Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Cellular Polarity

In recent years bacteria have been found to be more complex than evolutionists anticipated. For instance, the cell's protein machines are found at specific locations, such as one end or the other, within the cell rather than randomly strewn about. Given the incredible complexity found across the spectrum in biology's life forms, a high degree of intracellular organization in bacteria hardly seems surprising. But for evolutionists, life is a fluke. As one evolutionist put it, bacteria are typically viewed as unstructured “bags of enzymes.”

It is remarkable that such a view could persist given what has been known for decades. Indeed, even before so many of the molecular and cellular mechanisms were elucidated biology's high complexity could be inferred.

It is a testament to the blinding effect of evolution that even recently bacteria could be viewed as unstructured “bags of enzymes.”

And it is yet another example of evolution's "life is a fluke" blunder that has played out over and over. The history of evolution is full of false leads and surprises. "We once thought it was so simple ..." is the evolutionary refrain, followed by "isn't evolution incredible." As leading evolutionist Bruce Alberts admitted in 1998:

We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naive as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB—and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. … But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. […]

Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like the machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. Within each protein assembly, intermolecular collisions are not only restricted to a small set of possibilities, but reaction C depends on reaction B, which in turn depends on reaction A—just as it would in a machine of our common experience. […]

We have also come to realize that protein assemblies can be enormously complex. … As the example of the spliceosome should make clear, the cartoons thus far used to depict protein machines (e.g., Figure 1) vastly underestimate the sophistication of many of these remarkable devices. [Cell 92:291-294]

Yes, the cell is sophisticated, but evolutionists would continue with their "life is a fluke" assumption. And they would continue to be astounded. As one researcher exclaimed a decade later, “It’s amazing to us. We thought the cell was so simple.” Religion drives science and it matters.

15 comments:

  1. Cornelius,
    The article you cite states that bacteria WERE viewed as "bags of enzymes", not "are" as you claim. perhaps you want to change this or else be accused of misrepresentation?
    scientific failure drives Cornelius, and it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yet again, you misunderstand that science is about discovery. Much like the rest of your creationist arguments, this post uses our previous understandings of the world as if they were still valid.

    The reason why science had been surprised about complexity is that the world is complex; and the more we dig in the more we need to discover. The good news is that there are more disciplines attempting to fill in all the gaps as we discover them.

    You should not take this as a weakness since you offer up no alternative other than to give up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just love how the evolutionists get so upset at your posts. The proof is in the pudding. They cant even see that their counter arguements are driven by religion as well!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Richard,
    please explain why our responses to this post were religious, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, you seem to profess a faith that science will answer the questions someday. The response to questions of origins that evolution isn't explaining adequately, is inevitably, "we have faith that science will answer these quesions someday."

    ReplyDelete
  6. please tell me where exactly anything like that statement was professed in our comments.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The good news is that there are more disciplines attempting to fill in all the gaps as we discover them."

    Wasn't this meant as an expression of faith in the ability of science to "fill the gaps"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. does the word "attempting" mean anything to you? does that sound like absolute certainty of success to you?

    ReplyDelete
  9. so you are admitting that you just dont know. that science is attempting to fill the gaps. you have faith that they might fill these gaps. if not, you will never have your answers and science has failed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. i have no problem saying I don't know and might never know. for example, we might never know why ketchup thins when you apply sudden force to it. but even if we don't, at least we'll try and will probably find out some interesting things along the way. pretty hardcore religious attitude, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Khan, i can that when someone points out your religous themes you get heated and just miss the point. you counter argue about ketchup and not your underlying leaps of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  12. well, this is pointless. if saying "I don't know, we might never know, but we'll try" is religious call me Friar Tuck.

    ReplyDelete
  13. People have told me that they have fatih in science to eventually find all the answers.
    That's faith based.

    And saying that "I don't know" is a better answer than "God did it" sounds like theology to me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This website is an intellectual desert.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This website is an intellectual dessert! You left out an 's'!

    ReplyDelete