The remarkable process of cell division

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 2, 2022

Cell biology, Intelligent Design}

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

Chromosomes are densely packed DNA. The two “sister chromatids” of a chromosome, having been accurately duplicated during prophase and secured by centromeres, are arranged with all the other chromosomes on the spindle axis in metaphase. Soon after they are winched apart in anaphase into daughter cells. This elaborate choreography takes place every time a cell divides. The cell cycle is fascinating to anyone who has witnessed it under a light microscope, as you can see here:
Evolution News, “DNA Packing: One of the Supreme Wonders of Nature” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 31, 2022)

Remarkable movies made with super-resolution atomic force microscopy show the parts of cohesin undergoing conformational changes. These hand-over-hand motions operate in the dark without eyes, using ATP for energy. They get it right every time!
Evolution News, “DNA Packing: One of the Supreme Wonders of Nature” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 31, 2022)

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: Everything is coming up non-random (PAV)

Comments

As I made clear previously in post 189 JVL, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-remarkable-process-of-cell-division/#comment-747050 I consider your 'anti-rational' Darwinian worldview to be completely insane (Haldane, Lewis, Egnor), and I hold that you have, at least, the minimal amount of sanity required to recognize that it is a insane worldview.bornagain77_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Asauber: The position you have presented re: ID so far is irrational. So what can you present that would be worth considering to an ID proponent like myself that might alter my views? Is there anything you would consider rational? I'm trying to figure out if there is anyway to get you to consider my view rational. I'm not trying to alter your view, I'm just wondering what it would take for you to consider my point of view sensible.JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Do you think that someone who disagrees with you regarding guided vs unguided evolution is, by definition insane or evil? You keep dancing around, ashamed (it seems) to answer the question.JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

"You will consider me irrational, regardless of what I say or present." JVL, I'll consider anything you comment. The position you have presented re: ID so far is irrational. So what can you present that would be worth considering to an ID proponent like myself that might alter my views? Andrewasauber_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

"I think that evidence does exist and is easy to find." Apparently not so easy to find that you can be bothered to actually list it. I've looked high and low, I certainly can't find it. So again, I call your bluff. Where is your real-time empirical evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can create even a single protein? (see post 202)bornagain77_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: If your claim is actually true, that all life on earth arose via unguided Darwinian processes, then you should literally be dripping from head to toe with real time empirical evidence supporting your claim. I think that evidence does exist and is easy to find. But . . . again . . . If someone disagrees with you are they, by definition, evil or insane? Why can't you be clear about this? Or, should I just assume that's what you think? Why would you be ashamed of such an opinion?JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

JVL, "I consider the evidence to be present in 150 years of arguments, data, evidence and observations." And strangely the exact real-time empirical evidence that I asked for is completely missing from your post. Why is that? If your claim is actually true, i.e. that all life on earth, in all its amazing complexity and diversity, arose via unguided Darwinian processes, then you should literally be dripping from head to toe with real time empirical evidence supporting your claim. So I call your bluff. Where is your real-time empirical evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can create even a single protein? (see post 202)bornagain77_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Asuaber: You are mischaracterizing. This is not about a disagreement. It’s about what’s actually rational and what isn’t. I think you have been clear but unwilling to state your case explicitly. You think those who disagree with the guided paradigm are irrational. So, there is no point in discussing the issues with you is there? If I disagree with you. You will consider me irrational, regardless of what I say or present.JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Ahh, now we are starting to gett close to actual empirical evidence, i.e. to actual science.,, So by exactly whom, and by what exact empirical means, do you believe the case has been made for the ‘beyond belief’ brain to arise from a virtual endless series of ‘selected accidents’? How many Nobel prizes did the scientist receive for establishing that unguided processes can create what only intelligent minds have shown the capacity to create? Science is not based on Nobel prizes alone. I consider the evidence to be present in 150 years of arguments, data, evidence and observations. And that, logically, the best explanation is the one with the fewest assumptions. But you haven't addressed my question: why is it that I do not label you as insane or evil but you are happy to give me one or both of those monikers? Why is it that disagreeing with you ends up being a sign of crazy or manipulation? Why can't you accept that someone can honestly and sincerely disagree with you?JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

"So, you don’t think it’s possible for a sane or honest person to disagree with you." JVL, You are mischaracterizing. This is not about a disagreement. It's about what's actually rational and what isn't. Andrewasauber_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

JVL: "I think the case for unguided evolution (creating the brain) has been made." Ahh, now we are starting to get closer to actual empirical evidence, i.e. to actual science.,, So JVL, by exactly whom, and by what exact empirical means, do you believe that the case has been made for the 'beyond belief' brain to arise from a virtual endless series of 'selected accidents'? How many Nobel prizes did the scientist receive for establishing that unguided processes can create what only intelligent minds have shown the capacity to create?
“We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” - Smith, Wolfgang (1988) - Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin "Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!" - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel laureate – Physics - A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 8, 2012 Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution USA - 14 Jan, 2020 An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt. This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at www.evo2.org. ,,, "A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days," said Marshall. "One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they'd set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity." https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html
bornagain77_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Asuaber: I already answered your question above. You present an irrational position, which I suspect you don’t really adhere to. That’s what I think. You aren’t unique in behaving this way. Countless people do the same thing. So, you don't think it's possible for a sane or honest person to disagree with you. So, should I keep trying to have a conversation here? Should I even bother to answer questions?JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: JVL, if you want to prove that it is not indeed insane for you to believe that the unfathomable complexity of, say, the brain can be had by an endless series of ‘selected accidents’, then it is certainly not on me to say such an extraordinary, and unreasonable, claim is not, on its face, a completely insane for you, and other Darwinists, to make, but it falls completely on you, and on other Darwinists, to show, via empirical evidence, why it is, despite all appearances, not an insane position for you guys to hold. I think the case for unguided evolution has been made. You disagree. I'm happy to admit that we differ on this point but I'm not calling you insane or evil. But you choose to assign me those characteristics. Why? Why are you doing that?JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

JVL, I already answered your question above. You present an irrational position, which I suspect you don't really adhere to. That's what I think. You aren't unique in behaving this way. Countless people do the same thing. Andrewasauber_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Asauber: Remember my comment about your slip is showing? You implied in a comment that you hope or intend to change someone’s mind. What duties or obligations do you think you have that compel you to attempt to change the mind of an ID supporter? What is it that ID supporters lack that you could give them? You are clearly avoiding answering my question. Which is telling don't you think? You cannot say that you would not consider someone who disagrees with you about ID insane or evil. So, why should anyone even try to have a conversation with you if they disagree with you? Also, I CLEARLY stated I was NOT trying to change anyone's mind. You are clearly and blatantly misrepresenting what I said. And for what reason? Who is being manipulative here? Answer my question, honestly and honourably, or I will assume I shouldn't even bother trying.JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

JVL, if you want to prove that it is not indeed insane for you to believe that the unfathomable complexity of, say, the brain can be had by an endless series of 'selected accidents', then it is certainly not on me to say such an extraordinary, and unreasonable, claim is not, on its face, a completely insane for you, and other Darwinists, to make, but it falls completely on you, and on other Darwinists, to show, via empirical evidence, why it is, despite all appearances, not an insane position for you guys to hold. That's simply how 'real' science works. Sorry if 'real' science hurts your feelings.bornagain77_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

JVL, Remember my comment about your slip is showing? You implied in a comment that you hope or intend to change someone's mind. What duties or obligations do you think you have that compel you to attempt to change the mind of an ID supporter? What is it that ID supporters lack that you could give them? Andrewasauber_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Asuaber: You act like this is a simple difference of opinion, and it’s not. I asked you a question: do you consider that someone could disagree with you about ID and not be insane or evil? You answer that and then we can get on with our disagreement.JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

"do you consider it possible that someone could disagree with you and not be insane" JVL, You act like this is a simple difference of opinion, and it's not. You have philosophical problems, and you won't address them. Andrewasauber_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Asuaber: BA77 is essentially correct if you, JVL, are consistent. But you aren’t. Based on what?JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: JVL, you are trying to claim I am being unreasonable. I am asking: do you consider it possible that someone could disagree with you and not be insane or a liar? Which, yes, implies the question: could you be wrong?JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

"But Bornagain77 thinks I must be insane to hold the views I do" JVL, BA77 is essentially correct if you, JVL, are consistent. But you aren't. There are a lot of people who pretend to believe the things they profess, but really don't believe with conviction. I suspect that is the case with you. Anyway, everyone is a little crazy. Andrewasauber_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

JVL, you are trying to claim I am being unreasonable. So, by all means, present any real time empirical evidence that you got for unguided Darwinian processes creating anything, say a single protein. I am all ears. Where is your real-time empirical evidence?
Claim: New Proteins Evolve Very Easily – Cornelius Hunter – April 25, 2017 Excerpt: It is now clear that for a given protein, only a few changes to its amino acid sequence can be sustained before the protein function is all but eliminated. Here is how one paper explained it: “The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability—the ability of proteins to acquire changes in sequence and function.” In other words, protein function precipitously drops off with only a tiny fraction of its amino acids altered. It is not a gradual fitness landscape. Another paper described the protein fitness landscape as rugged. Therefore it is not surprising that various studies on evolving proteins have failed to show a viable mechanism. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required to evolve a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. So something like 10^70 attempts are required yet evolutionists estimate that only 10^43 attempts are possible. In other words, there is a shortfall of 27 orders of magnitude. But it gets worse. The estimate that 10^43 attempts are possible is utterly unrealistic. For it assumes billions of years are available, and that for that entire time the Earth is covered with bacteria, constantly churning out mutations and new protein experiments. Aside from the fact that these assumptions are entirely unrealistic, the estimate also suffers from the rather inconvenient fact that those bacteria are, err, full of proteins. In other word, for evolution to evolve proteins, they must already exist in the first place. This is absurd. And yet, even with these overly optimistic assumptions, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude. https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/04/claim-new-proteins-evolve-very-easily/
It ain't rocket science JVL,
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase) "If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications my theory would absolutely breakdown." Well, that condition has been met time and time again now. Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It's all a mirage. None of it happens that way." - Douglas Axe - 200 Years After Darwin - What Didn't Darwin Know? - video - Part 2 of 2 https://youtu.be/VKIgNroTj54?t=329 "Enzyme Families -- Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?" - Ann Gauger - December 4, 2014 Excerpt: If enzymes can't be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,, Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That's longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. We have now addressed two objections raised by our critics: that we didn't test the right mutation(s), and that we didn't use the right starting point. We tested all possible single base changes in nine different enzymes, Those nine enzymes are the most structurally similar of BioF's entire family We also tested 70 percent of double mutations in the two closest enzymes of those nine. Finally, some have said we should have used the ancestral enzyme as our starting point, because they believe modern enzymes are somehow different from ancient ones. Why do they think that? It's because modern enzymes can't be coopted to anything except trivial changes in function. In other words, they don't evolve! That is precisely the point we are making. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/a_new_paper_fro091701.html
bornagain77_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Asuaber: The first question is, do I have philosophical commitments that might inhibit me from evaluating evidence objectively? So, I might be insane because I can't see things the way you do? AND Bornagain77 thinks I must be insane to hold the views I do. So, should I bother trying to carry on a conversation?JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: but for you to cling to a Darwinian worldview that makes rationality itself impossible is for you, by definition, to cling an insane worldview. Nothing complicated about. That’s just the way it is So, I just shouldn't bother. Got it.JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

"do you think that it’s intellectually sound to disagree with ID?" JVL, Speaking for myself, no. But that isn't the question. The first question is, do I have philosophical commitments that might inhibit me from evaluating evidence objectively? Andrewasauber_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

JVL: "Am I insane or evil?" Well, evil is for God to judge, but for you to cling to a Darwinian worldview that makes rationality itself impossible is for you, by definition, to cling an insane worldview. Nothing complicated about. That's just the way it is. Sorry if simple logic hurts your feelings :) Of course, to defend yourself from the fact that you are holding an insane worldview, you could try to prove that rationality can be grounded within your Darwinian worldview. Good luck with that. Many others have tried and failed.bornagain77_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Asauber: Or you are just being a contrarian? Anyway, maybe you can do a little self-evaluation… what is it about your position that potentially could change an ID supporter’s mind? What’s your most effective or convincing idea? Let's just deal with one thing first: do you think that it's intellectually sound to disagree with ID?JVL_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

"And if I have read and understood all the statements and still disagree . . . Am I insane or evil?" JVL, Or you are just being a contrarian? Anyway, maybe you can do a little self-evaluation... what is it about your position that potentially could change an ID supporter's mind? What's your most effective or convincing idea? Andrewasauber_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Andrew: "Your slip is showing." Well actually, not to be too picky, but when it comes to Darwinian evolution, it is bit more than just a slip that is showing. i.e. Darwinian evolution, as far a real-time empirical evidence is concerned,, is butt-ass naked! :)
A Case Of The Emperor’s New Clothes – Evolution vs Design Part 1 - Dr. Daniel Moran, Ph.D. Excerpt: However, a small child also looked upon the Emperor and saw only a naked man walking down the street. The child shouted, “But he doesn’t have anything on!” And one by one the people in the crowd murmured the truth of the child’s observation even to the hearing of the Emperor himself. Now knowing the truth of the farce the Emperor shuddered in shame, yet stood the bolder, saying to himself, “The procession must go on.”,,, Now I must admit, there are some believers in Darwin’s popular fairytale that genuinely believe our ancestors were slime molds and their ancestors were just particles of stardust. They have heard the idea often and long enough that they have come to believe that what is improbable, even impossible is actually the fact of life. No critical thought needed. No second opinion sought. And by the time they have become what they have become, it is a non-issue. They may live good, quiet and fulfilling lives, never knowing that they have lived believing a lie. Had they looked at the front of the crowd they would have seen the Emperor for themselves and cried out as did the little child, “But he doesn’t have anything on”.,,, https://blueprintsforliving.com/empobiological-evolution-a-case-of-the-emperors-new-clothes-part-1/ The Law Of The Emperor's New Clothes: And Darwin Said - Peter-Brian Andersson - 2014 https://www.amazon.com/Law-Emperors-New-Clothes-Darwin/dp/0692261060 The science community operates by an assumption that evolution is a FACT. This book examines the evidence to tell a very different story. Biology, chemistry, cosmology, genetics, mathematics, paleontology and physics show the world was made. Take a look for yourself. Both sides of the argument are presented fairly for the reader to decide.,,, - Peter-Brian Andersson is a Rhodes Scholar with doctorates in medicine (MBChB cum laude, University of Cape Town) and philosophy (DPhil, University of Oxford) and an honors degree in medical biochemistry (BScMed(Hons) University of Cape Town). He was awarded a Junior Research Fellowship at Oxford University, a distinction afforded to its top 2% graduate researchers, and was elected to Alpha Omega Alpha honor medical society in the United States. He has published widely in neuroimmunology and neurology including in Neuroscience, Trends in the Neurosciences, Journal of Experimental Medicine, The Lancet and Neurology. He has held college lecturer or clinical instructor positions at the Universities of Oxford, University of California San Francisco and Stanford University, and is currently a Clinical Associate Professor at the University of California Los Angeles and a neurologist in private practice.
bornagain77_{February 16, 2022
February
02
Feb
16
16
2022
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply