One of their findings is that about 600 genes are involved in the fundamental process of cell division. As one researcher put it, without this type of cell division “nothing happens in life, really.”
It is not surprising that hundreds of genes are involved given how complex is cell division. You can read more about it here, here, here and here. It is also not surprising that evolutionists attempts to explain how it evolved are nothing more than embarrassing stories. You can read more about that here. The hundreds of genes are involved in an absolutely fundamental biological process is yet another example of evolution’s failure to explain biology.
Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDelete"Gene expression, where the DNA is transcribed into an RNA molecule, is exquisitely controlled but so are the many downstream actions as well. For instance, the new RNA molecule can be inactivated by an incredible process referred to as RNA interference. This sophisticated process targets specific genes, and as usual nature’s own tools provide researchers with excellent means to investigate and harness biology."
===
It's always fascinating to read about the complex and sophisticated mechanisms of informationally run nano-machines which accomplish incredible tasks. Of course all of these explanations are extremely slowed for the benefit of the reader to grasp the great sophistication which is involved. The reality of course is that these things work at faster than supercomputer speeds and without any traffic jams.
----
Cornelius Hunter:
"It is also not surprising that evolutionists attempts to explain how it evolved are nothing more than embarrassing stories."
"The hundreds of genes are involved in an absolutely fundamental biological process is yet another example of evolution’s failure to explain biology."
====
It's called FAITH Cornelius , FAITH. Religiosity drives Evolutionists and that is what matters.
Jawn. Another recycled oh-it's-so-complex-therefore-magic-man-dunnit story.
ReplyDeleteActually, no genes at all are required for spontaneous fission of lipid vesicles. Linky Hence no reason to assume that division of primitive cells required anywhere near 600 genes.
BTW, nice picture Eocene. You actually look like a troll. :)
Troy:
ReplyDelete"BTW, nice picture Eocene. You actually look like a troll. :)"
===
Nice nonresponse Troy with your own FAITH-based version of "Dice-Done-It".
CH wrote: The hundreds of genes are involved in an absolutely fundamental biological process is yet another example of evolution’s failure to explain biology.
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is, you know exactly what the explanation is. You've just disingenuously failed to present it to your audience. Furthermore, that today's cells are the same as early cells is an fundamentalist assumption that you share with our audience. You do not need to communicate it directly, so you smuggle into your argument.
At which point you claim that evolution doesn't explain the biological complexity we observe.
Does that about sum it up?
Scott: "At which point you claim that evolution doesn't explain the biological complexity we observe."
ReplyDeleteIf all we need is 'splaining then we can just jot down any old thing in a book and declare human knowledge complete. Some hacks might get up the chutzpah to actually ask for a demonstration.
Since we're now manufacturing artificial genomes in toto (Signed by the authors, no less) there should hardly be any difficulty here in supporting the proposition. What then is the minimum mechanism needed? Let's put it on the lab table and find out.
Eocene
ReplyDelete".. version of "Dice-Done-It".
Works great. I don't like to argue much but may use it sometimes on other forums.
Jquip you should put copyright on it before it's too late.
here is a cool video on mitosis:
ReplyDeleteThe Stages of Mitosis - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGV3fv-uZYI
also of interest:
Getting a tighter grip on cell division - November 2010
The molecular machinery that shepherds and literally pulls the chromosomes apart consists of paired microtubules radiating from opposite poles of the dividing cell and an enormous, but precise, molecular complex called a kinetochore.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-tighter-cell-division.html
Dividing Cells 'Feel' Their Way Out Of Warp
"What we found is an exquisitely tuned mechanosensory system that keeps the cells shipshape so they can divide properly,"
Douglas N. Robinson, Ph.D.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910142402.htm
Dna Molecular Biology Visualizations - Wrapping And Replication - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8NHcQesYl8
troy lives up to his usual uninformed self.
ReplyDeleteHere's some advice troy:
Repeat this sentence to yourself, "I troy, don't have a bloody clue"
- 100 times, or, until you realize that you don't have a bloody clue.
troy again:
ReplyDeleteAnother recycled oh-it's-so-complex-therefore-magic-man-dunnit story.
Lets invert that little piece of doofus logic and ignorance:
"oh-it's-so-complex-therefore-magical-evolution-dunnit story."
There, that's better.
Argument from incredulity did you say? Well it must apply both ways. Indeed, Darwinism is full of them.
When you get enough honesty in you to admit that you might get somewhere.
And by the way, the whole "it's-so-complex-therefore-magic-man-dunnit story." argument is worthless in the light of statistical probabilities applied to cellular machines and structures.
Short example of an arg from statistical mechanics:
All mechanical structures - including bio-structures - are subject to the laws of physics.
Probabilities thus apply as much to biomechanics as to any other mechanics.
(So does entropy. But thats another and very different but insurmountable problem for the Darwinian nonsense.)
Any mechanical composite device must be assembled in order.
Any parts must adhere to the laws of physics as well.
The component parts must have the correct physical propeties for the function of the machine.
Parts require the correct strength, size, shape, rigidity, elasticity, durability, viscosity for heat resistance, etc etc.
Because parts of a machine must work together they create combinatorial dependencies.
Combinatorial dependencies, the more there are of them, the lower the probability of their random assemblage and function.
For any machine composed of say 20 parts the probability of a randomly ordered assembly getting the correct order to form the machine, is extremely low.
Far too low to occur by chance.
Calculating such a prob for a basic problem where order is vital is easy.
It's the same as calculating the P for getting any sequence of objects or numbers in an exact order.
For our 20 part machine, assuming the parts must be assembled in order - which is the case in most machines, that gives:
1/20! ≈ 4,110e-19
Meaning 1 chance in 1 out of 4.11 x 10^19
Or P ≈ 1/41,000,000,000,000,000,000
How's that for "never gonna happen"?
Because the math says so, not incredulity.
No, selection doesn't help here. In fact it has no real existence at this molecular level.
Worse. This little calculation is way off. I included only the P for a random event of getting 20 out of 20 parts in order.
This assumes the parts already exist!!
It also assumes there is a mechanism of assembly.
It also assumes all parts - randomly created of course - are of the correct size and shape to ABLE to be assembled.
Adding all those further improbable events multiplies to low P to many orders of magnitude less than the already humongous improbability!
The worst troy, is that it is Darwinism that uses arguments from incredulity, not ID!!
You do just the same as what you claim IDists do!
i.e. No matter how astronomically low the probability of a chance bio occurrence is, you all put on your tinfoil Darweener caps and sing merrily,
"we don't believe in God or gods
so here's the story, though at odds,
Evolution did it!
Darwin loves me ya ya ya!"
Fail.
Jquip: If all we need is 'splaining then we can just jot down any old thing in a book and declare human knowledge complete.
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of saving time, I'm a critical rationalist and fallibilist. As such, explanations for problems should always result in better questions, rather than a declaration that human knowledge is complete.
Jquip: Some hacks might get up the chutzpah to actually ask for a demonstration.
To which I'd probably ask for an example of having demonstrated anything in particular. You might say, a demonstration of, well, a demonstration.
With that clarification behind us, I'd again note that our current best-explanation for modern day cells is clearly missing from the OP. Given that Corneous is a biologist, such an omission seems rather particular, doesn't it?
Scott: "In the interest of saving time, I'm a critical rationalist and fallibilist."
ReplyDeleteAnd very fine labels, indeed.
"You might say, a demonstration of, well, a demonstration."
In a pure sense? Absolutely correct. Let's go with that then.
"With that clarification behind us, I'd again note that our current best-explanation for modern day cells is clearly missing from the OP."
Then given that we have neither a demostration or a demonstration of a demonstration what are we to conclude? That demonstrations have popped out of the Aether, witnessed by none, or that your labels are simply handy?
This contradiction seems rather particular, doesn't it?
Gary H: For any machine composed of say 20 parts the probability of a randomly ordered assembly getting the correct order to form the machine, is extremely low. Far too low to occur by chance.
ReplyDeleteWe can rule out random assembly. Evolution isn't random by any means.
jquip: And very fine labels, indeed.
ReplyDeleteYes, labels do a fine job of condensing ideas and concepts. In fact, we've several labels have been used on this thread: hack, modern, biologist, human, etc. Sure, there can be difficulties expanding these shortcuts, but this can usually be resolved by clarification.
jquip: In a pure sense? Absolutely correct. Let's go with that then.
In the sense that all observations are theory laden and the problem of using induction to justify theories. However, I'm being redundant here, as these concepts are implied as part of critical rationalism, right?
jquip: That demonstrations have popped out of the Aether, witnessed by none, or that your labels are simply handy?
Are you asking, "If a demonstration isn't a demonstration, then what is it?"
Again, I've already provided "shortcuts" which lay a framework from which to interpret what occurred, should you choose to expand them.
Do I need to spell the entire process out for you?
Gary the yappy little puppy, did you really just use the "all the parts of a cell had to appear simultaneously and spontaneously assemble" argument?
ReplyDeleteThat's the wonderful argument from statistical mechanics you've been crowing about for a year? The one Dembski put forth 15 years ago with his Explanatory Filter example and got laughted right out of science for? The one where you show an understanding of actual evolutionary processes that would get you an F in a Biology 101 course?
Calling you a total idiot is an insult to total idiots. That clunker puts you in a class by yourself.
I'm not sure why Gary's example is irrelevant. Proteins are exquisite little nano-machines. The order of the amino acid sequence can be critical. the order is effected by mutations, which are random.
ReplyDelete#1. I was talking about one protein, not the whole cell.
ReplyDelete#2. The simplest cell has a certain levelof complexity. Life functions don't seem to happen without cells. That would seem to indicate that we need a minimal level of complexity for life to happen. About the level of the simplest cell.
natschuster said...
ReplyDelete#1. I was talking about one protein, not the whole cell.
OK. If you think evolutionary theory posits "all the parts of a protein had to appear simultaneously and spontaneously assemble", then you're just as big an idiot as he is.
troy said...
ReplyDeleteGary:
"[load of standard tornado in a junkyard bs]
Gary, you're a total idiot. "
Thank you.
Fine scientific rebuttal that.
This is of course proof that you are the idiot and a low life worm-tongue as well.
This is not a tornado in junkyard argument either btw. There is no junkyard.
And the tornado analogy is in reference to OOL not darwinism pers se.
Yet, as much as you like trying to suirm out of the OOL problem part of your insane theory, you can't. They must go together. To talk of pre-biotic selection is to talk nonsense - which is your speciality.
See: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archiSee: ves/012411.html
we all know where YOU get your un hum "information" from troy either wikipedia or TO or the multiple mirrors and clones.
But I'd still bet $$ that you, and every other dim darwhiner, here has learned & taken for granted Musgrave's fallacious rebuttal of Hoyle's "fallacy"!!
This just keeps getting better and better troy!
"Your answer has almost nothing to do with statistical mechanics"
ALMOST?
Doh! roftl is the only appropriate response to your "rebuttal"!!!
"and you're incorrectly assuming that evolutionary theory says that organisms are assembled randomly from scratch. ...
yada yda meow meow"
The standard Darwinian Bull Shit
And this also reveals that you know nothing of either statistical mechanics OR of evolution!
I gave you a simple probability 101 version of a simple 20 part protein machine that accomplishes a task.
And what is your response?
You can't even figure that example out!!
The standard Dawinisto BS of "non random" is laughable.
Whatever happened to random mutations + selection?!
Oh, I see. Except its random, except when it isn't random! LOL
Darwinism predicted this and if we see the opposite, well it predicted that too. Iow, it didn't predict anything because it predicted everything LOL
omg, This is so funny and I'd bet $$$ that you still don't get it the glaring contradictions involved in your inane theory!
CH has refuted that little bit of tripe over and over again.
Whats the matter troy? You never can figure it out on your own? Would you like someone to hold your hand and guide your through?
Looks like you're the moron troy, and double so because you understood nothing of my arg. and respond with nothing but hot air, unwarranted insults & your materialist inanities - as always.
How about a valid rebuttal?
Explain how mutations are non random?
Explain how protein sequence assembly instructions are non random in the Darwinian mystique?
Explain where the protein parts come from and how they fold into 3D structures with function?
Explain how an assembly of proteins in precise order arises to create a functional, useful machine?
Explain how the prescriptive information sequence came about in a non random way?
All using the Darwinian scenario.
No guidance, no purpose, no plan, no intelligence allowed.
Can't ... Didn't think so. You're not alone.
Oh, and please continue your unfounded diatribe. It merely proves what we all know about you and Darwinian fundamentalism.
FAIL
Gary the yappy little puppy said...
ReplyDeleteAnd this also reveals that you know nothing of either statistical mechanics OR of evolution!
I gave you a simple probability 101 version of a simple 20 part protein machine that accomplishes a task.
And what is your response?
You can't even figure that example out!!
Au contraire. It allows us to figure out that you're a moron of the first order who doesn't understand the first thing about evolutionary biology.
Why don't you link to a scientific reference that says all the parts of a protein had to simultaneously suddenly appear and self assemble?
Can't ... Didn't think so. You're not alone.
Here's a hint moron - you can't calculate the probability of an iterative, feedback driven process by taking a one time snapshot of the result. You have to account for the effects of the feedback and the history of the process. You didn't do either of those, did you moron?
See yappy puppy, it's stupidity like yours that make watching you IDiots so entertaining.
Tell you what Gary, here's a simple exercise from a course I teach, combining techniques from statistical mechanics and evolution. If you can present a correct solution, I will take back that I called you an idiot and moron.
ReplyDeleteHere it goes:
"Derive a diffusion approximation for the two-allele diploid version of the Wright-Fisher model of selection in a population of size N without mutation. Genotypes AA, AB and BB have relative viabilities 1+s, 1+h*s and 1. What is the probability of fixation for an A allele with initial frequency p0, assuming weak selection?"
Good luck!
troy:
ReplyDeleteFor petes sake you are a funny little person!
Nice try at avoiding the issue altogether.
Sorry, but I don't swallow such inane baiting tactics, requiring expertise in a different area. This is a typical troll tactic.
Would you like me to present with with a similar problem in informatics? My expertise? Hmmm? ... and then call you an idiot and moron because you've no clue what is even being discussed?
Didn't think so.
Go ask John C Sanford what he thinks of your "in depth analysis" (lol) of my simple example or of your irrelevant and insidious population genetics question.
I believe he knows quite a bit more than you on population genetics.
He can be joined over at the theologyweb site
http://www.theologyweb.com
I'll check there to see if you comply and take up the challenge, looking for 'troy'.
The last pop gen scientist I sent there to debate him never came back to the original debate to "prove" his Darwinian explanations were correct as requested
- Sanford trounced him nicely - as he will you.
The bottom line is that you are wrong and have a zero value rebuttal.
This challenge of yours shows a moronic attitude of the highest caliber. Almost as bad as dim witted pseudo-scientist thorton.
Gary the yappy little puppy said...
ReplyDeleteNice try at avoiding the issue altogether.
Sorry, but I don't swallow such inane baiting tactics, requiring expertise in a different area. This is a typical troll tactic
So you admit you have no expertise in statistical mechanics or evolution. Just as we thought.
I believe he knows quite a bit more than you on population genetics.
He can be joined over at the theologyweb site
http://www.theologyweb.com
Go ask John C Sanford what he thinks of your "in depth analysis" (lol) of my simple example or of your irrelevant and insidious population genetics question.
I believe he knows quite a bit more than you on population genetics.
He can be joined over at the theologyweb site
http://www.theologyweb.com
I'll check there to see if you comply and take up the challenge, looking for 'troy'.
The last pop gen scientist I sent there to debate him never came back to the original debate to "prove" his Darwinian explanations were correct as requested
- Sanford trounced him nicely - as he will you.
Actually Sanford has never posted at TWeb Natural Science forum, not as himself anyway. He supposedly made a few comments through his flunky "Jorge" in a thread where his 'Mendel's Accountant' was getting exposed for the flawed piece of crap it is. Jorge/Sanford then bailed out as soon as people began asking hard questions he couldn't answer. That was two years ago, here.
Why you IDCreationists need to lie about this sort of stuff I'll never understand.
Gary:
ReplyDeleteWould you like me to present with with a similar problem in informatics? My expertise? Hmmm? ... and then call you an idiot and moron because you've no clue what is even being discussed?
Go ahead. I think your "expertise" in informatics amounts to about the same level as your knowledge of statistical mechanics and evolution. That is, nothing. You're just a bluffing creationist ignoramus. Prove me wrong boy.
Like you, Sanford is a sadly deluded idiot, who knows slightly more about population genetics than you, but not by much. I've actually read his sadly deluded book, sent to me free of charge by Salvador Cordova, hoping to make me a convert to his sadly deluded ideology. Fat chance.
Back to school moron.
ROTFLMAO troy!
ReplyDeleteAnother great rebuttal there coy boy troy!
Really convincing! Wow!
Sadly it is boorish imbeciles like yourself that are responsible for all idiocy passed off as fact today in the whole of Darwinist owned and run academia.
You are the bare faced liar here. Not I.
Sanford and hundreds of others - far more intelligent than you - are so far ahead of you are only making yourself look more and more pathetic and a ruddy coward as well.
Obviously you have no guts to debate Sanford, Sternberg, Axe, Berlinski or anyone else of that level either. Pitiful.
There is not a single first class intellect among Darwinists.
Thanks for the proof of that.
I could almost feel sorry for you, if you weren't already on the "about to become extinct" list, because of your own adamantly blind materialist bull shitting.
You've just empirically demonstrated that you're an incompetent thinker and a rampallian misophist to boot.
EOF is stamped all over you & your pitiful fairy tale based pseudo-theory, but you're too willfully blind to see it.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the iterative process have to provide a benefit for each iteration, or there won't be a feedback loop? And don't we have to have some idea about how long it will take before we know it will work?
Gary:
ReplyDeleteSanford and hundreds of others - far more intelligent than you - are so far ahead of you are only making yourself look more and more pathetic and a ruddy coward as well.
If you buy into Sanford's thoroughly refuted young-earth-genetic-deterioration bull, then you're a sad sack. I would pity you except for the fact that you are an insufferable ignorant blowhard. So I just laugh at you: bwahaha!
Gary the lying little puppy said...
ReplyDeleteYou are the bare faced liar here. Not I.
But you are the guy who just got caught lying about how Sanford was posting at TheologyWeb and how Sanford 'trounced' a poster you sent there to debate him.
Once again you prove true the words of William Bennett
"In all of these efforts (to push Creationism), the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must."
You're just carrying on an old Creationist tradition.