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 creationthat 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 archaeaprokaryotes 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.
Yep!
Piece of cake.
Next thing you know, it shouldn’t be a problem to have a pro-life Christian speak about the sin of abortion to the DNC National Convention.
Slam dunk! Nuthin’ but net.
\sarc
As you can imagine from my sarcastic post below, there are two reasons for sparse ICR research: money and peer pressure.
Having said that, here is a link to a paper that Dr. Austin wrote a few years ago:
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/abstract_45610.htm
Abstract below:
Paper No. 187-4
Presentation Time: 8:00 AM-12:00 PM
REGIONALLY EXTENSIVE MASS KILL OF LARGE ORTHOCONE NAUTILOIDS, REDWALL LIMESTONE (LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN), GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA
AUSTIN, Steven A., Geology Department, Institute for Creation Rsch, Santee, CA 92071-2833, saustin@icr.edu and WISE, Kurt P., Bryan College, Box 7585, Dayton, TN 37321-7000
Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.
Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.
Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks.
2002 Denver Annual Meeting (October 27-30, 2002)
Session No. 187
Paleontology/Paleobotany (Posters) II
Colorado Convention Center: Exhibit Hall
8:00 AM-12:00 PM, Wednesday, October 30, 2002
© Copyright 2002 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions.
Here is another:
They actually gathered samples, had them analyzed in an blind-study fashion in an independent lab, and wrote the results and conclusions.
Depiction drawing of a nautiloid.
Well as the purpose of writing the papers int he first place is to have them read and analyzed and correlated with each other for various purposes, I’d call that work. In fact, I’d call that a crucial part of science. You might criticize flaws in their analysis, fine, but how can you criticize scientific analysis itself, per se?
“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)”
These two situations are the patterns that would be expected to be found repeatedly and at multiple stages of the development of the earth biosphere and its component lifeforms, and in fact are predicted by Intelligent Design of the type in which our biosphere was slowly constructed by a social hive of an advanced off-world species as they accumulated life-building knowledge, beginning with the virus and eventually advancing to we Nexus 7’s, said discovery and design process being completely analogous as to how the hive of we Nexus 7’s have gone about constructing our infrastructure and inventions, with the development of digital electronics initially arising from vacuum tubes and culminating in today’s integrated chips being a most instructive example.
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.