Cell biology Genomics Intelligent Design

Tiny molecular machines that keep chromosome numbers correct have been identified

Spread the love
Microtubules (green) capture chromosomes (blue) at a kinetochore site (red) and pull them apart/Queen Mary U

From ScienceDaily:“During cell division, a mother cell divides into two daughter cells, and during this process the DNA in the mother cell, wrapped up in the form of chromosomes, is divided into two equal sets. To achieve this, rope-like structures called microtubules capture the chromosomes at a special site called the kinetochore, and pull the DNA apart,” said Dr Viji Draviam, senior lecturer in structural cell and molecular biology from QMUL’s School of Biological and Chemical Sciences.

“We have identified two proteins — tiny molecular machines — that enable the correct attachment between the chromosomes and microtubules. When these proteins don’t function properly, the cells can lose or gain a chromosome. This finding gives us a glimpse of an important step in the process of cell division.”

Paper. (public access) – Roshan L. Shrestha, Duccio Conti, Naoka Tamura, Dominique Braun, Revathy A. Ramalingam, Konstanty Cieslinski, Jonas Ries, Viji M. Draviam. Aurora-B kinase pathway controls the lateral to end-on conversion of kinetochore-microtubule attachments in human cells. Nature Communications, 2017; 8 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-00209-z More.

As the unlikelihood of a random origin of the cell becomes more and more obvious, expect still more spates of  journal articles from tone deaf profs on how to Fix anyone who doubts the randomness dogma.

See also: On the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for designing molecular machines ….

and

Why nanomachines are considered designed only if they are built by humans

17 Replies to “Tiny molecular machines that keep chromosome numbers correct have been identified

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    One has to at least ask why evolution, in all it’s wisdom, failed to evolve a repair mechanism for this.

  2. 2
    awstar says:

    the video shows molecular motors walking along microtubule.

    The Dynien molecular motors walk one way carrying a “stop signal broadcasting system” and Kinesin walk in the other direction carrying proteins on their back.

    What I’m wondering is do Dynien and Kinesin have a common ancestor? Did the common ancestor swim in the cytosol before it evolved legs to walk on the microtubule?

  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    awstar,

    it just happened like that. That’s it.
    🙂

  4. 4
    MatSpirit says:

    Mung @ 1: “One has to at least ask why evolution, in all it’s wisdom, failed to evolve a repair mechanism for this.”

    Don’t you mean to ask why your Intelligent Designer failed to design a repair mechanism for this?

  5. 5
    Belfast says:

    Mat @ 4
    But there is no ID is there? And there IS evolution. Isn’t that your position? So why didn’t Evolution come up with it?

  6. 6
    MatSpirit says:

    It’s the position of this blog that evolution can’t produce complexity and that therefore an Intelligent Designer created life as we know it.

    So I have to ask, why are you blaming evolution?

  7. 7
    rvb8 says:

    awstar @2,

    Dynien and Kinesin, may have evolved from a common ancestor, I’m sure the researchers don’t know, at the moment.

    What I am absolutely certain of however, is that they will not use the ID approach to this problem; ‘STOP! Irreducibly Complex; God’s finger prints.’

    No, these researchers will just be excited, their curiosity wetted.

    They will be motivated at just the same time, as the ID lab doors close and the ID ‘scientists’ go home, pleased with their divine findings.

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    rvb8:

    What I am absolutely certain of however, is that they will not use the ID approach to this problem; ‘STOP! Irreducibly Complex; God’s finger prints.’

    Hi Troll!

  9. 9
    awstar says:

    rvb8 @ 7

    Dynien and Kinesin, may have evolved from a common ancestor, I’m sure the researchers don’t know, at the moment.

    What I am absolutely certain of however, is that they will not use the ID approach to this problem;

    I have to hand it to you rvb8. If only I had as much blind faith as you, I could rest so much more at peace in the knowledge of our Creator God. But alas, my broken human nature is constantly seeking reassurance from science that the Bible is true. And graciously, the Creator keeps revealing Himself in His creation; proving the Bible to be true over and over again, continually reducing the amount of blind faith needed to be a Christian.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    rvb8:

    Dynien and Kinesin, may have evolved from a common ancestor, I’m sure the researchers don’t know, at the moment.

    How can we test the claim they evolved by means of natural selection and/ or drift?

    BTW only willful ignorance has ID stopping after design is detected.

  11. 11
    rvb8 says:

    Mung @8,

    you often call me ‘troll’.

    But Behe, and ID say the flagellum is Irreducibly Complex.

    If it can no longer be broken down into parts that have a function independent of a complete flagellum, then these parts never existed independently, but were put together, ‘intelligently’, by some ‘intelligent designer’, no?

    I hope this is a fair rendition of ID; at some point IC means a ‘designer’ was involved.

    My post, which you describe as ‘trolling’, simply points out that at this point, at IC, ID gives up.

    That is, as upposed to Evolutionary biologists who will look for simpler and deeper realtionships, ID has its answer, the Designer.

    My point is, that IC is the end of the trail, after that, the designer takes over, that untestable participant of ID.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    Flagella are irreducibly complex and ID doesn’t give up at any point. IC is not the end of the trail. We still have to study it so we can understand it. And the only way to understand something that is intentionally designed is first and foremost by studying it as an artifact.

    The DESIGN is testable and if your position could account for what we say needs a designer ID would be falsified. Your willfully ignorant trolling comments, while amusing, is boring

  13. 13
    rvb8 says:

    Mung, and ET,

    name calling?

    At the point where design is detected, say the flagellum, what is the point of further research?

    This is a legitimate question.

    Evolutionary biologists will say the flagella arose from other appendages used by other bacteria for different purposes, to inject their DNA into a host cell perhaps.

    Good, furtile ground for research. Or perhaps a more primitive flagellum was used anchor to a host cell; good here’s some grant money.

    ID stops; that is my point. A valid one and not trolling.

  14. 14
    awstar says:

    rvb8 @ 13

    At the point where design is detected, say the flagellum, what is the point of further research?

    I may be mistaken, but it seems to me almost all of the medical research that has ever been conducted was looking for the answer as to why organisms built up of living cells and held together as groupings of living cells malfunction — which implies they were designed to have a function. So if we can find out how they were intended to function, we can more quickly find out what causes them to malfunction, and seek a remedy.

    What good would identifying how things worked hypothetically millions of years ago if that is not how they work now? The grant money would only be used (as it is now) to force the ones doing real research to conform to your religious views.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    rvb8:

    At the point where design is detected, say the flagellum, what is the point of further research?

    As I said- So we can understand it. It’s as if you are proud to be willfully ignorant

    Look, no one on your side is trying to figure out how blind, mindless processes could have produced vision systems. All you do is say it evolved and then that’s it. Evolutionary biologists are not trying to figure out how blind, mindless processes produced anything

  16. 16

    ET @ 15: You make good points, especially concerning why we would continue to research the flagellum, etc. The learning doesn’t stop simply because we know it is designed (or highly likely to be designed). Continued research would tell us many things about the design itself…and the designer.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Truth will set you free- The whole purpose of determining design is so we can study it so we can understand it. We want to understand it so we can properly maintain it and fix it when it breaks. We also want to know the purpose of the design.

    And yes, the only way to know anything about the designer(s) is by studying all relevant evidence- like the design. That is how it works with forensics and archaeology. Our detractors don’t seem to understand that

Leave a Reply