Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
151 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, marc9000, ringo (4 members, 147 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,518 Year: 1,266/23,288 Month: 1,266/1,851 Week: 390/320 Day: 90/72 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions about the living cell
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 8 of 182 (527514)
10-01-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Parasomnium
10-01-2009 4:16 PM


Re: Some answers
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Parasomnium, posted 10-01-2009 4:16 PM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 4:37 PM Dr Jack has responded
 Message 17 by Parasomnium, posted 10-01-2009 4:48 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 14 of 182 (527523)
10-01-2009 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 4:37 PM


Re: Some answers
Why?

Why what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 4:37 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 4:47 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 21 of 182 (527532)
10-01-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Parasomnium
10-01-2009 4:48 PM


Re: Some answers
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Parasomnium, posted 10-01-2009 4:48 PM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Parasomnium, posted 10-01-2009 5:13 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 22 of 182 (527533)
10-01-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 4:47 PM


Re: Some answers
Why did I write it? Why is it the case that we find that in the real world? Why is it relevant? What?

Simply repeating yourself is rarely helpful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 4:47 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 40 of 182 (527561)
10-01-2009 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 6:05 PM


Re: Some answers
Chromatin does not "assemble into DNA", chromatin is a complex of DNA, associated RNA and proteins (particularly histones).

Life does not require such a complex.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 6:05 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(3)
Message 82 of 182 (527669)
10-02-2009 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 7:08 PM


Laminin Shaminin
Hahaha!

That's so cute.

Here's an actual electron micrograph of some laminins:

Doesn't look quite so cross like, does it?

Here's a blog discussing this particular bit of Creationist dishonesty (written, by the way, by a Christian).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 7:08 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by mark24, posted 10-02-2009 5:27 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 9:57 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 83 of 182 (527671)
10-02-2009 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 6:15 PM


Re: Some answers
Without Chromatin?

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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 6:15 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 85 of 182 (527676)
10-02-2009 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by cavediver
10-02-2009 4:43 AM


One vs. Two tailed lipids
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by cavediver, posted 10-02-2009 4:43 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by cavediver, posted 10-02-2009 6:08 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 91 of 182 (527705)
10-02-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 9:57 AM


Re: Laminin Shaminin
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?

Edited by Mr Jack, : Grammar and clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 9:57 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 1:36 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 100 of 182 (527740)
10-02-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 1:36 PM


Re: Laminin Shaminin
And you want to pretend that this:

Looks like this:

Clearly, denying the symbolism in how the b1 and b2 chains (dare I say snakes) wrap around the central staff, mirroring the Rod of Hermes and demonstrating Zeus's power on earth. All praise Zeus!

Sorry, doesn't work.

Edited by Mr Jack, : Bug causing it to double

Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

Edited by Mr Jack, : Doubling again! What?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 1:36 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 7:16 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(2)
Message 120 of 182 (527912)
10-03-2009 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 7:16 PM


Cancer and the true cross
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)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 7:16 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Izanagi, posted 10-03-2009 10:20 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 122 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:58 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(2)
Message 123 of 182 (528108)
10-04-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 1:58 PM


Re: Cancer and the true cross
So you do believe your God ties his symbol up with cancer! What a charming chap he is.

No matter how Laminin appears though the microscope in its function in living cells it is always diagrammed like this

What? Are you serious? The electron micrograph is what it actually looks like! All diagrams are just simplified representations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:58 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(3)
Message 158 of 182 (529406)
10-09-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 9:02 AM


Methanol! The sign of the LORD
Doesn't look much like a cross to me.

This molecule:

  H
|
H-C-H
|
O
|
H

looks far more like a cross. It's methanol.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 9:02 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 9:32 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(3)
Message 160 of 182 (529418)
10-09-2009 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 9:32 AM


Re: Methanol! The sign of the LORD
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 9:32 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 10:35 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(2)
Message 161 of 182 (529420)
10-09-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 9:32 AM


Lying with citations again
calpysis4 writes:

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.

Ah, yes, this line does not appear in that book.

So, in fact, as I suspected you've quoted from Wikipedia and misattributed it to Haralson and Hassell. Tut, tut, tut. So are you being deliberately dishonest? Or do you just not have a clue?

Edited by Mr Jack, : -ed


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 9:32 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by CosmicChimp, posted 10-09-2009 11:08 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020