This is because the data was not amenable to do so. Instead, they noted that "we provide an integrative and robust classification, useful for future genomic and functional studies on this crucial eukaryotic gene family."1
So, how did the authors explain the incredible complexity found across the spectrum of life in myosin gene content that had no clear evolutionary patterns? They explained it by 1) convergence (the sudden and simultaneous appearance of a gene with no evolutionary patterns in different taxa), 2) lineage-specific expansions (different myosin gene complements found in different creatures), and 3) gene losses (missing genes that evolutionists thought should have been there). None of these ideas actually explain why there is no evolutionary pattern of simple-to-complex in myosin gene content across the spectrum of life. Specifically, the ideas of convergent evolution and lineage-specific expansions are nothing more than fancy terms for the fact that these different types of myosin genes appeared suddenly in unrelated creatures at the same time.
Clearly, the only scientific model that predicts this type of molecular and cellular complexity and innovation across all forms of life is one associated with special creation. Each created kind is genetically unique and has its own special and complex gene repertoire needed for the niche that it fills.
References
Sebé-Pedrós, A. et al. 2014. Evolution and classification of myosins, a paneukaryotic whole genome approach. Genome Biology and Evolution. 6 (2): 290-305.
Koumandou, V. L. et al. 2013. Molecular paleontology and complexity in the last eukaryotic common ancestor. Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 48 (4): 373-396.
*Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.
Article posted on April 7, 2014.
ICR article image.
Cells from eukaryotic organisms (e.g. Animals, Plants, Fungi, Protists) differ from those of the prokaryotes (Bacteria and Archaea) in a large number of characteristics. These differences are so vast that the evolution of the eukaryotic cell from prokaryotic ancestors is widely regarded as a major evolutionary discontinuity.[1,2] Although there are no clear intermediates in this transition, the available evidence strongly indicates that eukaryotic cells have evolved much later (only about 1-1.5 billion years ago) in comparison to the prokaryotic organisms, which existed as far back as 3.5-3.8 Ga ago.[3] The question thus arises how did the transition from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell come about and who are the progenitors of the ancestral eukaryotic cell?[4]
http://bacterialphylogeny.com/eukaryotes.html
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=eukaryotes+vs+prokaryotes&FORM=HDRSC2&id=6D741EC8B9D0CF2629BC108E2E5A29D24217E704&selectedIndex=0#view=detail&id=6D741EC8B9D0CF2629BC108E2E5A29D24217E704&selectedIndex=0
My faith became solidified thru miracles I have experienced in my life—answers to prayers, situations made clear, resolutions to crises; and, from my views thru microscopes and telescopes. From the smallest to the most grand, God is over all. I am so humbled and so blessed!
Cells piss me off.
Thank you for your reply.
I try to post regular articles from scientists who are creationists.
That bunch of people find the few papers where the scientists discover something that they hadn't predicted and for which they yet to have developed good hypotheses.
That bunch of people goes: Aha! See, those scientists aren't so smart after all.
What real good has the bunch of people in the office done for the world?
These don’t have metal bars...
Oh.
Okay, then it’s cool.
“So, how did the authors explain the incredible complexity found across the spectrum of life in myosin gene content that had no clear evolutionary patterns? They explained it by 1) convergence (the sudden and simultaneous appearance of a gene with no evolutionary patterns in different taxa), 2) lineage-specific expansions (different myosin gene complements found in different creatures), and 3) gene losses (missing genes that evolutionists thought should have been there). None of these ideas actually explain why there is no evolutionary pattern of simple-to-complex in myosin gene content across the spectrum of life.”
“That statement makes the unscientific and false assumption assumption that myosin and genomic diversity of the early ages must be expressed in the genomes of the present lifeforms, which is simply not the case at all. There was a time only 550 million years ago when there were a considerable number of fauna which used trilateral and polylateral body plans in their genomes, instead of the bilateral body paln that survives in todays fauna. Had it not been for the fossilization of their unusual morphologies, we would not have known about them today by looking at the surviving genomes. This is the problem with most of the microbial lifeforms being unsuitable for preservation except in rare circumstances. Very very little of the extinct genera are known to us because they were not preserved in the paleontological and geological records. The early diversity of unrelated characteristics is unsurprising, because it should actually be expected.
Specifically, the ideas of convergent evolution and lineage-specific expansions are nothing more than fancy terms for the fact that these different types of myosin genes appeared suddenly in unrelated creatures at the same time.
Clearly, the only scientific model that predicts this type of molecular and cellular complexity and innovation across all forms of life is one associated with special creation. Each created kind is genetically unique and has its own special and complex gene repertoire needed for the niche that it fills.
[CORRECTION]
“So, how did the authors explain the incredible complexity found across the spectrum of life in myosin gene content that had no clear evolutionary patterns? They explained it by 1) convergence (the sudden and simultaneous appearance of a gene with no evolutionary patterns in different taxa), 2) lineage-specific expansions (different myosin gene complements found in different creatures), and 3) gene losses (missing genes that evolutionists thought should have been there). None of these ideas actually explain why there is no evolutionary pattern of simple-to-complex in myosin gene content across the spectrum of life.”
That statement makes the unscientific and false assumption assumption that myosin and genomic diversity of the early ages must be expressed in the genomes of the present lifeforms, which is simply not the case at all. There was a time only 550 million years ago when there were a considerable number of fauna which used trilateral and polylateral body plans in their genomes, instead of the bilateral body paln that survives in todays fauna. Had it not been for the fossilization of their unusual morphologies, we would not have known about them today by looking at the surviving genomes. This is the problem with most of the microbial lifeforms being unsuitable for preservation except in rare circumstances. Very very little of the extinct genera are known to us because they were not preserved in the paleontological and geological records. The early diversity of unrelated characteristics is unsurprising, because it should actually be expected.
Generalize down to the level of rank stupidity much?
Very good point - just because attributes are expressed in particular cases, doesn’t mean they are the only attributes capable of being expressed. Without a corresponding study of gene expression factors, how can any expressions be said to be representations of full development?
Well, “new information, therefore God” is pretty much the universal format of these articles. Grab some scientific vocabulary, sprinkle in a few words like “mythical” and “fictional”, conclude with science - bad, God - good. They’re very formulaic.
Bump
By your reasoning, we should all believe in global warming.
Does your religion have a creed?
Does it go something like this:?
“There is no scientist but Darwin,
and Algore is His Prophet.”
.
.
.
.
.
.
Your reply lacks logic.
So getting this theory published in a scientific journal shouldn't be a problem.
One theory is that two very different prokaryotic life forms merged into one complex cell. Possibly a parasitic organism lived inside another until their systems evolved to become dependent and indistinguishable. A complex life form might be a multimillion year collection of thousands of other life forms of widely different talents that became functionally one.
Ping.
My statement said nothing in support of evolution, and certainly nothing in favor of global warming. All I said was that I appreciate the work being done by scientists "in the trenches" to discover as much as they can and be willing to write papers that seem to undermine their earlier conclusions.
I don't see anything being done by the ICR that amounts to much more than heckling from the bleachers.
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.