Nerves and Heart Continue To Show An Amazing Design

An Australian team published their findings on how the potassium gate has a sophisticated switch that employs such things as pulleys, other switches and an iris-like rotating latch that selectively lets in potassium ions.  Our hearts and nervous system rely on potassium.

Potassium channels have been a popular area in research over the years, many groups have studied it. In 2001, nature published this about potassium channel research and more…

“Potassium, sodium, calcium and chloride ions are used ingeniously by living systems in the performance of fundamental cellular tasks.  Through the action of ion pumps, a large fraction of a cell’s metabolic energy is spent establishing transmembrane ion gradients.”

“These gradients, through the action of ion channels, are used to produce electrical signals, activate signal transduction pathways, regulate cell volume, and mediate fluid and electrolyte transport.  To carry out these tasks, an ion channel has to be selective, that is, permit only certain ionic species to flow through its pore.”

Precision is a key here when it comes to placement of charged ends of amino acids along the pore attracts the chloride ions down the channel, while not allowing ions to bind to them and get stuck. This specialized complexity (channels) needs to work accurately otherwise kidney or serious muscle diseases can occur. The paper is incorrect on this point, it was not the living systems that are the geniuses on how they were use channels but rather it’s the work of a intelligent designer namely God.

Let’s get back to the more recent discovery which reveals a creator but how? As scientists learn more about cellular machines the more it resembles man-made machines. And we all know man-made machines are what, created by intelligence!  Just look at the new things they have discovered so far…

For example…

Rotors: “The structures cluster into two groups with distinct conformations, independent of space group and crystal form.  The difference between the groups corresponds to a rigid body rotation of 23° (viewed from the membrane), about the molecular four-fold, of the entire intracellular assembly relative to the transmembrane pore .”

Pulleys: “Coupling is facilitated by actions of the N and C termini, which effectively act as a pulley system.  The intracellular domain of each subunit is an immunoglobulin-like [beta] sandwich, overlaid on the surface by N and C termini.  Its C terminus is tethered both to the N terminus and the underlying [beta] sandwich such that all motions are interdependent.  In addition, parallel [beta] sheet interactions formed between [beta]CN on one subunit and [beta]M on another (Figure 3D) adapt the basic fold by interweaving neighboring subunits into a circle, coupling the motion of each subunit to that of its neighbor.”

Switches: “Our findings provide strong evidence that the selectivity filter can switch between nonconducting and conducting configurations  without significant displacement of the inner helices.  This is distinct from findings that inactivation at the selectivity filter is driven by widening at the bundle crossing, and vice versa ([Blunck et al., 2006] and [Cordero-Morales et al., 2007]).  While research into selectivity filter gating has primarily focused on C-type inactivation, our data indicate that the selectivity filter is not limited to this and is susceptible to subtle global conformational change, suggesting a more universal role in gating than hitherto expected.”

Latches: “Intersubunit connections are clustered near the membrane in the arrangement, but they reorganize, in the unlatched arrangement, into a more extensive array of interactions.”

It is interesting to note, there is no mention of evolution in these papers for the most part except for some vague references to two channels being “highly conserved.” Other than that, it’s straight up science, learning about the incredible and highly advanced design we see in nature. So reflect for a moment when you feel a pleasant sensation that may come from smelling flowers or having that cup of coffee or feeling a gentle cool breeze on a warm day or a loving hug and think for a moment that those sensations don’t just happen.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Nerves and Heart Continue To Show An Amazing Design

  1. Still no anwers to our growing list of outstanding questions, Michael ?

    Still hiding ? Still pretending the questions will just go away ?

    Well, they won’t:

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

    (5) the answers to Olorin’s quiz:
    A) …
    B) …
    C) …
    D) …
    E) …
    F) …

  2. (1) Blog readership numbers in response to Eelco’s February challenge that your readership asymptotically
    approaches zero.

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    dam u got here before me

  3. Keep up the good work Michael. The more they keep up their childish tactics the more you know you are encroaching on their comfort zone.

  4. I’m perfectly comfortable, mcoville … it is Michael who is anxiously hiding in a corner, not answering.

  5. Btw, Eelco, Olorin sends his compliments for “holding Michael’s feet to the fire”. It appears that Upson Downes, Soc Puppette and he have been banned from posting. So cheers!

  6. Well Michael, is that true ?
    Did you ban Olorin, who actually put a lot of effort in replying to your posts ?

  7. Eelco

    If he did ban Olorin, then Michael has made a martyr out of him. . .

    Martyrs make a cause even stronger. . . It is to Michael’s own peril if he did ban him

  8. I think Michael should ban Eelco, Tim Cooley and any other person that does not contribute to the discussion and offers nothing but spam responses.

    If you don’t like the ban, or you feel your questions are not being answered, why do you come back to the blog?

    All you are proving is how childish you and your stance is. You are all fine examples of the sad state of American science indoctrination.

  9. @mcoville:

    Does Michael contribute to a discussion ? I’ve done my bit in the past, but Michael never continues any discussion, and neither does he answer any questions. Even very simple ones.

    I have answered all he asked me, but refuses to answer mine, even thouhg he knows the answer.

    This stance is not childish: it is persistent, and at the same time exposes who is dodging any kind of questions.

    Banning is obviously a very, very weak argument in any discussion.

    And finally, I am not indoctrinated by the American science education, as I was not educated in America.

  10. @mcoville: “I think Michael should ban Eelco, Tim Cooley and any other person that does not contribute to the discussion and offers nothing but spam responses.”

    Michael should ban mcoville for the same reason. If anyone can find a comment by mcoville that has added any scientific content to one of Michael’;s posts, please let us all in on it. You know—any additional facts in support, any interpretations of Michael’s cited articles, any other articles or papers that might support his position. For example, creationbydesign cites supporting material from time to time.

  11. Olorin quotes,

    “mcoville: “I think Michael should ban Eelco, Tim Cooley and any other person that does not contribute to the discussion and offers nothing but spam responses.” I can understand why he feels that way, liberals try and build strawmen but mcoville has contributed so has Eelco and in some reaching attempts you tried but you do get sidetracked. As for your one of your previous posts Olorin, The Lord of the Rings did not come out in 1980 as you claim and it really has nothing to do what’s going on here…I almost wasn’t going to allow that post to prevent you from embarrassing yourself…

    I’ll tell you something, I sometimes post in pz myers blog, I posted on a variety of topics even gone into heavy detail about prophecy in the Bible as he brought that up in one of his posts. But Uncommon Descent, I have never been granted access to post on there. Both blogs have their own rules, UC tends to screen more than PZ does…So go figure?

  12. Since you brought up the subject, Michael, you’ve demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension again. What I said was that I had “read” Lord of the Rings for the first time in 1980.

    This seems to be a constant problem, and lowers your credibility significantly. For example, when you claimed that “soft tissue” had been recovered from a 125 million year old Archeopteryx fossils, when the article clearly said that trace “minerals” had been detected—such as copper and phosphorus, which anyone who has taken chemistry, as you claim to have, knows are not “soft tissue” and do not degrade over millions of years. Idem when you noted that zinc was a “complex organic structure” because an article mentioned that zinc was found with cellular components.

    It would be nice if you would read your material more closely before posting. It really is a waste of time nailing you on easy stuff like that. I’d rather go for the important stuff.

    Another tip from an old lawyer. In trying a case, we spend as much time on analyzing our opponents’ arguments as we spend on preparing our own theories of the case. Try reading Scott Turow’s legal thrillers some time–note how much time his central figure spends guessing and countering the prosecutor’s arguments.

    This really is one of the major reasons that scientists laugh at creationists. Creationists never seem to anticipate objections or counter-arguments, or to make their arguments consistent with each other—re a couple posts ago when you said in two consecutive sentences that early-earth temperatures were too cold to form peptide bonds, and so hot that those same bonds would break.

    You going to ban me again, for helping you?

  13. PS: I have commented on Uncommon Descent a number of times, although not recently. Most of the comments survived, although a few were deleted; I have never been banned there as a commenter. I don’t comment often at Pharyngula, but do at Panda’s Thumb—although not always under this name. I’ve met PZ several times at presentations by the Discovery Institute.

  14. As to mcoville, I’ll issue the same specific challenge to Michael as I did to mcoville:

    =======================

    Find a comment by mcoville that has added any scientific content to one of your posts—any additional facts in support of your specific points, any interpretations of your cited articles, any other articles or papers that might support his position.

    =======================

    Since mcoville himself has not responded, I assume he hasn’t found any yet.

  15. I have no obligation to answer you question Olorin, neither does Michael.

    You can create whatever standard you want to qualify someone to comment on a blog, but ultimately it is up to the writer of that blog to determine what they write and who they allow to comment.

    If you do not like to author of the blog, or the commenters on the blog, don’t read it. Is it not great to live in a free country?

  16. Michael, I shall not feel at all offended if you delete my three previous comments above. They were for you, rather than for the readership. If you had given a back channel for personal communications, as most blogmeisters do, I would have employed that instead of open comments.

    .

    Since mcoville has already seen the penultimate comment, however—

    mcoville, the reason we call them “standards” is that they apply to everyone. Sauce for the scientist should be sauce for the creationist. I have contributed a lot of substantive material on Michael’s posts. Have you contributed any at all, either in support or in refutation?

    I read this blog for the same reason I have read Signature in the Cell, the Design Inference, The Edge of Evolution, The Design of Life, and many other creationist materials. The blog has an added feature—the ability to controvert in real time. If Michael cannot abide being controverted, then he should abolish all comments, as many creationist blogs have done for that reason.

  17. True, Michael can do whatever the hell he wants.

    But to refuse to answer critical questions regarding his position yet continue to propagate lies under the banner of pseudoscience is a classic case of intellectual dishonesty.

    If Michael does not wish to engage in an honest discussion, that is his problem. In any case, he should be glad that there are educated people out there who are willing to correct his misunderstandings, despite his constant failure to conduct a rational discussion.

    So, if I may: “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid.” – Proverbs 12:1

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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