Fact: it wouldn't surprise me if my "probably nowhere" happened to be a fact, but I'm not sure. So, better safe than sorry: the facts are not in yet.
Well, in fact, Bacteria do not have histones (the proteins that bind DNA into chromatin in Eukaryotes), and some Archaea have histones, but less complicated versions than the Eukarya. So, like so many other things presented as too complicated to evolve we in fact find a continuum of complexity extant in living organisms.
I appreciate your comment, but I don't quite follow how it connects with what I said. Could you explain?
Well, I presume your point was that chromatin didn't form seperately to living things but evolved in already living things. This suggestion is, it seems to me, supported by the existance of extant organisms without chromatin and with more simplistic versions of chromatin. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that chromatin is not needed for living organisms and that functional intermediates in DNA packing between organisms without histones and organisms with Eukaryotic histones exist.
Sure. Look very closely at your hand. Hmm... okay, use a microscope. See those tiny, tiny little dots dividing by themselves. Them's bacteria.
Bacteria don't have chromatin (although, occasionally, you can find references to bacterial chromatin, this is not correct usage since the DNA assemblages of bacteria - and some Archaea - are fundamentally different from the chromatin of Eukarya, in particular they have no histones).
I have to admit I'm rather dubious about the example given, as far as I am aware (and according to my coursebooks) only two tailed lipids will form liposomes, one tailed lipids (such as the fatty acids shown) form simpler structures called micelles which have extremely limited internal space. Worse, even if sufficient two tailed lipids formed to create a liposome these structures are disrupted by the presence of one tailed lipids so they'd not last long unless protected somehow.
I'm assuming the actual science behind the cute video covers this objection, do you have any references from a more scientific source?
Don't be ridiculous, it's clearly much closer to the Rod of Hermes - look at how those b1 and b2 chains are wrapped around the central a chain - it's a demonstration on earth of Zeus's influence.
How can any honest person deny that?
Your argument is absurd. It bares, at most a passing resemblance to a cross. It's remarkably unsurprising that among the thousands of proteins involved in the human body there is one that bares a passing resemblance to the cross. Especially when don't care about things like, whether it's arms are straight. Of course, by those standards you can find plenty of other symbols in there if you like: there's loads of pentagrams, for example, and quite a number of swastikas. Does this mean Hitler is God? Or that the Pagans were right all along?
Wow, you really think that laminins are little crosses put there by God to demonstrate his wonder, don't you? I'm... baffled at how someone can buy into something so obviously absurd. I'd hoped pointing out both how tenuous that link is, and how easily one could project a similarity onto a molecule, you'd see that. Oh well.
Okay. Let's accept laminins look just like crosses, and only crosses and no molecule in the body could possibly be taken as looking like any other symbol.
So why did God choose to display his wonder in a molecule critical to the formation and spread of cancer1?
1 Marinkovich, P. (2007) Laminin 332 in squamous-cell carcinoma Nature Reviews Cancer vol. 7 no. 5, p.370-380 (abstract)
So far we've found your cross in a molecule vital to the formation and propagation and a substance of which washed up drunks are particularly fond. Where else does the LORD promote his existence? Should we be looking for in syphilis? Or in hemorrhoids?
Or, perhaps, should be vaguely sensible and dismiss this as the silliness it is?
So you accept that methanol is also the sign of the LORD, as well as the protein critical to cancer that you're so fond of?
Yes, it looks a bit like a cross, although as demonstrated by the actual pictures earlier in this thread, it doesn't look very like a cross. It's the notion that this transparently fragile connection means anything that is absurd.
Also I note that quote you're fond of throwing around is on the wikipedia page on Laminins, referenced to the book you're citing it as a quote from. Have you read the book? Or are you merely reciting from the wikipedia page and misattributing it?
Science tells us: "The trimeric proteins form a CROSS, giving a structure that can bind to other cell membrane and extracellular matrix molecules."M. A. Haralson and John R. Hassell (1995). Extracellular matrix: a practical approach. Ithaca, N.Y: IRL Press. ISBN 0-19-963220-0. They were not 'talking religion'. They were scientists making an observation.