Amazing Electric Cables Discovered On The Ocean floor

There was a detection of electric currents on the bottom of the ocean floor which was discovered a few years ago by researchers but they didn’t know at the time where it was coming from until now.

In Nature

“Marine sediments become anoxic because oxygen is consumed by microbial processes at the surface. Without available oxygen the microorganisms living below the surface are supposed to depend on energetically less favourable, anaerobic processes.”

“Recently, however, electric currents have been found to directly connect oxygen reduction at the surface with sulphide oxidation in the subsurface, even when oxygen and sulphide are separated by more than 1 cm. Half of the sediment oxygen consumption can be driven by electrons transported from below.”

“The spatial separation of oxidation and reduction processes invokes steep pH gradients leading to distinct dissolutions and precipitations of minerals. Microbial activity apparently drives the electrochemical half-reactions and the establishment of electron-conducting structures through the sediment.”

Researchers from Denmark along with American researchers determined that the seafloor contains an array of “live wires” which may play an essential role in ocean ecology, if not the ecology of the whole biosphere! These “live wires” are built by bacterial colonies of “novel members of the deltaproteobacterial family Desulfobulbaceae” and is something that no researcher or anyone else for that matter have imagined that it even existed!

In science daily, it tells about the reactions of researchers… “On the one hand, it is still very unreal and fantastic. On the other hand, it is also very tangible,” said Professor at Aarhus University, Lars Peter Nielsen.

Another interesting thing discovered with these remarkable and well designed microbes is the fact they are 1/100 the diameter of the human hair and even being that small, they have an elaborate structure along with about 17 channels down their exteriors that match up from cell to cell, forming a continuous protective sheath, like insulation! If the bacteria were the size of humans, their signals would be traveling 12 miles long. The cables are not built for durability rather they break pretty easily, but these cables are alive and can regenerate and grow back themselves unlike man-made cables.

Just a teaspoon of the ocean’s floor contains a half mile of these living cables. Moreover, the researchers found these in sediments from widely distributed samples, suggesting that much of the planet conducts electricity from the anoxic layer to the oxic layer.  The electrical charge circuit is completed by ions in seawater, producing water in the process.  This has led the researchers to speculate on their role in planetary ecology.

More questions were being asked in the paper, along with giving credit to evolution for creating electrical engineers…

“Bacterial micro-cables represent a hitherto unknown lifestyle, which immediately raises many intriguing questions for further research: How are energy conservation and growth allocated among the cells? What is their genetic and metabolic diversity? How are filament division and dispersal controlled? What is the molecular and electronic basis of the electron transport? How widespread are they in nature? Transmission improvement and control of electric currents have been major drivers for electronic innovation. It appears that biological evolution has worked successfully in the same direction.”

Creativity is the idea while innovation is what brings the idea to life, are the researchers suggesting this was all about evolution’s idea? Also, the bacteria appears not only to exist for their own sakes, but they also exist to enable nutrient cycles that affect the whole biosphere!  A question comes to mind, how would the first organisms survive without them? How did they form such elaborate structures?  Evolutionists can’t just wave their hands up in the air and say they “evolved to” conduct electricity more effectively by transmitting electrons through their interiors, and then “evolved to” add insulating sheaths for “transmission improvement.” This discovery doesn’t help the story of evolution at all rather it increases its complexity to new heights. The idea of remarkable engineering in nature along with innovation comes from an intelligent mind, who created all things. We live in an amazing period of time where these discoveries are being made!


12 thoughts on “Amazing Electric Cables Discovered On The Ocean floor

  1. There you go. Forget history, forge on with more of the same that has been disproven time and again. You clearly do not understand evolutionary theory, something which you should endeavor to do before arguing against it. Complexity does not infer design. Irreducible complexity has been shown not to be, time and again.

    Even if complexity did infer design, it would not infer a god. EVEN if it did infer a god, it would not infer your god nor even a good god. Claiming that a thing must be designed (because you can’t understand science) and that it supports your particular god is hubris of the highest order. So many times such claims have been fully refuted, to the point that to continue making such a claim is only just short of intentionally lying… and I’m being generous there.

  2. Nice little petulant rant.
    Please be so kind as to provide us poor uninformed ,proven examples of irreducible complexity being falsified.
    I read Michael Behe,s column on a regular basis and every so called refutation has been soundly defeated.
    So if you provide the examples I will show you how incorrect your puerile little rant is.

  3. Hey Barrie,

    So does that mean what Michael Behe writes in the column was tested when that conclusion in which you mentioned was agreed upon or was it the fact that, if evolution is nothing more than a story invented one would have to considered intelligence as the cause of the creativity and innovation (bringing that idea to light)? Have a good day :)

  4. Please be so kind as to provide us poor uninformed [sic] ,proven examples of irreducible complexity being falsified.

    The problem is that different people use the term “irreducible complexity” (IC) in different ways. There is such a thing as biological IC in the sense that a structure, a reaction, or a pathway having many parts would lose its current function if one of those parts were removed.

    The difference is that creationists ASSUME that IC implies design, while scientists do not make this assumption. Therefore, when scientists say that IC has always been falsified, they mean that, even though the removal of one part may abolish the function, in every case in the biological world IC can arise by natural means.[0]

    A stone arch, for example, is IC. If you take any one stone away from the arch, the arch will fall. AND it doesn’t matter whether an intelligence was involved or not. There is no way that such an arch can be built, because at every stage of its construction except the last, it will be missing a stone, which will cause it to fall. Yet people have been building stone arches since long before the Romans. So how do they do it? With a scaffold. First you build a temporary wooden support in the shape of the arch; then you lay on the stone blocks, then you remove the scaffold. Voilà, an IC str5ucture built up one piece at a time. Southwest US has many rock arches that have formed when flowing water or sand-laden winds penetrate a small hole in a rock formation, enlarging it to the point that removing any small piece would destroy the arch. No intelligence required.

    Michael Behe’s infamous IC blood-clotting mechanism was thoroughly demolished at the Kitzmiller trial in 2005. There are modern animals having no clotting mechanism at all, so entire function is unnecessary in some circumstances. Other animals have only 1 or 2 clotting factors. Humans have 12. They are (almost; see 0) “IC” structures, in the sense that if you took away any component, the function would be significantly impaired. Yet every one of them can be built up by duplication and mutation of an original gene which produced a digestive enzyme—that is, an enzyme for an entirely different function. This duplication was selected for by the fact that an animal having higher blood pressure has more available energy—yet higher pressures can decrease fitness from wounds unless the clotting improves also.

    The bacterial flagellum is a poster child of IC. The first thing to recognize is that creationists always show this structure as a cartoon; an actual flagellum seen through a microscope looks quite different. The flagellum employs 40 different proteins. However, all but one of those are known to exist in bacterial cells, and serve other functions as well. The entire base (“motor”) of the flagellum is found in other bacteria, as an injection mechanism called the Type III secretory system. According to Behe, it would be impossible for only part of an IC structure to be functional, because, well, then the whole structure would not be IC. In addition, not all components of the flagellum are necessary to its current function; the loss of half a dozen or so of the components will degrade the structure, but it is still capable of performing its current function.

    The acquired immune system is often cited as another example of an IC system that could not have evolved. The case here requires more background knowledge, but it is just as robust. See, for example, “Is the Complement System Irreducibly Complex?”

    IC can arise in any system, biological or not, in a number of well-understood ways. For example, as in the stone arch, non-IC system ABCD might require any 3 of the 4 components to produce function F. Then, if D drops off (e.g., by removal or mutation), the system ABC becomes IC. System ABCD may perform function F. If ABCD duplicates itself, the copy mutates to AB’CD—which becomes functionless—but then component E adds itself, and the new system AB’CDE performs a new function G, and is IC for that function,. (Insect wings, for example were originally breathing organs, just as vertebrate lungs were originally flotation devices.) A system ABCD which is not IC may mutate to AB’CD, which is IC, because the mutated B’ component will not function without D.[1] (Such an IC system for metabolizing PCP has evolved in the past 70 years. PCP, the man-made chemical that starred in Love Canal a few years ago, did not exist before than, and yet there are bacteria that eat it for breakfast. Same with nylon.)

    In fact, Michael Behe was not the originator of the IC concept. Hermann Muller called it “interlocking complexity” in a 1918 research paper (Muller, “Genetic variability, twin hybrids, and constant hybrids in a case of balanced lethal factors,” Genetics 3:422-499 (1918); available free online) But Muller saw it as not only allowed by evolution, but preferred by evolution, in order to get rid of unnecessary baggage.

    Behe continues to push his claim that IC systems cannot evolve under a naturalistic regime. But, every time he advances another argument, it is shot down rather quickly. If denying evolution makes you feel good, do it. Just don’t help your kids with their science homework..


    [0] However, some of the structures that Behe claims to be IC are actually not IC at all. The human blood-clotting cascade will work at a degrade level if some of the factors are missing. Physicians identify several levels of hemophilia, some less serious than others. The bacterial flagellum can function at a lower level when missing several components Behe claims are necessary.

    [1] This scenario has recently generated interest under the name “irremediable complexity.” A structure is more complex than it needs to be, because it cannot evolve back to its original form. It is like a ratchet that cannot reverse itself.

  5. Michael, the reason that Barrie has not replied to your question is that it makes no sense Could you perhaps rephrase it so that it does not appear to have been produced by a random word generator? Or is the problem that the words reflected the absence of any intelligible thought behind them in the first place?

  6. I read Michael Behe,s column on a regular basis and every so called refutation has been soundly defeated.

    The reason that Barrie believes this is that Behe’s column does not allow comments. That is, he suppresses dissent just like a a tin-pot dictator.

    Barrie should remember that Behe formerly had an author’s blog on Amazon. The comments to his posts were uniformly negative, and refuted Behe’s posts. In August 2009, Behe persuaded William Dembski to open an individual blog for him.[1] He transferred his Amazon posts there—but not any comments!

    Can anyone seriously deny that Behe did this for the sole reason of silencing criticism?



    [1] This was announced as a general facility available to anyone.. However, in 3 years, it seems that UD has not opened any other individual blogs.

  7. Creativity is the idea while innovation is what brings the idea to life, are the researchers suggesting this was all about evolution’s idea?

    Michael has apparently climbed down off his empiricism v speculation dichotomopotamus, but only to mount another steed— the creativity/innovation unicorn. Instead of dismissing evolutionary theory as mere speculation, Michael now hopes to define evolutionary novelty away by choosing terms to mischaracterize it.

    Look at it this way: If you call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have? But it’s still the same dog as before.

    Sorry, Michael, this effort is transparent too. If creativity requires an intelligence, then evolution does not require creativity. You can’t anthropomorphize evolution; it does not have “ideas.” and no one said it does, except you.

    Also, the bacteria appears not only to exist for their own sakes, but they also exist to enable nutrient cycles that affect the whole biosphere! A question comes to mind, how would the first organisms survive without them?[0]

    You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope again. These bacteria do not exist “to enable” anything except their own survival. That is their only function, their only purpose.[1]

    I have not yet read the Nature article, But it’s not hard to make a stab at what the bacteria get out of all this that enhances their own fitness. What does every cell of every living organism in the world need? ENERGY. These bacteria enable a redox reaction between nearby layers of the ocean floor. What does a redox reaction produce? ENERGY. What runs through the “cables” in the bacteria? ENERGY. How hard do you think it would be for them to siphon off part of this energy—like a light bulb wired to a battery. And this energy requires no metabolism from the bacteria; for them, it’s essentially free.

    How did they form such elaborate structures? Evolutionists can’t just wave their hands up in the air and say they “evolved to” conduct electricity more effectively by transmitting electrons through their interiors, and then “evolved to” add insulating sheaths for “transmission improvement.”

    See [1] for the personification problem. The paper probably did not go into the evolution of this capability; it’s purpose was apparently only to describe its structure. But you can bet your bottom Bible verse that it won’t be long before the authors or someone else investigates this question. Why? Because the knowledge will help us to understand related issues, and possibly to control the phenomenon.[2].

    Michael seems unaware that many strains of filamentous bacteria exist. So the basic structure is certainly not new or unique. Also, all cells conduct electricity. Michael is no doubt misled by the description as “cables” He thinks of them as wires conducting electrons, like humans would make. But they are not “wires” in this sense, ad they do not conduct electrons.. Instead, cells conduct by ion polarization changes and concentration gradients—that is, by chemical means, rather than electrical.

    So the major novel part of the structure seems to be the “insulation.” Not having read the paper, I don’t know how novel it is. But see [2].

    This discovery doesn’t help the story of evolution at all rather it increases its complexity to new heights.

    Poor Michael. Another creationist trope is to associate complexity with design. In fact, complexity is the enemy of design. The best designs are the simplest ones, not the most complicated ones. In fact, in using genetic algorithms to determine the structure of, say, an efficient antenna, the resulting structure has been found to be more complex than an antenna designed by engineers. It works better, but it is more complicated. This complexity arises because the evolved structure is constrained by its past, whereas a designed solution can proceed directly to the goal. So, frequently, although evolved biological functions may outperform human designs, they are generally more complex for the same level of function. This is the common experience of simulations in lab experiments.

    Evolved solutions also seem more complex because they are not constrained by design rules. One simulation,recounted in Mtchell’s Complexity, A guided Tour (Oxford U., 2011), evolved a finite automaton that can separate the black and white squares on its starting environment into two separate piles. To design such a machine is simple. But the researchers spent a month trying to figure out how the evolved system accomplished this result. It was unintelligible—Why? Because it did not have to follow any design principles or rules, but proceeded by blind chance with selection.

    The idea of remarkable engineering in nature along with innovation comes from an intelligent mind, who created all things.

    Here again, Michael hopes desperately to define away evolution, by using terms that imply an intelligent agent. Sorry, Michael, evolution will just not go away because of how you characterize it. Your prayer will not be answered.

    We should also note that these bacteria are not good design. They are slow, and they are fragile. A human-designed wires of simiar diameter would not only be much simpler, it would be much better—more efficient and more physically robust. So we seem to have yet another case of incompetent design, if design it be.


    [0] Michael presents many candidates for Stupid Question of the Year. This is certainly one of them. If these bacteria did not exist, then the biosphere would be different, not nonexistent. Duh.

    [1] Unfortunately, scientists are partly to blame for personifying evolution. The current Science prints a letter (9 Nov 2012, p.741) criticizing an article in September that a fruit may have evolved “to capitalize on birds’ attraction to sparkly objects,” as though the fruit were capable of planning. However, in my experience, all scientists and mathematicians do this. One hears chemists say, “A wants to link to B, but C gets in the way.” This seems to be an infelicity of the English language, which has a strong sense of subject. We go so far as to say “It is raining today..” What is doing the raining? Other languages would say merely “Rains today.” Japanese or Tagalog, for example, do not have this problem, because the structure of the normal sentence focuses on the object, rather than the grammatical subject, which is frequently missing altogether.

    [2] You can also safely bet that creationists will ignore it. They might learn something that contradicts one of their beliefs. This would of course be unacceptable. Better to live in the darkness of ignorance.

  8. More questions were being asked in the paper, along with giving credit to evolution for creating electrical engineers…

    Yet another of Michael’s lies.. I finally received my copy of Nature, and “evolution” is not mentioned once, either in the news item nor in the research article. I guess Michael figures that he’ll keep throwing things at the wall to see which of his readers are stupid enough to believe them.

    n this case, Michael completely misunderstands the biology of the bacteria. And, because of his ignorance, he literalizes all analogies. If something is a “cable”, then it must have a wire running down it, and a sheath of insulation, just like a real cable.

    But here is the actual situation. Unbeknownst to Michael, all bacteria are surrounded by two membranes, both of which are lipids, and therefore electrically insulating. Some bacteria are filamentous, long and thin. Some of these, such as the ones in the article, are segmented—They join multiple cells end to end to produce filaments as long as a centimeter or so. The outer membranes of adjacent cells join, holding the cells together.

    So far, nothing new. But the space between the membranes is filed with a protein (not unique to this species) that contains a metal—and thus will conduct electrons.[1] Although this would be sufficient for the newly discovered function, in addition the outer membrane has ridges. These form lengthwise channels with the inner membrane, which probably have the advantag of increasing the protein caqpacity by propping the intermembrane space open. Unlike a man-made cable, the bacteria conduct electrons in a sac of metallic proteins tapped between two lipid membranes.

    Are these bacteria altruistic, as Michael claims, providing an advantage only for other organisms? No. Normally, filamentous bacteria could not live in the lower, anoxic layer of the seabed, because the H2S produced by the aerobic bacteria that do live there are toxic. But by conducting electricity to the upper layer,[2] the bacteria are able to oxidize the H2S to a sulfate, which the bacteria can metabolize.[3]. Thus, these bacteria are able to invade a new environment, the anoxic seabed layer, and take advantage of an additional food source, successfully competing with the anaerobic organisms that already lived there.

    So what is all this “complex” structure that Michael mewls over as evidence of design. Actually, there is nothing in this organism that is not found elsewhere,except the presence of metallic proteins in filamentous bacteria.[4] The thing that gets the authors excited is the new capability of conducting electrons over centimeter distances. Having found one instance of this capability, they suspect that other organisms in other configurations may also have it. The problem is that no one has looked for it before.

    A large number of such organisms in wide areas could alter the biosphere, by making use of extensive organic detritus in the seabed. Anaerobic bacteria can only use fermentation to extract energy from this mass, and fermentation is inefficient. The new aerobic bacteria can extract energy by the much more efficient process of oxidation (respiration),

    The authors suggest that such processes might occur not only in these bacteria, but perhaps in other types of organisms as well—No one has ever looked for this capability in seabed organisms previously.

    So the big news about this Nature article does not invoke Michael’s hobby horse of greater “complexity” of the bacterial structure. Rather, the importance is the discovery of a previously unrecognized capability to conduct electrons over large distances, which opens up a new environmental niche, allowing the recovery of potentially significant amounts of energy by living organisms. This is the effect that could influence the biosphere significantly.

    Michael has no idea what he’s talking about. How does he expect people to believe him when he can’t even get the biological basics right?


    [1] I said before that ions conducted the electricity, as in other cells. This was incorrect; electrons are conducted directly here.

    [2] Where an electrochemical half-reaction reduces oxygen available in that layer.

    [3] More than a third of all proteins incorporate a metal, so genes that produce metal-bearing proteins are common. Bacteria need not evolve such genes anew; horizontal gene transfer from other bacteria could supply them easily. Rubredoxin, for example, is an electron-carrier protein found in sulfur-metabolizing bacteria. The newly found bacteria metabolize sulfur.

    [4] The membrane ridges are helpful, but not necessary to the function.


    Normally, filamentous bacteria could not live in the lower, anoxic layer of the seabed, because the H2S produced by the aerobic bacteria that do live there are toxic

    Change “aerobic” to “anaerobic”

    The newly discovered aerobic bacteria can outcompete the anaerobic bacteria in the anoxic layer because aerobic bacteria can extract energy more efficiently than anaerobic can.


    I said above that the researchers never mentioned evolution at all. But they did, in the last sentence of the paper’s Discussion section: “It appears that biological evolution has worked successfully in the same direction.” That is, to conduct electrons through filamentary structures[1], likes human-built wires. The intention, of course, was only to state that man and nature demonstrated similar structures, as a semiconductor light sensor array is similar to a retina in an eye. How Michael could distort that into rants about evolution creating electrical engineers, “complimenting” evolution, and evolution’s “ideas.”is way past the last exit to rationality.

    Still qualifies as a lie, or at least grossly misleading.

    But apparently Michael is not the originator of these distortions. The source from which Michael plagiarized this post is Creation Evolution Headlines

    This blog nowhere lists its sponsors or authors. Another source reveals that it is run by David Coppedge, the programmer who was fired by JPL two years ago, then sued JPL for discrimination against his religious viewpoint.[2] Coppedge is also associated with Illustra Media, which produces creationist DVDs.


    [1] Note that Michael completely misunderstood how the electrons are transmitted. They are not transported through the cell interiors, as he claims, but in the spaces between their two outer membranes.

    The electrons never enter the cells. In fact, this poses a question. The upper and lower cells in a cable derive energy from the half-reactions in the seabed surface and the anoxic lower layer. But how do the intervening cells derive any benefit? This is one of the many questions to be studied in further research.

    [2] The judge recently stated that he will issue an order against Coppedge in the next month or two. Stay tuned.

  11. Speaking of whom—Coppedge, that is—one might wonder why Michael has not hopped on his recent post about convergent evolution. This stems from a report in the current issue of Science[1]

    All insect ears studied heretofore have lacked an impedance converter,[2] the element of mammal ears formed by the three ossicles. Auditory receptors without this element are inefficient. But this bug has come up with such an element.[3].


    [1] Montelegre et al., “Convergent Evolution between Insect and Mammalian Audition,” Science 338:968-971 (16 Nov. 2012). A news article accompanies it, pp.894=895.

    [2] Just in case Michael decides to pick this story up, he should explain how an impedance converter (of any kind) works. If he does not, then we’ll know he has no idea what he’s talking about.

    [3] Before Michael gets all frothed up about a “common design,” this bug ear is structurally quite different from a mammalian ear, and arises from entirely separate embryonic tissues. It’s the function that is convergent, not the structure.

  12. . . . . . Amazing Electric Cables Discovered On The Ocean Floor

    ELECTRIC cables on the ocean floor??

    Apparently God has not yet figured out optical fibers. He’s way behind human designers, who leave optical cables lying all over the ocean floor these days.

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