Scientists Discover More Innovation With Stem Cells

The field of adult stem cell research is growing by leaps and bounds! There is an enormous progress taking place as we speak. Firstly, scientists discovered a better way to create induced pluripotent stem cells that can produce any cell type, thus being fully able to do what embryonic stem cells can do…

In Science Magazine… 

“Given the right instructions in the lab, mature cells can turn back into embryoniclike ones that researchers covet, but the process is frustratingly slow and inefficient. By removing a molecular brake, scientists have now figured out how to reprogram cells with almost 100% efficiency.”

“In a process called cellular reprogramming, researchers increase the expression of four genes in skin, blood, or other mature cells to turn them into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which can become any of the body’s cell types.”

“Scientists value the method because it allows them to make patient-specific cells in the lab that they can use to study disease—and perhaps someday to treat patients. However, the reprogramming procedure is hit-and-miss. The most efficient methods reprogram only about 10% of mature cells into iPSCs.”

What if scientists could reprogram stems cells right in your body? This concept is not far fetched! A state never produced in a lab before was successful in mice!

Science Daily…

“One of the greatest achievements in recent biomedical research was in 2006 when Shinya Yamanaka managed to create embryonic stem cells (pluripotent stem cells, induced in vitro, or in vitro iPSCs) in a laboratory from adult cells, via a cocktail of just four genes. Yamanaka’s discovery, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2012, opened a new horizon in regenerative medicine.”

“CNIO researchers have taken another step forward, by achieving the same as Yamanaka, but this time within the same organism, in mice, without the need to pass through in vitro culture dishes. Generating these cells within an organism brings this technology even closer to regenerative medicine.

The first challenge for CNIO researchers was to reproduce the Yamanaka experiment in a living being. They chose a mouse as a model organism. Using genetic manipulation techniques, researchers created mice in which Yamanaka’s four genes could be activated at will. When these genes were activated, they observed that the adult cells were able to retreat in their evolutionary development to become embryonic stem cells in multiple tissues and organs.

“María Abad, the lead author of the article and a researcher in Serrano’s group, said: “This change of direction in development has never been observed in nature. We have demonstrated that we can also obtain embryonic stem cells in adult organisms and not only in the laboratory.”

The reprogrammed adult stem cells can also be removed from the body for further study. Unlike origin evolutionary research where scientists are trying to come up with a way to produce life from dead chemicals in a lab in order to take credit on the way nature has been designed, this article says no such thing, what was reprogrammed is not what happens in evolution. Even though evolution was given some props, this was an amazing year for real science that includes adult-stem cell research!

Advertisements

Is It Possible To Resurrect Proteins From The Dead?

No, this isn’t Jesus resurrecting from the dead, that is a separate but factual issue however, in a recent publication we noticed some secular scientists making claims that ancient proteins (assumed to be four billion years old) can be brought back to life!

Live Science puts it this way…

Researchers have reconstructed the structure of 4-billion-year-old proteins.”

“The primeval proteins, described today (Aug. 8) in the journal Structure, could reveal new insights about the origin of life, said study co-author José Manuel Sanchez Ruíz, a physical chemist at the University of Granada in Spain.”

Exactly how life emerged on Earth more than 3 billion years ago is a mystery. Some scientists believe that lightning struck the primordial soup in ammonia-rich oceans, producing the complex molecules that formed the precursors to life. Others believe that chemical reactions at deep-sea hydrothermal vents gave rise to cell membranes and simple cellular pumps. And still others believe that space rocks brought the raw ingredients for life — or perhaps even life itself — to Earth.”

“But it’s difficult to recreate events that happened so far in the distant past.”

The BBC news put it this way…

“The resurrected protein is thought to have existed almost four billion years ago in single-celled organisms linked to the earliest ancestor of all life.”

Neo-Darwinism relies on gradualism which relies on nature being flexible in a step by step by a non-intelligent process. However, sooner or later nature always comes into conflict with Neo-Darwinism as the researchers found out…

“Prof Eric Gaucher of Georgia Tech, US, helped with the ancestral gene sequence reconstruction and commented: “A gene can become deactivated by as few as one or two mutations.”

Only one or two mutations (errors in the genetic code), talk about something very incompatible with the theory of evolution! Where is the flexibility that is supposed to be the law of nature? To answer such a question, they theorize there must have been a “discrete” jump where it wouldn’t be observable through gradual pathways because it went by so fast like it was traveling at the speed of light.

Another thing, shouldn’t this ancient fossil, assumed to be billions of years old, be much simpler rather than complex, possessing all these functions? Is that how evolution works from simple cells to more complex? The BBC really goes off the deep end by invoking science fiction that was popular long before man landed on the moon by claiming thioredoxin had emerge on Mars and was transported by meteorites because they believe in the early years of earth that Mars was more “flexible” for life than earth was. Even though no life on Mars has been found neither has elements to sustain life been ever found!

Before scientists speculate and tell us or debate what they believe about origins of life, they first must understand what life is first as pointed out by NASA’s magazine

“If we ever hope to identify life elsewhere in the universe, we need to understand what separates living creatures from non-living matter. A working definition lately used by NASA is that “life is a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution.” 

Evolutionists have never created life in a lab, let alone know how electricity from the sky causes life in a pond full of simple non-living chemicals. It is not science to make various claims because we observe very highly designed complex cells so they emerged somehow in an unseen ancestor. We have observed a functioning that cell requires to have all its parts working correctly at once to remain a functioning cell as evolutionist, Wilhelm Huck even points out! So was it a “discrete” miracle in evolution?

Science is supposed to be about observable, testable, and repeatable events rather than scientists telling us what they believe could have happened in a supposed billions of years time frame. And the cell wasn’t resurrected from the dead like the BBC claimed. I don’t blame them for wanting a “time machine” to observe the distant past, they would have learned a great deal on how the earth was intelligently designed.

Evolution Observed Using Intelligent Design?

Breaking news, various media outlets report that what was expected to occur within billions of years, happened in a lab in just 60 days without “mystical complexity or a lot of the things that people have hypothesized — special genes, a huge genome, very unnatural conditions,” said evolutionary biologist Michael Travisano of the University of Minnesota, co-author of a study that was published on Jan. 17, 2012.

Evolutionists believe multicellular life forms evolved from single-celled ones but are unable to explain how single cells could unlearn the selfishness that is required for survival and learn to work as a team.  Also a very important aspect that is used quite often to measure evolution is called fitness.  This is also  important to use in determining the value of this particular experiment.

The subject of the experiment was yeast. In Wired, the experiment went like this…

“Once per day they shook the flasks, removed yeast that most rapidly settled to the bottom, and used it to start new cultures. Free-floating yeast were left behind, while yeast that gathered in heavy, fast-falling clumps survived to reproduce.”

“Within just a few weeks, individual yeast cells still retained their singular identities, but clumped together easily. At the end of two months, the clumps were a permanent arrangement. Each strain had evolved to be truly multicellular, displaying all the tendencies associated with “higher” forms of life: a division of labor between specialized cells, juvenile and adult life stages, and multicellular offspring.”

The authors admitted that this was not “natural selection” at work,  “by selecting for yeast cells or clusters that settled most quickly.”  Their reasoning for the lab experiment was this was give them knowledge on how this could have worked in the distant past. They have the idea if they can perform it in the lab, nature could surely do it also. A problem with that is, this is how they would accomplished it in the lab but how do that know that this is how nature would accomplish the same task in the real world?

So during the experiment the scientists would select to keep only the large clusters that sank to the bottom, then select the best snowflake-formers to survive and reproduce.

Remember evolution is measured in terms of “fitness” so how fit were the artificially produced ones from the originals? Michael Behe comments on the research with this…

“… Examination showed that the fast-sedimenting cells formed clusters due to incomplete separation of replicating mother-daughter cells.

“The cell clusters also were 10% less fit (that’s quite an amount) than the beginning cells in the absence of the sedimentation selection. After further selection it was seen that some cells in clusters would “commit suicide” (apoptosis), which apparently made the clusters more brittle and allowed chunks to break off and form new clusters. (The beginning cells already had the ability to undergo apoptosis.)”

The experiment fails the fitness factor, the yeast became less fit than the originals. Also how could it be called evolution in general when the yeast could form snowflake clusters before any selected pressure was applied to them? In other words, no new ability, they were the same snowflake clusters producers throughout the process. No new information had evolved in the lab and when you take into account the failed measure of fitness, the breaking news was just all hype.

The Cell’s Importance Of Optimizing And Repair

A car gasoline engine cannot be bigger and faster while getting better gas mileage than smaller cars. A computer cannot run more components without using more electricity. Thus, it is not always possible to have all the elements of a product be ideal.  Recent recent research shows a unique combination of the two.

The title of the PNAS paper says the “Genetic code translation displays a linear trade-off between efficiency and accuracy of tRNA selection.”  There are competing forces the paper admits, “Translation of the ancient and universal genetic code into protein on ribosomes requires precise mRNA decoding by aminoacyl-tRNAs (aa-tRNAs) and rapid formation of nascent peptide chains.”   Accuracy and speed are required for the cell to survive and since this is the case with the limitations of time and space, how do they work together for the benefit of the cell?

When it comes to the transfer of  RNA, the  anticodon must find the right codon within a certain time frame. The article says  in regards to this, “Codon reading by aa-tRNAs ultimately relies on the specificity of cognate in relation to noncognate codon–anticodon interactions, but two ribosome-dependent specificity enhancements greatly improve mRNA decoding.”

There is not one but incredibly two well-designed mechanisms that act like an editor whose job is to proofread to make sure the job is done right, ” “the ribosome enhances the accuracy of codon reading by a twostep mechanism in which initial codon selection by a tRNA is followed by a proofreading step.”  The speed is accomplished by the tRNA matching up initially with its cognate, but “editors” in the ribosome during translation clean up any mistakes.

Then the authors looked for optimizing by examining the “maximal possible discrimination between a cognate and a noncognate codon–anticodon interaction: the ‘d value’,”  Just tentative numbers, further study is required for a better conclusion. Not surprisingly, the article then gives credit to evolution where it says,Finally, we propose that quantitative estimates of the d values of the genetic code in conjunction with the remarkably simple efficiency-accuracy trade-off revealed by the present experiments will clarify how the accuracy in living cells has been evolutionarily tuned for maximal fitness of growing bacteria.”

It really doesn’t explain evolution other than the authors believe in it rather this is amazing observational science. Darwinism actually hinders the science with a better understanding that comes from  intelligent design. The designs we see in nature come from a mind not a non-thinking process. These designs are highly advanced and require much study for us mere humans to understand.

New Scenarios Proposed For Fundamental Problem

Non-living chemicals emerging into living cells are not being observed in nature but evolution requires such an observation like that to occur and scientists are down to creating a story about RNA. Two recent studies have surfaced in this area. The first is an RNA reactor being a precursor for life.

Physorg tells the story…

Nobody knows quite how life originated on Earth, but most scientists agree that living cells did not abruptly appear from nonliving cells in a single step. Instead, there were probably a series of pre-cellular life forms that arose from nonliving chemicals and eventually led to a living cell, one that could undergo metabolism and reproduce. One of the most well-known theories of pre-cellular life is the RNA world theory, which proposes that life based on RNA predates current life, which is based on DNA, RNA, and proteins.”

“But recently, scientists have been wondering what may have preceded RNA. In a new study, a team of scientists from Germany has suggested that the ability to self-replicate may have first emerged in the form of an RNA reactor, which they show can transmit information.”

From an evolutionary standpoint, these scientists admit they have no clue on how non-living chemicals supposedly became a living cell. In the article it contains a display of weak information being transferred in RNA strands, but the text is vague about the definition of information which is vital for every living cell.  We know when a computer is built where the information comes from which wasn’t a by-product of mere survival of random sequences. Even if there was some hypothetical meaningful use of “information” in this particular scenario, it would be quickly lost in an “error catastrophe” without accurate replication.

There wasn’t much hype with this particular scenario as though it was going to solve the fundamental problem, rather it was viewed as another angle for them to explore. Two chinese scientists offer up their scenario on the origin of life in PLoS One.

It is now widely accepted that at an early stage in the evolution of life an RNA world arose, in which RNAs both served as the genetic material and catalyzed diverse biochemical reactions. Then, proteins have gradually replaced RNAs because of their superior catalytic properties in catalysis over time. Therefore, it is important to investigate how primitive functional proteins emerged from RNA world [sic], which can shed light on the evolutionary pathway of life from RNA world to the modern world.”

“In this work, we proposed that the emergence of most primitive functional proteins are assisted by the early primitive nucleotide cofactors, while only a minority are induced directly by RNAs based on the analysis of RNA-protein complexes. Furthermore, the present findings have significant implication [sic] for exploring the composition of primitive RNA, i.e., adenine base as principal building blocks.”

Admitting its a fundamental problem concerning the origin of life, they confined themselves by bowing to the most widely accepted scenario out there. Their experiment consisted of searching a database for existing RNA-binding proteins in living cells that they targeted as possibly “primitive”.  Since polypeptide chains do not naturally form from amino acids in water (and even if they did, are unlikely to be functional), any results from a dubious method are likely to remain dubious.

Their scenario makes quite a leap from the fact that ATP, NAD, FAD, and more all contain adenine. “Considering the notion that early cofactors are vestiges of RNA world, we thus believed that adenine base should be included in the original composition of primitive RNA,” they said. There is a reason why they had made such a leap from fact, you see in order to believe that the building blocks of RNA, the bases A, G, C, and U, formed naturally and available on an early prebiotic Earth. But that has a fundamental problem too, while some of these bases have been found in meteorites (A, G), no one has been able to cook up cytosine (C) in a plausible early earth. So they focus on adenine which could come from space which is quite a leap.

NASA which mission to the moon was changed to a plan for a $800 million asteroid sample-return mission called OSIRIS-REx, which stands for Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer. If this mission is ever followed through on, it will no doubt give evolutionary scientists more material to invent new scenarios in order to explain a fundamental problem.

This is where people’s tax money is going, scientists providing pseudo-scientific props for their materialist world views. Science is considered a representative of knowledge, did anybody see any knowledge going on in these articles? Just because it makes in a peer-review science journal doesn’t make it science. Using scenarios is not science. Busy work is not science. Merely using words like arose and emerged is also not science. Suggestive phraseology like “RNA world” and “building blocks of life” is not science either rather knowledge is supposed to be justified true belief!

Cells Designed To Use Important Physical Mechanisms

It’s an amazing thing that cells are designed to use physics or otherwise we would not be able to exist. Two papers (here and here) were published in PNAS not long ago. Harland, Bradley, and Parthasaranthy studied the forces working in cell membranes. Lipid bilayers provide the structural framework which gives the cell membranes movement. It was previously believed that simple Newtonian fluids were able to keep them intact.

But researchers have found evidence to the contrary…“we find that membranes are not simply viscous but rather exhibit viscoelasticity…” which is a type of deformation which exhibits the mechanical characteristics of viscous flow and elastic deformation. The membrane is stretchy and it requires something to pull it apart. “The fluidity of membranes is crucial to functions such as the assembly of proteins into signaling complexes and the controlled presentation of macromolecules at cell surfaces…”

In other words, we could not live without membranes that are designed on how to take advantage of viscoelastic properties. Last September, UC Davis studied quantum mechanics – the Complex I macromolecular complex which was recently discovered machinery that resembles intelligently man-made in having a railroad-like piston and coupling-rod mechanism. The piston creates a proton gradient which then drives the ATP synthesis. It requires energy from food and stores it as chemical energy in ATP molecules for energetic activities in the cell. From humans to one-cell animals like bacteria, this is a vital important process for the existence of life!

Hayashi and Stuchebrukhov discovered that Complex I takes advantage of electron tunneling – a phenomenon in quantum mechanics…

“The whole electronic wiring of complex I is obtained by combining tunneling pathways of individual processes, as shown in Fig. 3.  It is clear that specific peptide residues serve as electronic wires connecting neighboring Fe/S clusters; individual electron tunneling paths involve up to three protein residues, including two cysteine ligands and one additional key residue (Table 1).  Notably, the clusters in the protein are oriented in a specific way—corner to corner—with Cys [cysteine, an amino acid] ligands mostly pointing toward each other, which is clearly the most efficient way to transfer electrons from one cluster to another.”

Did scientists drag into this incredible discovery the evolutionary story to remind us that this came from a non-thinking process?  Well, they did decide to show it could not happen by observing what happened with mutants when they tested them and then came out with this conclusion…

“The key residues identified in this study as mediators of electron transfer (Table 1) are remarkably conserved among different organisms.”

These cells are designed with precision of these machines.  The efficiency of electron transfer in Complex I , for example, it depends on precisely-placed amino acids and water molecules down a fairly long chain. The fact is these amino acids are unevolved which means altering them would cause major problems including causing death. Creationists and evolutionists recognize mutations as a process that occurs but genetic drift and stabilizing selection are level or downhill processes.

Your Proton Pump Working Inside Your Inner Power Plant

A research team from the Freiburg Institute for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology uncovered the best look at one of the body’s largest enzymes known as Mitochondrial Complex I…It contains four major parts with a function to transmit the energy in the food we eat into mechanical energy by using a proton pump inside our inner power plant.

Interesting news has come out of this research…

“In a laboratory experiment, hydrogen and oxygen gas would react in an explosion and the energy contained would be released as heat.  In biological oxidation, the energy will be released by the membrane bound protein complexes of the respiratory chain in a controlled manner in small packages.

“Comparable to a fuel cell, this process generates an electrical membrane potential, which is the driving force of ATP synthesis.  The total surface of all mitochondrial membranes in a human body covers about 14.000 square meter.  This accounts for a daily production of about 65 kg of ATP.”

The energy produced across that 14 square meters of mitochondrial membrane enables the  ATP synthesis to work which keeps all of us and every living thing from bacteria to giraffes – alive! Studying these mechanical devices which there are trillions of in the body that look something like coupling rods has added years to previous research in trying to understand how Mitochondrial Complex I works! Look how science daily compares it to a railway vehicle that provides power to a train…

“The now presented structural model provides important and unexpected insights for the function of complex I.  A special type of “transmission element,” which is not known from any other protein, appears to be responsible for the energy transduction within the complex by mechanical nanoscale coupling.  Transferred to the technical world, this could be described as a power transmission by a coupling rod, which connects for instance the wheels of a steam train.  This new nano-mechanical principle will now be analysed by additional functional studies and a refined structural analysis.”

Great news in learning about the respiratory transport chain in mitochondria which includes coupling rods that act like little locomotives. These locomotives work 24 hours a day, seven days a week in the body. So what was the significance of using evolution to understand this discovery? Darwinian evolution denies designed with intelligence and a purpose in nature. In reality, it had no explanatory power whatsoever, engineering models are being used instead to understand the control principles of this biological phenomenon! So let’s get rid of the storytellers and hire the engineers!