Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[rhutchin]

Genetics is not helping the evolutionists and the creationists are taking advantage. This from the Institute for Creation Research.

Scientists believe that the study of genes that encode the proteins for molecular motors will help solve the mysteries of evolution. However, the result of a study published in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution has only served to support the predictions of special creation—that unique variants of cellular complexity and innovation exist at all levels of life.1

Molecular motors are important features of eukaryotic cells that are formed by a variety of protein types. One group of molecular motors is called the myosins, which have recently been studied in everything from one-celled eukaryotes to humans. The goal of this and many other studies has been the ever-elusive characterization of the mythical Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA).2

<edited due to referred website restrictive copyrights>
References

Sebé-Pedrós, A. et al. 2014. Evolution and classification of myosins, a paneukaryotic whole genome approach. Genome Biology and Evolution. 6 (2): 290-305.
Koumandou, V. L. et al. 2013. Molecular paleontology and complexity in the last eukaryotic common ancestor. Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 48 (4): 373-396.[/indent]

http://www.icr.org/article/8037/#sthash.bhDloLWp.dpuf

Genetics research is discovering that life is incredibly complex. That is why the first assumption of evolution is: (1) Assume that life exists. Unfortunately, evolution research is only helping to explain how the animals that came off the ark became the great variety of animal life we observe today. It is having trouble doing anything else.

 

[Underseer]

Actually, genetics is the strongest evidence for evolution, and the biggest problem for creationism.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Problems with evolution are not evidence for creation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Problems with evolution are not evidence for creation.

And quoting ICR is not evidence of a problem with evolution.

 

[Perspicuo]

The truth is, everything is a problem for the Damn Bible. No six days, no six thousand years ago, no exodus, no flood, no bringing up the dead.

"Problems with genetics" is a hairsplitting nano-issue compared to the high seas of debunked hogwash the Bible is full of. It's like comparing the Pacific Ocean with a squirt of water in a shot glass.

Science is full of small and large issues, that's what makes it science. The Bible has no "issues", because it's pseudo-truth etched in stone for the joy of believers and the belly laughs of disbelievers, not any different from the laughs non-Hindus get from some parts of Hindu scriptures, or any other sacred scripture.

 

[Bronzeage]

....
Genetics research is discovering that life is incredibly complex. That is why the first assumption of evolution is: (1) Assume that life exists. Unfortunately, evolution research is only helping to explain how the animals that came off the ark became the great variety of animal life we observe today. It is having trouble doing anything else.

This a kind of creationism with which I am unfamiliar. Am I to infer that all the dry land fauna of today evolved from animals carried on the Ark of Genesis? Does this scenario follow a literal interpretation of the Bible which places the age of the earth somewhere around 5 to 7 thousand years old?

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>Unfortunately, evolution research is only helping to explain how the animals that came off the ark became the great variety of animal life we observe today. It is having trouble doing anything else.

The origin of life is outside the domain of the Theory of Evolution. As far as evolution is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the first life on Earth form arose locally from abiogenesis, or stepped off an ark (for some definition of ark, this could be the panspermia hypothesis).

What the ToE does very well is show that all extant life on Earth has a universal common ancestor.

 

[rhutchin]

Problems with evolution are not evidence for creation.

And quoting ICR is not evidence of a problem with evolution.

Interesting, however, is that no one is disputing what the ICR guy says so it would appear that his analysis is accurate.

As there are only two competing explanations for life - the creation account and evolution - problems with evolution work to the advantage of creation claims.

 

[rhutchin]

<snip>Unfortunately, evolution research is only helping to explain how the animals that came off the ark became the great variety of animal life we observe today. It is having trouble doing anything else.

The origin of life is outside the domain of the Theory of Evolution.

If evolutionists could explain the origin of life, they would gladly own it. For now, it's a miracle - but that is what the creationists say. What is an evolutionist to do?

What the ToE does very well is show that all extant life on Earth has a universal common ancestor.

ToE is both a creative and imaginative account of life. If only evolutionists could get the science to back it up. Unfortunately, as the ICR analysis indicates, science seems to be going in the opposite direction.

 

[rhutchin]

Does this scenario follow a literal interpretation of the Bible which places the age of the earth somewhere around 5 to 7 thousand years old?

Depending on how we are to understand the genealogies in the Bible, the age of the earth can be in the 13,000-15,000 year range but not likely beyond that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Interesting, however, is that no one is disputing what the ICR guy says so it would appear that his analysis is accurate.

That's a bit of a leap. No one's stopping at the corner of Fenn and First street to argue with the guy screaming about the airline/toothpaste conspiracy, either. That doesn't make HIS analysis any more accurate.
'Not worth the time' would also be a description that fits the observed facts.

 

[Mageth]

Problems with evolution are not evidence for creation.

And quoting ICR is not evidence of a problem with evolution.

Interesting, however, is that no one is disputing what the ICR guy says so it would appear that his analysis is accurate.

LOL! Even here you make an argument from ignorance. You are soooo predictable.

As there are only two competing explanations for life - the creation account and evolution - problems with evolution work to the advantage of creation claims.

Once again, evolution is not abiogenisis. You continue to confuse the two, even though it's been explained to you many times.

And attempting to formalize your argument from ignorance does no good, esp. as you continue to bungle the basics.

Further:

Evolution - descent with modification from a common ancestor - is a fact. Deal with it.

The Theory of Evolution addresses how the species we see today came to be. How does evolution actually happen? Perceived problems with this theory do not affect the above-said fact, and have no bearing on abiogenisis.

This has been explained to you before. Yet you continue to make the same bone-headed, basic mistakes. Why?

- - - Updated - - -

Does this scenario follow a literal interpretation of the Bible which places the age of the earth somewhere around 5 to 7 thousand years old?

Depending on how we are to understand the genealogies in the Bible, the age of the earth can be in the 13,000-15,000 year range but not likely beyond that.

Well then, the Bible is clearly full of shit. QE fuckin' D. Good for a laugh, nothing more.

 

[Bronzeage]

Problems with evolution are not evidence for creation.

And quoting ICR is not evidence of a problem with evolution.

Interesting, however, is that no one is disputing what the ICR guy says so it would appear that his analysis is accurate.

As there are only two competing explanations for life - the creation account and evolution - problems with evolution work to the advantage of creation claims.

Don't for getAlien Spacebats. There is a lot of evidence for that explanation, as well, but perhaps would be better served in another thread.I don't understand what you claim the implications to be.

I would still like a better understanding of your statement about "... evolution research is only helping to explain how the animals that came off the ark became the great variety of animal life we observe today."

Does current DNA research indicate the mitochondrial DNA of the Earth's current generation of mammals can be traced back to a single female of the species. This would be expected, if your conjecture is correct.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm not disputing it because I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject to respond to it in a satisfactory manner. You always seem to overlook very simple things.

 

[Underseer]

Interesting, however, is that no one is disputing what the ICR guy says so it would appear that his analysis is accurate.

That's a bit of a leap. No one's stopping at the corner of Fenn and First street to argue with the guy screaming about the airline/toothpaste conspiracy, either. That doesn't make HIS analysis any more accurate.
'Not worth the time' would also be a description that fits the observed facts.

Science cannot explain dark matter, therefore the toothpaste conspiracy is true, and the Trix rabbit is real.

Thus it is proven.

 

[rhutchin]

I'm not disputing it because I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject to respond to it in a satisfactory manner. You always seem to overlook very simple things.

Neither you nor anyone else. That is the conundrum here.

 

[Mageth]

I'm not disputing it because I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject to respond to it in a satisfactory manner. You always seem to overlook very simple things.

Neither you nor anyone else. That is the conundrum here.

No, the conundrum is why you think arguments from ignorance carry any weight.

 

[rhutchin]

Interesting, however, is that no one is disputing what the ICR guy says so it would appear that his analysis is accurate.

That's a bit of a leap. No one's stopping at the corner of Fenn and First street to argue with the guy screaming about the airline/toothpaste conspiracy, either. That doesn't make HIS analysis any more accurate.
'Not worth the time' would also be a description that fits the observed facts.

Science cannot explain dark matter, therefore the toothpaste conspiracy is true, and the Trix rabbit is real.

Thus it is proven.

Science cannot explain evolution - evolutionists can describe what they need it to do - yet science cannot confirm evolutionist beliefs yet evolution is viewed as proven. All science has been able to prove is speciation and that just helps to explain how the animals that came off the ark evolved into the great number of animals that we observe today and this through common descent.

 

[Mageth]

Interesting, however, is that no one is disputing what the ICR guy says so it would appear that his analysis is accurate.

That's a bit of a leap. No one's stopping at the corner of Fenn and First street to argue with the guy screaming about the airline/toothpaste conspiracy, either. That doesn't make HIS analysis any more accurate.
'Not worth the time' would also be a description that fits the observed facts.

Science cannot explain dark matter, therefore the toothpaste conspiracy is true, and the Trix rabbit is real.

Thus it is proven.

Science cannot explain evolution - evolutionists can describe what they need it to do - yet science cannot confirm evolutionist beliefs yet evolution is viewed as proven. All science has been able to prove is speciation and that just helps to explain how the animals that came off the ark evolved into the great number of animals that we observe today and this through common descent.

What a convoluted mess.

Is your confusion about the subject intentional or unintentional?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Science cannot explain evolution

Actually, it does. That's the whole point of science. An explanation. Science doesn't do 'proof.' That's for math.
Science does speculate, you almost have that right. But it's speculation that matches the existing evidence.

- evolutionists can describe what they need it to do - yet science cannot confirm evolutionist beliefs yet evolution is viewed as proven.

No. Evolution is a fact. And a theory. You're confused. And it's been explained several times, so your confusion is most likely a willful choice you've made.

All science has been able to prove is speciation

Science doesn't do 'proof.'
And if you're going to attack the speculation, calling it speculation doesn't do jack shit. You need to either provide evidence that the speculation can't explain, or you need to isolate an error in the methodology of the speculation.

Of course, first you would need to show you understand exactly what science is actually doing before claiming that it's failing to do anything.

You can't really look cool criticizing something that's so clearly over your head.