Details Of Nuclear Pore Complex With Spin

_{idnet.com.au
January 31, 2008

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

(Credit: Image courtesy of Rockefeller University)

From ScienceDaily (Jan. 30, 2008) A cell’s membrane-bound nucleus uses hundreds to thousands of nuclear pores as its gatekeepers, selective membrane channels that are responsible for regulating the material that goes to and from a cell’s DNA. Rockefeller scientists have nailed down the first complete molecular picture of this huge, 450-protein pore and their findings provide a glimpse into how the nucleus itself first evolved.

The group gathered and analyzed massive amounts of data to come up with a rough draft of the structure of the nuclear pore.

The scientists’ results have given them a peek into the early evolution of eukaryotic cells. Compartmentalization was made possible by membranes and coating complexes, which act “like little hands” to grab, shape and stabilize membranes.

“We think that once the cells gained this coating complex, they ran with it and started to duplicate it and specialize it,”

“Evolution is a process of duplication and divergence,” Rockefeller professor Michael Rout says. He and his colleagues saw clear evidence of this. For every protein, there was another one that looked quite similar. “These are evidence of duplication events, showing that the evolution of the complicated nuclear pore was a more straightforward affair than previously thought. It’s made of many different variations of a theme of just one unit.”

“The nuclear pore is the communication device that the nucleus uses to communicate with the rest of the cell. And if you don’t understand how that works, you don’t understand a key part of how the cell works. You have to see the cell as a machine and understand all of its parts.”

refs Nature 450(7170): 683–694 (November 29, 2007): Nature 450(7170): 695–701 (November 29, 2007) Watch the movie here.

Comments

DLH, I appreciate all the hard work you put into describing all your thinking here. However, I do not see how your hypothesis from a 'teleological point of view' or from a reverse engineering point of view differs from a non-teleological point of view or from a non-reverse engineering point of view (by the way, I think you are using the term 'reverse engineering differently from how I understand it). In any case, also from a biological point of view people wonder why pores and membranes are used. People try to figure out functions of the nuclear pore, try to discover the way transport is regulated and what bearing that has on cellular functions. Case in point, this research group. Obviously, these researchers don't have a teleological point of view. Yet, if you, for example, look through the publication record of Michael Rout, the principal author of the study, you will find mounds of papers dealing with the regulation of transport and the mechanistical/functional study of the NPC.
Thus, reverse engineering process begins to identify possible design principles such as: [...]
What you are identifying here don't sound like design principles to me, but mere like potential functions of a membrane in an organisms.
Regarding DNA and NPCs, the next step could be to explore what requirements there are for regulating Na, K, & Ca ions within the nucleus, and/or buffering the nucleus from such changes within the cytoplasm, as needed for DNA replication, expression, cell division etc.
DLH, this is really a little shocking to me. I can only conclude that you still have not found the time to study a single paper on the nuclear pore complex. The nuclear pore complex is freely permeable to proteins of the size of roughly 30kd. Thus, ions, which are many of orders of magnitudes smaller than such proteins diffuse freely through the numerous pores.
We can broaden the hypothesis to state: 3) The Nuclear Pore Complex and relate transport karyopherin mechanisms are irreducibly complex.
Again, how can you assert this without even having read a single paper on the nuclear pore complex? (I assume that you did not read a single paper since you were unaware of the fact that ions can freely diffuse across the NPC, a fact that is general mentioned in every single introduction to the NPC.)
Then we can compare the capability of both ID and Neo-Darwinism to describe nature and to predict it.
So what could we predict from you modified hypothesis 3)? Let's assume for a second that we actually confirmed that the NPC is irreducibly complex. With that information in hand, what predictions can we make? And how do these differ from the predictions and hypothesis that the 'non-teleological' researchers of this study (or other researchers) made?hrun0815_{February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

See Daniel Stoffler's The Nuclear Pore Complex page and publications Getting across the nuclear pore complex: new insights into nucleocytoplasmic transport. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 2006, 84:499-507. Daniel Stoffler, Kyrill Schwarz-Herion, Ueli Aebi, and Birthe Fahrenkrog Stoffler states:
Employing time-lapse atomic force microscopy (AFM) of native Xenopus oocyte NEs in buffer solution, the repeated opening and closing of the nuclear baskets in response to adding and removing micromolar amounts of calcium was monitored (Fig. 3), an event most likely involving the basket's distal ring acting as a calcium-sensitive iris-like diaphragm (Stoffler et al., 1999).
DLH_{February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

hrun0815
"Of course NPCs are essential to eukaryotic cell function. To be a eukaryotic cell you need (by definition) a nucleus, and without a pore in the nuclear envelop, there be no communication between the cytoplasm and the nucleus. How in the world is a teleological view necessary to come up with that hypothesis?"
Apologies, I was getting ahead of myself. I first need to begin to lay the foundations and show the process of reverse engineering that eventually comes up with such design conclusions. I agree that from observation and classification, eukaryotic cells have a nucleus, that consequently all materials must go through it, and thus nuclear pore complexes are essential in eukaryotic cells. From the teleological question and reverse engineering, the next question is WHY are membranes and pores used? The nucleus and cell walls appear to support or control strong gradients in Sodium and Potassium, and Calcium. e.g., Dr. Howard Glicksman explores Wired for Much More than Sound–Neurons and How They Work showing tenfold differences between intracellular and extracellular sodium and potassium concentrations - and very detailed changes in them as neurons fire etc. There is also a very complex transport mechanism across the nuclear pore complex. e.g. Review Mechanisms of Receptor-Mediated Nuclear Import and Nuclear Export Lucy F. Pemberton1 and Bryce M. Paschal, Traffic, Volume 6 Issue 3 Page 187-198, March 2005 These transport mechanisms are largely uncoupled: See Passive and Facilitated Transport in Nuclear Pore Complexes Is Largely Uncoupled* Bracha Naim et al. J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 282, Issue 6, 3881-3888, February 9, 2007 This gives some clues as to what do the cell and nuclear walls and nuclear pore complex do. e.g., Is there a major primary task of regulating - or buffering - the sodium potassium and calcium concentrations, which in turn regulate other processes? If so, then is the transport of all the macromolecules across the wall a necessary but secondary function? Or is the Nuclear Pore Complex an active regulator of those as well? Thus, reverse engineering process begins to identify possible design principles such as: 1) Regulate systems. 2) Provide neuron communications between systems to communicate regulatory signals. 3) Regulate cellular functions. To do this 4) Regulate Sodium, Potassium and/or Calcium ions. Consequently: 5) Form a cell wall and a nuclear wall to maintain the ion gradients. 6) Provide nuclear pore complexes capable of regulating the Na, K and Ca ions. To provide communication between the nucleus, the cytoplasm, and outside the cell, we then need to: 7) Provide transport mechanisms to reliably transport macromolecules across the nuclear and cell walls. etc. Thus, we begin to take the data available, and formulate it into design principles and consequent design parameters. From such design methods, we can develop statements relating to nuclear pores being essential to processes. In this latter case, to neural activity and regulation. Regarding DNA and NPCs, the next step could be to explore what requirements there are for regulating Na, K, & Ca ions within the nucleus, and/or buffering the nucleus from such changes within the cytoplasm, as needed for DNA replication, expression, cell division etc. We can broaden the hypothesis to state: 3) The Nuclear Pore Complex and relate transport karyopherin mechanisms are irreducibly complex. Numerous sites comment on some protein being essential to a nuclear pore process. e.g. Nuclear pore These could be gathered to support this hypothesis of irreducible complexity. (Does anyone have a good reference detailing which proteins have been identified as "essential" these functions?) Then we can compare the capability of both ID and Neo-Darwinism to describe nature and to predict it. DLH_{February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

As to my assertions of Matzke, NAS influence, the commands did go out and examples were made for single words in a research paper. If that is not pathetic what is? The researcher was flabbergasted at the suggestion. This is my major point, which I failed to make clearly. I think the researchers are certainly influenced by NAS most recent preaching of the Darwinian Church. To what degree I cannot determine. But I felt the last addtion I read was obvious.
I bet you'd be surprised at how few researchers have even heard of Nick Matzke. In either case, as I have explained before: These researchers published a complete paper on the evolutionary connection between the simple coated vesicles and NPCs. Have you read it yet? How do you make the assertion that they only incorporate 'single words in research paper' and that they don't any 'factual data'? I don't want to argue with you about if they are right or not. But your assertions can clearly not be squared with the facts.
This shows clearly contradictory statments with other statments. One of assumptions for unguided evolutionary processes appearing in multiple places without any proof. One of obvious Design, not just metaphorical, or symbolic, but extremely important to learning how NPC functions.
How so? What statements does that not square with? These researchers study the function of the NPC and it's orgins/relation to the coated vesicle proteins. They do both. They publish papers on both.
That last statement is crucial. Evolutionary historical statements are entirely meaningless in this research.
Again, this statement just shows that you did not read the nature papers or the PlOS paper. The connection between the function of the NPC and the origin from more primitive coated vesicles is discussed in great detail.
I’ll share the links when I have more time, but I’m surprised you’re not familiar with the pronouncements from on high.
Even if you were to find such links, how do you square that with the fact that these researchers actually published a complete paper solely on the evolutionary connection of the NPC and coated vesicle? Do you think they invested years of research and writing because of Nick Matzke's marching orders?
I guess, what you’re stating, is Darwinist camp leaders guidelines are ignored by researchers and Darwin disciples. That they think indpendently and not by consensus. Fair enough, maybe you’re right. I’ll given them credit for recognizing the only way they’ll figure out how the NPC works is to think with clarity of it as a well designed machine in function, not just in appearance. Frankly, I don’t understand the juggling act.
What juggling act? If you want to study how the NPC works, you study how it works-- designed by humans, God or evolution. If you want to study how it evolved, you study how it's components came about from more primitive precursors. In this case, the study of the precursors actually aided in studying the function-- as is clearly outlined in the papers. hrun0815 - I'm taking you off the moderation list. Please continue to be a courteous and reasonable critic. hrun0815_{February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Hrun, thx for the link. Quick corrections on my part, a typo. "pathetic it is researchers must throw in Evo did it" no way would I call them or their work pathetic. I think its excellent work. Typing to fast and in a hurry. But I do consider the increased rhetoric for evolutionary causes without factual data passed down from the leadership to all Darwin disciples to be a pathetic attempt to continue a failed research paradigm. Also, I realized it was your example on the railroad when I resonded, but typed in "they" As to my assertions of Matzke, NAS influence, the commands did go out and examples were made for single words in a research paper. If that is not pathetic what is? The researcher was flabbergasted at the suggestion. This is my major point, which I failed to make clearly. I think the researchers are certainly influenced by NAS most recent preaching of the Darwinian Church. To what degree I cannot determine. But I felt the last addtion I read was obvious. Comparisons to other scaffolding can easily be common design, but I'll give that to you they can go with old assumptions of Darwinian logic that convergence takes place randomly for unfunctional purposes. I'll read more and get back to you on my thoughts of NPC, complexity and importance of it as communication/security director for myriads of interactions in the nucleaus. As in their own admission: "The nuclear pore is the communication device that the nucleus uses to communicate with the rest of the cell. And if you don’t understand how that works, you don’t understand a key part of how the cell works. And if you don’t understand that, you can’t completely understand how cancers work or how a single cell turns into a human being, or how a single grain of wheat turns into a whole crop. You have to see the cell as a machine and understand all of its parts." This shows clearly contradictory statments with other statments. One of assumptions for unguided evolutionary processes appearing in multiple places without any proof. One of obvious Design, not just metaphorical, or symbolic, but extremely important to learning how NPC functions. That last statement is crucial. Evolutionary historical statements are entirely meaningless in this research. Comparison is good! Remember, I stated that and believe it helps, but historical comparisons for purpose of continuing the goo to you rhetoric is definitely overstated even at the very beginning. But then, they know their audience. And they know that the leaders of consensus thinking have indeed put out the forceful request to fill research papers with evolutionary claims. I'll share the links when I have more time, but I'm surprised you're not familiar with the pronouncements from on high. I'm not making it up. That as evolutionist like to say, is a fact. I guess, what you're stating, is Darwinist camp leaders guidelines are ignored by researchers and Darwin disciples. That they think indpendently and not by consensus. Fair enough, maybe you're right. I'll given them credit for recognizing the only way they'll figure out how the NPC works is to think with clarity of it as a well designed machine in function, not just in appearance. Frankly, I don't understand the juggling act.Michaels7_{February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

bFast: "This would be like considering a mechanical device, say a bicycle, and grouping all of the nuts together, or all of the bearings. Once we do this sort of grouping, the bicycle doesn’t have very many parts." Well put. It's too bad that great research so often gets cannibalized by silly attempts to imagine some evolutionary sequence behind the system in question. This is just another example of Darwin's fallacy of looking at similarities and assuming that he had proof of a historical sequence.Eric Anderson_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

So is it more important to “see the cell as a machine and understand all of its parts” or is it more important to recognize that the machine is the product of random variation and natural selection? Hmmm.
bfast. Obviously, both are important. Without one, we could not understand the workings of the NPC and without the other we could not understand the relationship between the coatamer and the NPC.
This suggests narrowing hypothesis 1) to Eukaryotic cells as having nuclei, but broadening the importance to all cell functions involving DNA expression plus additional functions with much to still be identified. i.e. 1) Nuclear pores are essential to eukaryotic cell function.
Of course NPCs are essential to eukaryotic cell function. To be a eukaryotic cell you need (by definition) a nucleus, and without a pore in the nuclear envelop, there be no communication between the cytoplasm and the nucleus. How in the world is a teleological view necessary to come up with that hypothesis?
When researchers do amazing things and discover wonderful designs in cells, they feel compelled to bow their knee to the great Evolutionary Designer. If they do not science, and their grants, will be threatened and people may bow and worship at the feet of the Other God.
Why do you write that they feel compelled to do so? These researchers published a stand-alone paper on the evolution of the NPC. Obviously, they do not believe this is spin nor do they believe that they are paying lip-service to make sure their grants are not threatened. To do that, it certainly would not have been necessary to publish a whole paper, just dealing with evolution. Maybe we just have to recognize that this team of researchers who did this wonderful study, actually believes that evolution is correct and that this research was done from a 'non-teleological' perspective.hrun0815_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

When researchers do amazing things and discover wonderful designs in cells, they feel compelled to bow their knee to the great Evolutionary Designer. If they do not science, and their grants, will be threatened and people may bow and worship at the feet of the Other God.idnet.com.au_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

Richard Wozniak notes:
To enter the nucleus and access the DNA all molecules must travel through elaborate macromolecular gateways termed nuclear pore complexes (NPCs) embedded in the nuclear envelope. Passage of a protein through this portal requires specific amino acid sequences that are recognized by a class of transporters we term karyopherins, which bind to these sequences and escort the proteins through the NPC. ...In yeast, 14 separate karyopherins have been identified, each of which is believed to transport separate, but overlapping, groups of cargoes.
These karyopherin transporters appear to be an essential complement to the nuclear pore complexes.DLH_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Maximiliano D'Angelo says nuclear pores "are the biggest protein structures within a cell and control the entire traffic in and out of the cell's nucleus, from tiny molecules such as histones, which bind DNA, to huge structures such as ribosomes," This suggests narrowing hypothesis 1) to Eukaryotic cells as having nuclei, but broadening the importance to all cell functions involving DNA expression plus additional functions with much to still be identified. i.e. 1) Nuclear pores are essential to eukaryotic cell function.DLH_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Richard C. Wozniak summarizes: Cell Cycle-Specific Functions of the Nuclear Pore Complex
Richard Wozniak is investigating the molecular basis for regulating the transport of macromolecules across the nuclear envelope, in particular, how nuclear pore complexes differentially regulate this transport at distinct points in the cell cycle. In addition, he is attempting to further define the role of nuclear pore complexes in influencing chromatin structure and the segregation of chromosomes during mitosis.
Note the numerous very important transport, regulatory and other functions of the nuclear pores.DLH_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

So is it more important to "see the cell as a machine and understand all of its parts" or is it more important to recognize that the machine is the product of random variation and natural selection? Hmmm.bFast_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Fascinating summary in the Sciencedaily article:
"The nuclear pore is the communication device that the nucleus uses to communicate with the rest of the cell. And if you don’t understand how that works, you don’t understand a key part of how the cell works. And if you don’t understand that, you can’t completely understand how cancers work or how a single cell turns into a human being, or how a single grain of wheat turns into a whole crop. You have to see the cell as a machine and understand all of its parts.”
(emphasis added.)DLH_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

And a claim of historic evolutionary process is bogus additions due to the Nick Matzke brow beating of all scientist to add qualifiers in every research paper. And NAS has sent down the commands from on high now as well to join the Matzke propaganda push.
So you think that these researchers were brow-beaten into writing up a whole paper on the evolutionary connections between coated vesicles and the NPC? Here is the link you were asking for: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020380
I predict NPC will be more complex than the IC flagellum.
And on what basis do you predict this? I assume you did not read the Nature papers, since otherwise you would have found the PLoS link as well. I'm not saying that I disagree about which of the two might be 'more complex' (I honestly don't know how you would even determine which one of the two structures is more complex). I'm just wondering on what you base prediction.
Sometimes I think how pathetic researchers must throw in “Evo did it” to satisfy their overlords like atheist Eugenie Scott or Matzke. Might as well be doing research under Stalin sometimes when a geologist warns micro-biology scientist about single words in their papers. How pathetic is that?
Again, do you know these researchers? On what basis do you come to the conclusion that these 'pathetic researchers' where compelled by anything other than their own motivation?
The analogy of a railroad I believe might be misleading although I can understand why they might use it. I’ve thought about other machine mechanisms for circular I/O port entries and will follow up later.
THEY didn't use that analogy-- I did. I was clarifying for bfast that the NPC actually contains only about 30 different proteins, but all of them in multiple copies. I'm sure there are better analogies, but I would assume that the best would still be if bfast actually went back and read the papers.hrun0815_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

#6, then why do they still call it a blackbox? They're guessing at how it works on a "teeny bit of insight." And a claim of historic evolutionary process is bogus additions due to the Nick Matzke brow beating of all scientist to add qualifiers in every research paper. And NAS has sent down the commands from on high now as well to join the Matzke propaganda push. At every opportunity, propagandize the people on evolution. "bottom-up" processes are mentioned as another key-word. Truth is Design can allow, halt, alter and encourage bottom-up processes. I predict NPC will be more complex than the IC flagellum. I also predict engineers will learn more ways to distribute information for crucial design steps in the future as they peer deeper into the "black box." Beware the wabbit. Evolutionist call it simple without knowing how it functions or works. I have found that whenever neo-darwinians make pronouncements in favor of their cherished assumptions, it is best to look in opposite directions for other evidence. But, I don't do it "blindly." I'm curious. Are you willing to predict the NPC is less complex than the flagellum? Are you willing to predict less Engineering Design revolutions will be learned from NPC? Remember, each has similar functions. They must change directions. Each must signal processes. But the NPC has to reject radicals. It likely functions as a traffic director more like I/O processors on a computer, not a train, or much like hydromechanical CVTs, or dual clutches. It may fully read all traffic backwards and forwards, thus the need for similar, but inner/outer walls, 8/8, and it surely must recognize more signals than the flagellum. Sometimes I think how pathetic researchers must throw in "Evo did it" to satisfy their overlords like atheist Eugenie Scott or Matzke. Might as well be doing research under Stalin sometimes when a geologist warns micro-biology scientist about single words in their papers. How pathetic is that? Ooops, didn't add that materialist assumption at the end! Describing a remarkable machine they can't begin to duplicate, much less understand yet. Where they spend millions in computer technology, engineers and decades of time to get to this point. Sure, its "simple." The analogy of a railroad I believe might be misleading although I can understand why they might use it. I've thought about other machine mechanisms for circular I/O port entries and will follow up later. Please provide a PLoS link. Thanks.Michaels7_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

If I understand the article and video correctly, “their findings provide a glimpse into how the nucleus itself first evolved” points to their discovery that the 450 proteins involved can be grouped into 30 classes of protein where each of the proteins in the class are similar.
Sorry, you don't understand the article correctly. I would urge you to actually read the two nature articles published by the Rout, Sali and Chait groups and also their previous paper in PLoS.
This would be like considering a mechanical device, say a bicycle, and grouping all of the nuts together, or all of the bearings. Once we do this sort of grouping, the bicycle doesn’t have very many parts.
Again, you misunderstand. Look at a railway network-- extremely complex system with only very few different ones.
Let’s see, it only takes 30 classes of protein to make a pore. Hey, no sweat! Each class of protein involves about 300 fairly precisely ordered nucleotides. So the information content is only about 4^(300 * 30). No big deal.
Did you even read about how a number of these different proteins are merely duplications and modifications of simpler ones? Nobody argues that these 30 different proteins appeared all at once out of nowhere with no intermediate functions. I urge you to actually read the paper and try to understand it before you criticize it.hrun0815_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Now lets proceed with the ID process of reverse engineering from a teleological perspective.[...]
DLH, I don't see anything in what you wrote where the 'teleological perspective' differs from the 'non-teleological perspective'.
In which case hypothesis 1) would be refined to: 1) Nuclear pores regulate material flows that are important to the accuracy of DNA replication and/or expression. Look forward to what data you can provide to refine this.
Again, why is that the 'teleological perspective'? I don't understand. I would think that every biologist agrees that since DNA is sequestered into a nucleus that there is a reason for this. Since the main processes that DNA is involved in are transcription and replication, also every biologist would probably agree that it is important to regulate the material flow through the NPC (otherwise, why would it be there)?hrun0815_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

If I understand the article and video correctly, "their findings provide a glimpse into how the nucleus itself first evolved" points to their discovery that the 450 proteins involved can be grouped into 30 classes of protein where each of the proteins in the class are similar. This would be like considering a mechanical device, say a bicycle, and grouping all of the nuts together, or all of the bearings. Once we do this sort of grouping, the bicycle doesn't have very many parts. Let's see, it only takes 30 classes of protein to make a pore. Hey, no sweat! Each class of protein involves about 300 fairly precisely ordered nucleotides. So the information content is only about 4^(300 * 30). No big deal. The outstanding issues that I see are: - Where the heck did the original 30 protein classes come from? Do they all exist in bacteria? - How did these proteins decide to assemble into a nuclear pore? Why? - If you take the 450 proteins that make up a pore, put 'em in a box and shake 'em, do they assemble like this? Not likely, and if so, then the self-assembly must be in the information content of the proteins involved. If not, then the mechanism of the pore must include the assembly system (is it just a matter of releasing the self-attracting proteins in the right order, then the mechanism controlling order must be factored in.) - Lastly, how stable is this mechanism? Is it virtually identical in all eukaryotes? I bet it is. If it is, how did it migrate from nonthing to stable? How come we see no intermediates? Surely each intermediate was somehow beneficial over the bacteria that were being improved on. If the bacteria survived the arrival of the eukaryotes, then there was about 450 opportunities for something half-way to survive also. I bet that if I did my Ph.D. thesis on these nuclear pores, I would have been forced to become an IDer.bFast_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

hrun0815 Good observation. That demonstrates that an ID hypothesis can be tested and thus be part of the scientific process. Now lets proceed with the ID process of reverse engineering from a teleological perspective. Nuclear pores appear to have high symmetry about the axis. They appear to have multiple layers or rings composed of different proteins. From ID reverse engineering, the pores appear designed. Thus ID presumes that they have a purpose. The authors state:
A cell’s membrane-bound nucleus uses hundreds to thousands of nuclear pores as its gatekeepers, selective membrane channels that are responsible for regulating the material that goes to and from a cell’s DNA.
If this observation is correct, to regulate, there must be: a sensing mechanism a feedback mechanism a control mechanism. a value against which the parameter is controlled. The pores are also stated to be selective. Thus the degree to which various materials are excluded will also be important. From ID teleology one or more of the materials regulated, and/or the values regulated to, and/or the materials excluded will be important to the processes within the nucleus that is different from that in organisms without a nucleus. Thus we need to refine hypothesis 1) to focus and clarify this difference and purpose. So now to examine this data and refine the hypothesis. e.g., such regulation may affect the accuracy with which the DNA is replicated which may be very important to organisms with nuclei vs those without. In which case hypothesis 1) would be refined to: 1) Nuclear pores regulate material flows that are important to the accuracy of DNA replication and/or expression. Look forward to what data you can provide to refine this.DLH_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

DLH, how are nuclear pores essential to DNA function and duplication if there are countless organisms that get by without a nucleus in the first place?hrun0815_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Excellent find. ID hypothesis on the same data: 1) Nuclear pores are essential to DNA function and duplication. 2) DNA is essential to express the proteins in nuclear pores and the mechanism to assemble them. 3) Nuclear pores are irreducibly complex.DLH_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply