Posted on 09/19/2003 6:16:30 PM PDT by gore3000
The discovery of split genes brought Richard Robert and Phil Sharp the [1993]Prize. This came late in the examination of DNA because most early DNA research was done on bacteria which do not have split genes. In multi-cellular organisms though split genes are the rule rather than the exception. The whole area between the start and end of the gene is transcribed by the messenger RNA, after transcription an additional step cuts off the DNA which is not needed to make the protein. The mRNA is then spliced back together for making the protein. This work is accomplished by a set of proteins called snRNAs. This process allows the body to re-use the same DNA to make different proteins through alternative splicing. In this manner the human body can make some 100,000 proteins with only some 30,000 genes. There are at least 100 proteins involved in the process of mRNA splicing [1993a].
Edward Lewis, Christiane Nusslein-Volhard and Eric F. Wieschaus won the [1995] Prize for discoveries regarding early embryonic development. They looked at the homeobox genes (shortened to Hox genes) of the fly and found that they were arranged in the same sequence as that in which development of the fly occurred. Through the use of induced mutations they established the parts of the fly controlled by each gene. Upon destroying the functioning of one gene, they got a fly with four wings. This was caused by the developmental sequence skipping over the mutated gene and transcribing the following gene in its place. The two extra wings replaced the hateres of the fly which serve as stabilizers in flight, much the same way as the tail wings of a plane serve as stabilizers. The extra wings however were utterly non-functional.
This discovery shows several important points. The development of an embryo follows a predetermined programmatic set of steps. That is why when a gene was rendered nonfunctional, the next gene did not do what it normally does. It also shows that a feature, in this case the two new wings, requires more than a single change for it to be useful. The extra wings did not improve on the flying ability of the fly, they decreased it because the hateres served a useful purpose and the new wings were just useless baggage. The following shows that the non-coding DNA is not only an essential part of the development process, but the major part of it:
The [1997] Prize went to Stanley Prusiner for the discovery of the prion, the protein which when folded incorrectly produces mad cow disease and other nervous system disorders. Prion proteins are present in numerous species, but their exact purpose is undetermined as yet. The mutant form of the protein, differing from the normal one only in the way it folds, is very resilient to many agents which normally dissolve other proteins and can withstand extreme heat. For this reason, even cooking meat infected with mutant prions will not kill them, they thus will infect the individual eating it. Prion infection makes the normal prion proteins in the body fold abnormally thus spreading the disease.
Gunter Blobel's discovery of the methods behind cell signaling won him the [1999] Prize. The cell itself as well as the nucleus, the mitochondria and other organelles are surrounded by membranes which keep out undesired substances and keep in desired ones. Passage in and out is done through specified channels which only permit passage of desired substances. To achieve passage proteins require a signal sequence of ~15 amino acids, usually at the beginning, which acts as a 'passport' enabling the protein to pass through. " Each signal sequence is membrane specific and is decoded by a complex machinery that is restricted in its location to one particular cellular membrane."[1999a].
Leland H. Hartwell, R. Timothy (Tim) Hunt and Paul M. Nurse won the [2001] Prize for their discoveries of key regulators of the cell cycle. Hartwell found over 100 genes involved in the control of the cell cycle [2001a]. There are four phases in the cell cycle. In the first the cell starts to grow( G1), in the second it replicates the DNA (S) , it then checks the duplication (G2), the chromosomes separate (M), and lastly the cell divides. At each of these steps there are checkpoints that determine if the previous step has been successfully completed and repairs are made. The steps in the cycle are likewise regulated and occur in the designed order. The two main sets of molecules involved in the cell cycle, CDK and cyclins act as an engine and gears idling or driving the cell cycle forward. This complex system insures proper cell replication which otherwise would lead to cancer and other serious problems.
Sydney Brenner's, H. Robert Horvitz's and John E. Sulston's discovery of genetic development and programmed cell death in the nematode c.elegans won them the [2002] Prize. This small worm has two qualities which made it attractive for developmental research - a small size of only 959 cells and transparency, which made it easy to see its development. One of the surprising discoveries was that during the development cycle the worm destroys exactly 131 cells it had previously made. The studies showed that the developmental process does not vary in any way, all the worms went through the same program of cell division and differentiation and that the death of some cells is specifically programmed. The death genes as well as a gene which prevents cell death were identified.
In all the above we see not randomness, not fortuitousness, not gradualness of system development, but essential functionality, specificity, and complexity. More than half of the above discoveries were made in simple unicellular organisms. The entire systems are clearly essential for even the simplest of living things since they control the essential functions of life, development and reproduction. They are requirements, not fortuitous occurrences and could in no way have 'developed' but had to exist from the beginnings of life. The more advanced organisms likewise require the more advanced systems such as the ones for correctly transcribing split genes, restriction enzymes, cholesterol metabolism, cell signaling, the well regulated immune system and most importantly programmed cell development. Most importantly, each system is not an isolate, but an essential and integral part of the larger system - the living organism. Each new discovery also shows the hopelessness of the undesigned explanations. With each new discovery we find more complexity, more necessary functions, and more proteins required for functions which had already been discovered.
We are easily inclined to hold an exaggerated opinion of ourselves in this era of advanced technology. Thus, we are justified in having a great admiration for the achievements in electronics, where, for example, the attempts at miniaturization to reduce component size, to lower the weight, and reduce the volume of apparatus have enabled a rapid development of space science. However, we should bear in mind that, millions of years ago, nature perfected systems far surpassing all that the inventive genius of man has been able to conceive hitherto. A single living cell, measuring several thousandths of a millimetre, contains hundreds of thousands of chemical control circuits, exactly harmonized and functioning infallibly. It is hardly possible to improve on miniaturization further; we are dealing here with a level where the components are single molecules.
[1965]Nope, I have not abandoned faith. I am showing that science does not disprove religion. As to calling Nobel Prize winning scientific discoveries bad science, well, what is there to say?
Probably science and religion won't be assimilated anytime soon into a single coherent system. It's not a case of choosing one or the other, they are concerned with entirely different aspects of our existence and our world. Nevertheless, there are Christian and other religious groups that presently attempt to combine them to some degree. Such combining is not done seamlessly in most cases and requires a higher awareness which is usually achieved only after much study or inspiration. Most people don't have the spare time or live long enough to achieve a fusion but end up mired in huge philosophical books in foreign languages.
Anyway, it's good to present these threads on the beginning of the weekend when people may have more time for serious reflection.
Probably not. However, I do think that since science is about discovering the ways of the Creator it is not incompatible with religion as many great scientists who were Christians thought.
My attempt here is far more humble. I am just trying to show that science does not refute God and is not incompatible with religion as many claim.
Thanks for the kind words.
Of course it does for several reasons. One is that developing a new function, any new function, requires numerous mutations in just the right way. Two is that unlike what evolution requires - that each change be beneficial - the article shows very well that you need an entire system for many important functions thus the changes accomplish nothing until they have all occurred. This disproves evolution.
Third, in spite of evolutionists claiming it does not, abiogenesis and evolution are tied together at the umbilical chord. If one goes, the other goes. The impossibility of abiogenesis ever having occurred destroys evolution also.
Your Motors Perform Cooperative Interactions 09/18/2003
The motor that powers all life, often called a “splended molecular machine,” looks even more splendid due to research by Caltech and French scientists. It has parts that help each other out. ATP synthase, which we have reported on frequently before (see 11/15/2002 headline), is a true rotary motor, and probably the most abundant enzyme on earth. Its job is to generate ATP, the energy currency of life. “Because of the importance of this enzyme, the search for a full understanding of its mechanism is a key problem in structural biology,” they state in their PNAS paper.1 They found that the structure of the six-lobed F1 upper unit, where ATP is catalyzed from ADP and phosphate, actually is tuned to enhance the productivity of the system.
Most living things have the F0-F1-ATPase model, composed of an upper and lower mechanism joined by a camshaft and some other parts, although there are variations in some bacteria. The six lobes of the F1 motor, arranged in pairs like orange slices around the camshaft, form three catalytic sites where ATP is synthesized. The researchers did thermodynamic and kinetic modeling of these structures and found that the shapes of the sites change as the camshaft rotates in a way that enhances productivity. Each pair of lobes cycles through three stages as the shaft turns: (1) insertion of ADP + P, (2) catalysis of ATP, and (3) ejection of the product. Each stage is not only finely tuned for its job, but actually stimulates the adjoining pair of lobes to do its job better: e.g., at stage one, the shape of the lobes causes the reaction in stage two of the adjoining lobes to accelerate. The reaction in stage two speeds up the ejection of product in stage three, and so on. Overall, this enhances the productivity of the system by a factor of 300 or more than would occur if a pair of lobes had to work alone. This and the rotation of the camshaft enhances productivity by a factor of 500,000.
They mention some other interesting facts about ATP synthase in passing. Each motor (and your body has quadrillions of them) can hydrolyze from 40 to 600 ATP per second. With three ATP per revolution, that translates to 12,000 RPM at top speed. Without these enzymes, it would take 500,000,000 times as long for ATP to hydrolyze in solution. Though they studied primarily the hydrolysis cycle, the synthesis reaction, driven by an electric current (proton flow) in the lower F0 subunit, is similarly accelerated because of the efficient mechanical arrangement of the parts.
1Gao, Yang, Marcus and Karplus, “A model for the cooperative free energy transduction and kinetics of ATP hydrolysis by F1-ATPase,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.1334188100, published online 09/18/2003.
This is one of our favorite cell toys, because it is so exquisite, so small, so efficient, and so essential to all life, even the simplest single-celled organisms. As each new fact comes to light, it looks even more wondrous. Your car roars at 4,000 RPM; imagine these little motors, embedded in the mitochondrial membranes of all the cells in your body, humming along at up to 12,000 RPM. The efficiency of these motors nears 100%, because they are able to harness the random bumps of Brownian motion into ratchet-like boosts, so that no energy is wasted generating power for your body’s needs (see Feb. 5 headline about your body’s electrical power plant). Each day your body recycles at least half your body weight in ATP through these splended molecular machines.
A picture is worth a thousand words; download Wolfgang Junge’s cool animation rotary ATP synthase and watch a model of how it works in slo-mo. After years of intense research, there is still much to learn. The structure and mechanism of the lower F0 subunit, which turns like a waterwheel under proton flow and activates the camshaft, remains to be understood. Running constantly day and night, 24 x 7, these machines perform an absolutely essential function. The exquisite shapes of the numerous protein components of this molecular motor defy a naturalistic explanation; where is the plausible sequence of intermediates that could lead to such perfection? ATP synthase is a marvelous example of irreducible complexity, prima facie evidence for intelligent design. As usual, the authors make no mention of evolution in their paper. Who would dare?
Millions of years ago nature perfected systems??
Why would you include this quote at the end of an article in which you claim to convince someone that evolution is impossible? Aside from the issue of the validity of evolutionary theory, it is bad form to end a persuasive essay with a statement that contradicts your "thesis" (I put this in quotes because if you look at part I you will see that he never bothered to actually formulate a thesis statement).
This quote from Nobel Prize winner François Jacob does show however, that the scientists who's work gore3000 is praising actually believe the opposite of gore3000.
You've set a ridiculously easy task for yourself. Since science does not purport to disprove religion your goal was accomplished before your birth.
Thanks for the great post yourself. I knew about it, and it is one of the systems essential for animal life, but unfortunately for this article, its discovery has not received a Nobel Prize (yet!). The making of ATP - the energy of life is the essential function of the mitochondria in all animal cells. This puts a problem for evolution, not just because of its complexity, but because it is completely different from the energy system of plants which is derived from photosynthesis. This makes evolution of animals from plants (which would have been necessary since animals need plants for food) impossible.
Evolution and evolutionists claim it does. I am glad you agree with me that science does not disprove Christianity. I would go further though, I would say that science disproves evolution.
What they believe is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves. That an evolutionist has to admit to the fantastic design of life is worth tons more than if it came from someone opposed to evolution.
Ummmmmmmmmm he didn't admit that, he said "millions of years ago, nature perfected systems"
All the examples he gives are of intelligent design:
Thus, we are justified in having a great admiration for the achievements in electronics, where, for example, the attempts at miniaturization to reduce component size, to lower the weight, and reduce the volume of apparatus have enabled a rapid development of space science.
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.