Intelligent Design Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity: Cilium edition

Spread the love

The cilium is a sort of “arm” of a cell that either moves stuff or feels stuff:

In Current Biology, Gaia Pigino wrote a “Primer” on Intraflagellar Transport (IFT). It’s called intraflagellar because a cilium is a type of flagellum (Latin for whip), which in the generic sense means a whiplike structure that can move. Both cilia and flagella use the IFT system for construction because both need to transport their building blocks down a shaft from the base to the distal tip. From the railcar’s perspective, the tip would seem a long way away.

There are motile cilia, like the ones that keep our windpipes clean and propel sperm cells, and “primary” cilia, which act as sensory antennae on almost all cells. Accurate construction of cilia is vital. When things go wrong, a host of problems called ciliopathies can result in severe diseases and death. Evolution News has mentioned these briefly in previous years (here, here, and here).

Consider first how many players are needed to build a cilium. Pigino’s parts list begins with microtubules in a 9+2 arrangement going up the cilium from base to tip. The two center microtubules are singlets; the outer ring of 9 are in doublet pairs. Riding on those rails are two engines: kinesin-2, which travels from base to tip (anterograde), and dynein-2, which goes from tip back to the base. Kinesin-2 has a head, stalk, hinge and two “feet” (called heads) that walk on the microtubule while carrying a load; the engine contains six protein subunits. Dynein-2 also has a motor, stalk, linker and tail, and is powered by two AAA+ domains that spend ATP for power. Those are the two engine types, and they work in teams along the microtubules.

Evolution News, “Cilium and Intraflagellar Transport: More Irreducibly Complex than Ever” at Evolution News (June 30, 2021)

Of course, Darwinism is dead. It is the Darwin profs and the institutional structure that supports them who are very much alive.

19 Replies to “Irreducible complexity: Cilium edition

  1. 1
    zweston says:

    These videos are mind blowing. How can anyone look at that and think it is a product of natural selection and random mutation? How in the world?

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    News,

    You should read Stephen Blume, his books are short and get repetitive but he has the most amazing insights. One of them is that DNA has nothing to do with evolution.

    So essentially what the Darwinist have done is run with this amazing discovery thinking it held life’s mysteries when it was actually a red herring. Design lies elsewhere and not in the Darwinian process of inheritance, variability and selection which is their holy trinity.

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    This is amazing.

    It’s especially interesting from the viewpoint of order vs chaos. Human versions of this mechanism, such as the two tracks of a bulldozer or the two rows of oarsmen in a longboat, make turns by switching active vs passive. The pulling side is active and the non-pulling side stops.

    The ‘walkers’ in the cilium turn by resonance vs noise. The pulling side is sync’d, and the non-pulling side is random. The net of random motion is zero.

    So this is a pure case of movement created by a delta of information. (Unlike yesterday’s Maxwell Demon gimmick where the experimenters were really inputting energy.)

  4. 4
    Querius says:

    The video is absolutely amazing!

    So, apparently the fundamentalist Darwinists here have once again disappeared. I was at least hoping that one of them would grace us with the circular argument that somehow flagella musta self-assembled by chance out of a rich prebiotic broth or by tiny little steps involving RNA over billions of years because, after all, we’re here aren’t we?

    A recipe for “prebiotic soup” has been posted here (it’s apparently good for your gut health):
    https://www.firstforwomen.com/posts/diet/prebiotic-foods-soup-diet-gut-bacteria-154196

    Or maybe there was a hypothetical ancestor in which these molecular machines musta learned how to crawl over a slime substrate that later musta separated into strands (by wave action against sharp rocks) and then two of the strands musta joined up together out of sync so it was inevitable that cilia evolved.

    And then there will be a claim (unsupported) that Lenski observed some E.coli without flagella, proving that flagella musta evolved.

    The possibilities for science fantasy in the name of Darwin is endless, providing an inexhaustible source of Darwin-of-the-gaps explanations.

    -Q

  5. 5
    martin_r says:

    After watching this video, is there anybody who doubts that darwinism is a hoax/ conspiracy?

    PS: this reminds me of how muscles work…. of course, Darwinists have no clue / evidence on how muscles evolved…

  6. 6
    martin_r says:

    Jerry, i briefly checked Blume’s blog, indeed, it looks interesting…

  7. 7
    ET says:

    jerry:

    One of them is that DNA has nothing to do with evolution.

    If evolution is a change in allele frequency over time, then Blume is demonstrably wrong.

    If Blume means universal common descent, then he is absolutely correct. The sad part is this has been known for some time and remains a trade secret. Last years paper “On the Problem of Biological Form”, needs to get more attention as it highlights the issue.

  8. 8
    jerry says:

    If evolution is a change in allele frequency over time, then Blume is demonstrably wrong.

    I should have added the word “debate” to the sentence. That makes him right on. No one is debating change in allele frequency or questioning it.

    He’s well aware of all the issues and is careful how he words it. I wasn’t as careful above.

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    i briefly checked Blume’s blog, indeed, it looks interesting

    Read his books. He doesn’t keep the blog up to date.

    The books are $2.99 on Amazon. At least in the US. I’m halfway through one and have already learned a lot, mostly perspectives on design.

  10. 10
    Seversky says:

    If Darwinism is dead, how come people here keep beating the corpse?

  11. 11
    jerry says:

    If Darwinism is dead, how come people here keep beating the corpse?

    It’s certainly not dead in the academy. But it cannot explain too much In terms of evolution.

    Maybe you can help us with it has accomplished besides modern day genetics which indeed it very important. But it has nothing to do with the evolution debate.

  12. 12
    jerry says:

    The Achilles heel of Darwinism is that it bet all its chips on DNA and it’s obvious that DNA does not explain much while other areas are sitting out there waiting to be explored.

    DNA is a linear code of molecules that just creates another linear set of molecules, amino acids which do fold. But these folds are just a small piece of the three dimensional extremely complex puzzle.

    The cell and the organism is three dimensional and the genome has no information to handle this. Also the spatial information of an embryo is specified independently of the DNA.

    There exist codes in the cell membranes called sugar codes and bio electric field codes. There are probably other codes too. So DNA is just one form of a biology code and may be a relatively simple one compared to the others.

    ID the Future just published a series of old interviews with Jonathan Wells. https://idthefuture.com/episodes/

    They are from 2014 but published in last month.

    https://idthefuture.com/1465/

    https://idthefuture.com/1468/

    https://idthefuture.com/1471/

    https://idthefuture.com/1474/

    Aside: Blume’s book which was first published in 2013 hammers this in. The debate is not over DNA and what it can do. The answer is relatively little in terms of evolution. The debate is elsewhere.

    But the delicious irony is that the Darwinists are the Neanderthals of the evolution debate.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    seversky:

    If Darwinism is dead, how come people here keep beating the corpse?

    Because people like you keep propping it up as mainstream science.

  14. 14
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Guys, our poor Atheist friends. Be nice to them.

    For generations they were on top. . But that was then now is now. Today, Origin of Life research is a joke. Darwinism is a fraud. Freudian Psychology is quackery. And Creationism is in the catbird seat.
    But take the high road.
    Laugh at Atheist Science, but the people, dont don’t kick them when they’re down.

  15. 15
    Querius says:

    But Tammie Lee, the whole point of taking them down is to be able to kick them when they’re down! Maybe then they’ll let go of their stupid, old, racist, full-of-holes theory. 😉

    -Q

  16. 16
    Jack says:

    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES, “Creationism is in the catbird seat.”

    ID is not creationism. Just FYI.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    TLH:

    And Creationism is in the catbird seat.

    No, it isn’t. But people are trying to get it there.

  18. 18
    jerry says:

    As I progress through Blume’s book, The Evo-Illusion, he references cell activities in ways I haven’t seen before. He has assembled videos to explain these activities including the flagellum motor. I don’t know who produced the videos.

    https://thednadelusion.com/

    Might want to compare to the one in the OP.

    1. DNA: How It Works
    2. Mitosis: Cell Division
    3. DNA Replication: What DNA Does During Cell Division
    4. The Bacterial Flagellum: An Incredible Electromagnetic Motor
    5. Motor Proteins: Incredibly Tiny but Efficient Movers of Protein Molecules.
    6. Meiosis: The Forming of Gametes
    7. The Steps to Wound Healing
    8. The Development of a Human Embryo
    9. Starlings: Putting On A Show

    Quotes about cells from book

    What genetic code cannot do is control movement and functions of cell biochemicals. It cannot determine cell type, or control the shape, size, and function of organs composed of cells. It does not control species type. It does not control the development of body parts in the case of animals, or plant parts such as petals, leaves, stems, and trunks.

    Proteins must be controlled and coordinated by an as yet unknown control center of some kind.

    As much as scientists know about cells, they have no idea how their non-living molecules know just where they’re supposed to go, just what they are supposed to do, and when they are supposed to do i

    Each cell in your body makes 2,000 protein molecules per second. To give you an idea of how unbelievable this is, every second our bone marrow cells produce over 100 trillion hemoglobin molecules.

    Each cell must also destroy or eliminate 2,000 “old” protein molecules per second or cells would explode in short order because of a bloated oversupply.

    If you could expand a cell to the size of a watermelon, and see the innards in action, you would view a blur of activity. Science has determined what most of the biochemicals and cell parts that exist inside of cells are, but it has no understanding about what makes them tick

  19. 19
    dreeves says:

    The explanatory power of Darwinian Evolution is useless because it was conceived during a time of ignorance of the depth of design (i.e. the enormous information) required for life. At the time Darwin conceived of his theory, he only had to address external or end-point FORM while assuming very simple underlying processes driving the form.
    Since Darwin, all progress in biology continues to illuminate more and more complex information driving the ability of an organism to exist. Yet the committed evolutionist only has chance and physical law as causes of information in their theory.
    These “causes” of information are obviously entirely inadequate and work against the existence or preservation of information. But that’s all they have as explanatory causes
    Committed to the rabbit hole they dig deeper only to find more information to dig thru.
    Surely God in heaven laughs at the evolutionary scholars until the futility of their output becomes BORING.

Leave a Reply