Black Boxes In DNA Reveal More Specialized Complexity

Molecular machines are very advanced in it’s design and functions. One molecular machine in particular called the ribosome which is known to be a translator for RNA transcripts from the DNA nucleus and translate them into proteins. Scientists have always known what goes in and out of these “black boxes” known as the ribosome but are now just starting to uncover what goes on in-between.

Reported in science daily

“Ribosomes, which number in the millions in a single human cell, have long been considered the “black boxes” in molecular biology.  “We know what goes in and what comes out of ribosomes, but we’re only beginning to learn about what is going on in between” said the study’s principal investigator, Jamie Cate, UC Berkeley associate professor in chemistry and molecular and cell biology, and a faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.”

“The mRNA dutifully delivers that code to the ribosome, which somehow reads the instructions, or “data tape,” as each amino acid is added to a growing protein chain.” At the same time, other RNA molecules, called transfer RNA (tRNA), bring to the ribosome amino acids, the raw building blocks needed for protein construction.”

What is very astounding about the ribosome, it can translate 20 codons per second while conducting operations such as bringing in raw materials, catalyzing reactions and check for errors. Plenty of more study is needed to understand better how this mechanism works in detail.

Molecular biology has without a doubt, rendered evolution bankrupt! Just like Wistar Institute did many years ago when they formulated mathematical challenges to the neo-Darwinian hypothesis of evolution. Machines do not create themselves, they are created with a purpose. This purpose of course is vital for it’s function and survival.

Since molecular biology rendered evolution bankrupt, the liberal left remains intolerant as ever. Organizing protest events either at the creationist museum, or filling up public town hall meetings or massive e-mails with complaints if anyone who they think is a creationist speaking at a college. Ben Stein from the documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is an example.  The conservative right has little organization, only “Right to Life” is highly organized compared to the hundreds of organizations the liberal left has. The hardcore liberals fight dirty like the likes of PZ Myers. But what value do these liberal organizations actually do for science?


12 thoughts on “Black Boxes In DNA Reveal More Specialized Complexity

  1. “Ben Stein from the documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is an example. “

    An example of a movie that stole a Harvard video and a John Lennon song. That lied to the people it interviewed. A man who got fired from the New York Times for ethical violations. Yes, an excellent moral example for creationists.

    ==Soc Puppette

  2. “Plenty of more study is needed to understand better how this mechanism works in detail.”

    Which is EXACTLY what creationists will not do. Why bother? They already have the answer: Gioddidit. Since this is the answer to every question, there is no point in conducting research. It is enough to sit back, smugly confident in their ignorance.

    Meanwhile, scientists will wonder how such a wonderful mechanism works.. So they will investigate, conduct experiments, laboring patiently for—for what? For understanding, and for practical applications that benefit mankind.

    Lack of curiosity is also fueled by fear. When scientists figure out how the ribosome works, they will also understand how it evolved. Creationists would never embark on research that might possibly prove them wrong. Much safer to do nothing at all.

    Michael Behe is a good example. Before he got hooked up with intelligent design in 1996, he had published a respectable 40 papers in microbiology. Since that time, nothing on any subject, ID related or not. Gullermo Gonzales is another example. Before U. Iowa hired him, he had published 67 papers in astronomy. Then he descended into ID. Years later, when he came up for tenure, he had published nothing, had mentored no graduate students, had attracted essentially zero grant money.

    There is just something about creationism that is inimical to curiosity. Smugness? Fear? Ignorance as a way of life? An aversion to helping others through practical application of scientific discoveries? Something else?

    It might be personality. A recent small study reported in Science looked at why more scientists are agnostics or atheists than in the general population. Rather than the career causing the beliefs, they found that the same personality types were attracted to both. Scientists, like non-believers, tend to be individualistic, skeptical, and suspicious of authority. Believers, on the other had, have strong desires for loyalty, belonging to a group, and subjugation to authority. This could explain a lot.

  3. Pretty weak, Socrates/Olorin

    The court ruled in favor of the usage of that song in the movie which was about 15 seconds or so. If I was the producer, legal or not, I wouldn’t have selected that particular song. Even with the court ruling, you still beat this dead horse…lol Maybe this is why you switched your sn…lol

  4. Well, first they stole the whole thing. When they were challenged, they cut back to 25 seconds. When it looked like they’d lose that one, they went to 15 seconds.

    Apparently it’s not immoral to try to steal something, as long as you don’t get away with all of it.

    In 2005, I followed the Kitzmiller trial day by day. The one thing that really biased the judge against the defendants was that many of their witnesses were caught in bald-faced lies. Some of them even threatened news reporters who could contovert their testimony.

    Michael, you yourself quoted Dawkins out of context in your previous post, trying to make him say something that was obviously contrary to his plain meaning.

    How can creationists imagine that lying and stealing will get them any respect outside their own little coterie?

  5. “Black Boxes In DNA Reveal More Specialized Complexity”

    If you’re going to steal a term that you don’t know anything about, the least you c ould do is spell it correctly. The phrase is “specified complexity.” Hint: it has nothing to do with specialization, but rather with an independent specification or pattern pertaining to a given complex system.

    Of course, it IS a concept from intelligent design, not from biblical creationism. You should watch those guys closely. Michael Behe says their Designer might be uncaring, perhaps even evil. William Dembski said last year that the Designer might not even exist, but rather be an emergent principle of the universe.

  6. Michael: “Plenty of more study is needed to understand better how this mechanism works in detail.”

    Olorin: “Meanwhile, scientists will wonder how such a wonderful mechanism works.. So they will investigate, conduct experiments, laboring patiently for—for what? For understanding, and for practical applications that benefit mankind.”

    Well, that didn’t take long. “Formation of the First Peptide Bond: The Structure of EF-P Bound to the 70S Ribosome”[1]
    details how the essential protein EF-P initiates the formation of the first peptide bond during protein synthesis in the ribosome.

    It’s only a step toward the goal. But it’s a bigger step than creationists have taken in 6,000 years.

    [1] Blaha, Stanley, et al., Science 325:966-870 (21 August 2009)

  7. Ah! Here’s another one, in the same issue, no less.

    “Structures of the Ribosome in Intermediate States of Ratcheting”[1] has found the molecular mechanism for how the ribosome manages to remain stable while its parts swivel during protein synthesis.

    They noodled this out by x-ray crystallography experiments, rather than by interpreting a sacred text. You ought to try it.

    [1] Zhang, et al., Science 325:1014-1017 (21 August 2009)

  8. Michael: “Pretty weak, Socrates/Olorin. The court ruled in favor of the usage of that song in the movie which was about 15 seconds or so.”

    I note that you did not even attempt to refute the other 3 allegations of fraud concerning Ben Stein and “Expelled—No Intelligence.”

    The Harvard video was also pulled after the owners filed suit for copyright infringement. Before that, however, William Dembski had been using the stolen video for a year, with his own voice-over, in his ID lectures, for which he charged more than $1,000 a pop. First he claimed he had permission. When that was exposed as a lie, he claimed he hadn’t seen the copyright notice. Well, he did erase it in his version—although he included it in a frame credit in one of his papers. Another lie. For a theology professor, he certainly lies a lot.

    The list goes on and on. Olorin has mentioned the CEO of the “Of Pandas and People” publisher, who was caught in a lie on the Kitzmiller stand.

    Oh yeah—chalk up yet another fraud for “Expelled”. The producer touted the forthcoming movie under the name “Crossroads” as exploring the interface between science and religion. When people complained later that the actual title was different, with a different theme, the producer said they had changed it at the last minute. All forthcoming movies these days have Web sites. Turns out there never was a Web site for “Crossroads.” But there was a Web site for “Expelled,” and it was set up more than a year before the movie came out.

    ==Soc Puppette

  9. I agree that “Expelled” was rather biased, however the breif mentions of ID by the professors who were fired, does not make their dismissals right. If Evolution is so certain, why would they not be able to, or even not want to investigate ID further to prove their point even more. The people Ben Stein interviewed were all highly intelligent people (including those who opposed ID). However, none of the people he spoke with who were against ID could explain how life began. I believe one of them had a guess that it had something to do with a chemical reaction in crystals, but if you’re willing to accept that bizarre idea as an explanation then why does it not make sense to investigate other ideas? It seems to me as though it causes Evolutionists to get their panties in a bunch, so they won’t even think about it, And if you say there are no facts to support ID then you are not looking.

  10. Oh and I love all of these new findings that the Evolutionary scientists are discovering…..with all this proof I’d be ready to take on any counter claim, in a scientific way

  11. just because creationists (which is not what ID is) stick with God did it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be researched. It’s completely narrow minded to teach one single theory to students. Afterall, Darwin’s theory was very controversial when it came out AND he described a cell as simple. Ha! Far from it, and all the scientists would be the first to acknowledge it. So get some gutso and investigate. Afterall, scientist are supposed to investigate EVERY possiblity, not shrug them off their shoulder because they don’t like it.

  12. Hey Becky!

    You say, “just because creationists (which is not what ID is) stick with God did it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be researched.”

    Great comment, I agree!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s