Skip to comments.The Delicate Balance of Ear Crystals (Darwinist reductionism undermined by epigenetic development)
Posted on 12/10/2008 5:02:34 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
The Delicate Balance of Ear Crystals
by Brian Thomas, M.S.
UCLA researchers have discovered that tiny crystals called otolithsnecessary parts of a properly functioning inner earform not as the direct result of a gene product, but rather as the result of the physical, swaying motion of hair-like cilia during development.
As adult vertebrate bodies move about, otoliths are pulled by gravity and enable the detection of movement, which is vital for maintaining balance. The researchers studied these crystals in fish embryos, where they accumulate as gelatinous proteins mixed with calcium carbonate. When fully and properly formed, the crystals lie atop sensitive beds of cilia, which are fine, hair-like cellular extensions that are responsible for translating roll, pitch, and yaw information from the semicircular canals of vertebrates ears.
In their study published in Nature, the scientists discovered that otolith formation required more than just genesin this case, properly functioning cilia.1 This represents another example of an epigenetic factor influencing development, whereas a few short years ago scientists thought that purely genetic causes were responsible for the formation of biological structures.
But there is additional significance to this research. The researchers disabled the gene for the protein dynein, the molecular motor responsible for ciliary motion. The result was that the otoliths did not assemble in the correct site. So not only did ear crystals form in the wrong place, but they were misshapen and abnormally sized, according to co-author Kent Hill.2 So the crystals, rows of cilia, sensory cells, skull cavities, inner ear membranes, neuron connections, and many other parts must each be correctly formed for vertebrates to detect motion.
Not only are otoliths complex (being a crystalline arrangement of matter), but their timed and directed formation must result in the correct placement, shape, number, and size for balance detection to work at all. The same Creator who curiously wrought us in our mothers wombs,3 has similarly set up ciliary swaying as the means to build vertebrate ear otoliths. These crystals role in maintaining balance, as well as the precise requirements of their construction, shows clear indications of the Creators hand.
1. Colantonio, J. R. et al. The dynein regulatory complex is required for ciliary motility and otolith biogenesis in the inner ear. Nature. Published online prior to print November 30, 2008, 8.
2. Schmidt, E. Can you hear me now? How the inner ear's sensors are made. UCLA press release, November 30, 2008.
3. Psalm 139:15.
Hi guys and gals. I don’t have my ping list handy, so could you be so kind as to ping this to the appropriate FReepers. Thanks a bunch—GGG
I don’t have a list on this computer either.
This list? Stentor; Marty; Fractal Trader; metmom; John Valentine; editor-surveyor; Mr Ramsbotham; Chode
I’m quite sure the UCLA researchers didn’t use their findings to dispute evolution.
Only those who can’t understand would do so. . .
That’s part of my Rethinking AIDS list. I was speaking of my Creation/ID list. But thanks for trying :o)
All the best—GGG
Read later. I’ll wait for the other shoe to drop.
==Im quite sure the UCLA researchers didnt use their findings to dispute evolution.
Of course not. That must be left to scientists who have broken free from the Temple of Darwin’s materialist straightjacket.
I suspect that on close examination, this conjecture will be shown to be false as well.
Kick the Kool-aid habit and start to use your brain!
More anti-science nonsense, eh? You sure seem to specialize thusly.
The eye is indeed too complex to evolve via random mutation and natural selection. The irrationality award goes to those that believe that Darwin’s brain-dead natural selection god can assemple super-sophisticated biological nano-machines that merely give the “appearance” of design.
I would rather not see FreeRepublic turned into a Creationist forum. There are probably better places for these posts.
It is true that we do not know just how the first cells came into being.
But, given a reproducing cell, evolution hangs together better than any other theory.
Evolution is not about first beginnings. It is about the origin of species by natural selection. If you want to argue that a creator created the first cells a few billion years ago, fine. I will not argue with that possibility. If you want to say that a creator created the universe, with all the fossils intact and the physical evidence for an "old" earth and universe, 6000 years ago, fine. I don't want to destroy your faith.
Too late. The purge of the scientists and other rational thinkers a couple of years ago settled that issue.
How very odd. I think most FReepers would much rather this not turn into a site for apologists for the godless liberal NEA agenda.
Irrelevant. - The owner and creator of Freerepublic has said plainly that it is a creationist forum.
There are other places you can go that have the lower standards that you crave.
No scientist, nor rational thinker was ever purged; just evolutionists, the enemies of rational thinking, and science.
I bet you're a lot of fun at parties too, eh?
There were no fossils 6000 years ago; the fossils are the result of the Genesis judgement, about 4500 years ago.
It's too bad that not everyone thinks this way. Elitist liberals enforce their opinions of science on the masses, and in order to do so, they have to sue people into silence to control their godless NEA liberal public schools.It's the only way they're able to succeed.
You are welcome to your faith. I support Christianity, I think it is a bedrock part of our culture. I do not believe that the physical evidence supports a “young” earth.
You can argue that a creator created the physical evidence for an old earth when he created the young earth, but that does not change the physical evidence.
Actually I think that this information much more supports the theory made by Rupert Sheldrake in his book “A New Science of Life” (The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance).
“The theory consists of an addition to the chemical and physical properties of materialism, something in addition to the DNA code in random mutations and non-random natural selection, an additional force what many vitialists have always acknowledged; the idea of higher organizational states. And here it is the theory of morphogenetic fields and formative causation. The idea of morphogenetic fields first developed by embryologists such as Conrad Waddington and later mathematically by theoreticians such as Rene Thomas. “
So it’s ok for the Evos to post links supporting Darwin’s fanciful creation myth, but it’s not ok for Creationists and IDers to post post the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary?!?! I hate to break it to you, but a majority of the Reagan coalition is comprised of Creationists and IDers. If our perspective is too much for you to bear, may I suggest there a better places for YOUR posts.
==I have seen the arguments evolve as each of the anti-evolution arguments were destroyed.
Talk, talk, talk.
Interesting. Thanks for the ping!
But you were spared. It must be because you are neither a scientist nor a rational thinker.
The Crystals in my ears must be acting as some wierd noise generators because I have tinnitus lol Tune in Tokyo-
[[I have seen the arguments evolve as each of the anti-evolution arguments were destroyed]]
Oh really? Then you won’t mind stepping up to the plate, gettign beyond mere generalized opinions, and present those anti-ID destroying artiles then? Oh- and I’m NOT itnerested in ‘evidence’ that is NOTHING BUT OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS with NO scientific evidence to support- ‘Destroyed’? Lol- yep- sure it was.
—— the proof/clear explanation how the eye did so, and
—— whatever he's on
I'm not picky - either will make me happy
[[Haven’t you heard? Even the Evos are starting to abandon the HMS Beagle in search of a new evolutionary theory that isn’t so flagrantly out of sync with the actual scientific data. LOL]]
Most of hte objective ‘thinking scientists’ are- but htose scientists who supposedly were ‘purged from FR’ dogmatically hold onto the dead hypothesis of Darwinism- hence hte reason they left en mass to start a site of hteir own that indulges in the petty tactics of attackign the messenger because they can’t attack the message (At least htey can’t do so with actual scientific evidence that isn’t rife with fantastical assumptions and biolgicaly impossible scenarios about past events for which they haven’t a clue about. Their motto “When hte goign gets tough- call the oponent a big poopie head and scream that ID scientists are psuedo-scientists” That’s some durn fine science right there Mr. Johnson!
[[Rare is the scientist who lives life in a straightjacket. They believe in evolution because it has been proven correct.]]
Oh really? Then you wont mind stepping up to the plate, gettign beyond mere generalized opinions, and present those anti-ID destroying artiles then? Oh- and Im NOT itnerested in evidence that is NOTHING BUT OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS with NO scientific evidence to support- Proven Correct’? Lol- yep- sure it was.
I hate to break it to you, but materialist evolution is 100% impossible.
That and a few hundred other false claims made by creationists are dealt with here:
Quantum theory defines events in terms of probabilities. Nothing in the physical world is impossible.
You are posting some great article sir. If you’re an evo you have to believe that nature “knows”, or “knew” that there would be motion in order to develop these crystal formations far into the future. And what happened to those poor creatures that never had this? Did they all fall down or travel in haphazard manner until one of them “evolved” these things for balance?
[[Seriously, go to any library (even your kids elementary school library) and check out a book on evolution.]]
I have- and their claims are nothing but unsupported ignorant fantasy that violates biolgy, mathematical, and natural laws- If you wish to beleive they don’t, then you are simply ignoring hte FACTS- but you’re welcom to your beliefs
[[Work your way up to the more complicated ones, but do yourself a favor and don’t trip over the usual bugaboos of “missing links” and so on.]]
Yeah- We wouldn;’t want any of the actual SCIENTIFIC FACTS of the hypothesis getting i nthe way of our beleif in biological impossiblities now would we?
[[The evidence is all there and, by the way, there is none supporting ID beyond your aforementioned opinions and assumptions (along with a solid dose of self-delusion, ignorance and abject stupidity.)]]
No matter how many times you repeat that- it won’t make it true- It appears sir- that it is not I that needs to read up on the issue- but you. Bu5t thanks for playing
By the way- you provided NO evidence to my lasrt request- only generalized OPINIONS that simpyl are NOT supported by the FACTS- per usual- but that’s ok- I fully expected Ya’ll to ignore the tough impossibilites that face your hypothesis once again- you didn’t dissappoint- at least Ya’ll are consistent in your faith
That and a few hundred false claims agaisnt Creationists made by the petty lying talkorigins are listed here: http://www.trueorigin.org/
Nice try Coyoteman- but citing lies as your source of ‘science’ does NOTHING for your credibility- The link above in this post will show talkorigins to be nothign but a pack of lies, half-truths, and blatant outright deciets-
==If youre an evo you have to believe that nature knows, or knew that there would be motion in order to develop these crystal formations far into the future.
You are on to something extremely important, and it constitutes one of the greatest challenges to neo-Darwinian/materialist evotion. What you are referring to is referred to as inversely causal meta-information. If you get a chance, give the following two papers a careful read. Trust me, not only will they blow your mind, but they constitute an air-tight case against neo-Darwinian/materialist evolution:
What CottShop said!