ATP: International Team Finds More Complexity

ATP synthase motors have been a major focus surrounding intelligent design. These motors are in every cell in humans and animals, it’s what keeps us alive! The research has been of great value to creationism as well. Scientists continue to unravel the finer details on how it works!

The bacterium used in this study is able to live in high degree of alkaline water. Alkaline water is a term that is use when the pH is above a certain amount of pH. Neutral levels are 7. pH 7 which is the drinking water we normally drink. The limit of alkaline is pH 14. There is no way we can drink water with pH 14, it will destroy our body. However pH levels 8 to 10 help neutralize and balance the pH contained in our body.

The bacterium was found to live in pH 11 which is strongly alkalinic. This organism has different specs in its design to help it cope with the special conditions.  It has unique a-subunit, latent activity, and, most significantly, a modified c-ring with more subunits that contain a different shape.  The c-ring is the primary rotor.  Most living organisms have ten subunits but  B. pseudofirmus, there are 13 subunits while other organisms have 11 or 15, and some run on sodium ions, Na+, instead of protons.

“This work shows a new type of proton coordination in an F1F0 synthase rotor ring….  It is evident that the coordination network of the water itself… is a stabilizing and therefore a structural part of this c-ring.  The presence of the water has been shown to enhance the Na+-binding affinity in the Na+-binding c11 ring [in organisms with 11 c-subunits].”

“Given this observation we propose that the water in the c13 ring binding pocket also enhances the proton affinity.  High affinity rotor binding sites are of central importance for all ATP synthases but are especially important for ATP synthases of bacteria that grow in alkaline environments…. Perhaps the novel manner in which a water participates in proton binding is also a consequence of adaptation of the ATP synthase to alkaliphily [adaptation to alkaline environments].” -PLOS Biology

Interesting to note, evolution was mentioned four times in this particular paper. One statement mentioned the lack of evolution, “This commonality of binding pattern underlines the evolutionary and functionally conserved relationship between the pmf- and smf-driven systems.” Two other statements just assumed the motor evolved without much of an explanation. And the last, it was merely a “fleeting suggestion” with no proposals of half or part of a ATP synthase that could be considered primitive ancestors! The reason, it has to be completely functional in order for it to work!

The design of this species was purposeful in order for it to survive in such a harsh environment that left no room for a slow process to develope in order for it to survive! As far as contributions from evolution in this research, one cannot find connections to the motivation, investigation, or the findings in the paper itself. Why? Because purposeful engineering only makes sense on how things work in nature!

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “ATP: International Team Finds More Complexity

  1. Same old questions for Michael:

    (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.

    Plus a new one. What do you hope to achieve by banning Eelco? To cut down the number of hits to your blog, or something else as well? Typical ID/creationist tactic. You beg for a hearing at the forum of science for your views, yet you deny it to others when you have control.

  2. Interesting to note, evolution was mentioned four times in this particular paper. One statement mentioned the lack of evolution, “This commonality of binding pattern underlines the evolutionary and functionally conserved relationship between the pmf- and smf-driven systems.”

    Creationist Misunderstandings of Evolution, #37: Evolution means that every living organism changes every one of its characteristics over time.

    Natural selection preserves the most fit organisms. If those organisms have already found a good adaptation, it will be kept, unless and until the environment changes so as to make it less fit than others.

    We continually wonder whether Michael is really so ignorant that he cannot comprehend this principle, or whether he sets out to intentionally deceive his few remaining readers. This is why is is important to know Michael’s qualifications for discussing science in general and evolution in particular.

  3. Michael, I don’t even see much of a point in this post. What is your point?

    And, I have been wondering the same thing as Olorin is about your banning Eelco. — Why did you ban him?

    No, really. What justification do you have for banning Eelco, other than the “I ban ban any IP I want” argument???

    Personally, I kinda miss him around here. And it’s not as if he was offensive to you.

  4. ATP synthase motors have been a major focus surrounding intelligent design. These motors are in every cell in humans and animals, it’s what keeps us alive!

    Creationist Misunderstandings of Evolution, #27: Anything that can be even roughly analogized to a human contraivance is evidence of design.

    You might ask yourself this question. Are hexagonal snow flakes designed because they are like the pattern in chicken-wire fences?

    Marshall McLuhan reminds us from his grave that the map is not the territory. Yet creationists remain convinced that if they can only just manage to analogize a biological process to a human-designed artifact, then that process was ipso facto designed by a human. Hunnnnnhhhhhhhh.

  5. Michael,

    — I’m still waiting for you to give a good example of a fossil that falsifies evolution. (I am also waiting for your respnse to my defense of using the evolutio of horseshoe crabs, which I dare say I defended pretty well.)

    Well, anyway, as said on the comments of another post on your blog. . . . .

    I want you to name an actual fossil!!! — Do not use rehtoric. I will not let this go until you do, and THEN we’ll see if your example holds weight.

    Here’s what yoy have to do:

    1) Name an actual fossil as an example.
    2) Elaborate as to why and how it falsifies evolution.
    3) If I give a rebuttal, you will have to explain WHY you do not accept my reasoning.

    And while you’re at it, you can answer some othe questions such as “why did you ban Eelco,” and also my Flagellum challenge. . . which i have first posed to you on June 16th, and am still waiting for a good answer from you.

    Michael, it’s really not good manners to ignore people when you don’t like their questions to you.

  6. “Given this observation we propose that the water in the c13 ring binding pocket also enhances the proton affinity.

    PLOS [sic] Biology

    Creationist Misunderstandings of Evolution, #44: “Function” is an exact synonym of “purpose.”

    That is, if a biological process “does” something, then it had to have been designed ahead of time to do that. For example, the sun fuses hydrogen into helium implies that the sun was designed to provide energy to the Earth.

    Many experiments have shown that all young children have a sense of agency. They believe that inanimate objects possess wills and desires, and that they occur for a purpose. In one such study, a 4-year-old was asked why a rock in his playground had a sharp top. He replied that it had a sharp top so that children would not sit on it.

    Children gradually lose this perspective as they grow older. But creationists are the victims of a neoteny in this regard. They cannot, even as adults, conceive that anything has no preordained purpose or will.

    Ancient philosophers also employed the agency principle. Aristotle held that a rock falls to the ground because it “wants” to rejoin its fellow element, earth. Medieval scholars believed that the forces that propel objects were a part of the objects themselves.

    Science in the 18thC grew out of this fixation on agency. One of Newton’s greatest insights was that objects only react to externally applied forces, and do not themselves originate the forces. But intelligent design and creationism continue to see an external will as the cause of almost everything.

    Creationists are thus decades behind in personal development and centuries behind in philosophy.

  7. ATP: International Team Finds More Complexity

    ….

    “Given this observation we propose that the water in the c13 ring binding pocket also enhances the proton affinity. High affinity rotor binding sites are of central importance for all ATP synthases but are especially important for ATP synthases of bacteria that grow in alkaline environments…. Perhaps the novel manner in which a water participates in proton binding is also a consequence of adaptation of the ATP synthase to alkaliphily [adaptation to alkaline environments].” -PLOS [sic] Biology

    Creationist Misunderstandings of Evolution, #27: Anything that differs from something that was previously known is, by definition, “more complex.”

    ATP synthesis is a fundamental process for cells. What Michael fails to note is that this new discovery is not an additional function or step or structure of ATP synthesis in all cells. Rather it is another one of several different variations on a theme. That is, Bacillus pseudofirmus OF4 has a mutated c-ring that allows it to perform in high alkalinity. This c-ring substitutes for corresponding structures of other organisms, and does not add to them.

    If Michael had applied his vaunted critical thinking even to the Abstract of this paper, he would have noticed that “This structure reveals a new, third type of ion coordination in ATP synthases.” That is, other bacteria use other methods instead of this one for the ion-coordination subfunction of ATP synthesis.

    Michael tries to persuade us that if, for example, we employ a nail instead of a screw to assemble two pieces of wood, then this difference in fastener type would make the assembly more complex than it was before. I don’t think so.

    What we learn here is that “complexity” to a creationist is a content-free term, like “liberal.” “Complexity” doesn’t refer to anything in the real world. It merely makes them feel better about their lack of understanding.

    How about it, Michael? Would you care to offer a definition of “complexity,” and describe how it applies to this situation? I thought not.

    ———————————-

    This subject ties into the Plausibility of Life book that I mentioned in comment #30 under Michael’s July 24 post. The ATP synthesis variation ion the PLoS paper is another example of a wide variation of detail occurring in a highly conserved core process. The authors show how a basic process occurring over many orders—such as sex determination–can yet display a wide variation in detail: determination by temperature, social status, sex chromosome are all variations on the process employing the same basic gene. In this case, the variation is ATP synthesis by binding H3O+, instead of H+ or Na+.

  8. Socrates Puppette (RIP) offers a reason for Michael’s contention of “more complexity” in this PLoS paper—

    If you don’t understand what went before, and someone makes a new discovery that you don’t understand either, then the new stuff appears more complex, because now there are two things you don’t understand, instead of just one.

    Maybe what Soc is saying is that, to creationists, “complexity” actually is a synonym for “ignorance.” New discoveries add to their ignorance, which they then label as “complexity.”

    Hmm. Comestibles for cogitation. (Translation for creationists: “Food for thought.”)

  9. Michael, . . .

    I’m getting really serious here. I want an answer. .

    Why did you ban Eelco?

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